Topic: Economic Devastation - page 58. (Read 504811 times)

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

Idiots don't understand that smaller things grow faster but can't be seen because their nominal size is still small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth#Water_lily


Significantly it will in a cataclysmic global economic collapse 2018 - 2020. This will retire the rest of the dying Industrial Age and that Minsky Moment, just like the 29th day of the Lily pond will usher in a new realization for humanity.

What remains will be a totalitarian eugenics NWO dying remnant of what was. It will have for some decade or so perhaps 50% economic coverage for a while and will die as Rome did perhaps requiring several decades to totally wither away.

BitAssHole (not you CC) will be hiding under a rock in despair and shame by then, just like all the other fools who have tried to argue against me.


Nope. There will be radical shift when the current socialism, $227 trillion global debt, $quadrillion in global derivatives collapses starting this October and reaching the climax in 2018 and then the blood letting to 2020.

The global collapse will wipe out 50% of the existing jobs. Even Oxford U. predicting in 2012 that by 2032, 47% of existing jobs would be replaced by automation. There are going to be a lot of unemployable and those that thrive will have turned to the Knowledge Age to generate work for themselves.

Cripes who can't recognize we are at a peak in finance? You'd have to be fucking deaf, dumb, and blind not to have heard the news.


Bingo.

I gain a little bit of serious following and now the low IQ idiots come out of the woodwork to make total fools of themselves at my expense.

I don't have obligation to refute all of their idiotic myopia.

BitAssHole is now added to my ignore list. Cripes.


It was yet another IQ test that you failed. That Asia could leap forward so fast after being retarded by 100 years (and being nearly entirely left out of the Industrial Age) says something about the quality of the Knowledge Age that is different. This will be more apparent when China's negative profit margin financed manufacturing sector and its financed condo bubble collapse next year and 50% of what is remaining is the self-funded, non-financed Knowledge Age components of the economy.

And that quality speaks to why it grows faster than usury. Duh. But I won't explain it more than that, because I rather enjoy seeing you fumble around in the dark when the details are pretty obvious for someone with a fair amount of reading comprehension.

As Warren Buffett says, "You won't really know who isn't wearing underwear until the tide goes out".


In fact idiot, you should do some research on percentage of the PROFITABLE economy being self-funded now versus a time when all means of production was significantly physical infrastructure (meaning the relative value of physical production has declined). If you want to argue, then dig up some relevant data. Else STFU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clojure#History

This is a fair challenge. TPTB often argues that his predicted future is happening now with the implication that we will see its fruition in our lifetimes.  
I tend to think that he is right in that he has identified a ongoing trend but that it is happening much more slowly then the time-frame implied in some of his writings.  

Finance is obviously not going to vanish going forward. Similarly the majority of knowledge workers are going to continue working for a salary for the foreseeable future. However, the pertinent question is will the relative value of financing decline as knowledge production becomes an ever larger share of the economy?

I think he makes a case why this may be so mainly:
1) The value of hard resource production declines progressively over time with technological progress.
2) Improving production requires knowledge production .
3) Knowledge production increasingly cannot be entirely financed.

So how do we square that with the fact that financing is obviously not decreasing across the larger economy at present?

This could be accounted for by three possible explanations:
A) The thesis is incorrect
B) Financing is declining in relative importance but its decline is masked via debasement of the currency unit.
C) We are in a transient period of atypical financing (a bubble) that will eventually resolve itself and results is atypically high levels of financing.

I tend to think the answer is a combination of B and C. That the value of financing is declining gradually over time, and that this decline is masked by a massive burst of financing as policy makers are forced to react to the end of our current monetary order via competitive global rounds of QE and debasement.  

I don't care. It doesn't adress what I am saying.  
OK so because East Asia is emerging that means finance will no longer be important. You are a formal logic genious!
So because manufacturing is disrupted by 3D that means finance will no longer be important. Because we all that the only reason finance exist is for building factory!
You are less smart that you think you are, and I am smarter than you think. You seem pretty bad at assessing that kind of things.

I live in a developing country and my neighbors (husband and wife) neither of whom are college grads both work online for Odesk.com.

NICs such as the Philippines where I am, skipped the industrial revolution (for the most part) and are moving directly from agrarian to high tech Knowledge Age. Heck when I first arrived in 1990, they wouldn't even throw away a rusted nail, because of the scarcity of industrial goods. It was all coconuts 2 decades ago. You should see it now!

I am talking to a member of this forum who is in the USA and is all over the home manufacturing revolution. He created a 3D milling machine with spare parts for $600 and is making custom metal parts for a growing clientele.

Etc, etc, etc.

You are ignorant. Stop wasting my time.

Are you aware that in developped countries the share of the industry in the GDP is only 20%?

That means 80% of the value added doesn't come from a factory. Nowadays to produce something you don't need to have factory.

Today the knowledge share of the GDP has never been higher yet we don't see the trend of the decreasing importance of finance you are prognosticating because of the rising importance of knowledge.

It seems you are living in a parallele and dichotomic world where in order to produce something one should either own a factory or be an independent knowledge worker. That's not the reality, just observe the world around you.

Since several decades  the bulk of the value added is produced by medium and small size companies, which don't need high fixed capital investment, which are hiring an increasing number of knowledge workers and which happen to have financial needs.

Now please show every body how ignorant I am, please do.

Compelling argument not refuted:


Fuck man, don't make post redundantly to defend against your bullshit. STFU or make a coherent refutation so I can demonstrate how stubbornly ignorant you are.

Why should I admit my mistake while you have provided no compelling argument to demonstrate it?

I honestly thought that you would have a good argument to answer my interrogation. Your writings are of good quality and I iniatilly thought it was me who missed something, but in front of a lack of a solid argument to explain why finance doesn't give an edge in knowledge creation and why wage earning will stop being a thing in the future, I have no other choice than to think that you have at least one blind spot and therefore to think that the future will not look like you think it will be.

Realbitcoin thought that too. You can join him in your blissful Dunning-Kruger overconfident ignorance. I've already explained it. If you are rational and honest, you can admit your mistake.

Why do you think I need to be helped?

I understand pretty well the subject that we are talking about. It's me who are trying to help you.
One accountant can find access to a computer connected to the internet and eat grown vegetables and lived at his parent's house for free. Sill most accountants work for a salary.  Crap, it's look like this fact doesn't fit into your theory.

There are plenty of knowledge workers nowadays, an increasing part of the labor force as you noted it. Yet, most of them work for a salary.

In other words, knowledge production have ever increased, yet salary work has not decreased since the start of the XXe century. There is no linear relationship between the two.

Too bad a guy as smart as you is not able to check empirical facts and see they don't vindicate his predictions.
Yeah you are smart and I am dumb. Sure.  

I have already explained it. And if you still can't understand, I don't know how to help you.

Humans were trapped by the fact that factory production requires large fixed capital investment. Knowledge production can be published directly. There is no large fixed capital investment. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to grasp. Humans seem to have a giant blind spot when it comes to comprehension of relative size.

Cripes how difficult it is to understand that one laborer can't make his own factory. But one knowledge worker surely can find access to a computer connected to the internet and eat home grown vegetables and live at his parent's house for free, thus creating and publishing his work autonomously (or with a small obtainable loan not nearly comparable to the capital required to construct a factory which is out of reach of the laborer).

I guess I just assume that people are smart enough to realize something as simple as that without being spoon fed.

The whole point of wage earning has always be to give up the control of the product of your work in order to:
- earn a wage which lowered the risks you are facing as an individual
- have access to the resources (hard capital and human capital) made available by the firm which allow you to gain in productivity, and without which you may even be not productive at all.

I don't understand at all why you think there will be a paradigmic shift on that matter. The arguments you are giving in your essays don't adress that question.

People who cannot not survive without a salary.

And people who cannot do their research without the tools provided by corporations.

And also people who cannot do effeciciently their research without the network effect existing within a firm environment.

Who will cast their pearls at swine.

There will be more innovation, definitely. But that doesn't imply that the relation which exist nowadays between marketable innovation and capital will cease.

Do you deny that resources (ie money, which buy time of scientists and engineers) help to solve a problem? It does not guarantee to solve it, but it increases the probability of solving it. Because when you can buy the time of smart people you have a greater shot at solving a problem than when you cannot afford that. It's probabilistic.

If you don't deny that then you are acknowledging a causal (and probabilistic) relation between money and innovation, and that relation won't stop in the future.

Because 1 zillion immature markets will bloom due to the fact that accumulated monetary capital can no longer enslave innovation (the real capital).

OK I think I see what you mean.

