---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 20:
Armstrong (& most humans)
is a Marxist! (
even he doesn't realize it)
From: iamback
Date: Fri, March 20, 2015 8:30 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <
[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh CoinCube, your Marxist tilt makes you so gullible. I expect greater rationality from you with your math background! Where did you attain the Maxist indoctrination? How can you rid yourself of that mental disease?
All reputation systems scale to "winner take all". Humans can manage this in small tribes within their Dunbar limit where they can see all the shit that everyone does to minute detail so the tribal leader is held accountable. But we don't live in isolated tribes any more. Thermodynamics applies in spades (c.f. Coasian barriers, closed vs. open systems, etc).
The Dunbar number (the hypothesized maximum number of people man can maintain stable social relationships with) is thought to be anywhere between 150-250. It seems reasonable that with the aid of modern technology and only for trade this could be extended by a factor of at least 2-5 before you start to hit serious issues with reputation and scaling.
Absolutely false!
The actual number (when applied to this context) is well below a 100, because people simply don't have enough time to both work, raise a family, and be on top of the myriad of ways that those with reputation secretly (i.e. opaquely through a side channel outside the transparent paradigm) aggregate power.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/the-majority-are-just-fools/ So an enhanced barter system with the aid of technology could probably function reasonably well as long as the group size was limited to somewhere between 300-1000 people. Small trading groups could potentially exist within a larger community. Barter transactions would be incentivized by tax avoidance and the need to not compromize government benefits and inhibited by the natural inefficiencies that are unavoidable with barter.
Would it work? I have no idea. The poor are typically poor for reasons that go far beyond bad luck. However, their economic incentives going forward will increasingly favor barter transactions so it seems at least plausible that something like this would help them at least to some degree.
I am of the opinion that any system that encourages and allows trade to occur without debt and without fiat is a step in the right direction. Some attempted solutions may be more useful than others and some will fail outright but I believe it is a mistake to summarily dismiss and discourage those with interesting ideas.
Nobody wants a money that has a limited scope. Precisely what makes money useful is it raises the efficiency of trade. The poor don't want some unit which they can only get one or two things in exchange for. They want fungible money just like the rest of us do!
And non-anonymous ledger isn't going to help anyone escape taxation. The government will threaten to cut off their welfare benefits.
The idea is the insanely stupid idea, I can't even believe you fell for it! Cripes, I am very disappointed in you. You have absolutely no talent whatsoever as an entrepreneur. You are too far removed from reality.
That you can fall into this shit which has been tried over and over in history just goes to show how hopeless it is to reform a MOR-ASS. Humans are really blinded to their fate in the Petri dish. They will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
I find myself in the odd position of quoting Martin Armstrong back at you.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/13/solution/The system can be reformed. We must eliminate the old guard who refuse to see the light because they are the very problem. This is part of the political reform process that will begin after 2016.
On this issue as on many others my friend we agree on the overall picture but not the details. Like Armstrong I also believe government can eventually be reformed. It will not come easy and it will not come soon (definitly not before a major collapse and probably not this generation) but I believe it can eventually be done.
You can join Armstrong and both of you can be good Marxists who believe you can top-down manage the universe.
Sorry I am smarter than you guys.
P.S. I suspect Armstrong is starting to realize I am correct. I think he is too smart not to get this. I hope I am not disappointed by him.