Theme: Incentives

  • by Igor Rogov The major shift came in the 70s because of massive economical and

    by Igor Rogov

    The major shift came in the 70s because of massive economical and legal incentives for males and females to switch and/or abandon their social roles which roughly coincides with the final leg of advancement of neo-malthusian theories on at least partial deindustrialisation and tighter population control of the West and fallacious practices of massive government-sponsored programs to achieve these goals.

    (The Club of Rome published a book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972).

    Since then there were no attempts made to rectify its fallacies or to undo the damage that has been done.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 19:01:00 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.
  • 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

  • No More Monopoly Government And Economics

    Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen.
  • No More Monopoly Government And Economics

    Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen.
  • NO MORE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS Aesthetic and generational returns for

    NO MORE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS

    Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 13:15:00 UTC

  • Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to es

    Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to establish limits in law that violate reciprocity, and organize people by ability and interest into markets, rather than outright declare a general rule that insulates general rules of decidability from market information.
  • Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to es

    Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to establish limits in law that violate reciprocity, and organize people by ability and interest into markets, rather than outright declare a general rule that insulates general rules of decidability from market information.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 14:56:00 UTC

  • Women (mothers, wives, girlfriends) serve as the human drug of preference and th

    Women (mothers, wives, girlfriends) serve as the human drug of preference and there is a shortage of their attention.