Topic: Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity? - page 33. (Read 102814 times)
January 08, 2014, 03:15:19 AM
Yepp we are done for...
January 08, 2014, 12:07:01 AM
I would prefer to stop now posting, unless there is really some new argument isn't already dealt with in all of my archived posts.
I realize someone can quote from one of my posts then appear to have revealed an error, then it causes me to come back and reassimilate past posts with further explanation. But even though I enjoy it, I need to stop doing this because otherwise I will never get any real work done.
And my belief is we need for me to get real work done.
So hopefully this is goodbye and best wishes from AnonyMint.
Let's try to win. I don't believe we will get there with Bitcoin's major flaws such as funding from transaction fees (which I believe has numerous failure modes and attack vectors detailed the November and December archives of my posts) instead of maintaining the rate of expansion of the base money supply. And that isn't the only Bitcoin flaw I've detailed in my posts.
Again I don't claim to be omniscient. Vaporware doesn't prove a damn thing. The best is to compete and let the market prove the reality.
It will be most rewarding if some of you will be making the arguments for the expanding money supply for that competing altcoin. Can you help AnonyMint retire? He is getting old and he is a much better programmer than a writer.
Technological unemployment and the future employment for the unskilled:
Ben-d-you-over-anke's ZIRP's effect on your retirement:
Debt's effect on human morals, remember the bath houses of Rome:
Bread and circus of Rome near the end:
It would be funny, if ... I was still 5 years old:
Regulation increasing:
Scams increasing as debt has caused people to be frivolous and reject caution with money:
I realize someone can quote from one of my posts then appear to have revealed an error, then it causes me to come back and reassimilate past posts with further explanation. But even though I enjoy it, I need to stop doing this because otherwise I will never get any real work done.
And my belief is we need for me to get real work done.
So hopefully this is goodbye and best wishes from AnonyMint.
Let's try to win. I don't believe we will get there with Bitcoin's major flaws such as funding from transaction fees (which I believe has numerous failure modes and attack vectors detailed the November and December archives of my posts) instead of maintaining the rate of expansion of the base money supply. And that isn't the only Bitcoin flaw I've detailed in my posts.
Again I don't claim to be omniscient. Vaporware doesn't prove a damn thing. The best is to compete and let the market prove the reality.
It will be most rewarding if some of you will be making the arguments for the expanding money supply for that competing altcoin. Can you help AnonyMint retire? He is getting old and he is a much better programmer than a writer.
Technological unemployment and the future employment for the unskilled:
Ben-d-you-over-anke's ZIRP's effect on your retirement:
Debt's effect on human morals, remember the bath houses of Rome:
Bread and circus of Rome near the end:
It would be funny, if ... I was still 5 years old:
Regulation increasing:
Scams increasing as debt has caused people to be frivolous and reject caution with money:
January 07, 2014, 10:46:46 PM
Exponentially falling prices due to productivity growth don't lead to hoarding.
Most people look to Bitcoin's current price activity as a counterargument. Bitcoin is not a good counterargument because this phenomenon is a different type of deflation; it's a short-run effect that occurs while bitcoin is being monetized. If people expect that Bitcoin will increase in value faster than they can get return on their capital, they will certainly hoard.
Again, the only reason this is happening is because bitcoin adoption is still in the initial phases and hasn't reached equilibrium. This is a sigmoid trend and will not continue forever.
Why don't falling prices encourage hoarding?
Because even if the gold/bitcoin quantities are not increasing faster than the growth rate of the economy, it will always be prudent to invest your money because the nominal interest rate will not be negative. The real interest rate will always be higher in absolute value than the deflation rate.
Most people look to Bitcoin's current price activity as a counterargument. Bitcoin is not a good counterargument because this phenomenon is a different type of deflation; it's a short-run effect that occurs while bitcoin is being monetized. If people expect that Bitcoin will increase in value faster than they can get return on their capital, they will certainly hoard.
Again, the only reason this is happening is because bitcoin adoption is still in the initial phases and hasn't reached equilibrium. This is a sigmoid trend and will not continue forever.
Why don't falling prices encourage hoarding?
Because even if the gold/bitcoin quantities are not increasing faster than the growth rate of the economy, it will always be prudent to invest your money because the nominal interest rate will not be negative. The real interest rate will always be higher in absolute value than the deflation rate.
I am glad you raised this point for clarification. My prior logic was spread across several disjoint posts in the Peter Schiff thread in the Economics forum and the Mini-block chain thread debate with bitfreak!.
Perhaps you don't understand if you have not yet grasped fully the depth of my understanding of macro economic efficiency (or can point out a flaw in that understanding). Or if you take my declining price comment out-of-context of the prior stipulation of constant or declining M, then I would be incorrect. Or perhaps you understood already and wanted me to explain further for the benefit of us all.
With a constant or declining M, then at-risk (not dumb, mayonnaise debt spread) investment and productivity of supply Q can't increase due to hoarding as explained in the following paragraph.
Refer to my prior post today and the explanation of how dividends and interest rates aggregate to those who can capture the public backstop of taxation, because otherwise without insurance and a government enforcement of debts, then default risk will cause these dumb (because they can't intelligently choose stocks or business ventures) investors to fail over time, especially relative to those at-risk in stocks and business ventures with higher potential gains relative to the actual risk of failure of investment. See dividends and interest rate "investing" is really socialism because all the capital will end up with those who capture the government (i.e. the smaller banks failure and are eaten by the larger ones with complicit government), and remember insurance can't invest at-risk and thus does the same thing.
And don't tell me that limiting the supply of base money will limit debt. We have private bank gold certificate notes for fractional reserve banking in the 1800s as an example (and many others). Much better that the base money supply be expanded so the rich can't use the debt expansions and contractions as way to get ahead of the "smaller things grow faster" middle class. Much better we have an altcoin with perpetual debasement of 5% than (not as decentralized) colored coins Mastercoin and back on the same hamster wheel again.
