Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans.
That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition).
An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions.
As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation.
The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed. -
THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED Not that I want to degrade one
THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans.
That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition).
An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions.
As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation.
The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 00:25:00 UTC
-
Blockchain For Direct Purchase Of Directly Tradable Shares
There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate. Given: (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes. (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud. (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system. (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable. Therefore, 1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands. 2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans. 3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible. 4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers. 5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability. 6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today. -
BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES There are important i
BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES
There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate.
Given:
(a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes.
(b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud.
(d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system.
(d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable.
Therefore,
1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands.
2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans.
3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible.
4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers.
5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability.
6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 12:29:00 UTC
-
Blockchain For Direct Purchase Of Directly Tradable Shares
There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate. Given: (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes. (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud. (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system. (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable. Therefore, 1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands. 2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans. 3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible. 4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers. 5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability. 6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today. -
Bitcoin Criticisms – Not The Idea, The Marketing And The Execution
My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also. -
BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION My criticisms
BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION
My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks.
My problems are with BTC are:
(a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model.
(b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy.
(c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks.
(d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish.
ie: tulip bulbs.
I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument.
IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 17:17:00 UTC
-
Bitcoin Criticisms – Not The Idea, The Marketing And The Execution
My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also. -
Perfect Government
They are all just women. That is all that they can be. It is what most prefer to be. And truth is irrelevant to women, since that is a matter of contractual constraint and non compromise. They care only for non-conflict( consensus), possibility, consumption. So the journey for men, is to limit women to reciprocity and possibility, not preference, good, or truth. “I can do that for you”, and “I cannot do that for you”, and “I can only do that for you (when conditions are met)”, are in the vocabulary of women’s understanding. The fact that we added women to the men’s voting pool, but did not provide for them a separate house, as we had the nobility(lords), the property owners people(commons), and the labor (church) is the problem of modernity – not their participation in the market for commons or the market for labor. Markets force cooperation on means despite incompatibility of ends, and construct compromises. Whereas democracy and false equality create markets for propaganda, deception, and bribery of voters through forcible takings and distributions.. When we have opposing reproductive and evolutionary interests, and we have different means of coercion of one another (violence vs seduction), different preferences (numbers versus excellences, equality and consensus vs hierarchy and truth), then the only solution to cooperation that preserves an honest high trust society is a market constructed for the purpose of trade between peoples of different interests. The market for consumption (Self), the market for fixed capital (home), the market for reproduction (family), the market for production(goods, services, and information), the market for the production of commons(‘govt’), and the market for polities, all regulated by the one law of reciprocity – provides a ‘perfect’ hierarchy of ‘perfect’ institutions that assist us in achieving our differing goals, with differing abilities, by the service of one another’s means, despite our differing ends. We had the perfect government, built by the aristocracy, and the failure of the aristocracy to expand the houses to replace the church (family and labor), and to expand the houses to include women, broke the meritocratic hierarchy that for millennia had maximized liberty and prosperity by demonstrated merit, by assisting in incremental, demonstrated loyalty and ability by the product of one’s efforts, and the demonstrated consistency of the intergenerational family as an insurer of individual performance. The one law of reciprocity (tort). An independent ‘cult’ of the law: the judiciary. An hereditary monarch as a judge of last resort. A cabinet of professionals in service of the monarch. A market for the production of commons (non-consumables) consisting of houses for each of the classes: military, judicial, regional (governors), commerce (property), mothers (women), and dependents(underclasses). That market produces contracts, not legislation or law. All contracts ascend unless vetoed by the military, judiciary or King as judge of last resort. All funds raised are produced by contract between the houses. All employees the monarchy serve at the pleasure of the king – without exception. The only ‘Tax’ (non-discretionary cost) for all is 3% of GDP for the military and militia, 1% for the monarchy(use with total discretion), and .01% for the judiciary, raised by the houses.