Pages:
Author

Topic: Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity? - page 7. (Read 102809 times)

legendary
Activity: 1449
Merit: 1001
.....
The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyone's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  Roll Eyes

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

His system can work for a while - on very small scales for example the Israeli Kibbutz from the 1940's till about the 80's.
After that it more or less fell apart - greed and envy kicks in eventually.
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
every single law would be in a civil contract format, no law shall be forced on anyone, based on the anarchist voluntarist principles.
...
Its just that easy

I admire your optimism Bitcoinfreak, but I think you have a lot of misplaced faith in the lazy and economically unviable masses.

And I think that you severely underestimate the potential in the human race

Sorry BitcoinFreak12 your world fails for the same reason that communism fails (an utter misunderstanding of human nature.

The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyon's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  Roll Eyes

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

That's why money and state must be separate. Before blockchain came along this was achieved with banks, but that quickly converged to centralization. PoW secured blockchain allows competiton for control over money in a neutral way judged by an algorithm. Maybe land ownership will also be tracked via blockchain in the future, thus reducing the need for goverment even further. Though enforcing the land ownership according to blockchain might still require some physical security operation, which should be transparent and self-sustainable (read: taxes) so that it doesn't turn rogue.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
every single law would be in a civil contract format, no law shall be forced on anyone, based on the anarchist voluntarist principles.
...
Its just that easy

I think that you severely underestimate the potential in the human race

Sorry BitcoinFreak12 your world fails for the same reason that communism fails (an utter misunderstanding of human nature).

The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyone's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  Roll Eyes

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
@BitcoinFreak12

I had a similar insight about the new societal structure a couple of years ago:
"consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/consensus-based-society-with-provable-trust-free-voting-124477

In short global society is organized as a hierarchy of consensus groups starting with the minimal cell - family. Smaller consesnus groups are then free to join or leave larger ones. I'm still of the opinion that transparency in communication will help the whole system to self-organize in the best possible way. Collaboration requires transparency of communication.

Removing the idea of government completely doesn't seem like a viable option at this point. We still occupy a limited surface area of the planet with limited resources. We still need a place to live and food on our table. So competition for those is inevitable. Replacing government with for-profit businesses is like replacing Obama with Zuckerberg? Does it really change much? All the land will then be divided between large multinational corps with private armies and every one of us living on that land will be in no position to say "no" to a business owner.

Governements today represent banks they owe money to, not the people. If we change that and take our governments back into our control with the new type of money like Bitcoin, while at the same time opening up their whole operations, things will change for the better. This will probably work best when done bottom-up, meaning that smaller consensus groups need to form first and prove stable and workable before joining together to grow further.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0

Then you still need centralized bureaucrats and centralized court system to decide these voting categories, rights, and administer it.
Nope you dont because every single law would be in a civil contract format, no law shall be forced on anyone, based on the anarchist voluntarist principles. The decentralized system would serve as a voluntary voting system, ok there would be some minority always, be we could raise the voting minimum to 75% , not 50%+1.

So a typical court trial would always be a civilian case, never a criminal, thus you dont need prosecution, because everything would be privatized.

For example if you vandalize state property, then the prosecutor will represent the state, but if that property were all private without state property, then the property owner could decide to sue you or not.
In murder cases, the victims family or relatives could decide to let the defendant go or trial him.

Thus all courts could be privatized aswell, because you never need any state body to do it, a private one could always do it more cost efficiently and faster. An average 7-8 year trial would now only be 4-5 months long and would cost a lot less, while it would be just as fair as it is now or even better.

And bureaucrats ? Why do you need those? You can easily replace any bureucrat with a computer AI, because thats all they do, repetitive and organized work, which a computer AI can do just as well or better, and of course will cost less.

You need a bureocrat at the town hall to approve stuff and put stamps? Well replace all the paper documents with electronic documents because why chop off the trees and destroy the enviroment when we live in the 21st century?
And the electronic documents could be arbitrated by a computer AI where the criteria would be coded into it, and it would use bayesian decision making to arbitrate a document.

Its just that easy, we absolutely dont need bureocrats.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Alright you`ve convinced me, very good arguments you`ve made. How about then specialized decentralized voting system?

The same system that i`ve talked before: anonymous,decentralized,equal,everyone can participate, BUT, and there is the difference, people can only vote in their area of expertise.

For example if we have a doctor, then he could only vote about the laws on medicine and general health. So that each draft law would be given some tags, and only those who are expert on those tags could vote for it.

A sort of union of workers, but non in the marxist sense, but a true decentralized and anynymous system. We would keep the division of labor, the anonymity and the decentralization.

Then you still need centralized bureaucrats and centralized court system to decide these voting categories, rights, and administer it.

Edit: another reason that direct voting is centralizing is because there is still a requirement for government bureaucrats and courts to insure that the collective decisions are implemented as enacted. The same corruption with have now with bureaucrats and kangaroo courts can repeat.

There is only one solution which is to eliminate government entirely and replace it with decentralized for-profit competition to serve the people as I have outlined upthread.

I already explained how to get only the people who are knowledgeable to "vote" economically optimized in a completely decentralized manner.

That is "decentralized for-profit competition to serve the people as I have outlined upthread". When people vote with their money, then decentralized  for-profit competition is able to optimize to fit the demands of the consumers of the goods and services. I already explained upthread how decentralization technologies enable paradigm shifts and openness, thus preventing unabortable monopolies and collusion between the State and the large corporations.

What are you guys afraid of? We don't need the government any more.

The OP is that knowledge can't be financed and the future capital is knowledge. People won't save in money, they will save (invest) in (their own) knowledge (e.g. their software projects, etc). Money will be a language for directing knowledge resources to where knowledge can develop the fastest in the maximum division-of-labor. Those who value knowledge will refuse to accept the debased language that was used to misallocate knowledge resources with debt, because they will find they can't invest knowledge resources with it, i.e. the audience of that form of money are the lazy people with less knowledge to bear.

Unlike fiat of yore backed by gold or promises of State order, the knowledge age has no use for open-ended promises that could be hidden in fractional reserves and instead wants immediately incremental conversion of the money language into knowledge production.

Thus fractional reserves will become impossible.  The fractional reserves will concentrate into the dumbest sector of the economy and that sector will fall away into an abyss. This is exactly what I expect to happen going forward in this coming global crisis.

And that is why anonymity is critical.

Roads? For-profit can provide competing toll roads and even administer them more efficiently with competing rules and self-policing. But once you get the government corruption out of licensing and regulation, then the flying car is already ready to become a reality:

http://unheresy.com/Flying%20Cars.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/hoverbike-is-like-a-flying-motorcycle-2014-8

http://www.hover-bike.com/MA/

http://www.gizmag.com/dezso-molnar-g2-gt-flying-motorcycle/34399/

National self-defence? No nation could invade the USA because there was a gun under every blade of grass. We can now manufacture weapons at home using 3D printers. Nuclear ICBMs? Well yeah, that is the fucking global elites' "last option" in their promise "The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest". But you know what? Real humans are needed to maintain those ICBMs. Hackers will rise up to destroy them with viruses. Humanity is not going to be thwarted by some deviant socio-paths. Let them fire some ICBMs and watch humanity rise up to exterminate their cancer. We will hunt the global elite in their underground bunkers and feed them to the dogs. Humanity is tired of this shit! Once humanity sees the knowledge age opening up their opportunities, they will get it. And that will be the end of this statism we have now. Well that is my dream. And now it is time to go implement it. So...

Palihog Dong, Tama Na Ang Historia
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Let me talk about a little bit of paradox here:

You know guys what the: OECD,World Bank and IMF have in common?
Alright if you dont then brace yourself because it will be funny: They both have their goal to eradicate extreme poverty, world hunger, and assist the developing countries in their development.

Wikipedia:
Quote
The World Bank's official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to its Articles of Agreement, all its decisions must be guided by a commitment to the promotion of foreign investment and international trade and to the facilitation of capital investment.

Yet, they are Keynesian nutjobs, all of them  Cheesy

They inflate a global ponzi scheme debt bubble, and their goal is to eradicate poverty? With raising prices worldwide and 7-8th year economic crashes where millions lose their jobs due to their employed going bankrupt for so much debt, really?
Am I just missing the point here, how the fuck can raising prices eradicate poverty in Africa for example, where you dont even a have a normal job, maybe some  crappy .25cent/hour job, and all the prices are raising around you constantly?

Look at Zimbabwe, nice little hyperinflation there, is that a prosperous country due to its hyperinflation toiled paper money? Hell no, yet they want all the world to end up like Zimbabwe, soon the US will crash, Japan definitely they are QE-ing like a madman, and then Europe will come as Draghi is now considering buying some inside bonds with the newly printed EUR directly from the sovereign issuers of the bonds. It's crazy.

Is that economic development, and reduction of poverty, with global debt enslavement ? Damn, these Keynesian nutjobs are making me so angry, with their propaganda and hidden agendas.

They lie, contradict themselves, manipulate markets, grows a ponzi debt bubble worldwide, and then if some miraculous economic growth happens (due to the remnants of free market) they take credit for it.

I mean what kind of fucked up world is this, where they lie so much and most of the people cant even understand basic economics to make justice amongs these liers.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
//

Alright you`ve convinced me, very good arguments you`ve made. How about then specialized decentralized voting system?

The same system that i`ve talked before: anonymous,decentralized,equal,everyone can participate, BUT, and there is the difference, people can only vote in their area of expertise.

For example if we have a doctor, then he could only vote about the laws on medicine and general health. So that each draft law would be given some tags, and only those who are expert on those tags could vote for it.

A sort of union of workers, but non in the marxist sense, but a true decentralized and anynymous system. We would keep the division of labor, the anonymity and the decentralization.

Plus there would be no way of one doctor to say monopolize himself and make every other doctor vote in their own interests.So this way those who are lazy and uninteligent, and have no clue about anything in the world, they would not have voting rights, pretty rough but if you choose by merits then this is the corrent way to do, who would want to be run by incompetent brainwashed grunts?, while those who are multilingual and expert on different fields like me, could vote on several categories.

I mean i dont have an economic degree, but i could vote/run the economy much better than the nowadays Keynesian nutjobs who inflate a ponzi scheme debt bubble, heck even a kindengartner can run the economy better, because even he knows that falling prices/inflation is good for the economy, but these Keynesian nubjobs just cant get it.

So perhaps this decentralized voting by merits is more balanced, and would be more efficient than the one i proposed earlier.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Beta-males stick with the women and don't want to know the obvious appearance that the kids aren't theirs, because they need the sex (can't seek out younger females in Westernized culture) and they want the family.

Eric S. Raymond is very much into female empowerment (wants them to carry guns, admires smart, strong females, etc) and he has at least a 150 IQ, so you could start with his insights (really you widen your perspective by reading Eric's writing and his comments in the comments section of each of his essays):

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+hypergamy

The society has gone bezerk because the socialism destroyed the women, which thus destroyed the men:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/05/05/birth-rate-declines-with-higher-taxes-is-hollywood-to-blame-for-divorce/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/14/economic-decline-returning-marriage-to-historical-norms/

Women are hormonally unstable (that is a medical fact), hypergamy driven. Men drive the production, responsibility, and structure of the economy and society. It was the castration of men by the State that destroyed Western civilization.

I am not saying there are not very smart females, but this doesn't change the statistical reality that women primarily exist for child rearing. I would want my daughter to achieve as much as she wants to, but ultimately unless she follows the false life plan, she would most likely be happiest if she had a child in her 20s to have her own family.

También, Adios Todos Amigos.

Edit: Bill Gates has been trying to end the population growth in Africa, and is all part of the plan to westernize females all around the world in order to castrate men and put the power in control of the elite who control the political economics. And so where are their men to protect them? The brown and black races have very weak men who are irresponsible and that is probably a primary reason their economies suck and will always suck until their men learn to be industrious and responsible. Western men are responsible and industrious because we had harsh winters and had to be, in order to survive.

Really unless you understand what I am saying about decentralization and about not turning women into Frankenstein by tempting them with all the power of the State as temptation they can not resist to destroy men (and themselves), then we will just be forever hamsters on the wheel.

I hope you swallow the red pill w.r.t. to the feminist propaganda and culture you've been taught in school. My mind was polluted with that nonsense up until about a decade ago, but I really didn't make the leap until I read Eric S. Raymond over the past 2 years (and also the Dark Enlightenment, realize in the free market women are much more vulnerable then they need men). Please read Eric S. Raymond and bring yourself up to speed on the facts. He was formerly a feminist sympathizer but the facts caused him to wake up.

I agree that that economic collapse and overpopulation could lead to worsening squalor increased contact with infected animals and increased chance of a pathogen jumping the species barrier. If economic collapse and downturns occurred cyclically that could introduce a cyclic increase in jump probability and the Poisson distribution would not hold.

However, all that would mean is that there would be times of increased risk of a pandemic and times of lesser risk. A higher probability is no guarantee that such a pathogen will jump. The Jump itself would still be a random process. It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to claim there is definitively going to be a pandemic in 2018. The only way to know that with certainly would be if you were the one introducing the pandemic.

Edit#2: nothing in this Universe is perfectly random or perfectly independent events, i.e. 100% disorder doesn't exist (2nd Law of Thermo assures us it is globally trending to maximum).  This is why Poisson distribution is only an approximation in some limited contexts. What appears to be random is simply entropy that is beyond your frame-of-reference. For example, quantum entanglement and other quantum effects appear to be random, but this is because our frame-of-reference is limited to our observation tools based in the limits of the speed-of-light, Plank's constant, and the Heisenberg effect, i.e. you can't be omniscient  in real-time because you can't perceive everything everywhere instantly due to the propagation delay of light (and this is why Armstrong's huge historical database is able to see correlations that seem random to you). As Armstrong has so eloquently summarized it (paraphrased), "that longer-term predictions are more accurate than shorter-term ones".
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Gonna really miss anonymint's musings.
He'll be back ....

Damn he is correct. Because it seems no one can make the most salient point in my absence. I really need to be gone from this forum.

BitcoinFreak12, although CoinCube's point is correct about the system of direct democracy was already tried and failed in Athens and scaling it up is dubious in spite of new technologies such as the internet (in fact in Athens the democracy ended up being controlled by the wealthy business owners who were relying on implicit subsidies in the system) and although bigtimespaghetti's point about the middle of the bell curve can't keep up with the outliers on the right side of the bell curve, both of them miss the main point as to why direct voting will always devolve back in the IRON LAW of Political Economics (which I clarified further upthread that in collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.).

What BitcoinFreak12 fails to understand is that the examples of decentralized creativity and leadership on for example YouTube are not examples of a collective action and decision, but rather they are examples of the end-to-end principle where YouTube is the dumb intermediary and the smarts are the diverse participation at the edges of the network. In short, BitcoinFreak12 is committing a category error of equating two categories which are not the same. This is the typical mistake of most people, especially those who are not very astute computer scientists. I have a very strong reductionist logic skills which enable me to categorize (reduce to their orthogonal) generative essence of abstractions very precisely.

Pay attention. Direct voting will always to devolve because of the maximum division-of-labor, i.e. not that some are smarter but that all humans have specialized knowledge that other humans don't have. Did you know for example that even the most genius mathematicians that ever existed or will exist in the future could not possibly learn all the math that exists today? The body of knowledge in math has grown too large with far too many intricate details for any one human to digest it all and be expert in all of it.

The same phenomenon exists in all aspects of knowledge. This is for example why I always need to come back to post on the forum. Because there is no other human on earth who understands political economics the way that I do. I have a special insight and knowledge base. I am trying to share it and get others to be able to answer for me, but as of yet, all of you still need to refer back to the expert — myself.

The maximum division-of-labor is why Armstrong is the expert on A.I., cycles, and market analysis, and also why I (not Armstrong) am the expert on political, technological structure. Armstrong needs to pay attention and realize that he can't defy the maximum division-of-labor. I hope he will swallow the red pill.

Pay attention. People simply don't have enough time to be knowledgeable about every issue that comes to a vote. For example, the following example of two very intelligent members of this forum who completely misunderstood the issue of "net neutrality".

RodeoX and jaysabi, I can not fathom how you can write so astutely in this thread, and yet have favored Obama's pleas to regulate net neutrality. How can you write the above and not understand the regulators are always captured by the regulated as matter of mathematical certainty as well as historical evidence?

The only way we will protect net neutrality is obscure the content with anonymity and so consumers can vote with their feet without fear of retribution from the State.

Only the free market works in the end, and anonymity is absolutely crucial to making it work. We don't have a free market, so you can't claim it doesn't work. We don't have it, because the technology hasn't been implemented to free up the market.

Always technological solutions (paradigm shifts) are the only real solutions. Politics is always a morass and entire waste of time.

And we don't want a world in which every person has to be personally deeply involved in every detail of everything happening in the world. That is like binding each other together in chains (which is exactly what collectivism does, which is why it fails). The only way an economy can be maximized is for people to busy doing orthogonal activities so that expertise is concentrated and maximized. The antithesis of the maximum division-of-labor is economic collapse, debt overload, misallocation, and precisely what we have now in Western society where the majority of the population is expert at doing the same thing  — McFat, McBoobTube, McBlahBlah.

Thus direct voting in spite any amount of technology you throw at it, will always devolve to trust on the experts and trust on the reputation of certain groups and advisers. Eventually we are right back to where we are now, where politics is a personality contest of who has the best haircut. That is a reason only the wealthy were allowed to vote in Athens, but even that devolved because they directed the structure of the economic system to subsidize their businesses.

Pay attention. There are technologies which theoretically do not devolve into centralization.

Proof-of-work solved the Byzantine's Generals Problem — that is the problem of how to trust and communicate a consensus decision without trusting or even knowing the identity of any of the participating parties. Unlike voting, we don't have to know the identity nor trust a party chosen to tally and communicate the decision.

Yes we could vote decentralized using a Proof-of-work block chain, but this would not change the fact that collective decision about centralized actions, requires specialized knowledge that not all the voters will have, thus voting is always centralizing as I explained above.

Whereas, we can use the Proof-of-work block chain to record centralized tallies of decentralized decisions of the participants — a.k.a. the end-to-end principle where the intermediaries (the miners and block chain) are dumb relays of the individualized transactions which only the participants at the edge of the network have knowledge of. You see we thus inverted the problem of direct voting and made it congruent with the maximum division-of-labor.

Open source plays the role of enabling us to build on the knowledge invested in those leading paradigms, and for a paradigm shift to overtake those leading paradigms which are not open and liberating enough, as shown by the chart of Android obliterating the market share of every other smartphone platform.


Edit: another reason that direct voting is centralizing is because there is still a requirement for government bureaucrats and courts to insure that the collective decisions are implemented as enacted. The same corruption with have now with bureaucrats and kangaroo courts can repeat.

There is only one solution which is to eliminate government entirely and replace it with decentralized for-profit competition to serve the people as I have outlined upthread.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
Threats and hitting are sadly their normalcy. If you punch or threat a woman you get to jail, but if you punch or threat a kid you are a good parent!

It is this fact that gives me the least amount of optimism and greatest sadness with regards to the UK, it stifles it's future before it has even begun. If you look up any statistics on 'spanking' in the the UK as it accords to age of children hit and regularity it is truly demoralising. But hey, it's those damnable terrorists we need to watch out for right?

It is my personal belief that it would be harder to populate the British military and quite possibly the Police too, without traumatized men and women that have normalized themselves to violence from an early age (as an anecdote, I have observed pro military American work colleagues often have had pretty dark childhoods too).

But this is just a facet in the depravity and degradation of British 'culture'. I do not admire the Swedish government, but outlawing 'spanking' in the 70s was probably one of the best things that the nation has done for itself since the great famines (of which I have less than passing knowledge of).
hero member
Activity: 538
Merit: 500
When the State removes the effects of the free market and attempts to establish women as equal to men (which they are not), then fertility and society collapse. Watch 2016 onwards the horrific outcome...

I agree that women are not equal to men. Women are more compassionate, more loving, more social, and more self sacrificing. A strong argument can be made that they are the superior subgroup.

You fell for propaganda. It's pretty much the other way around or equal in some cases. They are not more compassionate and loving, I would say they are... more violent. Self sacrificing? I mean where do you get this stuff, Hollywood?

Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal of Trauma 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides in the United States between 1976 and 1987 was analyzed.
Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval.


Yes, you forgot the wars... VIOLENCE != MURDER

I'll just leave this here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
In short, women are more aggressive and violent. Scientific fact!

Below this video are many additional sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw_UlUGoUV4

Statistics of single mothers and their childrens are horrific. Let's just say if you want to fuck up the future of the kid, just leave it to the mother and forbid father from having any connection with his kid and you get a fine gangster.

And don't get me wrong, there is violence in both sexes, it's just media/state propaganda that boys are bad/violent and women are saints/virtues who just have to put with silly men.

The murder stats are interesting, and seem to point towards males being more prone to violence. But who were the primary care givers for all these men when they were most impressionable? I think women hold at least some of the blame for the boys that they are responsible for.

Not to say fathers are not responsible too. I've been back in London just a few days and the British seem to be leading the way in Western Europe in terms of disregard for their children's wellbeing (threats of hitting and verbal abuse). I am not in the poorest areas of London either./b]

Exactly! In the West women chooses their partners and chooses to have kids. Kids learn how to be violent and what is "normal" by watching and experiencing interactions with his close enviroment (mom, dad, other kids in childcare,...). Threats and hitting are sadly their normalcy. If you punch or threat a woman you get to jail, but if you punch or threat a kid you are a good parent!
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
(The post below was copied from http://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/12/11/should-you-believe-what-they-tell-you-or-what-you-see/)

SHOULD YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY TELL YOU OR WHAT YOU SEE?

The BLS reported 321,000 jobs added in November and the unemployment rate at 5.8%. Jobs are plentiful, based upon these statistics.

A skeptical critical thinking individual might ask a few questions or point out a few inconvenient facts the government purveyors of propaganda might not want us to ponder:

The non-manipulated, non-seasonally adjusted number of jobs in November FELL by 270,000. The BLS added 600,000 jobs as an adjustment to achieve the headline grabbing result.
If the jobs market is so good, why is the labor participation rate at a 30 year low of 62.8%?
Since 2007 the number of working age Americans has risen by 17 million, while the number of employed has risen by less than 1 million, but the unemployment rate is about the same.
Why would almost 14 million working age Americans leave the labor force since 2007 if the economy is booming and jobs plentiful, with 1.2 million leaving in the last 12 months?
Why would payroll tax receipts be flat with last year if millions of new jobs have been created?
If the country has really added 8 million jobs since 2010, how could real median household income FALL by 2.3%?



According to the government reported figures, the economy hasn’t been this strong since 2007. GDP has supposedly grown at greater than 4% over the last two quarters.

Anyone who is sentient knows consumer spending accounts for 68% of GDP. Capital investments that lead to long term prosperity continue to decline as a percentage of GDP from 20% in 2000 to 16% today. We’ve chosen consumption and financialization over savings and investment. This fact leads to some observations:

If GDP has actually grown by 20% since 2008 how does this correlate with a 6.9% decline in real median household income?
GDP has been goosed by a $69 billion increase in government spending, with the majority going to the military industrial complex. ISIS has been a godsend for our GDP and arms dealer profits.
GDP was increased retroactively by $500 billion last year based on a new way the government accounts for intangibles.
The surge in consumer expenditures over the last two quarters has been in the purchase of services. The higher costs for Obamacare are a boon for GDP. Are they a boon for your bank account?
The trade deficit has fallen as exports of petroleum products have temporarily provided a boost to GDP. The collapse in oil prices will reverse that trend rapidly.

According to the quasi-governmental mouthpieces at the Conference Board, consumer confidence is near a 5 year high, reflecting what should be robust spending.

So we are told by the representatives of corporatism that we are confident about the economy and the future. How does that measure up to the facts on the ground:

Black Friday weekend sales collapsed by 11% versus the previous year. As the pundits tried to blame it on on-line sales (10% of total retail sales), Cyber Monday also proved to be a dud.
If the average person is confident about the future and happy with their economic circumstances, why did they just vote to throw out the bums in November?
If consumers are confident, why have real retail sales, excluding subprime debt goosed auto sales, been flat for the last three months and up only 1% in the last year?
If consumers are so confident, why are credit card balances still $138 billion BELOW where they were in 2008? If all these new jobs are being created why is credit card debt lower than it was in mid-2010? Maybe consumers are so desperate they are using credit cards to pay utility and tax bills and not using them for frivolous Chinese crap at big box retailers.
The increased spending at grocery stores and restaurants is driven by food inflation, not foot traffic. Discretionary spending at furniture, electronics, and sporting goods stores is flat.
Department store sales continue to fall. Sears and JC Penney teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Delia’s is liquidating and Radio Shack isn’t far behind. The major chains have completely stopped building new stores. The great bricks and mortar unwind relentlessly plods forward. In addition, online growth is stalling as states implement sales taxes.

According to the government, the deficit was ONLY $483 billion in 2014.

This is a real doozy. Obama has been touting how he has cut the deficit through his wise management of the budget. This is where government accounting is used by apparatchiks to mislead the public and obscure the truth. A few pertinent facts are always left out by the politicians touting deficit reduction:

Because of the budget impasse in 2013, the Federal government stopped updating the national debt on a daily basis, but we know from when they started counting again, the debt went up by $2.3 billion per day. Therefore, the national debt on October 1, 2013 was approximately $17.038 trillion. On October 1, 2014 the national debt was $17.875. Therefore, the national debt went up by $837 billion in 2014. Just a smidge higher than the reported deficit of $483 billion.
Interest is not paid on reported deficits. It’s paid on the national debt, so the massaged, manipulated and made over deficit is meaningless. The national debt was always slightly higher than reported deficits, but in the last few years the deviation has grown to a Grand Canyon size.
The deficit number has been artificially lowered by nothing other than accounting entry hocus pocus. The Federal Reserve increasing its balance sheet to $4 trillion out of thin air creates approximately $80 billion of phantom interest profits that are paid to the Treasury. Why don’t they increase their balance sheet to $40 trillion and eliminate deficits all together?
The biggest accounting scam is Fannie and Freddie. Just as the Wall Street banks have created fake profits through accounting entries regarding future losses, Fannie and Freddie have gone the extra mile in helping fake deficit reduction. These bloated insolvent government run pigs required a $187 billion taxpayer bailout in 2009. Amazingly, when you allow criminals to value their assets at whatever they choose, phantom profits flow like honey.
These two horribly run institutions of fraud “generated profits” of $129 billion in 2014 which were “paid back” to the Treasury. That is four times more than Apple or Exxon’s profits during a non-existent housing recovery. Why are their stocks trading at just over $2 per share if they are generating vastly more profits than they were in 2007 when their stocks were north of $70 per share? It’s because the profits are fake. Everyone knows it, but the Federal Deficit is reported $129 billion lower because these insolvent entities pretended to pay the taxpayer back. Accounting entries do not reduce deficits. Spending less than you generate in revenues reduces deficits.

According to the government, we’ve experienced a strong housing recovery since 2010.

The supposed housing recovery storyline continues to be beaten like a dead horse by the Wall Street media (CNBC) and the shills at the NAR. Anyone with a functioning brain (eliminates CNBC bimbos, hacks, and Ivy League economists) can see there has been no real housing recovery:

The 24% rise in home prices (Case Shiller Index) since the 2012 low has been nothing more than a Wall Street hedge fund/Federal Reserve scheme to elevate prices and make Wall Street bank balance sheets less insolvent. Wall Street banks withholding foreclosures from the market while Wall Street hedge funds (Blackstone) use free money from the Fed to buy up housing and rent it out to former homeowners has enriched the .1% while destroying the dream of home ownership for millions.
The percent of first time home buyers remains near record lows, while speculators, flippers, hedge fund managers, and rich Chinese businessmen make up a record number of purchasers. The fact this is a fake housing recovery is proven by mortgage applications to purchase a home sitting at 1995 levels and 30% below 2009 recession lows. Maybe the fact real median household income is also at 1995 levels, real wages keep declining, and labor force participation is at 1978 levels has something to do with real people not being able to purchase a home.



Even with the artificial hedge fund demand, existing home sales are lower than 2013 and languishing at 1999 levels. They are still 25% below 2005 levels, despite the lowest mortgage rates in history. New home sales are a disaster, with no appreciable increase in two years. Apartment construction has far outpaced single family housing construction. After a five year housing recovery, new home sales languish at levels seen at the bottom of our last six recessions. New home sales are 65% below the 2005 peak and at levels seen in the early 1960’s when there were 130 million less people living in the country.



According to the corporate media, the auto market is hitting on all cylinders with annual sales of 16.4 million, the highest since 2006.

Pretending to sell automobiles to people without the means to pay you for the automobile is always a good business idea. Of course, when you have Ally Financial and the rest of the Wall Street banking cabal doling out 7 year 0% loans and subprime auto loans like candy, it’s easy to move inventory. The temporary boost to GDP by issuing more bad debt always works out in the long run. Right?

If the auto business is booming why have GM profits fallen from $9.2 billion in 2011 to $5.4 billion in 2013, and on course to fall to $4 billion in 2014? Record levels of channel stuffing produces sales gains, but no profits. Why is their stock 25% below its 52 week high and lower than it was in 2010 when it was IPO’d after being rescued by Obama?
If the auto business is booming why are Ford’s profits falling by 35% versus last year and lower than they were in 2010? Why is their stock price 16% below its 52 week high and still 20% below its 2010 price?
Auto loan debt is at an all-time high of $950 billion, up 33% since 2010 when the Fed, Wall Street, and the political class in the fetid D.C. swamp decided they needed new debt bubbles in auto loans and student loans to jump start our moribund economy.
There are 65 million auto loans outstanding, and the average debt now stands at $17,352. Over 30% of auto “sales” are actually leases. The rest are financed over an average of 65 months. Virtually all new car sales are nothing more than 3 to 7 year rentals. It’s amazing what easy money from the Fed can produce.
Over 31% of all new auto loans this year were to subprime borrowers. They now account for 36.5% of all outstanding auto loans. You become a subprime borrower by defaulting on previous debt obligations. In a shocking development, auto loan delinquencies surged by 13% in the last quarter, with subprime loan delinquencies skyrocketing by 18%. When has issuing billions of debt to subprime borrowers ever caused problems before?
Only a University of Phoenix African Studies major is more of a subprime risk than the millions of ecstatic Escalade drivers cruising around our urban ghetto paradises. The average student loan debt is now $33,000. Until the Obama administration went Keynesian, student loan debt was primarily in the private sector. When Obama entered the White House total student loan debt was $620 billion and delinquencies totaled $50 billion. There are now $1.3 trillion of student loans outstanding, with the Federal government accounting for $830 billion and guaranteeing a large portion of the rest. Delinquencies have skyrocketed to $125 billion, as another taxpayer bailout beckons.

According to the corporate mainstream media pundits, the plunge in oil prices from $100 per barrel to $61 per barrel is unequivocally good for the economy. The shale oil boom has worked its magic and happy times are here again.

Sometimes you have to wonder whether the highly educated spokesmodels on the corporate mainstream media are really as vacuous and clueless as they appear or whether they are just paid to look pretty and mouth the corporate line. They seem incapable of comprehending the unintended consequences of various events. The collapse in oil prices is one of those events.

There is no doubt that lower oil prices will lower the price of gas for the average American. Estimates say they will save $368 per year, which can be spent elsewhere. The highly paid shill economists who declare this will boost spending seem to be math challenged. Retail sales figures include gas stations. What isn’t spent there will be spent in another category, most likely healthcare or groceries as prices in both areas continue to escalate. It’s a zero sum game. No new spending will occur.
The worldwide supply of oil has only increased marginally over the last few years. The U.S. shale boom has been offset by declines elsewhere (Libya, Iran, Mexico). The reason for the collapse is the same reason for the 2009 collapse – worldwide demand is contracting. Europe is in a depression. Japan is in a depression. Russia’s economy is contracting. China is decelerating rapidly. The U.S. demand is flat. The implications of another global recession after five years of central banks printing trillions of fiat currency are alarming to say the least.
The cost to extract shale oil and transport it to a refinery capable of processing it is high. Honest analysts will tell you that a price of $70 to $80 is required to breakeven. Most companies don’t build breakeven into their plans. Bakken shale oil sells at a discount of about $14 per barrel due to the difficulty of extraction, transport, and processing. It is now selling for $47 per barrel. The number of permits for new rigs fell by 40% in November when oil was still selling for $75 per barrel. Do you think permits for new wells will fall at a price of $61 per barrel? Capital spending by the energy industry accounted for 33% of all capital spending in the last few years. I’m sure some other industry will pick up the slack. Right?
It seems the shale oil boom has resulted in a few jobs being created since the 2010 recession trough. In fact the states where fracking is prevalent have accounted for all the job growth in the nation. I wonder if a shale oil bust will have any employment implications. There are 9.3 million jobs related to the energy industry across the country. The plunge in oil prices created by Saudi Arabia in the 1980s created a depression in Texas which contributed to the S&L crisis. This plunge will reveal who has been swimming naked in the high yield bond market and derivatives market.



These are just a few examples among a multitude of lies. Others include: stocks aren’t overvalued, gold isn’t money, inflation is good for you, and ISIS terrorists are an imminent threat to your way of life. Every feel good story fed to the masses by the oligarchs running this shitshow we call America is no different than the propaganda doled out by other infamous totalitarian regimes throughout history. We believe things because we’ve been conditioned to believe them. The crony capitalist oligarchs are intelligent enough to invent theories to explain how the world should work, but not intelligent enough to interpret their models correctly. When they act on their theories (Keynesianism), their actions appear to be those of a lunatic. Despite all evidence refuting their theories, their arrogance and hubris lead them to destruction. The collective insanity of this world is almost too much for a rational thinking person to grasp. The extremely wealthy men operating in the shadows will use every means at their disposal to retain power, enhance their wealth, and crush dissent.

Quote
“Being a card carrying member of the privileged class means never having to say I’m sorry, much less ‘not guilty.’  Power is doing what you want when you want, and consequences are for everyone else. Or perhaps these titans of modern industry and the halls of power are at heart just good natured bumblers, who in a genuine belief destroy lives and crash economies, while pursuing insane ideological assumption put forward by vested interests, all the while stuffing their pockets, and crushing all dissent with the political skills of a Machiavelli and the ruthlessness of Al Capone.” – Jesse

The two party system is nothing but a ruse designed to keep the people believing they have a say in how things are run in this country. Both parties support the military industrial complex. Both parties support the militarization of police forces around the country. Both parties support the mass surveillance of its citizens. Both parties do the bidding of their rich corporate and special interest benefactors. Both parties favor deficit spending for eternity. Both parties believe the government should expand its role in our everyday lives. Both parties do the bidding for and protect the Wall Street interests who really run this country. No more proof is needed than what has occurred over the last five years, as criminal Wall Street bankers were rewarded for their malfeasance with trillions of dollars from taxpayers and their puppets at the Federal Reserve. While we were allowing ourselves to be distracted, amused, entertained, and indebted, the oligarchs were busy conducting a silent coup.

Quote
“Let’s be clear about this, the oligarchs are flush with victory, and feel that they are firmly in control, able to subvert and direct any popular movement to the support of their own fascist ends and unslakable will to power.

This is the contempt in which they hold the majority of American people and the political process: the common people are easily led fools, and everyone else who is smart enough to know better has their price. And they would beggar every middle class voter in the US before they will voluntarily give up one dime of their ill-gotten gains.

But my model says that the oligarchs will continue to press their advantages, being flushed with victory, until they provoke a strong reaction that frightens everyone, like a wake-up call, and the tide then turns to genuine reform.” – Simon Johnson

The oligarchs have had a good run. The system cannot be reformed from within. The corruption runs too deep. The system is broken and can’t be fixed. There is no doubt in my mind that a collapse approaches which will make 2008/2009 look like a walk in the park. The anger, blame and retribution will sweep away the existing social order and replace it with something new. It will be up to the people to decide what happens next. We were warned two centuries ago by a wise man. Hopefully, we’ll get a 2nd chance.

Quote
“However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” – George Washington
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
The murder stats are interesting, and seem to point towards males being more prone to violence. But who were the primary care givers for all these men when they were most impressionable? I think women hold at least some of the blame for the boys that they are responsible for.

Not to say fathers are not responsible too. I've been back in London just a few days and the British seem to be leading the way in Western Europe in terms of disregard for their children's wellbeing (threats of hitting and verbal abuse). I am not in the poorest areas of London either.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
When the State removes the effects of the free market and attempts to establish women as equal to men (which they are not), then fertility and society collapse. Watch 2016 onwards the horrific outcome...

I agree that women are not equal to men. Women are more compassionate, more loving, more social, and more self sacrificing. A strong argument can be made that they are the superior subgroup.

You fell for propaganda. It's pretty much the other way around or equal in some cases. They are not more compassionate and loving, I would say they are... more violent. Self sacrificing? I mean where do you get this stuff, Hollywood?

Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal of Trauma 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides in the United States between 1976 and 1987 was analyzed.
Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval.
hero member
Activity: 538
Merit: 500
When the State removes the effects of the free market and attempts to establish women as equal to men (which they are not), then fertility and society collapse. Watch 2016 onwards the horrific outcome...

I agree that women are not equal to men. Women are more compassionate, more loving, more social, and more self sacrificing. A strong argument can be made that they are the superior subgroup.

You fell for propaganda. It's pretty much the other way around or equal in some cases. They are not more compassionate and loving, I would say they are more selfish, exploitational and more violent. Self sacrificing? I mean where do you get this stuff, Hollywood?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
Most pandemics occur when a pathogen jumps a species barrier to a new host (humans) that are not adapted to it. Such a process should be random and follow a Poisson distribution. The expected time between pandemics should therefore follow an exponential distribution. I am skeptical of the validity of a cyclical model predicting a definitive pandemic date.

It is not likely random because I explained how it was likely man's economy that caused the Black Death, because of the overconcentration of fleas and squalor in proximity to humans, because over the overpopulation meant less than a subsistence wage for agriculture meant the Industrial Age did not occur yet meant that squalor was worse
,,,
Have you looked at the overcrowded, inhumane way we farm raise poultry and other farm animals?


I agree that that economic collapse and overpopulation could lead to worsening squalor increased contact with infected animals and increased chance of a pathogen jumping the species barrier. If economic collapse and downturns occurred cyclically that could introduce a cyclic increase in jump probability and the Poisson distribution would not hold.

However, all that would mean is that there would be times of increased risk of a pandemic and times of lesser risk. A higher probability is no guarantee that such a pathogen will jump. The Jump itself would still be a random process. It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to claim there is definitively going to be a pandemic in 2018. The only way to know that with certainly would be if you were the one introducing the pandemic.  

You are citing the obvious first-order effect and not the generative essence. What leads to massive use of contraceptives? It is when women are supported by the State so they don't have to worry about who is going to provide for them.

The state is not responsible for all problems. Desire for and obtaining sex has been the driving evolutionary force behind successful reproduction for the history of our race until about 60 years ago. Suddenly around 60 years ago sex and reproduction decoupled.

In a heartbeat the primary selective driver of human evolution became irrelevant. The drop in population fertility you are seeing is simply the result of a large portion of humanity suddenly finding themselves biologically unfit in our new environment. People who do not actively want children simply no longer reproduce. These individuals are a substantial portion of the population and are now being selected out. Give it several generations eventually most everyone will want children most men will hate condoms and many women will find the pill makes them sick. Humans will adapt as all life does.

(they State even legislating them to receive preferential treatment in school, workforce, and marriage), so they can have affairs with bad boy losers and use contraceptives with their enslaved, good boy beta-male husbands so they force their slaves to financially support the children he didn't know he didn't procreate.

Women have a strong preference for hypergamy. It is only the reality of the market that they can't support themselves that causes them to behave and serve a man to raise a family.

Its easy to confirm paternity with a simple genetic test. Certainly there has been a power shift towards woman over the last several decades. When women were forced to be subservient to men and had no access to birth control they had very limited  choice about the number of children they had. Now given the choice many are opting to forgo childbirth altogether. Those that do will be selected out of the population leaving a world where most women want children.

This process is not going to reverse. For men and women who want families it is important to recognize that the human race is currently being subjected to a mild form of sterile insect technique. Choose your mate wisely.
  
When the State removes the effects of the free market and attempts to establish women as equal to men (which they are not), then fertility and society collapse. Watch 2016 onwards the horrific outcome...

I agree that women are not equal to men. Women are more compassionate, more loving, more social, and more self sacrificing. A strong argument can be made that they are the superior subgroup.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
BitcoinFreak I think you would gain some insight from studying the failures of Athenian democracy. Theirs was a decentralized government similar to the ideal you are proposing. Random groups of citizens directly voted on all laws. It had severe and significant problems.  
Merely because how people interact with eacother in a crowd, but what i proposed is a completely anonymous system. There would be no person shouting lounder then the other , and not letting others speak, obviously if you cram 10.000 people in a square, not all people will shout there, and there could be big fights, muggings and other nasty things.

But in the internet era, you have a mouse and 2 buttons in front of you a yes and a no, and you can calmly and intelligently choose the best outcome you think is ok. Nobody will intimidate you, nobody will shout at you, and nobody would ridicule you because nobody would know what you voted for, or if you voted at all.

Today's world is much more complex than the world of Athens time. It is significantly harder for the common man to understand all issues and vote intelligently. What you have proposed is essentially the Athenian style of democracy scaled up from 30,000 thousand to billions. The system was unstable at 30,000. I agree with contagion and bigtimespaghetti above. Such a system would lead to paralysis, and chaos.
Heh its only hard because the government made it so, if it werent for 60 pages of regulations on each business, it would be much easier, trust me  Cheesy
Most people have 3 goals in their life: protect their family, have sex, and make money

Now the first 2 you can easily manage on your own, but in the 3rd one, the government will always create obstacles for you. I mean a simple farmer guy can just sell his vegetables on the street, whoooooooooh you cant do that, you need a fking permit from the government maffia and you need to register your business and you need to pay them a racket every damn month, plus if you forget to give a receipt, they will constantly harass you and audit you for years.If you dont pay your monthly racket then they lock you up in a cage with violent people and confiscate some of your wealth.
It's a bunch of criminals if you ask me.

See, its only the state that makes it hard, when if it werent no state, then everything would be very easy. Commerce and trading would skyrocket, the world GDP would increase by 3 orders of magnitude in a year (not fking 0.5% increases)Smiley

I mean trading is the most ancient profession out there, even the caveman traded with his fellow caveman, and he did fine without regulations, so why are the people so stupid nowadays that they think that they need regulation?

I tell you life would be much much more easy without these criminals Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
And I think that you severely underestimate the potential in the human race.See without the dark ages, organized pedophilia promoting and money laundering religions, and government maffia thugs, we`d be better of as a human race, if none of these would have happened, then by now we would live in an utopic society with flying cars, 100% ecologic enviroment, 500 years lifespan, no famine, no sickness,world peace etc.

BitcoinFreak I think you would gain some insight from studying the failures of Athenian democracy. Theirs was a decentralized government similar to the ideal you are proposing. Random groups of citizens directly voted on all laws. It had severe and significant problems.  

Today's world is much more complex than the world of Athens time. It is significantly harder for the common man to understand all issues and vote intelligently. What you have proposed is essentially the Athenian style of democracy scaled up from 30,000 thousand to billions. The system was unstable at 30,000. I agree with contagion and bigtimespaghetti above. Such a system would lead to paralysis, and chaos.
Pages:
Jump to: