Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 125. (Read 345758 times)

Umm.. how can you read such a message from the theses? The matter was not even mentioned.

I advocate, more than most, the idea that was mentioned - that nothing, including gold, silver, BTC, Monero, land, business, and of course all the paper investments, is safe. But they have different risk profiles. I encourage diversification, but not in the traditional sense to smooth out the volatility, but in the sense to make the simultaneous total loss of all assets less likely.

This emphasis is the direct consequence from my understanding that especially in these days, ownership of financial capital and freedom to do anything at all which matters with it, correlate negatively. On the other hand, losing all your assets is a major blow that must be avoided, even if it means below-average returns.

Of course in practice it does not mean below average returns, quite the opposite: (the total loss of all your) cryptos are so little correlated to that of other assets that it makes sense to own them as long-term investments, so the potential to hit big with a meaningfully sized and diversified crypto portfolio is good.

As for the existence of Ag on earth, I have written a book about it, with my university Economics-Geology background. But let's not go into it because it is irrelevant on the topic, even if all my research and scenario thinking somehow had managed to miss the key aspects  

It is sort of like how we felt when we read Satoshi's whitepaper, "why didn't I think of that!". Adam Back's hashcash concept was already known. The Satoshi Proof-of-Work was a fairly obvious step, but yet no one saw it until he published.

When this hit me in the forehead, my reaction was "this is sort of obvious, it must have a flaw because surely someone else thought of this before". So I as I dug into potential pitfalls it became more clear to me why others may not have entertained this idea before. The key is that true decentralization arises from careful use of centralization and that is what I believe makes the concept non-obvious, even though once it is revealed it seems quite simple and obvious.

Your “theses” (rpietila) seem to presume that the extent of major silver holdings is known. What kind of idiot statesman wouldn’t only publicize a portion thereof so as to ensure that even the gold- and silver-bugs get hit by his recession? Do you two honestly believe them to be a herd of court jesters prancing about earth humanity to provide diversion to (read: not for) the Anunnaki‽

I was asked to provide a short summary of my investment theses especially related to silver. Well I have to practice keeping it short.

1. Savings are deferred consumption/investment, which can be used for consumption/investment later.

2. Previously, savings without knowledge were able to provide a positive return on capital, in the 1700s this was about 5% but has steadily declined. Now it is hardly possible to get more than 2%. Taxation by inflation (capital "gains") is the main way how this is accomplished lately.

3. The Knowledge age does change the rules such that very little capital is typically needed for the most interesting projects. Some is needed, but the critical component is knowledge.

4. Accumulated capital preservation is difficult, therefore it makes sense to only hold a smallish amount and diversify it to combat threats.

5. "Don't invest more than you can afford to lose" means that every asset, person, jurisdiction, vehicle etc. you own should only be a smallish % of your portfolio that you can afford to lose, in case a threat towards that materializes. Not all assets can go to zero in the market, but most can be taken away from you, resulting in total loss of that asset. Some assets may also be very illiquid for an unforeknown time, depending on the jurisdiction, so there always need to be some assets you can tap into for the cashflow needs.

6. Keeping your skills up-to-date, both personal/network skills, productive skills and asset management skills, is very important.

7. Portfolio should contain components that are well shielded and minimally intercorrelated against total loss risks (wealth preservation) and components that have a chance to appreciate in value and/or provide cash flow.

8. I have been a "silver bug" in a sense that I regarded it as a great investment and was overweight, in 2006-2013, then I was a Bitcoin bug for a short time, and now have been a Monero bug, because it now holds the same promise that the previous ones did earlier. (Monero is so cheap that I am not even much weighted, because the potential upside is so great.) Both silver and bitcoin are now relegated to wealth preservation roles in my thinking, both still having the potential of large upside though.

9. I have never been a gold bug but have occasionally owned some gold.

10. Neither a lender nor a borrower be. Knowledge economy does not have a place for debt (obligation to pay a fixed sum regardless of the outcome of the venture) in it. Crowdfunding in all forms is the way to go.

11. The role of financial capital is to enable the most effective use of knowledge capital, and even before Bitcoin was invented, my productivity has not much been hampered by the lack of financial capital. I am content with the amount that I have, and in the long term more is probably coming when one of my current or future long-shots matures. The excess I have keenly donated to charitable purposes, although finding worthy recipients is difficult.

12. The theses do not consider the "industrial-age" situations where pooling of massive resources under a centralized command was necessary. Some projects still have these attributes, but most of them could already be reorganized, power politics are hindering the progress.

