Theme: Institution
-
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 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. -
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 17:42:00 UTC
-
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating. -
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating
Hallmark is single handedly restoring the studio model. Fascinating. -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women.
2) nbc management found out from staff.
3) they had prior knowledge for years.
4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant)
5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 22:40:00 UTC
-
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences July 11, 2014 (repost) Truth and
Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences
July 11, 2014 (repost)
Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)
Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.
Truth and Duty are two different things.
Truth and Knowledge are two different things.
Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)
Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)
Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)
Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)
[T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.
The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.
If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.
Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.
When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.
But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.
And the consequences are astounding.
Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.
I have solved the problem you know.
It’s ethics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 17:39:00 UTC
-
Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences July 11, 2014 (repost) Truth and
Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences July 11, 2014 (repost) Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission) Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things. Truth and Duty are two different things. Truth and Knowledge are two different things. Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world) Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism) Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans) Truth as Science – Universalism. (english) [T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost. The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***. If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction. But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence. And the consequences are astounding. Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence. I have solved the problem you know. It’s ethics.