You are saying that the greater importance of knowledge in the production process is decreasing the importance of the control of the preexisting means of production, ie. the barriers to entry are lowered.

But I am not sure I agree with you. The barriers to entry are essentially dependent on the stage of growth of the market, and in a new market those barrier are always low.

Yes, Page and Brin didn't need a lot of capital to create Google. But Rockefeller didn't need a lot of capital to create the Standard Oil neither. This boils down to be in a young market. When the market is young the barriers are low (that's true even in the Industrial Age), when the market is mature the barriers are high (that will be true even in the Knowledge Age).

During what you call the Knowledge Age, markets will mature and barriers will become higher, and I see no reason why concentration of capital will stop being significant.

That essay and my recent post quoting past posts about Theory of the Firm I think already explain why, but as CoinCube wrote in the opening post of this thread, it takes about 2 weeks of deep contemplation to extract out my conceptualization because it is so foreign to the way we already conceptualize (because we did not evolve and grow up in a Knowledge Age).

If you think about the level of angel investment I really need, it is quite small and had I not so messed up my health and life over the past 2 decades, I would have more than sufficient savings to self-fund my expenses so I can code. If my gold dealer hadn't basically stolen from me, I would have enough savings to self-fund. But self-funding would be irrelevant, because I don't want to own the entire money supply of an altcoin! That would destroy it.

The more salient point is that if finance decided it wanted to build a Bitcoin killer altcoin, it could not do so. Knowledge creation can not be willed into existence by throwing a $million at it. It happens because an individual spontaneously has an epiphany. No one can predict who that individual will be. Qualifications won't determine that. Heck I don't even have a math degree nor any past experience in cryptography. By all estimates, someone like Gregory Maxwell should have created what I did. But even with Blockstream's $24 million in funding, they did not. Besides Blockstream's innovations were already conceptually invented (by Adam Back in the forum) before they got the funding. The funding was again a lagging artifact (appendage) of the reality that Westerners think they need to turn everything into a corporation (which to a large extent mucks up the process of knowledge creation). Hope you invested in Ethereum.  

Actually I think what drives knowledge creation even more than money, is in fact market demand. That is what drove me to try to solve this problem. So again network effects is the most significant factor in knowledge creation.

I am in the process of reading your writings and I would appreciate a clarification on a point.

When you say that  "knowledge production is not financed" (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html), what exactly do you mean?

I think that to create knowledge, a lot of financing has to take place. Take yourself, you are asking for angel investors to allow you to make your ideas come into fruiton. You need to be financed in order to create some new knowledge or to convey to the world the knowledge you have already gained.

In order to survive in a free market environnement, one need to deliver something that actually works (or a useful service). And while one is creating knowledge, he is not able to deliver a working product or a useful service.

And what about R&D? Corporations are massively financing knowledge creation. Nowadays most of marketable innovations come from corporations.

Knowledge is unproductive (ie. unmarketable) until a given treshold that will be reach in the future, and to make the transition from the present to that point in the future, finance is needed. Finance allows to make the transtion from the present to the future, this has always be the very basic utility of finance since its inception.

I think your rationale suffer from a false antinomy between knowledge and finance. Both need each other.

Actually he is right, women drive the cultural change, but men drive the economic one.

Without getting pussy a man cannot have offspring, and if he wants to get pussy he has to subjugate his principles or ideals to the women's collective principles and ideas.

If women become feminist, then men have to follow them or else they cant reproduce. Some men will compromize, while some will not. Guess who will have more children.

TBTB is also right in the sense that the alpha-male behaviour is not so relevant anymore, in social selection (opposed to natural selection).

While alpha maledom is subsidized by all these welfares, and single moms are also incentivized to exist, there becomes a cultural war between alpha and beta personalities.

The alpha is getting pussy by themselves fairly easy, and since they are without social principles, women will dominate them eventually.

Beta personalities have to work hard to get resources, to attract women, an since their personality is weaker, they have to subjugate all their principles to women's collective principles.


Thus, both alpha and beta will become subjugated to women's collective principles, but their inability to realize that, will only push them against eachother, alpha vs beta "personality war" , and its obvious that beta will win that fight.

(Because my earlier posts, how beta personalities are more intelligent and in future the need of higher IQ will be almost a genetical invocation)


The question is what quality will the women's gene pool be after this social disaster?