I hope voters realize that this popular choice for the poll:
Unconditional income (extremely high taxation inevitable)
Will just make everything more Madmax horrific.
Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 39. (Read 88276 times)
Seems that even scientists (!) cannot evade this problem:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/11/biomerieux-builds-lab-of-the-future.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/11/biomerieux-builds-lab-of-the-future.html
No wonder. In the pharmaceutical industry, research involves a lot of repetitive process based on trials and error. I'm not surprised it can be easily automated, it requires much more brute force testing than brain power.
I add to my TODO list that I have to increase my position on Biomerieux.
Seems that even scientists (!) cannot evade this problem:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/11/biomerieux-builds-lab-of-the-future.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/11/biomerieux-builds-lab-of-the-future.html
You compelled me to reply, even though I want to stop. Because you made false statements.
For later, then (P.S. I started writing this earlier in the day, had to get to some bitcoin related work, by the time I got back it was 1am, and I'm sleepy and not entirely lucid. So, apologies if I don't make too much sense here)
If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.
If you are the government, unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship, or want to deliberately destroy bitcoin, then the answer is "not necessarily." If you gaining 51% puts your voter's money in jeopardy, and gets your politicians voted out, or worse, ruins the wealth of the senators already in power, it may be something that governments will avoid. Don't forget that people who run the place and make all the decisions are wealthy as hell, too. Also, as in the selfish miner countermeasure, if a government or some pool threatens to take over with a 51% attack, and is considered malicious, some pools can band together and create a "Bitcoin" fork that would split from the new "Govcoin." Though that will likely result in massive forking, chaos, and general collapse of the monetary system. And subsequent beheadings of government officials...
Personally, I think governments will lose the funding to support their monopoly on force before they realize what is happening...
Cartels will take over first. Once the cartels control 100% of mining, then the government will take over the cartels in "retaliation" (with winks and handshakes behind the scenes).
That is the normal course of events in democracy.
No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.
All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
What I was asking about was the attack where a 51% cartel mines blocks that include only the transactions they wish to include, or includes no transactions at all, effectively stopping all transactions and freezing bitcoin. The simple solution to this problem is just to modify all clients to only accept blocks that have the most amount of transactions included, which can, and likely will, be done way before that becomes a problem.
You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.
I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?
I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them. I think the answer is no, since their blocks simply would not propagate. Point is that it is the clients that largely control the blockchain, not the miners. So if there are fixes, such as to accept blocks with the most transactions, already implemented into the clients, then the 51% attacker won't be able to do all that much harm.
Cartel can once it has destroyed all other miners and has 100% of the network hashrate.
Oh yes, not arguing that point. The major change between past and future is that a big mob of people used to be able to wield enough power to take the funds needed to support the benefits, and soon enough that will not be an option any more. Well, to a point. They can still take possession and control of physical property.
Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.
Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do.
For later, then (P.S. I started writing this earlier in the day, had to get to some bitcoin related work, by the time I got back it was 1am, and I'm sleepy and not entirely lucid. So, apologies if I don't make too much sense here)
Quote
- Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)
If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.
If you are the government, unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship, or want to deliberately destroy bitcoin, then the answer is "not necessarily." If you gaining 51% puts your voter's money in jeopardy, and gets your politicians voted out, or worse, ruins the wealth of the senators already in power, it may be something that governments will avoid. Don't forget that people who run the place and make all the decisions are wealthy as hell, too. Also, as in the selfish miner countermeasure, if a government or some pool threatens to take over with a 51% attack, and is considered malicious, some pools can band together and create a "Bitcoin" fork that would split from the new "Govcoin." Though that will likely result in massive forking, chaos, and general collapse of the monetary system. And subsequent beheadings of government officials...
Personally, I think governments will lose the funding to support their monopoly on force before they realize what is happening...
Cartels will take over first. Once the cartels control 100% of mining, then the government will take over the cartels in "retaliation" (with winks and handshakes behind the scenes).
That is the normal course of events in democracy.
- Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)
No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.
All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
What I was asking about was the attack where a 51% cartel mines blocks that include only the transactions they wish to include, or includes no transactions at all, effectively stopping all transactions and freezing bitcoin. The simple solution to this problem is just to modify all clients to only accept blocks that have the most amount of transactions included, which can, and likely will, be done way before that becomes a problem.
You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.
- Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)
I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?
I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them. I think the answer is no, since their blocks simply would not propagate. Point is that it is the clients that largely control the blockchain, not the miners. So if there are fixes, such as to accept blocks with the most transactions, already implemented into the clients, then the 51% attacker won't be able to do all that much harm.
Cartel can once it has destroyed all other miners and has 100% of the network hashrate.
This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:
Oh yes, not arguing that point. The major change between past and future is that a big mob of people used to be able to wield enough power to take the funds needed to support the benefits, and soon enough that will not be an option any more. Well, to a point. They can still take possession and control of physical property.
Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.
Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do.
For later, then (P.S. I started writing this earlier in the day, had to get to some bitcoin related work, by the time I got back it was 1am, and I'm sleepy and not entirely lucid. So, apologies if I don't make too much sense here)
Quote
- Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)
If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.
If you are the government, unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship, or want to deliberately destroy bitcoin, then the answer is "not necessarily." If you gaining 51% puts your voter's money in jeopardy, and gets your politicians voted out, or worse, ruins the wealth of the senators already in power, it may be something that governments will avoid. Don't forget that people who run the place and make all the decisions are wealthy as hell, too. Also, as in the selfish miner countermeasure, if a government or some pool threatens to take over with a 51% attack, and is considered malicious, some pools can band together and create a "Bitcoin" fork that would split from the new "Govcoin." Though that will likely result in massive forking, chaos, and general collapse of the monetary system. And subsequent beheadings of government officials...
Personally, I think governments will lose the funding to support their monopoly on force before they realize what is happening...
- Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)
No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.
All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
What I was asking about was the attack where a 51% cartel mines blocks that include only the transactions they wish to include, or includes no transactions at all, effectively stopping all transactions and freezing bitcoin. The simple solution to this problem is just to modify all clients to only accept blocks that have the most amount of transactions included, which can, and likely will, be done way before that becomes a problem.
- Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)
I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?
I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them. I think the answer is no, since their blocks simply would not propagate. Point is that it is the clients that largely control the blockchain, not the miners. So if there are fixes, such as to accept blocks with the most transactions, already implemented into the clients, then the 51% attacker won't be able to do all that much harm.
- Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)
What greater good? You mean Bitcoin is a greater good? No it is a certain monopoly for cartels and thus the government.
Greater good as in social programs. Or greater good as in seeing their bitcoin wealth slowly diminished, for the benefit of a government mining operation taking bitcoins to use for social programs or whatever.
- Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)
Mostly yes. Self-interest is very powerful and myopia is extensive, even you fail to see what I see. Yet I think you will finally realize it with my comment on #2 above.
Obviously there will be a battle between people's self interest as bitcoin owners, and government's self interest as an authoritative body. I think people are too apathetic to care now, but may not be as more and more responsibility is put on them by bitcoin itself.
threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.
You don't understand how human action works. It isn't a group consciousness where we act rationally as a group. It is the individualized motivations that yield the domino effects that cause the group wave effect.
To analyze the game theory, you have to analyze those individual incentives.
The incentive that I think individuals will have will mostly be "mine" and "gimme." These are the incentives that drive file sharing, to the detriment of the ultra-authoritative RIAA, Silk road users (and drug users in general) to the detriment of the DEA, soon 3D printed gun makers to the detriment of the ATF, and likely sooner bitcoin users to the detriment of the IRS. The simple incentive with bitcoin is "My bitcoins woth more = good, my bitcoins worth less = bad." That incentive can lead to "group wave effect" (?) of believing 51% power over mining, and possibly eventually everything, as bad, since that will make individual's wealth decrease
This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:
Oh yes, not arguing that point. The major change between past and future is that a big mob of people used to be able to wield enough power to take the funds needed to support the benefits, and soon enough that will not be an option any more. Well, to a point. They can still take possession and control of physical property.
A ressource based economy could be implemented in 25 years.
Then we'll talk about it in 25 years, ok?
Cant vote, both choice are'nt good from my POV !
I vote for a "Ressources Based Economy" .. See : http://futurewewant.org/portfolio/resource-based-economy/
I myself would like to support resource based economy, but it requires extreme case - full automation to be sustainable (which may not happen within our lifetime, as well as Moore's law could stop at any time). In this topic I try to discuss implications of the existing or current-in-development automation deploying which will have effect now or after 5-10-20 years.I vote for a "Ressources Based Economy" .. See : http://futurewewant.org/portfolio/resource-based-economy/
A ressource based economy could be implemented in 25 years. See the free eBook : THE FIRST CIVILIZATION by Jas Garcha
I missed this. We are still disagreeing on this. below...
Specifically?
Some assumptions we have to clarify:
If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.
No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.
I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?
What greater good? You mean Bitcoin is a greater good? No it is a certain monopoly for cartels and thus the government.
Mostly yes. Self-interest is very powerful and myopia is extensive, even you fail to see what I see. Yet I think you will finally realize it with my comment on #2 above.
You don't understand how human action works. It isn't a group consciousness where we act rationally as a group. It is the individualized motivations that yield the domino effects that cause the group wave effect.
To analyze the game theory, you have to analyze those individual incentives.
This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:
Some Iron Laws of Political Economics
I just did.
Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do. Thanks.
...C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?
Specifically?
Some assumptions we have to clarify:
- Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)
If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.
- Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)
No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.
- Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)
I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?
- Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)
What greater good? You mean Bitcoin is a greater good? No it is a certain monopoly for cartels and thus the government.
- Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)
Mostly yes. Self-interest is very powerful and myopia is extensive, even you fail to see what I see. Yet I think you will finally realize it with my comment on #2 above.
threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.
You don't understand how human action works. It isn't a group consciousness where we act rationally as a group. It is the individualized motivations that yield the domino effects that cause the group wave effect.
To analyze the game theory, you have to analyze those individual incentives.
This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:
Some Iron Laws of Political Economics
But, these are really assumptions that neither of us can answer concretely (except for the second one, which is trivially easy to fix), so...
I just did.
Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do. Thanks.
Rassah so we are in agreement on those last points.
Btw, I linked to the wrong article, here is the one that got widely published and it has more charts and graphics:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#centralization
Btw, I linked to the wrong article, here is the one that got widely published and it has more charts and graphics:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#centralization
That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt.Yeah, that's true, And if we stay on topic, more and more police will become ex-police, and thus join the rioters. So it will be more and more up to the private security, paid for by the entrenched wealth, to stop the rioters.
No! They rioting because they want to continue the social system they had. Nobody wants to admit that the system is bankrupt and all past gravy will come to an end.
They don't realize they are rioting against themselves. The elite think it is hilarious-- cows shouting "mooo".
They don't realize they are rioting against themselves. The elite think it is hilarious-- cows shouting "mooo".
I think they are rioting because they think those who have money, and are refusing to give up to 100% of it away to support their social system, are somehow "stealing" from them, since how else does one make so much money? (obviously they don't know, otherwise they would have had it)
You better learn what deflation really is.
Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:
The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.
There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.
Don't tell me knowledge chases capital. Not in this software age.
Well, then we are actually in agreement.
Quote
You should also study the 160 IQ genius Eric S Raymond and his economic writings on open source and knowledge creation.
I will, but I must say, I know some stupid people with high IQ. They're not stupid because they are not intelligent, they are stupid because they are misinformed, or cling to incorrect assumptions on which all the rest of their claims are built on, and are so convinced in their intelligence that they have stopped accepting new theories long ago.
As the 160 IQ genius Dmitry once said, "I know some stupid people with high IQ. They're not stupid because they are not intelligent, they are stupid because they are misinformed, or cling to incorrect assumptions on which all the rest of their claims are built on, and are so convinced in their intelligence that they have stopped accepting new theories long ago."
That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt.Who are the police and the rioters rioting against? The banks? So okay write-down all the debt great. Then they will all be in severe poverty for 2 years, then we can rebuild from a small government.
No! They rioting because they want to continue the social system they had. Nobody wants to admit that the system is bankrupt and all past gravy will come to an end.
They don't realize they are rioting against themselves. The elite think it is hilarious-- cows shouting "mooo".
That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt. You better learn what deflation really is.
Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:
The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.
There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.
I had written extensively on this issue in the past:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html#Financeability_of_Knowledge
(above article was also published by gold-eagle.com, financialsense.com, etc)
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Housing%20Recovery%20Illusion.html
But I can now explain it more succinctly than my previous attempts. Smaller things grow faster, because only the person close to the opportunity can best leverage it. Capital is large, pooled, monolithic, and thus dumb.
Try to go to a bank and tell ask them to finance your altcoin R&D. I'd waste months trying to get financing that I could instead be using to actually code and release one.
Sorry I created CoolPage.com in a Nipa Hut in the Philippines. I was the programmer of it all, the janitor, the marketer, the artist, everything. And it reached a million users by 2001, well ahead of friendster. In fact, they came to me and bought a 7 figure non-exclusive license via Homepage.com.
Don't tell me knowledge chases capital. Not in this software age.
You should also study the 160 IQ genius Eric S Raymond and his economic writings on open source and knowledge creation:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-5.html
The Industial Age is dying (or dead). Capital is dying (or dead). We are in the knowledge age, and you can't buy my knowledge for less than $100 billion (which you soon will although I have no clue what I could do good with that much money).
...C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?
Specifically?
Some assumptions we have to clarify:
- Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)
- Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)
- Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)
- Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)
- Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)
I would suspect your answers are Y, Y, Y, and maybe Y and Y. If that is true, I would say you may be wrong on the first one (read my sig), definitely wrong on the second one, and mostly wrong on the third. Fourth and fifth are a tossup, and fifth may be a major issue, depending on how things pan out. Specifically whether a drastic decrease in social services will force people to start caring and being more responsible. Also, as is the point of my sig, just as P2P file sharing is forcing people to rethink intellectual property, threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.
But, these are really assumptions that neither of us can answer concretely (except for the second one, which is trivially easy to fix), so...
Looking here in Europe, I can give you some examples of police strikes against their own layoffs, wage cuts etc. It will be the same as in any other civil war - paying money doesn't means that people will fight on your side!
That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
Specifically Bitcoin aggregates too much to the early adopters, because the debasement ends and the mining is ASICs only.
Thus you will end up with only 0.01% with the money and the rest of society pissed off and unemployable.
Thus you will end up with only 0.01% with the money and the rest of society pissed off and unemployable.
Perhaps. But that 0.01% still needs to live somewhere, eat, protect their wealth, and buy stuff, meaning someone still has to work to make that for them.
That is not mutually exclusive with providing that for them in an altcoin which doesn't end up in dystopia for all as is the case for Bitcoin's design.
...C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?
Specifically?
Specifically Bitcoin aggregates too much to the early adopters, because the debasement ends and the mining is ASICs only.
Thus you will end up with only 0.01% with the money and the rest of society pissed off and unemployable.
Thus you will end up with only 0.01% with the money and the rest of society pissed off and unemployable.
Perhaps. But that 0.01% still needs to live somewhere, eat, protect their wealth, and buy stuff, meaning someone still has to work to make that for them.
That is not mutually exclusive with providing that for them in an altcoin which doesn't end up in dystopia for all as is the case for Bitcoin's design.
Have you considered that the outcomes may be A) A dystopian future where bitcoin is led by cartels, B) An alt-coin is developed that resists cartel-style mining, or C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?
You sound like a "I said A or B, take it or leave it" kinda guy, and I have no idea why you seem to sure of yourself. (mostly I'm woondering why I haven't even heard of you until very recently)
I missed this earlier. This is not true, because police forces, as well as private security forces, do not work for free, and will support whoever is paying their paychecks. In that scenario, it will be the people with the wealth, not the rioters who are rioting due to lack of it.
You must read more carefully - I wrote large part, not the police entirely. Of course there will be bastards who will shot rioters, but another part will support them. Looking here in Europe, I can give you some examples of police strikes against their own layoffs, wage cuts etc. It will be the same as in any other civil war - paying money doesn't means that people will fight on your side! You better learn what deflation really is.
Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:
The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.
There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.
Jump to: