Topic: Economic Devastation - page 57. (Read 504811 times)

...

I am staying out of this little sub-argument here, but have an observation of TPTB's assertion that Chinese manufacturers' profits are down.

I do not know for a fact that they are (in general let's say), but I do wonder how they can be making any money selling many of their automotive bearings for so cheap.  I cannot see how, even if they have robots in their plants.

Also it is in the media that companies are leaving China for Vietnam, Bangladesh and even Mexico (though I have no numbers).

China and the BRICS seem to be Poster Boyz for "Economic Devastation" for now.  

I wonder if China's manufacturing base is at risk of being hollowed-out as companies leave for cheaper pastures...  They DO have a huge manufacturing base, so likely they can hang on to it enough to benefit from TPTB's expected decline of America & Europe.  Well, we'll see.  

If the West declines enough, TARIFFS & QUOTAS will come back from the past.  Not good for China.  

^^ And you saw THAT here first! ^^

You have a blind spot when it comes to economics.

If the opportunity cost of not joining the Knowledge Age is say 10 - 100X greater than remaining in the financed NWO morass, the profit margins of the financed world go negative (in fact this has already happened in China in the export manufacturing sector!) because you have too many competing for the same small bounded value (relative to the Knowledge Age value and the unbounded opportunities for growth).

Thus collapse to 0. That collapsed financed NWO system will try to survive by TOTALITARIANISM and eugenics.

Q.E.D.

Let's differentiate an intelligent, well researched challenge from a lazy "sound bites" (non-holistic) conceptualization slander.

This back and forth is uninteresting and can be simplified mathematically to the following.

F(x)=



I think I do, but it is your decision to interpret a challenge in this thread as a demand on your time. Challenges can also be ignored or addressed at a later date. The primary purpose of this thread after all is to challenge and explore your thesis.  

I don't know why I have to repeat myself.


Maybe you thought you were providing a counter-example by stating that some high ROI project might have too large of an economy-of-scale (risk of failure isn't a finance problem if the scale is small, remember my fly swatting analogy), but the entire point is the Knowledge Age will destroy the need for economies-of-scale because the production is becoming more fine grained and modular (e.g. designs for 3D printers, 3D CNC mills, 3D house printers, my work on complete solution to the Expression Problem for software fine grained modularity, etc).


Oh I agree that the majority will transition to SDRs. I don't see that dying until at least 2032 and probably withering some decades on from there. The main reason being that morass can wage war on and steal from those in the Knowledge Age.

In short, I see the Age of Totalitarianism first before the Golden Age of Knowledge wins outright.

P.S. How much are you earning CC? I hear programmers of my caliber are earning roughly $0.5 - 1 million a year counting the stock options. I was earning $0.3 - 0.5 million a year including those factors in the 1990s and that is not even inflation adjusted. Unfortunately I let my career slip away. Do you understand why he doesn't have a right to demand my time (especially I am battling Multiple Sclerosis, am 4 days into fasting, in a deep financial hole, and risking it all to make sure we all have the cryptocoin we desperately will need).

There was no constructive dialog because he was determined to not do his effort on the vast information that is already in the thread. Instead he wanted to be the 30 minute in-and-done superstar. As if his laziness is my responsibility!  

CoinCube did you earn 2 university degrees by making your homework and study the responsibility of the authors of the books in your curriculum.

And yet you apologize for his behavior and try to passively aggressively slander me. Sorry you need to pick sides between productive and failure. Choose.


Absolutely not! Notice he is on ignore (except for the brief moment to quote the following) so I don't know if he has wised up yet and apologized to me.

Here he is blaming his lack of reading comprehension on me, which is not polite. If he was polite, he'd expend more than 30 minutes before assuming that my writings didn't already explain it. Even you warned in the opening post that even for someone of your intellect (with a Math degree and a medical doctor) that you needed 2 weeks to fully absorb, yet he comes in here guns blazing like a typical Dunning-Kruger dufus:


He had another choice which was to expend more time studying, reading, researching, and thinking before slandering and wasting the time of the author. I suspect he had some education in finance and is offended.

To the degree this is increasingly true how is it incompatible with what I wrote above. I imagine that even in a future knowledge age there will be some projects with such a low chance of success with correspondingly high reward that it would not be feasible for an individual to pursue alone and that some form of finance would be used. Change 10 times to 10 thousand times and you have a situation that may call for finance providing the payoff justifies the investment.

My own experience has been that name substitution does not further constructive dialog. BldSwtTrs has been polite in his posts. Far better to drill down to the core of the differences in opinion and leave it at that.


Perhaps I would certainly benefit from continuation for the status quo for as long as possible. However, I do expect change to be gradual. My suspicion is that time will prove you correct but not in the time frame you hope to see as the majority of the economy transitions from one fiat global currency to another perhaps SDR's. Time will tell, however, and this is not a point I have much interest in debating.  

Actually it turns out that it metastasizes and aggregates risk until it becomes Too Big To Fail.

I don't expect people to see insights the first time, but I do expect them to not be in woefully unable to think once it has been explained to them.

Take a look at the post I wrote on finance above. If we still disagree after that I am happy to discuss fractional reserve further.

In regards to the paleolithic world being less uncertain I would disagree. It was very difficult for an individual to forecast would would happen in the ancient world. You are looking at the issue globally rather than from the prospective of an individual living in those times.

Today, I am confident that barring a rare tragedy all of my young children will grow into adulthood. Furthermore I am confident that I will likewise will live to an old age. There are no guarantees but the odds are good. Society is more complex but complexity does not necessarily equal uncertainty.

Life expectancy in Rome is thought to be somewhere between ages 20–30 due to high infant mortality. If a child survived to age 10, life expectancy was an additional 37.5 years, a total of 47.5 years. Rome was advanced civilization compared to the paleolithic era. Humans, are not fundamentally biologically different than we were in Roman times indicating profound uncertainty with significant early death and demise.

Finance is primarily a tool to push forward consumption and disperse risk. As risk declines the need for finance declines. Whether an increase longevity alone will drive a decline in finance is difficult to say. Humans will always want to push forward consumption often to the point of self harm. This in many ways this has been hard wired into us as we have come to exist in an environment where the future was uncertain and life was short.      

Cokayne, Karen (2013-01-11). Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 9781136000065.

Sorry but this bolded assumption is myopic and exemplifies you still haven't grasped my conceptual insight entirely.

The more that final production moves closer to the individual with lower startup costs, the more uncertainty and risk decline. When a human can fully leverage his knowledge creation, he earns such an enormous ROI that several iterations of failure between each success are a non-risk and a no-brainer decision versus slaving away as an employee. Trust me, everyone who has made this leap has never gone back. I certainly never will work for financier nor employer ever again.

I mean how obtuse is it really? If you try to swat a fly 10 times before you succeed does that require finance? 

I learn key insights from software development. One of those was the amazing advantage of incremental development. In the words of the 150+ IQ genius progenitor of the term "open source" Eric S. Raymond, "release early and release often". Why? Precisely because the finer grained the iterations of failure, then the less risk.

What BitAssHole doesn't grasp is the concept of entropy. He is not sophisticated enough and I lost desire to teach him because he is not teachable. He is one of those players that argues with the coach and gets kicked off the team in spite of maybe having some talent.

What you keep forgetting CoinCube is that relative size can force an withering paradigm into waterfall collapse into extinction. Refer the math I provided in the post about relative rate of growth. My best guess is your bias is you want so much to believe that your world won't radically change. My bias is I want the world to change, and I want the areas where I am strong to be strong. But the deal is I made the choice to pursue the Knowledge Age when I was about 20 years old. By then I had figured out that a computer was cheap and powerful to work with and I only needed myself, yet if I continued my degree in Electrical Engineering I would be a slave to a corporation and large fixed capital startup costs (so I shifted degrees midstream).

P.S. you are correct to differentiate between fixed rate of return usury finance and investment with risk. I covered that in my essay which you linked from the opening post. Apparently BitAssHole didn't bother to notice.

