Topic: Economic Devastation - page 64. (Read 504811 times)

...

This just occurred to me, right after I had logged-out, but I thought I would toss this in here as an example of the Knowledge Age...

The company (guy, whatever) I have in my signature is about as good an example I can think of for a Knowledge Age effort!  

The site is very automated (very "knowledge-y"), at least one of his mixing options is via TOR, it is a future-oriented service...

bitmixer.io could be (is?) perhaps a one-man effort, whether it is just one or a small group really makes no difference re as an example of a Knowledge Age enterprise.

I'd be interested in comments on whether bitmixer is a good example of a Knowledge Age effort, let's leave aside any comments on mixing effectiveness or similar (eg, whether TOR is really anonymous).

Unto what end (in both cases)? (Note: this is a largely existential query.)

The key is to destroy usury which I assert the Knowledge Age does (c.f the OP of the Economic Devastation thread). So this unproductive brat will end up destitute soon enough and his wealth will have been transferred to those who are productive.

Eliminating the high fixed capital component of production is the main reason we can now jettison democracy and socialism. The technology has changed what society can be.


By reaching out to you abroad with educational opportunities to better yourself and earn enough to join in. Donations if you really need it, to help you bridge the gap. But if you are determined to just be a leech on society's best faith attempts to help you, then yes you will be ignored and perish as it should be for any pest or parasite.

Probably attempt to hire an army and attack. And so we would continue to produce 1000X more than they do in our anonymous Knowledge Age and bankrupt them into their hell.

This is why your concepts of anti-money don't allow us to express our higher productivity.

Would Big-Agriculture do so? (I.e., there are reasons wherefor the American "Gilded Age" was not termed a "Golden Age," like that of Socrates' Athens. [Namely, that politic which terminated Socrates and, with him, Athens' Golden Age.])

For one thing, we wouldn't interfere with your ability to grow your own food, which our modern nanny-state governments highly regulate and restrict making it too costly to do.

So there you (your wife probably while you are doing analytical work such as reengineering the barn) are growing your own food, making sex with your wife, producing offspring. You'd have to have enough capital to begin with to purchase land otherwise you wouldn't be joining our project. Thus you'd already demonstrated the ability to be responsible and produce. And assume you would thus be responsible and educate your offspring so they can produce also. Your wife might even be a home schooling mother perhaps in conjunction with other families in the neighborhood. This is what women really want to do and what really makes them happy.

I bet we'd also be donating non-compulsory educational programs as well, to encourage a literate society that can be self-reliant via production.

As for those in the world now who are stuck, we'd probably be using our great wealth to reach out and offer education and work opportunities abroad. Trade is an important aspect of commerce and productivity.

This great lie of "democracy" and "socialism" has been foisted upon the world. The main problem humans faced was protection from attacking armies and also technological and organizational (high fixed capital) problems with production (e.g. roads, problems with pandemics, etc).

We have a lot more technology now, and the question is are we going to let the 0.001% enslave us with it, or are we going to empower humanity to use it?

I think one of the key distinctions is that these days even Khan Academy (one guy making educational videos) can change the world. The information age reduces the fixed capital requirements required to help people improve.

That is not to say it would be perfect, but it would be better than the abysmal trajectory the world is headed now...

What is the point of this life if you can't help and see other humans happy? Some sociopaths want all the power, but really that is a very lonely and unnatural goal. It exists only because we empower those sociopaths with our inane foolishness to think that "democracy" and "socialism" are in our best interests.

(Your argument seems fallacious.)

If it should not believe that food it's own, you should not have stolen the food from it. (To you, perhaps, but not from it.)

When I steal all your food, then see how much fiction that is for ya.

Possession exists only insofar as agreement about what is possessed exists. Without such agreement, possession is a fiction and "steal[ing]" (TPTB_need_war) impossible. (Control, without its recognition, is physical and, thus, not merely symbols preoccupying a consciousness and, so, not merely extant insofar as a consciousness is preoccupied therewith with but extant therewithout.)

Money is a consolidator of "possession" concepts.

(As one could in the evaluation of a mathematical proof, I stop with but one error.)

(Red colorization added.)

An attempt to reduce the number of microstates that could constitute a particular macrostate is known and, therefore, exists via conscious experience (unlike that real wherewith, you claim, the "action concept," if you will, "def[iance] [of] the econd [l]aw of [t]hermodynamics" [TPTB_need_war] meaningfully interacts).

True but you still need a fungible system for weighing effort and contribution and for appropriating it. Without fungibility you destroy the entropic progression to the maximum division-of-labor, thus you try to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Your anti-money destroys any such organization and thus will drive a scorched earth back to the inefficiencies of barter.

(Red colorization and Sacred Economics citation mine. Partial Sacred Economics quotation expanded into full quotation.)

1. (You seem unfamiliar with the more temporal dimensions of modern English.)

2. Capital that does not “return to [its] source” (Eisenstein) does not have to be replaced, so one does not have to cater to the needs of others. Eisenstein notes this when he writes, “no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one.”

Gold has had very high rates of debasement and it is not consistent:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35498

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35465

Some people estimate the above ground supply of gold is more than 10X higher than "official" estimates.

Again the point on rate of debasement is that if the economy is growing at 10%, then a 5% debasement means your savings is still increasing its purchasing power at 5% per annum. It is not fair nor incentivize maximum prosperity for the saver who sits on his money to get the same increasing in purchasing power as the investor who risks for a higher ROI. Thus some small level of debasement is desirable. Gold is about 1 - 2%. Fiat has run at 5%. I haven't decided yet what level to set, but 0% seems inherently wrong. Not even gold does 0%.

The reason a positive debasement rate impacts a saver (who sits on his money adding no productivity to the economy) disproportionately to an investor, is in the example below 5% is half of the saver's potential purchasing power gain of 10%. Whereas the investor increases his purchasing power by R + 5% versus R + 10%. If R = 20%, then the difference is 25% versus 30%, thus only 17% difference.

Debasement is actually a very good thing for as long as it is below the rate of productivity increase and it doesn't get distributed to a few central banking fat cats.

The debasement rate of gold is never 0%. That is a statement of fact.

The productivity increase in the economy is an orthogonal variable.

It is not BS that gold's too low debasement rate and later too high debasement rate can wreck havoc on economies that peg their legal tender to gold. In fact, the great gold rushes caused massive inflation and macro economic disruption. And in fact, when an economy is growing productivity very fast, then allowing savers to capture all of that gain in productivity for doing nothing but bury their gold value in the ground actually retards productivity growth, because the saver is not motivated.

That is not to say we have something better than gold, because legal tender with central banks and fractional reserve lending is a worse abomination, because it centralizes control and profit.

I am hoping we can do better with decentralized, unassailable crypto-currency, but in any case my point remains that 0% debasement is inane. Even gold doesn't do that.

According to the orthodox theory of the origin of money, the most durable goods (often metals) were selected by the rich to be their means of preserving the wealth, by virtue of their non-perishability. The quote does not adequately address the diversity of nature and the properties of the various objects therein, by positing that perishable items could ever have functioned as money, because they haven't. It is true that the financial system today is a gross abomination, but that is because of its other properties, not because the monetary unit is unperishable.

(One of the abominations in the current system is exactly the opposite - that the monetary unit is "perishable" due to inflation, which forces ordinary savers to the capital markets, to be fleeced by the banksters. In the gold, BTC or other hard monetary system, the act of saving can be accomplished by setting money aside - in the current fiat system it cannot.)

Under philosophical hyperrealism, knowledge consists of determinate symbols. Heisenberg, however, found that existence is indeterminate (see above). Analogically, therefore, a symbol approximates the real as a secant line (think: change in 𝑦 over change in 𝑥) that passes through the mathematical points (𝑎, 𝑓(𝑎)) and (𝑥, 𝑓(𝑥)) approximates the tangent line (think: change in 𝑦 over no change in 𝑥 [i.e., zero]) that passes through the like point (𝑎, 𝑓(𝑎)).


Consequently, the school reveals “need” (qtd. in username18333) to—as an element of knowledge—bare no more than a  “striking resemblance” to the real.

---

Regardless, what you term “anti-money” mitigates the economic impact of more disruptive wants by rendering the catering thereto wholly unprofitable through the hyperinflation of uninvested (as regards concern) consumption.

Guardian is about 3 - 4 years after I wrote the seminal essay on the financeability of the Knowledge Age linked from the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, and 14 years after I first alluded to the coming at the link quoted above.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

Please don't attribute a quote to me that was a quote of Eric S. Raymond.

If you know Eric at all, you would know it is impossible that he would argue against the values of cooperation, helpful reputation, and the gift culture of sharing in an Inverse Commons:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-2.html

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-5.html

Rather Eric's point is the Dark Enlightenment is against government claiming to be able to enforce equality, which is of course unnatural, impossible, and entirely corrupt.

---

Ah so then Marx (and Godwin's concept of technological change solving the problem over time) is nearly congruent with my concept of where we are headed in a Knowledge Age in the sense that capital will naturally be held by those who are able to actively create knowledge. And near zero margin tangible resource costs relative in value to the knowledge production of the economy.

---

Communists eliminate needs by removing demand, i.e. killing fields. Mao exterminated some 50+ million.

Knowledge Age capitalists eliminate needs by producing more technology which empowers individuals to produce individually and satiate their needs.