Of course they have a net to arrest the collapse (but not until after the necessary suffering and war to get the capitulation of nation-state sovereignty they demand). The collapse is to scare everyone into the one-world reserve currency monetary reset outcome.

Bitcoin is part of the plan to move us to centrally controlled digital money.

Again, the notion that so ominous a body as your "NWO" (TPTB_need_war) would engineer a system (be it a computer or financial system) without a net jutting out of the cliff face (below the proverbial "cliff's edge") is patently absurd.

Armstrong finally sets the exact date of the global collapse.

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article140550440/Es-wird-zu-einem-grossen-Crash-kommen.html


If anyone can speak German and give us a more accurate translation, that might be useful.

The "NWO" (TPTB_need_war) could engineer remote shutdown for "users" (Cheung) but not themselves‽

FUD.

I know the hardware is compromised but not to the degree you are thinking.

"Solution" means a change from the existing. Code will still run on hardware, but the nature of the changes required have nothing to with any role that hardware plays.

I understand from what you wrote upthread that you may think that for as long as we use the establishment's hardware, then we can't win, and I emphatically disagree (and have very sound reasons for disagreeing which I will not detail now).

You mean to say, then, that you will execute these algorithms in your mind and network via telepathy?

Clever but no the solution is paradigmatic or algorithmic and not related to hardware.

Establishment computer hardware is now a sound outcrop whereupon “the” house of socio-economic rethought ought be built‽

I thought I had a $millionaire angel investor (who understands crypto because he is a computer science guy) until he got sick with Multiple Sclerosis too and got most of his coins stolen. But who knows, maybe he was just a scammer.

I think if I revealed everything in public to try to teach people like you at this juncture, then I might as well just hand my ideas to others to steal from me. Then what is the point?

And the time I would expend doing all that, would be better be spent implementing the damn thing.

I only put out a feeler to see if anyone could part with a measly $10,000 because you all keep asking me if I am going to implement something and I told you I would like to work on it if I had sufficient finances.

Heck I paid $30,000 for a week's programming work in 2001, when the dollar was worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it is today.

We have the chance to totally change the world and become $billionaires and no one has $10,000 to spare. Fucking amazing.

So please don't ask me again why I am not talking about what I am working on or whatever. Why should I bother?

So what do I get for revealing the details now (versus working in private to implement and earn money on an altcoin)?

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

I will give you one hint. Adjustments to difficulty are no longer critical.

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

I am the former AnonyMint.

I agree with Satoshi. Even though Bitcoin is destined by design to become the centralized bankster coin that they (the DEEP STATE or NSA) commissioned, it can for the time being be used anonymously if careful and it is the reserve currency of the altcoins and thus is building an altcoin ecosystem wherein the superior design can be realized.

Perhaps "Satoshi" outsmarted his handlers. That would be historically the wise way an engineer would fool those he works for (knowing that they would continue without him anyway).

Kudos, I did edit my statement to fix the error. (I tend to think of win-win more in the realm of joining a positive investment together not as trade). But you made the same error again, so I corrected your statement also.

When someone buys gold and someone sells gold, then gold either appreciates or depreciates, there is only one winner and one loser in terms of the ROI.

However it is more complex than that of course because the entities may have other constraints to maximize, such as timing, liquidity, etc.. And in general a trade can also be for something both parties need, e.g. you give me cash and I give you good or service, then I use that cash to replenish inventory.

I do understand your point that the best trades are win-win, unfortunately if you always defined a market trade that way, you would be married to Marxism (the ability to guarantee and control outcomes) and thus you would be in lose-lose trajectory holistically.

I understand that you are promoting win-win scenarios (and I don't disagree with trying to be involved in positive scenarios), but even if two parties think it is win-win, they aren't in entire control of that. Only later can they determine whether it was.

A trade shouldn't bind me to promises of what I can't promise.

Sorry I have to disagree with you for the most part. You are leaning communist if you really meant every trade must be win-win.

...

TPTB, now you´re talking.  Stuff we all can understand.

OK, I hear you re the (quiet) assets you and CC have talked about, as well as those that could become known.  That topic is one some of my amigos and I are talking about.

To raise real money, you are going to have to lay out some version or other of a Business Plan that would be credible to many.  Else, you limit your "Investor Universe" to very few...  Unless you find an angel investor who understands what you are doing and can pony up the amount you need to do it.

Which maybe you can!  Good luck!

[Ugh cigars, they make me nauseous unless I spit a lot...]

*   *   *

aminorex, that is generally true.  I could not have gotten to where I am without win-win along the way.