Btw, I can only see his posts if you quote them.

When talking about finance it is important to make a distinction between two very different methods of finance.

Method #1 Traditional finance were a group of investors jointly invest in a project to pool risk.
Method #2 Modern finance where a bank is given the authority to expand the money supply via fractional lending when it identifies a profitable opportunity.

Finance via fractional reserve is a theft paradigm. It leads naturally the abandonment of sound money and later to the destruction of the currency system involved. I have documented the reasons why I believe this is the case here.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite
Finance Part II: The Parasitic Cycle
Finance Part III: Divide, Conquer, Enslave

I would agree with you when you state that proving finance will vanish entirely requires you to prove that 1) uncertainty will disappear and 2) humans will stop caring about the passage of time. These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist. However, lets exam the conditions needed to ensure not the elimination of finance but rather its gradual and relative decline.

To prove finance will decline longer term requires you to show:
- uncertainty will progressively decline
- humans will care less about the passage of time

Assuming we as a species continue to advance and progress one would expect both our knowledge to increase and our uncertainty regarding outcomes to similarly decline. I would also expect our longevity to increase. The conditions of technological progress lead naturally to the decline of finance by undermining the need for it.

1. TPTB have no conception of themselves benefiting from a Knowledge Age if they don't expand their monopolies. They are fighting over a smaller pie and have even stated that is their goal, e.g. Georgia Guidestones et al. Individual members may avail of anonymous means of hiding wealth and as anonymous competition within their ranks.

2. Boomers are philosophically against self-control and survival without a State. The State and hedonism are their glorious creation. They'll abandon it only when they're dead. The boomers drove the education and culture of the society of the generation after the X gen (my generation observed the transition and the State breaking the family unit so we rebelled, at least in the USA and I don't know about Europe). It is only the X gen (my generation) would are somewhat prepared en masse. From the latter generations in the West, there are a some exceptions on an individual basis and especially in the USA. Outside the West, the people are more prepared in the sense that many grew up surviving in difficult circumstances, even agrarian; and they have lower debt and State unfunded actuarial social welfare liabilities. But most in the developing world even though they didn't have the State take care of them, are very much socialist and want to copy the Western socialism asap.

3. So the likely outcome is very similar to Rome's fall. First the waterfall collapse, then as Constantine did, a renewed socialism religion towards global socialistic contract via a one world reserve currency with all axis powers sharing a vote in its global central bank. The youth of the world will follow starry-eyed into the NWO eugenics. The Knowledge Age will marching ahead growing much faster than that political morass. The political morass will be attempting to parasite the Knowledge Age with expropriation and taxation. I think in the end, that unproductive old world economy dies. But it will die hard because TPTB and boomers did such a glorious job of indoctrinating the world into socialism.


------------------------------------------------------
I know how fast things escalate (according to history et al) in a down-wards spiral - but spurred by your recent posts about the fall of Rome, I was contemplating that the real suffering in Europe/west likely won't come before a generational shift. Yes, we will likely see a waterfall event - and fall down very fast - however, we still have a two generations that have a lot of know-how. However, the young generation seems to largely have lost that - for several reasons. One being they never learned to take care of themselves (in many ways, physically, mentally, growing food, repairing things, hedonism, innovate etc) because the state does that for them. The older generations still have some of all that knowledge inherent in them. Secondly the thought is that the large rates of unemployment escalates this issue, where most young people in their most productive and years, where they should learn the most, are not learning anything new. They are not being handed any knowledge - in fact many places we see them being handed inferior knowledge (purposefully or not, e.g. Common Core).. And many are not seeking it themselves either.(i.e your point about Westerners being fucking lazy... most of them..)

By saying all that, I'm not disregarding things turning to shit real fast. I'm probably arguing why it will continue to keep falling down.

I am also thinking that if TPTP are smart(er) and not just self-propagandized to believe that top-down control rules everything, then they should allow for a knowledge age to flourish in which they themselves can benefit. If they tread too hard and too much they suffer themselves (in what's available etc.)

------------------------------------------------------
Aug 23

Armstrong's computer predicts that political divide in the USA but it might take longer than a few years. Looks like the USA will swing hard to the right politically this Nov 2016 election, then riding the up to the 2017.9 peak and then after fall into the economic abyss. 2018 forward is going to probably pandemic, war, chaotic shift in personal financial status every where.

So if I were you, I'd be preparing a plan B bug out for 2018ish, just in case you need it. If you don't need it, then great. But better to be prepared than not.

Finance doesn't exist because of the physical economy. Finance exist because of the time and uncertainty exist.

"Finance is a field that deals with the allocation of assets and liabilities over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance

To prove that finance will lost its importance you don't need to prove knowledge will be increasingly more important  and physical economy be increasingly less important, it's a trivial demonstration (and it's very embarassing to see the ego inflated guy thinking is the only one understanding the exponential function).

To prove that that finance will lost it's importance you need to prove that:
- uncertainty will disappear
- humans will escape from spacetime

Or alternatively, that humans will stop caring about the passage of time and uncertainty

Until that, you have only showed something that everybody already knows.

The ego inflated guy thinks because the barriers to entry are lowered by innovation in some markets that somehow prove his point. He doesn't understanding that his anedoctal evidence isn't symptomatic of a new broad trend in the economy: since the dawn of the markets the innovation have lowered barriers to entry and have shaken the structure of existing markets. He has just identified the byproduct of a recurring pattern and mix it up with a paradigm shift regarding the role of financial services.

To sum up, finance doesn't exist because of physical economy, it exists because of human psychology. Showing that physical economy is declining is orthogonal to the fact that finance will decline.

(Btw finance is part of the knowledge economy).

Agree but words do not tell the true mathematical reality.

3325 times larger = Knowledge Age growing at 50% per annum (1/2 of doubling) for 20 years (1.5^20)
    3 times larger = old world economy growing a 5% per annum for 20 years (1.05^20)

Humans can't visualize exponential growth. They have myopia when conceiving relative size.

This argues strongly that only the very dumb people will pursue the physical economy. And this it argues it will waterfall into irrelevance rapidly.

The physical economy will become subsumed by the Knowledge Age in ways that we still get our physical production, e.g. a 3D printer will create all your products and customized just how you want them. The value added won't be in the raw materials any more (the stuff that requires big capital investment). I already explained that someone I know went from being a moderately paid car mechanic who was attacked by the USG and lost everything to a highly paid 3D printer of custom pistons with a $600 3D CNC mill he built from spare used parts. Where is JP Morgan in this   Who built a factory with their weekly income in the 20th century before the personal computer?

BitAssHole deceives himself (and went from someone who I was cordially trying to teach the concept with my limited attention span these days, to ...).

If you are going to come into a long-standing thread and attack all the work that was done, do your homework first. Don't just present myopic Dunning-Kruger crap that shows how much you haven't understood. If a challenger has hard data, then present it.

@BldSwtTrs my thoughts on the matter are as follows:

TBTP makes a strong argument that the physical economy will decline into relative insignificance over time. Obviously the physical economy will never disappear entirely. It is important to note that even if a full blown knowledge age occurs one would expect the increasingly insignificant physical economy to continue to grow only at a lower rate.  The physical economy is never going to disappear and there likely remain great fortunes to be won by pioneers in the physical economy. In theory, however, these fortunes will decline along with the overall importance of the physical economy leaving the greatest fortunes of the future to be won in the knowledge economy. Similarly, one would expect financing to never disappear entirely but instead to follow the trajectory of the physical economy and grow at a lower than rate than the overall economy resulting in the gradual reduction of finance into relative insignificance (over an unknown and perhaps very long period of time).

Will the physical economy collapse with a global debt bubble bursting in 2018? Let assume for the moment that such a collapse occurs. This does not indicate an immediate transition of the physical economy into insignificance. Presumably the physical economy would bottom at some (much lower) level and then gradually start to grow once more. One would expect finance and financial instruments to follow a similar trajectory.  

It may well be that only over a much longer time horizon long after our current asset bubbles and difficulty with fiat currency is ancient history that the predicted decline of the physical economy into insignificance will occur. I suspect both the physical economy and finance are both going to matter a great deal over the near term (the relevant planning horizon for those of us around today).

@TBTP as you said you have contributed the lions share to this thread. If you want it to fade away I suspect just ceasing to post in it will be sufficient to accomplish that. I am too busy at the moment to keep up in the forum so I won't be keeping it alive. I started this thread as an open forum to critique and analyze your writings and the thread appears to be serving its purpose. I think everyone understands you have limited time and resources and cannot respond to all challengers.  

CoinCube, I request you lock this thread. You are not obligated to of course. But I contributed more than 50% of the effort to this thread, and I have important work to do. I don't have time to waste on these idiots who are polluting the thread now, in my effort to try to retain the original high quality of the discussions that we had.

Everything comes to end. The ideal time to close this thread is now.

You are welcome to blame it on my request. I take full responsibility for any backlash.

Time will prove who was correct, and I know who that will be.


The tailcoat clingers will be coming out in exhausting waves now that I've gained some stature. They will play mindless games designed to suck the valuable production away from those who create in the Knowledge Age.

P.S. There is amble empirical evidence. I am not just not going to take the time to write it all down. Challengers can do their homework or not. It is their problem, not mine.

I promise it's my last post in this thread. You don't have to close it because of me and my idiocy.

I just want to add, for the sake of enlightening the readers, that the guy has clearly some really weak spot in his understanding of reality:
Here he makes the common mistake of thinking that the notional amount of the derivative market is at risk. He doesn't understand that the amount at risk in a derivative contract is far less than the notional amount. Every casual commentator of the financial markets makes this mistake.
Here he thinks that because job are destroying, it somehow proves his point. He seems even compelled to prove that jobs are going to be destroyed by citing a study.

Jobs are destroyed since the dawn of humanity, it's business as usual. It's not because technology renders some jobs no longer useful that the unemployment rate goes higher. There will always be jobs creation in other part of the economy as long as it exists human needs not satisfied.

His thesis is that those jobs are going to be create solely by independent and lonely entrepreneur but there is no reason to think it will be the case. He assumes his conclusion is right without proving it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question

Here he demonstrates a very partial knowledge of economic history. Germany leapfrogged all the start of the Industrial Revoluion and Japon leapfrogged an even greater period. All that happened within the Industrial Age obviously.

I think people will understand this means that leapfrogging doesn't say anything specific about the Industrial Age or the Knowledge Age.

You sound a lot more sensible and in touch with the actual reality than him.

I tend to think the answer is A alone.

US Finance grow from 4.9% in 1980 to 7,9% of GDP in 2007: https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwj6op3G2L3HAhWG2RoKHS3gAuI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.hbs.edu%2Fdscharfstein%2Fgrowth_of_modern_finance.pdf&ei=WvHYVfqNL4aza63Ai5AO&usg=AFQjCNHrasrETalkvGt50OOz0bC-jXJUDQ&cad=rja share

In that period knowledge increased dramactically. It's enough to show that a negative linear relationship between knowledge and finance doesn't exist.

Now the guy is talking about exponantial function and treshold effect.
He keep talking about factories as if we were still in the Industrial Age whereas the industry account for only 20% of the GDP. So if there should have been a "singularity" point beyond which is destroyed the finance one could have hope it would already happen.
Until when should we wait for that "singularity" to happen? When industry account for 15%, 10, 5%, 1% of the GDP? It's nonsensical.

I have showed in my previous post that finance will always be needed in a foreesable future and the end of Industry Age will not change that because this end had already happened for the most part. One could argue whether the share of finance in GDP will increase or decrease, that would be an interesting debate but it's not what the guy is affirming. He is so far from reality that it's too easy to prove him wrong. Too bad his ego problem preclude him from accepting feedback.