Debt and loans based "invesment" is really about everyone doing the same dumb thing (for greater economies-of-scale for the rich such as Warren Buffet) without an expertise applied to the at-risk investment process of producing winners and losers. Guarantee success == guaranteed failure. Without investment risk, there is no intelligence incentivized.
So with constant or declining money supply M either you increase the demand for socialism and failure and also my math in prior post becomes (x + decline in M) instead of (x - an increase in M), so capital is hoarded over time by the rich who capture the government, or the economy is in failure (causing the price declines of conspicuous consumption assets due to collapsing demand, but not decline in price of produced goods of things people must have because that supply can collapse but the demand can't because they are daily necessities) and money is hoarded into small private stashes.
Read my prior post as to why increasing the money supply with a decentralized proof-of-work is the only solution I see. We suddenly have the technology to fix this hamster wheel that has been on our backs since the Mesopotamia.
Think about the dynamics of the equilibrium: if people were better off hoarding their cash than investing it, there would be no investment and the economy would not grow, and they wouldn't be better off hoarding because there wouldn't be deflation.
Agreed the vicious cycle of failure that the global economy has entered since at least 2007. We have stagflation, i.e. increases in prices of things produced, and deflation of investment, relative wages, and demand for assets for which demand was pulled forward by 30 years with 30 year mortgages. If we don't break out of it, we could end up in a Madmax Dark Age.
I don't see any reason why something as immaterial as the inflation/deflation rate should influence the real interest rate. In other words, why should inflation/deflation affect the relative amount of people producing things for consumption vs. investing in future production?
Do you refer to the monetary M rate or the price P rate?
At least M need to be increasing for the economy to be healthy as I explained above. P could decline even with M increasing as investment leads to increased productivity of produced goods. Even assets might decline in price P as increases in productivity can increase supply Q (of houses, commodities, etc). This would be healthy. Please note I stipulated the statement you quoted with the requirement that M was constant or declining, then I said declining P would not be stable in that case.
Remember smaller things grow faster (i.e. local actors are closer to the optimum local annealing gradients), so expanding M and Q are good for the middle class.
Tie this back into simulated annealing. Remember if cool ice too quickly, the local molecules don't have time to relax and find optimally distributed structures, thus we get cracks. Rapid global cooling is not available top-down. This analogy explains why smaller things grow faster.
Another angle:
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment,
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment,
That is not my reason for my claim as detailed in this and the prior post. Rather I am saying we have to continually dilute the large capitalists which want to use dumb fixed and guaranteed returns on usury with captured power vacuum of government to parasite and enslave "smaller things grow faster" investment.
I am 100% in favor of highly expert capitalists who invest (their effort, expertise, and money) at-risk in the highest returning ventures, not in usury and government capture. I am not the Marxist, but those who believe in dividends, bonds, and insurance are.
January 07, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Having a little fun today:
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/01/will-the-reforms-speed-growth-in-china/#comment-9023
I quoted myself and I am the antithesis of a Marxist, specifically a minanarchist, Libetarian, Austrian economics ideology.
You are actually the Fascist, Socialist Pig but you don't realize why because you lack basic math skills as explained below.
That is not my reason for my claim as detailed in this and the linked post. Rather I am saying we have to continually dilute the large capitalists which want to use dumb fixed and guaranteed returns on usury with captured power vacuum of government to parasite and enslave "smaller things grow faster" investment.
I am 100% in favor of highly expert capitalists who invest (their effort, expertise, and money) at-risk in the highest returning ventures, not in usury and government capture. I am not the Marxist, but those who believe in dividends, bonds, and insurance are.
The alternative is worse for the poor, as I stated eventually via compounding the rich must mathematically hold all of the money. (Worse as they aggregate more wealth, they become powerful enough to capture the government's taxation powers and then use the public backstop to guarantee their dividends.) Then you have slavery because they can dictate all the terms by which they will invest some money, i.e. interest rates could go as high as infinity if only one person held all the money. You need to learn the math of why more independent actors in an economy is directly correlated to macro economic efficiency and thus prosperity.
At least with the perpetual debasement, some money every year is being created to keep the rich from having a monopoly on available money. Instead of the dividends and interest bearing loans (bonds) of the rich gaining x% per year, they only gain (x - debasement)% or (x - inflation)%. The one big advantage the poor have is that smaller things grow faster. On a hot day, a guy selling cold mineral water can triple or quadruple his investment and a billionaire can never do that. So it is not the debasement tax that is regressive, rather it is the lack of debasement and a government tax apparatus that is regressive. Even minimum wage is regressive you fool!
Also please understand that prices P can still decline when M is rising due to increases in investment and productivity for supply Q without collapsing velocity V.
Thus I conclude math is not your strong suite. So STFU and stop wasting my time. Idiot. Go hide under a rock and let it sink in instead of coming back for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths, ... to waste more of time explaining the same thing over and over again.
Now with the innovation proof-of-work, especially a design that leveraged CPUs that the lower class already own and would not allow GPUs, ASICs, FPGAs, and botnets, then lower classes would have some equal access to that newly created coin. More importantly in terms of maintaining a healthy supply of competing independent actors in the economy, there is a competition for the newly created coin, i.e. those who seek out microhydropower (small streams) which is the least expensive electricity on earth, a smaller economy-of-scale activity which the rich can't do.
And if we can defeat the government's power of taxation with anonymity and decentralized currency and 3d printing commerce, then take away the corrupt backstop of the rich and force them to risk their capital and compete (where they will get resoundly chewed up by smaller things growing faster).
You idiots are why we end up with Dark Ages.
