Topic: Economic Devastation - page 33. (Read 504811 times)

By observing we alter the results.  Thing is the FED thinks it can manipulate the economy successfully and so change natural events but I believe they are ultimately merely going to observe a return to the mean despite their best efforts.      I think we follow highly predictable patterns even after all our changes through the years we remain basically the same in human activity though it might be as complex as a fractal the economy does still follow the same principals laid down hundreds of years ago which wasnt our invention really just conclusions on the natural flow of business etc.
Apologies if I misunderstood the point and I understand humans can defy gravity but they dont stop it being a consistent force and I think economies follow similar practise

Its not a question of existence it is a question of applicability. You can't apply Invisible Hand to model actors that know and understand its mechanics.
Essentially the actors by understanding the invisible hand, they model it. So that model cannot now model said actors, you need a meta-model. It is an incompleteness argument really.

This is why I think that an AI, serving as metamodel can really be used to model economy. It may understand us if and only if we don't understand it.

The Invisible Hand by definition exists outside any perception of it. It is the universal trend of entropy to maximum (unbounded) in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which even Einstein stated was the most fundamental law.

To all intends and purposes on modeling economic activity the Concept of Invisible Hand as a stabilizing force is dead. In other domains where actors do not have awareness of such a force it can still be Invisible. The fact however that we found out about the Invisible Hand actually negates it's power. The moment we saw it, the economic Universe had instantly disappeared and be was replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Think of it this way, the moment we understood Newtonian dynamics not long after they were rendered obsolete and unable to meet our needs, Heck you cannot deploy GPS without taking into account of Relativity.

thaanos now you are articulating why the Invisible Hand never dies, that is the entropy of the Universe is unbounded because otherwise the speed-of-light would be infinite (and then we could not exist in the first place because the past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal point).

Everyone is a top-down controller of something, but nothing is in control of everything.

Folks don't limit your thought process to one perspective of an artifact of the Invisible Hand. It is never standing still and if it has moved on, you need to move on too in order to see the new economic opportunities.

The Invisible Hand and Free market is simply an algorithm to walk towards an equilibrium, A Central Planner algorithm simply tries to compute where that equilibrium is. As communication and analytical tech improve those 2 algorithms will converge making the whole debate useless.
Do you think that in a dawning vast network of economic actors, they and not decision bots will make the calls? Will they not exchange info? in effect creating a vast decentralized Central Planner?

Problem is both are wrong seeking an equilibrium that is dynamic and ever changing. One should imo seek the point with minimal distance (cost) from wherever the equilibrium might appear.

The ordering problem and the relativistic reality are no problem just cluster the damn perceptions and work with statistics, no need to be realtime or be precise, if you are off by an hour or a day or miss a few perceptions it wouldn't be that bad.

A K-server problem over a K-means clustering of perceived equilibria, as long as the clusters trajectory (maybe use a Kalman filter) can be anticipated we can solve K-server optimaly.  If clusters teleport all bets are off and nothing can help there, that cost will be unavoidable no matter your strategy.

Hell I don't see the reason for all that IT and AI and cryptos if the goal is not to solve the problem of Optimal Resource Allocation at least partially or even supervised

This has already been refuted (by Lindsey Lamport and other Byzantine fault tolerance researchers) because the speed-of-life is not infinite, thus no perspective can be a total ordering. Or stated another way, due to the delay of propagation of information there will exist a plurality of arbitrary perspectives none of which are a total ordering.

Sorry. It is impossible to argue with that truth.

But my pragmatism is, damn the torpedoes and cover thy eyes, ears, and logic. Buy the dips with your student lunch allowance!

Man? You described a being not a Man. No man can hold those properties, but an AI is a whole different matter.
While AI-Central Planning is within the realm of possibilities, The invisible Hand is fiction, and true, a fiction can never be defeated.

The error you make is humanist. That man could defeat the inviolable Invisible Hand is the impossible goal of all humanist religions that have names such as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Corporatism, etc.. Enjoy the futility (and mega-death of the deviation error from fitness due to top-down control).

the error is you dismiss an omniscient perfectly objective being, while accepting an immortal Invisible Hand

Commenting on your comment on Coincube on your general tone of accept the ruling or GTFO. Sorry me no take

The error in this Communist manifesto is that it can't account for the fact that there is no such omniscient perfectly objective being who can make all these decisions without creating more harm than good. And that is not even accounting for the natural incentive for corruption in any top-down control. Only Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can anneal the free market.

It is however pointless to argue with a Communist. It is not even educational because it is all lost in the sea of a 120 page thread that nobody will bother to read.

We are here to speculate with our lunch money, not to fix what can't be fixed with words.


The Invisible Hand never dies. The actors and mechanisms shift. You are focused on remnant artifacts that do not reflect the shift in free market activity hence.

That is if the definition of capitalism is the free market. Whereas, if the definition of capitalism is stored claims on future production, then yes the free market is shifting away from the usury model to social media gift culture.

AnnoyingMint was butthurt? So you are saying he is not insane but rather he is jealous?

I reserve the right to complain when butthurt.

true.
But another factor is that capitalism had long enjoyed a privileged immunity from prosecution in the west. All you now see is Capitalism taking its fair share of criticism.

It's corporatocracy.

4 days late to the reply, but better late than never.

I agree that it is a far stricter market now, and I agree with the sentiment that it was better in the past, and that it is currently far more corporate that is based on giant companies making the big decisions. Maybe we should refer to current capitalism as corporatism?

Ha ha ha wow that newbie account provided my comic relief for the evening  


Welcome back. Comic gold and truly creative.
Nevertheless let's keep the games out of this thread shall we.
Now excuse me for a moment while I go chuckle some more.

CoinCube acknowledges that he is only a guest here but then apparently balks at the concept that the forum has absolute rules. If you've been banned for a cooling off period for any reason, and you attempt to circumvent the ban such as by creating sock puppet accounts as apparently AnnoyingMint did, it is possible to be permanently banned. Sheesh it appears Theymos had to ban his AnonyMint account before as well. Then he creates numerous new accounts as acknowledged on his signature. I am surprised it was tolerated and he was allowed to carry on with his insults and arrogant know-it-all attitude. Finally apparently the moderators had enough of his disrespectful attitude and his posting in 3 threads simultaneously with large red bolded single sentence, was over the limit of acceptable tolerance. My guess is that many Ethereum, Dash, and Monero supporters were demanding that the moderator take this action, because AnnoyingMint had offended and attacked the vested positions of so many. Come on it doesn't take a genius to see that every venue has politics. Live or die by the politics.

It doesn't matter that he was responding to his claim of Ethereum spamming the Altcoin Discussion forum with "5 or 6 new threads". It doesn't matter that he was banned for 3 days such that he would no longer be able to provide an opposing opinion during Ethereum's shockingly rapid move higher in price. The jealousy is palatable as is his self-important narcissism. It doesn't matter that he has 3 year history in these forums and claims to have provided 15,000 posts of content and helped to increase readership of this site to Theymos's benefit. Yeah right!   The audacity!

No. The rules are absolute and unambiguous. If a moderator decides you are banned, then you are banned. Circumvent and you are likely permanently banned. Take it or leave it. This is not a decentralized forum. This forum owns our data and can set the rules. Respect that political slavery or leave. This isn't a democracy. It is a business and it is not owned by CoinCube nor AnnoyingMouse. The advertising profits for our efforts here are paid to the owners of this site, not to us. This is not a commune.

Dmitry Orlov The Future is Blivets:

"If you have been paying attention, you may have noticed that the global financial markets are currently in meltdown mode. Apparently, the world has hit diminishing returns on making stuff. There is simply too much of everything, be it oil wells, container ships, skyscrapers, cars or houses. Because of this, the world has also hit diminishing returns on borrowing money to build and sell more stuff, because the stuff we build doesn't sell. And because it doesn't sell, the price of stuff that's already been made keeps going down, lowering its value as loan collateral and making the problem worse.

One solution that's been proposed is to convert from a products economy to a services economy. For instance, instead of making widgets, everybody gives each other backrubs. This works great in theory. The backrub industry doesn't generate an ever-expanding inventory of backrubs that then have to be unloaded. But there are some problems with this plan. The first problem is that too few people have enough money saved up to spend on backrubs, so they would have to get the backrubs on credit. Another problem is that, unlike a widget, a backrub is not a productive asset, and doesn't help you pay off the money you had to borrow to pay for the backrub. Lastly, a backrub, once you have received it, isn't worth very much. You can't auction it off, and you can't use it as collateral for a loan.

These are big problems, and one proposed solution is to create good, well-paying jobs that put money in people's pockets—money that they can then spent on backrubs. This is best done by investing in productivity improvements: send people to school, invest in high tech and so on. It's an intuitively obvious idea: productive workers are easier to employ than unproductive workers, because the stuff they make ends up cheaper, and people can afford to buy more of it. Whether they do buy more of it is debatable, especially if there is more than enough of it already and nobody has any extra money saved. Still, the theory makes sense.

But this theory doesn't seem to be working all that well: no matter how much money we put into automation—robotic assembly lines, internet-based virtualization, what have you—the number of unemployed workers isn't going down at all. And it's even worse with driverless cars. In theory, they are great: if the driver doesn't have to do the driving, then she can spend the time giving her passengers backrubs. But no matter how much money we throw at driverless cars, the number of unemplyed drivers, or unemployed massage therapists, isn't going down.

But even if we give up on trying to stimulate demand through job creation and just let everyone starve, we can still put our faith in rich people. There are people who are as rich as entire countries! Surely they can spend and consume on everyone else's behalf, and make the economy boom. But it turns out that it's very hard for just one person to consume as much as an entire country. To make that happen, it's necessary to pay people to consume on one's behalf. But if other people can spend your money just like you, then that defeats the purpose of being wealthier than everyone else, and all that hard work of swindling people and of gaming the markets would turn out to have been in vain.

* * *

But here is a solution that is so stunningly simple and elegant that somebody must have thought of it already. Alas, make a note: I am the first!..."

http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/the-future-is-blivets.html