Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • This depends greatly upon the country. Over here in eastern europe it costs noth

    This depends greatly upon the country. Over here in eastern europe it costs nothing and no one cares. The issue we must solve and I’m sure we will is foreign clearance of banking transactions. After that it’s trivial.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 22:58:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056681589474779137

    Reply addressees: @alynpost

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056680030908993536


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056680030908993536

  • No. Here Is the Future of Btc

    October 28th, 2018 1:31 PM NO. HERE IS THE FUTURE OF BTC (No more lies, means no more btc lies too) [T]his is of course an interesting thought experiment, but of course the difference is that such a metal does not exist, the precious metals are in demand for un-replicable reasons, and they are insufficient in volume, so their function of a monetary substitute (holding place of value) is actually oil. Fiat money consists of shares in the state, and is in demand because the state demands it for taxes, and demands it’s monopoly. Bitcoin consists of shares in the bitcoin network. There is trivial difference between electronic distribution of any existing currency, and the distribution of bitcoin OTHER than the FEES that can be extracted for use of those other currencies, in exchange for state insurance of those transactions, and that the INDIVIDUAL COIN HOLDER provides the function of clearances between different currencies (locales), at lower FEES (transaction costs) at slower rates (transaction rates), in the absence of insurance by the currency issuer (the state or the btc network). There is no known method of insuring the BTC network and it remains slow expensive and fragile. As I’ve written consistently since I think 2012, all we are doing with these currencies is performing research and development for the state, which will NOT use a distributed but CENTRALIZED transaction processor, on top of existing financial networks, using the encryption technology, and the state will destroy private networks because the state can INSURE those transactions as well as police the input and output of money into and out of such networks. There is absolutely zero chance of any other outcome. As far as I know the legacy of BTC and similar products will be as registries of title, thereby eliminating title companies. Registries of stocks and interests. And if someone is smart enough, to eliminate the check-cashing businesses which will then be able to provide cash distribution services in lieu of risk, for flat fees rather than interest.

  • No. Here Is the Future of Btc

    October 28th, 2018 1:31 PM NO. HERE IS THE FUTURE OF BTC (No more lies, means no more btc lies too) [T]his is of course an interesting thought experiment, but of course the difference is that such a metal does not exist, the precious metals are in demand for un-replicable reasons, and they are insufficient in volume, so their function of a monetary substitute (holding place of value) is actually oil. Fiat money consists of shares in the state, and is in demand because the state demands it for taxes, and demands it’s monopoly. Bitcoin consists of shares in the bitcoin network. There is trivial difference between electronic distribution of any existing currency, and the distribution of bitcoin OTHER than the FEES that can be extracted for use of those other currencies, in exchange for state insurance of those transactions, and that the INDIVIDUAL COIN HOLDER provides the function of clearances between different currencies (locales), at lower FEES (transaction costs) at slower rates (transaction rates), in the absence of insurance by the currency issuer (the state or the btc network). There is no known method of insuring the BTC network and it remains slow expensive and fragile. As I’ve written consistently since I think 2012, all we are doing with these currencies is performing research and development for the state, which will NOT use a distributed but CENTRALIZED transaction processor, on top of existing financial networks, using the encryption technology, and the state will destroy private networks because the state can INSURE those transactions as well as police the input and output of money into and out of such networks. There is absolutely zero chance of any other outcome. As far as I know the legacy of BTC and similar products will be as registries of title, thereby eliminating title companies. Registries of stocks and interests. And if someone is smart enough, to eliminate the check-cashing businesses which will then be able to provide cash distribution services in lieu of risk, for flat fees rather than interest.

  • NO. HERE IS THE FUTURE OF BTC (No more lies, means no more btc lies too) This is

    NO. HERE IS THE FUTURE OF BTC

    (No more lies, means no more btc lies too)

    This is of course an interesting thought experiment, but of course the difference is that such a metal does not exist, the precious metals are in demand for un-replicable reasons, and they are insufficient in volume, so their function of a monetary substitute (holding place of value) is actually oil.

    Fiat money consists of shares in the state, and is in demand because the state demands it for taxes, and demands it’s monopoly. Bitcoin consists of shares in the bitcoin network. There is trivial difference between electronic distribution of any existing currency, and the distribution of bitcoin OTHER than the FEES that can be extracted for use of those other currencies, in exchange for state insurance of those transactions, and that the INDIVIDUAL COIN HOLDER provides the function of clearances between different currencies (locales), at lower FEES (transaction costs) at slower rates (transaction rates), in the absence of insurance by the currency issuer (the state or the btc network). There is no known method of insuring the BTC network and it remains slow expensive and fragile.

    As I’ve written consistently since I think 2012, all we are doing with these currencies is performing research and development for the state, which will NOT use a distributed but CENTRALIZED transaction processor, on top of existing financial networks, using the encryption technology, and the state will destroy private networks because the state can INSURE those transactions as well as police the input and output of money into and out of such networks.

    There is absolutely zero chance of any other outcome. As far as I know the legacy of BTC and similar products will be as registries of title, thereby eliminating title companies. Registries of stocks and interests. And if someone is smart enough, to eliminate the check-cashing businesses which will then be able to provide cash distribution services in lieu of risk, for flat fees rather than interest.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 13:31:00 UTC

  • Definancialization

    October 27th, 2018 12:05 PM

    —“Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial institutions, And they have all been centered around the control of others resources,”—

    [I]f you want to argue that we evolved: from normative governance > to religious governance > to legal governance > to credit governance > (and are moving into digital reputation governance as we have seen in China and the UK) …then yes. If you want to argue that we must definancialize the economy and polity such that we are once again under rule of law instead of credit and digital reputation; and that doing so will end the extraction of rates of reproduction and quality of life from the middle classes in order to increase the reproduction of the lower classes, and payment of the upper classes for doing so, then yes I am in agreement. If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. if you want to argue that redistribution without constraint on reproduction is a good thing then you are engaging in moralizing in a misguided attempt to devolve civilization, standard of living, and replace democracy markets and rule of law with authoritarian central management and it’s deterministic consequences: dysgenia, and consequential impoverishment. Nature isn’t kind, people aren’t equal at all, and the difference in standards of living is little more than the difference in the sizes of the underclasses – those more successful at soft eugenics (suppressing underclass reproduction and upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class), produced the highest standard of living for the simple reason that rate of raining increases rapidly below the upper thirty percent ( of the west) which is why india cannot become a china for example. But if you want to engage in feminine gossiping, rallying, shaming and ridicule, rather than argument you’re just perpetuating the problem. I know how to definnacialize the economy. I know how to redistribute standard of living from the financial, political, and entertainment classes to the middle productive classes. But are you willint to limit reproduction of the underclasses to one child in return? Economics in everything. It’s just physics for humans.

  • Definancialization

    October 27th, 2018 12:05 PM

    —“Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial institutions, And they have all been centered around the control of others resources,”—

    [I]f you want to argue that we evolved: from normative governance > to religious governance > to legal governance > to credit governance > (and are moving into digital reputation governance as we have seen in China and the UK) …then yes. If you want to argue that we must definancialize the economy and polity such that we are once again under rule of law instead of credit and digital reputation; and that doing so will end the extraction of rates of reproduction and quality of life from the middle classes in order to increase the reproduction of the lower classes, and payment of the upper classes for doing so, then yes I am in agreement. If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. if you want to argue that redistribution without constraint on reproduction is a good thing then you are engaging in moralizing in a misguided attempt to devolve civilization, standard of living, and replace democracy markets and rule of law with authoritarian central management and it’s deterministic consequences: dysgenia, and consequential impoverishment. Nature isn’t kind, people aren’t equal at all, and the difference in standards of living is little more than the difference in the sizes of the underclasses – those more successful at soft eugenics (suppressing underclass reproduction and upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class), produced the highest standard of living for the simple reason that rate of raining increases rapidly below the upper thirty percent ( of the west) which is why india cannot become a china for example. But if you want to engage in feminine gossiping, rallying, shaming and ridicule, rather than argument you’re just perpetuating the problem. I know how to definnacialize the economy. I know how to redistribute standard of living from the financial, political, and entertainment classes to the middle productive classes. But are you willint to limit reproduction of the underclasses to one child in return? Economics in everything. It’s just physics for humans.

  • “Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial instit

    —“Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial institutions, And they have all been centered around the control of others resources,”—

    If you want to argue that we evolved:

    from normative governance > to religious governance > to legal governance > to credit governance > (and are moving into digital reputation governance as we have seen in China and the UK)

    …then yes.

    If you want to argue that we must definancialize the economy and polity such that we are once again under rule of law instead of credit and digital reputation; and that doing so will end the extraction of rates of reproduction and quality of life from the middle classes in order to increase the reproduction of the lower classes, and payment of the upper classes for doing so, then yes I am in agreement.

    If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence.

    if you want to argue that redistribution without constraint on reproduction is a good thing then you are engaging in moralizing in a misguided attempt to devolve civilization, standard of living, and replace democracy markets and rule of law with authoritarian central management and it’s deterministic consequences: dysgenia, and consequential impoverishment. Nature isn’t kind, people aren’t equal at all, and the difference in standards of living is little more than the difference in the sizes of the underclasses – those more successful at soft eugenics (suppressing underclass reproduction and upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class), produced the highest standard of living for the simple reason that rate of raining increases rapidly below the upper thirty percent ( of the west) which is why india cannot become a china for example.

    But if you want to engage in feminine gossiping, rallying, shaming and ridicule, rather than argument you’re just perpetuating the problem.

    I know how to definnacialize the economy. I know how to redistribute standard of living from the financial, political, and entertainment classes to the middle productive classes.

    But are you willint to limit reproduction of the underclasses to one child in return?

    Economics in everything.

    It’s just physics for humans.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 12:05:00 UTC

  • The microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time

    October 26th, 2018 9:32 AM [T]he microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time, just like the microfoundation of law is Reciprocity. Just like the microfoundations of testimony is tests of Constant Relations across given dimensions (grammars).

  • The microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time

    October 26th, 2018 9:32 AM [T]he microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time, just like the microfoundation of law is Reciprocity. Just like the microfoundations of testimony is tests of Constant Relations across given dimensions (grammars).

  • The microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time, just like the microfou

    The microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time, just like the microfoundation of law is Reciprocity. Just like the microfoundations of testimony is tests of Constant Relations across given dimensions (grammars).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 13:32:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055814406087557120