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/01/will-the-reforms-speed-growth-in-china/#comment-9023
Wow that is a lot buzz words. Your source is some clueless marxist on these forums, except you are misquoting him too. its sad.
I quoted myself and I am the antithesis of a Marxist, specifically a minanarchist, Libetarian, Austrian economics ideology.
You are actually the Fascist, Socialist Pig but you don't realize why because you lack basic math skills as explained below.
Another angle:
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment,
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment,
That is not my reason for my claim as detailed in this and the linked post. Rather I am saying we have to continually dilute the large capitalists which want to use dumb fixed and guaranteed returns on usury with captured power vacuum of government to parasite and enslave "smaller things grow faster" investment.
I am 100% in favor of highly expert capitalists who invest (their effort, expertise, and money) at-risk in the highest returning ventures, not in usury and government capture. I am not the Marxist, but those who believe in dividends, bonds, and insurance are.
But lets put aside the class warfare propaganda for a second and how utterly wrong your goals and values are.
Even if I accepted your values of what is desirable, your proposed method would do the opposite of what you want. A 5% devaluation of currency per year means a 5% tax on savings account (0% tax on property). To believe that it will cause the rich to lose money while the middle class and poor will be unhurt by it is absurd. The rich keep all their money in assets which earn them dividends. When the money loses value all their assets gain value. Net loss is 0%. However, the middle class cannot afford to spend the time and risk their meager life savings and retirement on such plans. So they will instead be losing money every year. Meanwhile the poor don't have much in savings (but suffer a lot more for each loss), but they aren't getting their salary constantly renegotiated to keep up. If you adjust the minimum wage from 30 years ago for inflation it comes up to over 20$ in todays money, much more then they are actually making.
You are punishing the poor, taxing the middle class, rewarding the rich, and calling it a progressive method absolutely necessary to redistributing wealth.
Even if I accepted your values of what is desirable, your proposed method would do the opposite of what you want. A 5% devaluation of currency per year means a 5% tax on savings account (0% tax on property). To believe that it will cause the rich to lose money while the middle class and poor will be unhurt by it is absurd. The rich keep all their money in assets which earn them dividends. When the money loses value all their assets gain value. Net loss is 0%. However, the middle class cannot afford to spend the time and risk their meager life savings and retirement on such plans. So they will instead be losing money every year. Meanwhile the poor don't have much in savings (but suffer a lot more for each loss), but they aren't getting their salary constantly renegotiated to keep up. If you adjust the minimum wage from 30 years ago for inflation it comes up to over 20$ in todays money, much more then they are actually making.
You are punishing the poor, taxing the middle class, rewarding the rich, and calling it a progressive method absolutely necessary to redistributing wealth.
The alternative is worse for the poor, as I stated eventually via compounding the rich must mathematically hold all of the money. (Worse as they aggregate more wealth, they become powerful enough to capture the government's taxation powers and then use the public backstop to guarantee their dividends.) Then you have slavery because they can dictate all the terms by which they will invest some money, i.e. interest rates could go as high as infinity if only one person held all the money. You need to learn the math of why more independent actors in an economy is directly correlated to macro economic efficiency and thus prosperity.
At least with the perpetual debasement, some money every year is being created to keep the rich from having a monopoly on available money. Instead of the dividends and interest bearing loans (bonds) of the rich gaining x% per year, they only gain (x - debasement)% or (x - inflation)%. The one big advantage the poor have is that smaller things grow faster. On a hot day, a guy selling cold mineral water can triple or quadruple his investment and a billionaire can never do that. So it is not the debasement tax that is regressive, rather it is the lack of debasement and a government tax apparatus that is regressive. Even minimum wage is regressive you fool!
Also please understand that prices P can still decline when M is rising due to increases in investment and productivity for supply Q without collapsing velocity V.
Thus I conclude math is not your strong suite. So STFU and stop wasting my time. Idiot. Go hide under a rock and let it sink in instead of coming back for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths, ... to waste more of time explaining the same thing over and over again.
Now with the innovation proof-of-work, especially a design that leveraged CPUs that the lower class already own and would not allow GPUs, ASICs, FPGAs, and botnets, then lower classes would have some equal access to that newly created coin. More importantly in terms of maintaining a healthy supply of competing independent actors in the economy, there is a competition for the newly created coin, i.e. those who seek out microhydropower (small streams) which is the least expensive electricity on earth, a smaller economy-of-scale activity which the rich can't do.
And if we can defeat the government's power of taxation with anonymity and decentralized currency and 3d printing commerce, then take away the corrupt backstop of the rich and force them to risk their capital and compete (where they will get resoundly chewed up by smaller things growing faster).
While your intent of rich only taxes is evil, stupid, and counterproductive; the actual specific method you propose and its result of a middle class only tax & poor only penalties are even MORE evil, stupid, and counterproductive in every way shape and form. And the absurdity of it all is that you don't realize you are proposing it because you are so ignorant.
You idiots are why we end up with Dark Ages.
January 07, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
AnonyMint, I'm quoting you from another thread because I want to see if I can clarify your thinking on this, because I think you're wrong:
You have the cause and effect backwards here. When an economy grows, prices will fall unless there is an equal percentage increase in money supply or velocity.
Note that money supply and velocity can be understood as one term M*V with units dollars circulated/year and interpreted as the amount of dollars bidding for all of the goods produced each year.
Without any changes to the money supply or people's desired purchasing power balances (this influences the V), prices will fall exponentially. Below, you explain why you think this is unstable:
Defend your argument.
Exponentially falling price levels leads to hoarding and Dark Age.
Exponentially rising velocity leads to a bubble and massive misallocation of resources as people take on debt faster and faster.
Even if you dispute the above two, you have the problem that exponential trends can not continue forever.
Thus you mathematically require that all growth has to be taken back at some point.
Sorry you have no argument.
This is difficult for me to articulate, so fill in the gaps in my logic with your own.
Exponentially falling prices due to productivity growth don't lead to hoarding.
Most people look to Bitcoin's current price activity as a counterargument. Bitcoin is not a good counterargument because this phenomenon is a different type of deflation; it's a short-run effect that occurs while bitcoin is being monetized. If people expect that Bitcoin will increase in value faster than they can get return on their capital, they will certainly hoard.
Again, the only reason this is happening is because bitcoin adoption is still in the initial phases and hasn't reached equilibrium. This is a sigmoid trend and will not continue forever.
Why don't falling prices encourage hoarding?
Because even if the gold/bitcoin quantities are not increasing faster than the growth rate of the economy, it will always be prudent to invest your money because the nominal interest rate will not be negative. The real interest rate will always be higher in absolute value than the deflation rate.
Think about the dynamics of the equilibrium: if people were better off hoarding their cash than investing it, there would be no investment and the economy would not grow, and they wouldn't be better off hoarding because there wouldn't be deflation.
I don't see any reason why something as immaterial as the inflation/deflation rate should influence the real interest rate. In other words, why should inflation/deflation affect the relative amount of people producing things for consumption vs. investing in future production?
Another angle:
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment, I'd ask, "why would anyone invest in something productive when they can just put their money in a bank account and get nominal returns = real interest rate + inflation rate? Obviously this is sloppy reasoning, but it makes as much sense as the "deflation leads to hoarding" claims.
In the Quantity Theory of Money a constant money supply requires that the economy can grow only if the velocity-of-money circulation rises exponentially or the price level declines exponentially, neither of which are plausible for a healthy economy.
You have the cause and effect backwards here. When an economy grows, prices will fall unless there is an equal percentage increase in money supply or velocity.
Note that money supply and velocity can be understood as one term M*V with units dollars circulated/year and interpreted as the amount of dollars bidding for all of the goods produced each year.
Without any changes to the money supply or people's desired purchasing power balances (this influences the V), prices will fall exponentially. Below, you explain why you think this is unstable:
Defend your argument.
Exponentially falling price levels leads to hoarding and Dark Age.
Exponentially rising velocity leads to a bubble and massive misallocation of resources as people take on debt faster and faster.
Even if you dispute the above two, you have the problem that exponential trends can not continue forever.
Thus you mathematically require that all growth has to be taken back at some point.
Sorry you have no argument.
This is difficult for me to articulate, so fill in the gaps in my logic with your own.
Exponentially falling prices due to productivity growth don't lead to hoarding.
Most people look to Bitcoin's current price activity as a counterargument. Bitcoin is not a good counterargument because this phenomenon is a different type of deflation; it's a short-run effect that occurs while bitcoin is being monetized. If people expect that Bitcoin will increase in value faster than they can get return on their capital, they will certainly hoard.
Again, the only reason this is happening is because bitcoin adoption is still in the initial phases and hasn't reached equilibrium. This is a sigmoid trend and will not continue forever.
Why don't falling prices encourage hoarding?
Because even if the gold/bitcoin quantities are not increasing faster than the growth rate of the economy, it will always be prudent to invest your money because the nominal interest rate will not be negative. The real interest rate will always be higher in absolute value than the deflation rate.
Think about the dynamics of the equilibrium: if people were better off hoarding their cash than investing it, there would be no investment and the economy would not grow, and they wouldn't be better off hoarding because there wouldn't be deflation.
I don't see any reason why something as immaterial as the inflation/deflation rate should influence the real interest rate. In other words, why should inflation/deflation affect the relative amount of people producing things for consumption vs. investing in future production?
Another angle:
In response to someone who claims that inflation is good for the economy because it encourages spending/investment, I'd ask, "why would anyone invest in something productive when they can just put their money in a bank account and get nominal returns = real interest rate + inflation rate? Obviously this is sloppy reasoning, but it makes as much sense as the "deflation leads to hoarding" claims.
January 07, 2014, 07:29:39 AM
Continuing on my rebuttal to blahbab's assertion that I don't know the meaning of 'efficient'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18944
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18682
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18789
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18944
Quote
Thanks, Shelby. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out over and over, but complex systems manage themselves much more efficiently than any single intelligence can. A child can figure this out but not, apparently, many trained economists.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18682
Quote
Quotes from the source you provided.
Thus the result is an insufficient supply of low-cost housing in China, and instead 64 million unoccupied condos which the working class can not afford. Sorry but socialism is a failed economic concept. People don’t deploy their capital, if they can’t profit on it.
Now I read the government is subsidizing more low-cost housing. Remember what happens when you give away for free, that which is not free (snarled toll roads when tolls were eliminated past holiday season).
That is why top-down economies fail (horrendously). No leaders are smart enough to do the opportunity cost thinking for 1 billion individuals.
And accelerating:
http://english.caixin.com/2011-08-08/100288640.html
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html
But given the Yuan peg and the resultant macro-economic subsidy for exporters (include recent direct subsidies of low interest loans), we don’t know if that productivity is real. It could be false demand, created by subsidies, with real profit margins being near 0 (or as my recent Chinese friend confirmed, in many cases negative real profits).
With a top-down economy driven by exogenous forex manipulation, the data is less meaningful until the tide goes out and we can see where all the subsidies were and who is swimming naked.
This is an example of the model myopia the professor is writing about. You claim efficiency gains, without looking at the systemic data, which determines what is efficient overall in the exogenous market fulcrum. Coase’s theorem tells us that the free market will dismantle (route around) subsidies because they are inefficient:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#europe
We won’t know what China’s *real* growth has been, until the tide of subsidies goes out. I suspect it has been near to 0 or less than zero. I fear a very bad outcome, because I understand that top-down economies are abject failures. If you say how can this be? How can an economy that has been reportedly growing at 10+% for decades, had no growth? How can it be that I see all this production and there be no real growth?
If you can’t answer those questions, then you know nothing about economics. And I don’t care where you got your PhD. China’s reported growth rate is a nominal figure. They don’t account properly for inflation. For example, they don’t account for the cost of stealing a peasant’s land and forcing him to the city, where his costs have skyrocketed. This works if the productivity has increased, but we don’t know if the productivity increased, because this mass migration was not done by free market forces, rather by top-down theft and slavery.
Yeah I am trying to shock you. Indeed China is nothing like a free market, as far as I can tell from a distance.
And China’s slavery system has been used to defeat free markets in the west, by creating a huge underbelly of unemployed in the west. But in some sense this is a market effect, because these people who are not knowledge workers, were sitting ducks as we come to the close of the industrial age. It was just time any way.
The USA has the best chance of adjusting quickly to the knowledge age, once the kids realize they shouldn’t be wasting $50,000 in student loans on a liberal arts education and instead invest their time at http://khanacademy.org or codecademy.org, etc..
China’s people could do that too, except it is not even in their mindset to produce knowledge for an income. As far as I know, they think you steal knowledge and the only things of value are hard assets and hard production (things that can be protected by force). Chinese culture understand the concept of force and the thick boot.
This means destroying the macroeconomic export subsidy, because it means real wages must rise must faster than they have been, in order to afford these imports. Remember China is the low price producer, so imports mean upscale goods.
The basic problem is that China can’t raise wages, because it doesn’t produce anything of significant profit. It has pursued a mercantile policy of stealing industries via subsidies and slavery.
This is a big difference from Japan, where Japan did at least produce high quality products with some profit margins. Even today, I am told not to buy a Korean or Chinese car, only a Japanese one is quality I am told (metalurgy, engineering, etc). And the Japanese cars are much more expensive where I am. I suppose you are all aware of the exploding Chinese capacitors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jun/29/dell-problems-capacitors
Exactly what this article is trying to explain is naive modeling.
Projecting statistics that are faulty, because they are nominal figures, that are not real adjusted to the reality of the macroeconomic subsidy and the resultant imbalances that we can gleem from for example the consumer share of GDP.
And this is why I think rebalancing will fail politically in China. The Chinese leaders will think they can just command consumer share to increase (as if that statistic is the source of the problem), yet they will protect exports and fixed investment simultaneously with targetted loans, etc.. They will be fighting against what they are trying to accomplish, and thus it will only rebalance when it implodes due to economic failure.
Quote
“To prevent unearned income (economic rent) from adding to the economy’s cost of living and doing business, potentially rent-yielding infrastructure should be kept in the public domain”
Thus the result is an insufficient supply of low-cost housing in China, and instead 64 million unoccupied condos which the working class can not afford. Sorry but socialism is a failed economic concept. People don’t deploy their capital, if they can’t profit on it.
Now I read the government is subsidizing more low-cost housing. Remember what happens when you give away for free, that which is not free (snarled toll roads when tolls were eliminated past holiday season).
Quote
“every day you are ultimately responsible for ensuring that 4 billion meals are served and 55,000 new jobs are created. Every day”
That is why top-down economies fail (horrendously). No leaders are smart enough to do the opportunity cost thinking for 1 billion individuals.
Quote
“Because so many existing jobs get destroyed by automation”
And accelerating:
http://english.caixin.com/2011-08-08/100288640.html
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html
Quote
productivity grew at a 17% annually between 1995 and 2002
China’s labor force is now producing 3 times as much as it did 10 years ago
It is that Chinese manufacturers are becoming more efficient
China’s labor force is now producing 3 times as much as it did 10 years ago
It is that Chinese manufacturers are becoming more efficient
But given the Yuan peg and the resultant macro-economic subsidy for exporters (include recent direct subsidies of low interest loans), we don’t know if that productivity is real. It could be false demand, created by subsidies, with real profit margins being near 0 (or as my recent Chinese friend confirmed, in many cases negative real profits).
With a top-down economy driven by exogenous forex manipulation, the data is less meaningful until the tide goes out and we can see where all the subsidies were and who is swimming naked.
This is an example of the model myopia the professor is writing about. You claim efficiency gains, without looking at the systemic data, which determines what is efficient overall in the exogenous market fulcrum. Coase’s theorem tells us that the free market will dismantle (route around) subsidies because they are inefficient:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#europe
Quote
“Between 2000 and 2008 it contributed 43% of the country’s economic growth”
We won’t know what China’s *real* growth has been, until the tide of subsidies goes out. I suspect it has been near to 0 or less than zero. I fear a very bad outcome, because I understand that top-down economies are abject failures. If you say how can this be? How can an economy that has been reportedly growing at 10+% for decades, had no growth? How can it be that I see all this production and there be no real growth?
If you can’t answer those questions, then you know nothing about economics. And I don’t care where you got your PhD. China’s reported growth rate is a nominal figure. They don’t account properly for inflation. For example, they don’t account for the cost of stealing a peasant’s land and forcing him to the city, where his costs have skyrocketed. This works if the productivity has increased, but we don’t know if the productivity increased, because this mass migration was not done by free market forces, rather by top-down theft and slavery.
Yeah I am trying to shock you. Indeed China is nothing like a free market, as far as I can tell from a distance.
And China’s slavery system has been used to defeat free markets in the west, by creating a huge underbelly of unemployed in the west. But in some sense this is a market effect, because these people who are not knowledge workers, were sitting ducks as we come to the close of the industrial age. It was just time any way.
The USA has the best chance of adjusting quickly to the knowledge age, once the kids realize they shouldn’t be wasting $50,000 in student loans on a liberal arts education and instead invest their time at http://khanacademy.org or codecademy.org, etc..
China’s people could do that too, except it is not even in their mindset to produce knowledge for an income. As far as I know, they think you steal knowledge and the only things of value are hard assets and hard production (things that can be protected by force). Chinese culture understand the concept of force and the thick boot.
Quote
“spends its foreign-investment income on imports rather than on foreign securities”
This means destroying the macroeconomic export subsidy, because it means real wages must rise must faster than they have been, in order to afford these imports. Remember China is the low price producer, so imports mean upscale goods.
The basic problem is that China can’t raise wages, because it doesn’t produce anything of significant profit. It has pursued a mercantile policy of stealing industries via subsidies and slavery.
This is a big difference from Japan, where Japan did at least produce high quality products with some profit margins. Even today, I am told not to buy a Korean or Chinese car, only a Japanese one is quality I am told (metalurgy, engineering, etc). And the Japanese cars are much more expensive where I am. I suppose you are all aware of the exploding Chinese capacitors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jun/29/dell-problems-capacitors
Quote
“annual productivity growth of 17% means wages rising 15% and national tax income rising 22% which means rising investment in education, infrastructure, and health care”
Exactly what this article is trying to explain is naive modeling.
Projecting statistics that are faulty, because they are nominal figures, that are not real adjusted to the reality of the macroeconomic subsidy and the resultant imbalances that we can gleem from for example the consumer share of GDP.
And this is why I think rebalancing will fail politically in China. The Chinese leaders will think they can just command consumer share to increase (as if that statistic is the source of the problem), yet they will protect exports and fixed investment simultaneously with targetted loans, etc.. They will be fighting against what they are trying to accomplish, and thus it will only rebalance when it implodes due to economic failure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18789
Quote
I agree with your summary of the mathematical value of the free market, as it explains the problem of solving for the global minima, which is one way I have thought of the problem space in the past (coming from a computer science background and some study of artificial intelligence and models of the brain). As far as I know for solving *general* (unknown a priori) problems of N dimensions (variables), the only algorithm that won’t get stuck in a local minima, is some form of simulated annealing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing
Basically one needs to randomly jump sometimes after following a gradient. And doing this in parallel with multiple actors is much faster, especially if the solution space is changing (dynamic), which of course real life is.
Each autonomous actor moves along optimizing local gradients, and some are finding a more efficient gradient, and due to networking (communication), the other actors jump out of their inefficient gradient to copy the former.
To the extent a society suppresses networking and knowledge, it is going to be operating at the inefficiencies of the era before modern media and networks. So I concur that top-down information control would function at the lower levels of development, e.g. the agricultural and low information mass production industry.
I can’t think of any objections at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing
Basically one needs to randomly jump sometimes after following a gradient. And doing this in parallel with multiple actors is much faster, especially if the solution space is changing (dynamic), which of course real life is.
Each autonomous actor moves along optimizing local gradients, and some are finding a more efficient gradient, and due to networking (communication), the other actors jump out of their inefficient gradient to copy the former.
To the extent a society suppresses networking and knowledge, it is going to be operating at the inefficiencies of the era before modern media and networks. So I concur that top-down information control would function at the lower levels of development, e.g. the agricultural and low information mass production industry.
I can’t think of any objections at the moment.
January 07, 2014, 07:17:51 AM
RAJSALLIN,
Thanks.
I can either hope that what I've written in this thread is incorrect, or I can hope we can make an altcoin that busts us out of this mess.
I would prefer to be proactive on the latter, than hiding my eyes and hoping our global Titanic isn't sinking.
Something new I just wrote...
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/01/will-the-reforms-speed-growth-in-china/#comment-8882
Thanks.
I can either hope that what I've written in this thread is incorrect, or I can hope we can make an altcoin that busts us out of this mess.
I would prefer to be proactive on the latter, than hiding my eyes and hoping our global Titanic isn't sinking.
Something new I just wrote...
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/01/will-the-reforms-speed-growth-in-china/#comment-8882
Additional thought. Tie this back into simulated annealing. Remember if cool ice too quickly, the local molecules don't have time to relax and find optimally distributed structures, thus we get cracks. Rapid global cooling top-down (e.g. massive expansion of debt, unbalanced model accumulating $30 trillion to a few taipans) creates cracks (in social capital) which can't be fixed unless we melt the ice and start over again.
January 07, 2014, 05:44:13 AM
I think Anonymint is an intelligent individual who thinks outside the box more than most. It's incredibly important to not get stuck in the views the media pumps into us and be able to look at things from another perspective. Of course I'm hoping that he and Armstrong are wrong on a lot of things and I think he would be the first to acknowledge if this happens. I personally think Anonymint is to negative but you also have to understand that things don't look to bright at the moment. A lot of areas are pointing towards the possibility we are in a pre war time like the 1930s.
It's extremely important that these things are discussed and also that we don't forget our history since history often rimes. Maybe we can combine our thoughts and think of some way to change the course of the future. for the record I do believe a truly anonymous crypto currency could be a step in the right direction. I'm not sure it's AnonyMints coin or maybe more likely zerocoin but any altcoin coming out with anonymity added will gain my attention.
Edit: I do agree with the poster above that intelligence from a standard IQ test isn't enough to make substantial assessments on someones intelligence. I've met people who have extremely high documented IQs who have been stuck thinking in a certain way and in such have a hard time seeing things for what they are. I think it's very dangerous to use an IQ test as something else than a proof of an individual having a functioning brain in a very specific area.
It's extremely important that these things are discussed and also that we don't forget our history since history often rimes. Maybe we can combine our thoughts and think of some way to change the course of the future. for the record I do believe a truly anonymous crypto currency could be a step in the right direction. I'm not sure it's AnonyMints coin or maybe more likely zerocoin but any altcoin coming out with anonymity added will gain my attention.
Edit: I do agree with the poster above that intelligence from a standard IQ test isn't enough to make substantial assessments on someones intelligence. I've met people who have extremely high documented IQs who have been stuck thinking in a certain way and in such have a hard time seeing things for what they are. I think it's very dangerous to use an IQ test as something else than a proof of an individual having a functioning brain in a very specific area.
January 07, 2014, 04:06:53 AM
January 07, 2014, 04:04:45 AM
I beginning to think of Anonymint as a sort of prophet. I have learned a great deal just from reading the past few weeks of his postings. Anonymint, I salute you. Keep up the good work.
January 07, 2014, 02:00:12 AM
I'm just wondering, does AnonyMint actually expect people to read all his links? I guess it's just another sign of rather extremely overblown ego... 
Haha I checked out his blog but was wondering the same thing. He's an interesting guy. I think he's doing it so he can show posterity that he was right all along if it turns out that way. Any comment Anonymint?
Originally it was an attempt to see if I could change the mind of people.
Then it smoothly transitioned to market research and development of concepts for a coming altcoin.
By now you are correct, my commentary is winding down to organizing a record for posterity to hopefully show in retrospect that the minanarchists had something important to add to the study of macro economics.
It has occurred to me there is probably an effectual correlation between the debt-bubble misallocating human capital (time and education) and the lack of time for westerners to read in-depth expositions on macro economics. Most of us are too busy for example chasing the next speculation or slaving to meet expenses (see prior post) to actually study and research. And even many (or perhaps only some) those who study and research are influenced by the debt-funding in the academic system.
Yet blabblah assures us that debt doesn't matter.
January 07, 2014, 01:48:16 AM
January 07, 2014, 12:59:27 AM
So tell me a couple of things: when those IQ tests are designed and calibrated, who decides that a particular combination of answers, 'X', is 3-and-a-bit standard deviations above the mean and therefore worthy of 150 brownie points and widespread adulation, whereas another combination, 'Y' is only awarded 50 points despite X and Y being equally 'abnormal'? Oh, because IQ is a real-world test of fitness that everyone is assumed forced to try their best at, so low-to-middling results are less fit? Oh the irony...
That would be a good argument against the validity of IQ tests if they had no real-life predictive ability or if the questions had no correct answers.
If you look at IQ test questions, you'll see that one answer does indeed stand out as correct; the person who can identify this answer can also be expected to be good at solving the sorts of real-life problems that people encounter.
Your epistemological point is well taken (but can also be answered), but in practice these tests are perfectly valid. It just boils down to what I described above.
January 07, 2014, 12:48:08 AM
I'm just wondering, does AnonyMint actually expect people to read all his links? I guess it's just another sign of rather extremely overblown ego...
Haha I checked out his blog but was wondering the same thing. He's an interesting guy. I think he's doing it so he can show posterity that he was right all along if it turns out that way. Any comment Anonymint?
January 06, 2014, 05:07:23 PM
I'm just wondering, does AnonyMint actually expect people to read all his links? I guess it's just another sign of rather extremely overblown ego...
January 06, 2014, 05:23:49 AM
CIA drives the drug trade:
Correct. Governor Clinton ran interference for the CIA drug flights which operated out of Mena, AR. Oliver North oversaw the operation for awhile. I saw him on TV about 5 years ago where he was revered as a war hero. What a crock.
January 05, 2014, 10:29:33 PM
January 05, 2014, 09:13:20 PM
blablahblah, some education for you on simulated annealing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18789
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18911
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/08/the-urbanization-fallacy/#comment-644
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18944
https://web.archive.org/web/20130213161115/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/01/14/recognizing-the-need-for-economic-adjustment/#comment-21439
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091541/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/28/the-imf-on-overinvestment/#comment-21099
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3179
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19397
The lie of debt and insurance:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-21561
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18682
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18792
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17172
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-19070
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16630
The bankster business model (the global conspiracy):
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17427
Oh but power-elite globalist CNN's owner Ted Turner wants a utopia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
And Monsanto's genetically engineered razor blade model for agriculture causes the growth of super-weeds which render the land incapable of production.
And we don't need to wonder why the agricultural land failed at the end of the Roman empire leading to a 600 - 1000 year Dark Age. It isn't amazing all the overcapacity and stupid shit people can do when they have an unlimited supply of debt to fund their activities.
Armstrong wrote some detailed information about Cheney's role:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/just-for-the-record-fourth-branch-of-government/http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/just-for-the-record-fourth-branch-of-government/
And we know he was instrumental in 9/11 too. But Martin do you really think Cheney did this with his Neocon coalition, or did he have a higher echelon blessing. This 4th branch of government wasn't created by Cheney. I think it was Eisenhower who warned in a speech about the military-industrial complex control over the government.
My broad stroke prediction for the future:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130623021024/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/06/10/how-much-investment-is-optimal/#comment-23758
https://web.archive.org/web/20130502021707/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/03/21/when-do-we-call-it-a-solvency-crisis/#comment-21988
https://web.archive.org/web/20130411201742/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/04/three-cheers-for-the-new-data/#comment-20099
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18823
My comments on the following pages cover the technological unemployment crisis ahead and I even summarize the 78 year cycle with a chart of the past events:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130629103550/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/02/21/a-brief-history-of-the-chinese-growth-model/#comment-21562
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18853
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091541/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/28/the-imf-on-overinvestment/#comment-20711
https://web.archive.org/web/20130411201742/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/04/three-cheers-for-the-new-data/#comment-20394
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19226
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19319
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18648
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18795
Outsourcing is peaking:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18898
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2550615 (decline to 2% for 2013 reached as predicted)
Chinese corporate debt is the highest in the world as a percentage of GDP:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18916
China's ruling class is checkmated:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16624
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16509
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16585
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-17032
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16951
The death of the industrial age, stored capital, and collectivism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16735
My analysis of the Philippines predated the Forbes article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091508/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/02/14/what-ill-be-watching-in-2013/#comment-21493
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/21/heres-why-the-philippines-economic-miracle-is-really-a-bubble-in-disguise/
Brazil:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17177
CIA drives the drug trade:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19398
giantdragon, people will pay for open source because the cost of not paying will be higher, because those with money to buy will be those with designs to sell (the rest of society will be bankrupt). Thus we designers will be cross-pollinating our designs, i.e. working together to make them interoperable. Those who steal won't have the knowledge to use them effectively. I expounded on this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624015512/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/10/investment-and-consumption/#comment-23041
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401450
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401510
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401595
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401698
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18789
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18911
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/08/the-urbanization-fallacy/#comment-644
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18944
https://web.archive.org/web/20130213161115/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/01/14/recognizing-the-need-for-economic-adjustment/#comment-21439
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091541/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/28/the-imf-on-overinvestment/#comment-21099
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3179
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19397
The only remote possible strategy for survival might have been to kill a few dogs with kicks to the head and then lead the pack to eating the dead dogs. Then lead that pack against those who were watching the ordeal.
Top-down control must become a vicious cancer, because it must destroy everything by preventing annealing thus to survive people must violate the control. Annealing is precisely localized freedom.
The irony is how readers may not realize we are approaching top-down control in our own countries.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4336719
Top-down control must become a vicious cancer, because it must destroy everything by preventing annealing thus to survive people must violate the control. Annealing is precisely localized freedom.
The irony is how readers may not realize we are approaching top-down control in our own countries.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4336719
The lie of debt and insurance:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-21561
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18682
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18792
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17172
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-19070
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16630
The bankster business model (the global conspiracy):
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17427
....
Not to worry! Those trees will be provided for free from the patented DNA banks of Monsanto...
When you plant 5000 or 10000 trees in a region where trees were not missing to balance the human impact elsewhere, isn't that also an attack on Mother Nature? What about irrigation?
Not to worry! Those trees will be provided for free from the patented DNA banks of Monsanto...
When you plant 5000 or 10000 trees in a region where trees were not missing to balance the human impact elsewhere, isn't that also an attack on Mother Nature? What about irrigation?
Oh but power-elite globalist CNN's owner Ted Turner wants a utopia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
And Monsanto's genetically engineered razor blade model for agriculture causes the growth of super-weeds which render the land incapable of production.
And we don't need to wonder why the agricultural land failed at the end of the Roman empire leading to a 600 - 1000 year Dark Age. It isn't amazing all the overcapacity and stupid shit people can do when they have an unlimited supply of debt to fund their activities.
Armstrong wrote some detailed information about Cheney's role:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/just-for-the-record-fourth-branch-of-government/http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/just-for-the-record-fourth-branch-of-government/
And we know he was instrumental in 9/11 too. But Martin do you really think Cheney did this with his Neocon coalition, or did he have a higher echelon blessing. This 4th branch of government wasn't created by Cheney. I think it was Eisenhower who warned in a speech about the military-industrial complex control over the government.
My broad stroke prediction for the future:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130623021024/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/06/10/how-much-investment-is-optimal/#comment-23758
https://web.archive.org/web/20130502021707/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/03/21/when-do-we-call-it-a-solvency-crisis/#comment-21988
https://web.archive.org/web/20130411201742/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/04/three-cheers-for-the-new-data/#comment-20099
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18823
My comments on the following pages cover the technological unemployment crisis ahead and I even summarize the 78 year cycle with a chart of the past events:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130629103550/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/02/21/a-brief-history-of-the-chinese-growth-model/#comment-21562
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18853
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091541/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/28/the-imf-on-overinvestment/#comment-20711
https://web.archive.org/web/20130411201742/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/12/04/three-cheers-for-the-new-data/#comment-20394
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19226
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19319
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18648
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18795
Outsourcing is peaking:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18898
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2550615 (decline to 2% for 2013 reached as predicted)
Chinese corporate debt is the highest in the world as a percentage of GDP:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130206035650/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18916
China's ruling class is checkmated:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16624
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16509
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16585
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-17032
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16951
The death of the industrial age, stored capital, and collectivism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603115932/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/23/can-china-increase-export-competitiveness/#comment-16735
My analysis of the Philippines predated the Forbes article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624091508/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/02/14/what-ill-be-watching-in-2013/#comment-21493
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/21/heres-why-the-philippines-economic-miracle-is-really-a-bubble-in-disguise/
Brazil:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130217223504/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/#comment-17177
CIA drives the drug trade:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035050/http://www.mpettis.com/2012/11/17/is-there-an-asian-rmb-bloc/#comment-19398
giantdragon, people will pay for open source because the cost of not paying will be higher, because those with money to buy will be those with designs to sell (the rest of society will be bankrupt). Thus we designers will be cross-pollinating our designs, i.e. working together to make them interoperable. Those who steal won't have the knowledge to use them effectively. I expounded on this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130624015512/http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/10/investment-and-consumption/#comment-23041
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401450
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401510
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401595
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401698
January 05, 2014, 07:44:35 PM
the 3D printing revolution is coming and we will buy downloaded designs and print in our homes
People won't pay for these designs! This time resistance from pirates will be real, not as it was with movies and music - MAFIAA can be met with 3D printed guns! 
People will pay commissions for custom designs, or donate to designers for existing designs. Plus, jus as iTunes and Netflix provides a service or storage and organizing more than the service of selling music and videos, people will pay to have someone else store, catalog, and provide designs for them, instead of having to keep them on their hard drives themselves.
January 05, 2014, 12:30:46 PM
the 3D printing revolution is coming and we will buy downloaded designs and print in our homes
People won't pay for these designs! This time resistance from pirates will be real, not as it was with movies and music - MAFIAA can be met with 3D printed guns! Jump to: