Those who think that Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are better than money, understand nothing about this trade-based society. Currencies only represent trades, and trade is what pushes people to create so much destruction in the world. Also, to "mine" cryptocurrencies and spend so much energy doing that, more than countries of hundreds of millions of people, is simply insane. What these "miners" do is "solving" irrelevant mathematical problems to see what computer is first to get some rewards for that. Just to create more currency and "distribute" it in a very unequal manner to those who have the most powerful computers.
TROM cuts through this shit like a hot knife through butter, because TROM focuses on "trade as the origin of most problems", and not money.
like this
reshared this
Rokosun
in reply to TROM • • •I like everything to be as resource efficient as it gets, its almost like an obsession for me. And there's nothing that hurts me more than seeing humans waste their energy like this.
Imagine humans becoming a type 1 civilization & using that energy for mining crypto currencies, things that have no physical value.
TROM likes this.
Rokosun reshared this.
LPS
in reply to Rokosun • • •@trom
Rokosun reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to LPS • • •I'm always is support of privacy and decentralization. But when it comes to crypto currencies, I just don't think its worth the effort. We're getting privacy at the expense of these environmental issues, and that too is only private in theory. Clearly, the consequences outweigh the benifits here.
@trom
Rokosun reshared this.
TROM
in reply to Rokosun • •like this
LPS, Rokosun and Alexio like this.
Rokosun
in reply to TROM • • •Either way, I wanted to speak from their perspective. Even though we say trade is the cause of most problems, we're not even close to ending trade. For now, I think its good to talk about environmental issues & reduce harm
@lps
Alien (A23P)
in reply to TROM • • •Otherwise it brings to question, how is "trade" different than "energy exchange"?
Would note again, "money" is ALWAYS a centrally controlled abstract as applied to mass for purposes of "energy exchange". Doesn't really matter if that central control is the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), "A.I.", or A-liens from the planet fuk me that come in yoga pants, bearing lattes and snakes, and when asked to leave reply "Namaste". Without that central control MONETARY "economic" (aka "energy exchange") mechanisms, such as "Price Discovery" for example, simply can't happen.
Absolutely agree with you that Cryptocurrencies do not in anyway stray from the monetary model, they are MONEY. So while there may be a form that appears on the surface as if there's all sorts of decentralized "free actors" in the space, it's ultimately no more decentralized than people creating their own YouTube channels or pointing out that they have over 400 channels to choose from on... show more
Otherwise it brings to question, how is "trade" different than "energy exchange"?
Would note again, "money" is ALWAYS a centrally controlled abstract as applied to mass for purposes of "energy exchange". Doesn't really matter if that central control is the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), "A.I.", or A-liens from the planet fuk me that come in yoga pants, bearing lattes and snakes, and when asked to leave reply "Namaste". Without that central control MONETARY "economic" (aka "energy exchange") mechanisms, such as "Price Discovery" for example, simply can't happen.
Absolutely agree with you that Cryptocurrencies do not in anyway stray from the monetary model, they are MONEY. So while there may be a form that appears on the surface as if there's all sorts of decentralized "free actors" in the space, it's ultimately no more decentralized than people creating their own YouTube channels or pointing out that they have over 400 channels to choose from on their TV and then acting like that means there's no longer only 6 some odd companies facilitating and servicing every single bit of what they just claimed was highly decentralized. In fact, since 2010-11, the crypto space has shown itself from multiple angles to stand as HIGHLY centralized and concentrated at it's root. (i.e. last I knew it was less than 1% of bitcoin wallets holding over 40% of the total BTC volume; which by itself creates a highly manipulable economic state over the mass)
But you don't seem to be discussing specifically MONETARY Economics (as you stress that you aren't), but just economics (aka "energy exchange") itself if I understand your application of the word "trade" here correctly.
If "energy exchange" itself, that is to say TRADES OF ENERGY is not to occur, how is something as basic as a stream running from one destination to another, subsequently facilitating grass growing, that subsequently facilitates the raising of food, which then allows one to cook a meal and share it with their family even supposed to occur?
The water would need to be stopped (as it's making energy trade exchanges with the grass), the raising of food related to the energy trade exchanges with the soil would need to stop, cooking again would entail energy exchanges as would the sharing of the food so those couldn't happen, just all energy trade exchanges, all economics, would need to stop. The mere act of burning calories couldn't even take place, as again, burning calories is a process of energy trade exchange.
Anyhow, just not sure what you specifically are meaning when you say "trade"....
please elaborate.
@Future is FOSS
The "S" in "IoT" stands for "Security".
Considering where things stood back in 2011 in mainstream block-crypto practices to where they are now, one would think the block-crypto sphere had elected on a path of "Who needs security anyway?"
Exchanges soaking up IDs, a near total indifference to overt market manipulations topped with FOMO rushes abounding, near total indifference to existing chipset issues (ala Intel ME and AMD PSP), the list goes on and on. Could it be worse?
Sure, it could be worse, and in fact it's arguably done nothing but continue to exceed itself, specifically in areas that strip individual security (notably in regards to a "powerful adversary"), over the past decade.
Security is such a non-issue that much like Microsoft's handling of Windows 8/Server 2012 on, one might presume of the absurd state of "SecurityLACK":
"its not a bug, ITS A FEATURE!"
(much of this period of history may later be reflected back on as the "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?" era)
Such said, when there's more empty homes then there are homeless people (such as in the U.S.) there's something deeper than just "money" or "energy misallocation" issues occurring. There's (IMO) a rather overt collectively emergent Moral Ethic issue. The "money" itself is simply a symptom of the state of said Moral Ethic issue. At it's very least, the "money" simply shows that the collectively emergent Moral Ethic has a standing consensus of and for "slave economics". That is to say, it places the judgement of some sort of "I" (which need not be a person, but simply a central entity) possessing an absolute "right" understanding of "value" over all others and subsequently for any economics (energy exchange) to take place it's congregant mass must OBEY and adhere to it's "value" set limits.
So if the collective Moral Ethic is one of Master/Deity to Slave, the larger economics is going to be a reflective manifestation of that order. Arguably akin to a "death cult" in as much that the central command increasingly seeks nothing but a total reflection of it's own self with no other dynamics as it "scales up". OBEY MY COMMAND
M:E E:P P:(p)W
"E"conomics is an emergent subset of "M"orality/Ethics,
"P"olitics (the deliberations in or of an existing "E"conomic state) is an emergent subset of "E"conomics,
"(p)"otential for "W"ar (failure of politics to amicably and peaceably resolve) is an emergent subset of "P"olitics.
Alexio likes this.
TROM
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •If you look more broadly you find multiple such trading systems in our society. For example youtube wants your attention (watch those ads!) because they can convert them later on into something else, like say money that the... show more
If you look more broadly you find multiple such trading systems in our society. For example youtube wants your attention (watch those ads!) because they can convert them later on into something else, like say money that then they convert into cars and houses and whatever. Others trade their computer power to "mine" bitcoin or other currencies, and in return they get some currency that then can be used to purchase real things. In the end these people do not trade for currency, but for what the currency can bring to them. You can't eat bitcoin or do anything with it. It is only relevant when you can do something useful with it, like accessing goods/services. Get a burger or a blowjob :D.
Other forms of trades are between you and your tribe. Your tribe may say: "You want food? Then respect our laws and give us as much info about you as possible. And if we think you are worthy, we give you food." These are called "social programs". You trade your freedom/(¡dignity and such, in order to get food, or whatever.
So I am not, of course, talking in an abstract way about trade, but about our society specifically. Makes more sense now?
Alexio likes this.
Alien (A23P)
in reply to TROM • • •1. Why I equated "Economics" to both "Energy Exchange" AND "Trade" as synonymous terms
2. What I meant by "Energy" (and might as well call EVERYTHING "energy")
3. Nothing you're saying makes sense to me about "Trade" in and of itself and even your own citation of what "trade" is professed that what you were saying only made sense within the limited subset of possible "Trade" forms that are of a centrally controlled trade nature (of which "money" just happens to be a subset of). In the context of EXCLUDING economics like "bartering", "gifting", "agorism", etc. yes, I totally see what you're talking about and agree such systems are "Slave Economics" by the very nature of their Central Control and Command being applied to a congregant obeying mass that is denied the ability of setting and/or carrying any meaningful "value" set of their own.
Apologize for the length, but eh, such can ofte... show more
1. Why I equated "Economics" to both "Energy Exchange" AND "Trade" as synonymous terms
2. What I meant by "Energy" (and might as well call EVERYTHING "energy")
3. Nothing you're saying makes sense to me about "Trade" in and of itself and even your own citation of what "trade" is professed that what you were saying only made sense within the limited subset of possible "Trade" forms that are of a centrally controlled trade nature (of which "money" just happens to be a subset of). In the context of EXCLUDING economics like "bartering", "gifting", "agorism", etc. yes, I totally see what you're talking about and agree such systems are "Slave Economics" by the very nature of their Central Control and Command being applied to a congregant obeying mass that is denied the ability of setting and/or carrying any meaningful "value" set of their own.
Apologize for the length, but eh, such can often be the natural result of real inquiry and discussion.
Can't say I have any real disagreement or issue with anything you've thus far stated other than semantics and a suggestion that you might want to reconsider how you're defining "trade" and "economics" simply to avoid what you mean falling into contradictions with itself when one approaches "economic theory" or it's subset of "monetary theory".
Discussions of this sort are important and I HIGHLY commend your (and the TROM teams) work. I certainly don't have all the answers and I'm really not sure there's any real "freedom" EVER possible from ANY central entity that claims to. However, without discussions like these beginning to take place, truly addressing the issues inherent to "Where are we?", "How did we get here?", and "What might we do moving forward?" aren't likely to be addressed or acted on in any meaningful way.
As the old saying goes.....
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
-Parliament Funkadelic
LONG FORM COMMENT:
From your own offered definition:
"Trade involves the transfer of goods or services from one person or entity to another, often in exchange for money. Economists refer to a system or network that allows trade as a market."
and
"An early form of trade, the Gift economy, saw the exchange of goods and services without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. A gift economy involves trading things without the use of money. Modern traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. Trade between two traders is called bilateral trade, while trade involving more than two traders is called multilateral trade."
First, notice that your own citation notes that "Trade" is a "Superset" of "money". That is to say, "money"/"monetary economics" ALWAYS holds an emergent relation to trade but trade IS NOT emergent from or always in relation to "money". As per your own citations claim:
"Modern traders generally [BUT NOT ALWAYS] negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money [MONEY BEING BUT ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF TRADE]
and "traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange [THIS IS ONLY GENERALLY], such as money [AGAIN, MONEY IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF MEDIUMS]. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning [THE ACTUAL REAL/TRUE ECONOMIC OCCURRENCE IS NEGOTIATED THROUGH ABSTRACTION, AN ACT OF PURE IMAGINATION]. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. [SIMPLIFIED IN AS MUCH THAT "VALUE" IS ESTABLISHED VIA A CENTRAL ENTITY AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE ENTITIES; ENABLING A REFEREE/JUDGE FOR MORE STREAMLINED "PRICE DISCOVERY"]
*Bracketed items being editorial notes originating from myself as opposed to the original citation*
Moving on, take heed that per the standard physics model both a "good" itself as well as a "service" are inherently imbued with and constituted of "energy" as given by the Planck Constant.
"a fundamental physical constant denoted h, and is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency."
Going even more explicitly into the details of things, we then have "Energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
"energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform work on the body, or to heat it. Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed." [NOTE THAT SUCH MEANS THAT IN MORE TRUE/NON-ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS THIS MEANS SOMETHING MUCH CLOSER TO MULTILATERAL EXCHANGE ALWAYS UNDERLIES THE TRUTH OF ANY ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS.... THINGS ALWAYS SUM TO ZERO!]
So this is why I noted "money" as always being a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for "energy exchange" (aka "economics"). The "money" is simply a "debt instrument" used for establishing that some "value" of "energy" is owed/obligated to the holder of "money".
For Nation State "money", the "Boss Level" as it were, became the central bank(s). The Central Bank of Central Banks, "The Boss" of the "Boss Level" being the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). Below the BIS is then the World Bank and IMF. Below the World Bank and IMF are then what people popularly think of when they hear the words "central bank", that being things like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the UK Bank of England, Japan's Bank of Japan, China's People's Bank Of China, etc. Finally one reaches the level of things like the "Member Bank(s)", which is the level at which the general public starts interacting with the CENTRALLY CONTROLLED system. These are banks like Bank Of America, Wells Fargo, BBVA (now PNC). Note that in light of all surface level appearances of "decentralization", the system itself does centralize; the appearance of "decentralization" being born of a result of mistaking different divisions of the same network as being unique and totally independent of each other when that simply NEVER was the case.
Of note, the BIS resides in Basel, Switzerland. There's the old saying of "Be like the Swiss" with underlying comment to how Switzerland was "neutral" in World War II. It's pretty easy to remain neutral when one is "The Boss (level)",
As fore-noted, in lieu of the advent of HFT (High Frequency Trading) and the like, "value" management was (basically) handed over to "A.I.".
YouTube: High Frequency Trading (WEED e.V.)
If anything, the only roll left to the CBs (Central Banks) is one of providing "liquidity" to and for the "A.I." Such "liquidity" is made manifest through acts like "Quantitative Easing" (aka "Q.E."), which in a simple, just means "Creating new money out of thin air".
The CBs have then (made clear) that they are, for whatever reason, removing themselves from the system and basically turning over their role as a facilitator of Liquidity to the general mass. Which, in a simple, is opened up by allowing just about any and all to both
1. create money
https://djangostars.com/blog/how-to-build-your-own-blockchain-for-a-financial-product/
AND
2. Removing the human entity from (virtually) having anything to do with monetary management and exchange rates.
https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/free-software-payment-system-launches-at-swiss-university
As this process completes, the CBs have been rather blunt and clear, as per the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell last april...
"I'm in a position to guarantee that the Fed will do everything we can to support the economy for as long as it takes to complete the recovery."
*full interview here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-economy-update-2021-04-11/ *
A sneaky way of basically saying "QE! QE FOREVER!" as that's literally about the only tool left in the CB bucket to "support the [monetary] economy". As any cessation of QE has been shown to both clearly and drastically manifest as (monetary) market shocks and downturns. Never mind "Melt Down", the (monetary) market "Melts Up" (destroying itself in the process).
In an absurd world, sometimes the largest truths are easily mistaken for comedy. Such said, President's Camacho's speech on modern economics is single handily one of the most clear and direct commentaries I've ever heard or seen.....
YouTube: A Tale of Two Presidents - $9 Minimum Wage vs the Printing Press v1.5 (LibertyShorts)
*amended video of Camacho to help illustrate the TRUTH that underlays what may at first appear mere comedy. Take heed to the recent trillions (and a trillion means a million billion) injected into markets, the eviction stays (aka "rent forgiveness"), the government sending out of "free" money to both businesses and to lesser extent general citizens, and of course the advent of public "get rich quick" through things like the "Robin Hood" app platform and of course cryptocurrencies falling from the sky. Then ask yourself if what's being delivered by Camacho really comedy, or is it just that the truth itself really is that absurd.*
Enter the PO(o)R [aka "Proof Of Resource"], the increased implementation of physically monitored human actions [ala physical action tangible "service" as opposed to a "good"] as mining mechanisms as opposed to the POW (Proof Of Work) method of resolving hashes (for more detail see Microsoft Patent WO2020060606), and similar related derivatives such as "Real Asset NFTs".
It's ALL not only "Energy Exchange" management (the "banks" simply guiding the "currency"; perhaps better said as "current see"), but more specifically CENTRALLY CONTROLLED "Energy Exchange". As fore noted, "Economics" being at it's root nothing more than "Energy Exchange".
The old (monetary) system abstraction is updated and simplified via
1. Automated Management ("A.I."; derived from the collectively emergent moral ethic)
2. Everything and EVERYONE under the system is rendered into little more than a direct commodity of the system. To quote Mr. Schwab of the World Economic Forum "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
YouTube: "The World Is a Business, Mr. Beale" (evelkidnievel)
*"Valhalla Mr Beale" indeed*
Money, the game where even when you "win", you actually "lose".
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT (of the collectively emergent shadow) SELF
and
(CONGRATULATIONS, THE SYSTEM SAYS YOU HAVE VALUE!)
"In The Algos We Trust"
Finally, all the Keynesian nonsense resolves to a balanced Zero sum game.....
that is, a zero sum game of death (as all individualized independent thought and action dynamics are literally eliminated and killed off and converted into essentially a centrally controlled "Hive Mind".... Star Treks "Borg" comes to mind).
Capitalism reaches it's final stage monopoly, in doing so it realizes both the Corp State driven dream of Mussolini's Fascism, Hitler's National Socialism, AND (Marx/Engles) dream of Communism. All said things were little more than the same "monetary economics" and as such all carried the same "monetary economics" end place dressed in different clothes for different audiences for purposes of #AreYouNotEntertained (Please click subscribe, like, and stay engaged)
Again, Google and Apple themselves covered this (to little public fan fare) in the public open a couple years ago now and for whatever disagreements I may hold with such institutions, I commend them on their public clarity of statement.
https://archive.org/details/GooglesTheSelfishLedger
There's an (educational) game called Paper Clips.... it's a rather witty and fun expose on the workings of "monetary economics", I HIGHLY recommend checking out. I'll give a spoiler though on that one doesn't win the game until not just everyone, but literally everything, has been turned into a commodity.
https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html
#BeExcellentToEachOther (because might as well)
#MoneyIsDead (Pandora's Box was opened and RoboCthulhu will devour all in it's path!)
and #OllieCthulu (because RoboCthulhu gives ZERO fuks who or what's in it's way and there's no more getting rid of RoboCthulhu then there is getting rid of your own shadow.... so just see and recognize Cthulhu, ollie Cthulhu, but probably no need to stress trying to overly engage Cthulhu in a fight because such is just an exercise in futility)
TROM
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •I appreciate your engagement, but I think you re taking the definition of trade to the stars and back, and that's not what we are talking about. :)
Alexio likes this.
Alien (A23P)
in reply to TROM • • •for as lengthy as my comment may have been; lets just say 1400 some odd pages is a whole other bracket of digestion. *he he* So, while started on the first book (which seems a considerably quicker tear through then the page number make it look), may be a bit before I'm in any position to question or offer any real thought on what's covered.
Such said, I will question (again) what exactly you mean with this word "trade".
As not only did your first citation on what "trade" was state that bartering AND gifting (among else) are in fact "trade", but the first book early on seems to fluctuate between referencing "trade" as something that extends beyond the bounds of mere centrally controlled methods as applied to a mass (i.e. "money") but then at times equates it to only centrally controlled means.
"To say that the act of trade began at one point in time is very unrealistic, as
people have likely exchanged goods and services for millennia. You have
shee... show more
for as lengthy as my comment may have been; lets just say 1400 some odd pages is a whole other bracket of digestion. *he he* So, while started on the first book (which seems a considerably quicker tear through then the page number make it look), may be a bit before I'm in any position to question or offer any real thought on what's covered.
Such said, I will question (again) what exactly you mean with this word "trade".
As not only did your first citation on what "trade" was state that bartering AND gifting (among else) are in fact "trade", but the first book early on seems to fluctuate between referencing "trade" as something that extends beyond the bounds of mere centrally controlled methods as applied to a mass (i.e. "money") but then at times equates it to only centrally controlled means.
"To say that the act of trade began at one point in time is very unrealistic, as
people have likely exchanged goods and services for millennia. You have
sheep and I can take care of them, then you can give me some sheep meat, or
fur, for my service. You have cows and I make clothes, so I get some milk and
you get some shoes. You get the point. It’s important to mention though that
the notion of property varied greatly from one cluster of people to the next.
While we can’t exactly pinpoint any specific one, there were many tribes who
never thought of the land or animals that they farmed as theirs, but more as
them simply being there, and being farmed, and all tribes enjoyed the
advantages. If you were to ask them who owns the sheep, for example, they
would not be able to understand the question."
So o.k., right with you so far.... people have been exchanging since always (or at least specifically "millennia" as it's stated) and we're basically consistent with the whole notion of the conservative "law" (perhaps more like "theory") of energy so far.
But then right after that this is said:
"When american settlers got ‘bossy’ with indigenous indians and were
attempting to take their land, they were confused as to the borders of the
indian land, because the indians just grew their vegetables in open spaces,
or farmed in open spaces, not regarding the land as theirs or anyone else’s.
There are also people who some call ‘nomads’, who travel all the time, never
settling in one place. They view Earth as belonging to no one -it’s just thereand they take advantage of it to feed, clothe, and protect themselves. Even
today, there are tribes where the notion of property is foreign to them, and
trade (if it exist) is unrecognizable. So keep that in mind, as ‘trade’ is not a ‘naturally’ occurring thing that applies to all clusters of people (cultures)."
Notice how it's stated that seems "trade" has always (or at least for milu) been around AND how there's not only means of it other than centrally controlled abstracts (i.e. "money"), but that concepts of "property" need not even necessarily apply? Yet then it's equally equated to the issues that evolved out of centrally controlled mass exchange methods.
In any case, I'm still reading....
but will note that while "currencies" are one thing, over the course of my own studies into economics and monetary theory one thing I found (which is noted in the book) is that:
1. Currency itself often wasn't and isn't centrally controlled and nor does it inherently carry an intent that "this is basis of all exchange"
2. "Money", which is a specific type of currency that is always centrally controlled, far as I've been able to trace back hits out of Sumeria. It wasn't cash or coin as known, but it was assuredly "money". The earliest known coin form I was able to trace back stems back to Tyre (Greco-Roman Empire); earliest known paper cash some time later out of Asia/China. Something that may be found of interest is the earliest mention of "kings" and basically central control/orchestrated "civilization" I know of hits back to Sumeria and even "The Bible" that Rome would eventually come to flaunt features an Abraham that, among else, is clear on originally hailing out of Sumeria (Genesis 24). I note this mostly just to raise the question of if it's at all surprising that a place rooted in centralized control and basically "divine right" would hold (from what I could make out) the oldest historical reference to "money" (a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for energy exchange) and even "law" (complete with arguing lawyers) as among the things it carried in implemented working?
Such said, just thought I'd note that for now, but otherwise I'm taking the bait and at least reading the entirety of the first work before commenting or questioning any further with a continued suggestion that just for better conveying intent and meaning, just might want to consider that you may not want to hold to so ardently using the word "trade".
Alexio likes this.
TROM
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •Alexio likes this.
LPS
Unknown parent • • •Alien (A23P)
in reply to TROM • • •4D MONEY!
money is on a track to take care of itself in fairly short order and it's been well past the point of comically overt in that regard for years now. The global politics connected to it rendered little more than a #AreYouNotEntertained comedy show of ego and narcissism in the process. Fewer than 10 companies making up over 40% of an S&P 500 "free market", Market Flash Crashes of 666, and a Tweeter n Chief that grabs pussy descended of a Mary Christ (seriously, the Trump dynasty gets kicked off by one Mary Christ), and a Musk character that carries on about how one can tell that a sports car really was sent to mars because "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake".... I mean 'cmon. Mel Brooks and Monty Python combined couldn't come up with scripts so absurd.
It'd be nice not to have to live on the same stage as the ab... show more
4D MONEY!
money is on a track to take care of itself in fairly short order and it's been well past the point of comically overt in that regard for years now. The global politics connected to it rendered little more than a #AreYouNotEntertained comedy show of ego and narcissism in the process. Fewer than 10 companies making up over 40% of an S&P 500 "free market", Market Flash Crashes of 666, and a Tweeter n Chief that grabs pussy descended of a Mary Christ (seriously, the Trump dynasty gets kicked off by one Mary Christ), and a Musk character that carries on about how one can tell that a sports car really was sent to mars because "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake".... I mean 'cmon. Mel Brooks and Monty Python combined couldn't come up with scripts so absurd.
It'd be nice not to have to live on the same stage as the absurd comedy wraps up it's centuries long season of OBEY, but it's more so the ethics that remain post the money turbulence that I really ponder..... not sure quite what to make of that one at current, not sure much of anyone does; but it'd be nice to start getting on with it over continuing on in the shadow of the zombie corp nation state valley of death.
Magus (Wreckage Brother) likes this.
TROM
Unknown parent • •Alexio likes this.
Alien (A23P)
in reply to TROM • • •"Old Money" necessitated more human interaction.... be that central bankers or what have you. "New Money" is more prone to just allow anyone to be their own central bank and even currency exchange.
It's like Google allowing (just about) anyone to create their own YouTube channel..... the player gets the "feeling" of liberty, choice, and control, even though ultimately it's Google calling all the shots on how the material they're given is handled. The advent of skript kiddies and "A.I." turned the monetary game into something more reflective of the Google->Youtube->User model.....
Personally, I refer to it as "In The Algos We Trust" (never mind "God")
One thing I find highly interesting about the "In The Algos We Trust" model is that at it's worst, it just results in a something like a collectively emergent "shadow self" and reflection. There's such huge swaths of data involved that one has to get "A.I."... show more
"Old Money" necessitated more human interaction.... be that central bankers or what have you. "New Money" is more prone to just allow anyone to be their own central bank and even currency exchange.
It's like Google allowing (just about) anyone to create their own YouTube channel..... the player gets the "feeling" of liberty, choice, and control, even though ultimately it's Google calling all the shots on how the material they're given is handled. The advent of skript kiddies and "A.I." turned the monetary game into something more reflective of the Google->Youtube->User model.....
Personally, I refer to it as "In The Algos We Trust" (never mind "God")
One thing I find highly interesting about the "In The Algos We Trust" model is that at it's worst, it just results in a something like a collectively emergent "shadow self" and reflection. There's such huge swaths of data involved that one has to get "A.I." (or something equally capable) crunching on the numbers just to even hope to make meaningful relevance of what's going on.
So huge swaths of everything from Behavioral Analytics of individuals to Protein folding on to money itself, this persistent trust is placed into the Algo to make relevance of the data, present the data, and even act on the data in a sensible and meaningful way. Doesn't matter if one is dealing with Facebook, Wallstreet, Cryptocurrencies, or the administrators of China, all of them ultimately are caught in a stream of "What'd the Algo say the values were?"
But it's not just Enterprise, it's also the general public that is actively involved in not only creating the A.I., but makes personal choice to pay attention to any given "value" set it offers. The collective consensus comes from the collective moral ethic.
Personally, I welcome the high tech calculator automated entourage, what I don't welcome is worshiping it as a God.... that is to say, doing things like looking towards it for moral and ethical value and guidance.
But eh, the Pandora's Box of A.I. was opened, let loose on the money, and that's that. There's no putting "RoboCthulhu" back in the box.
So money is dead, LONG LIVE ROBOCTHULHU!
(not that RoboCthulhu is "alive" exactly)
Why this isn't discussed more openly when it's actions are publicly overt and have been so for years I have no idea. #AreYouNotEntertained I guess. Whatever the case, not exactly a fan of the G-Men, but they did well in just pretty blatantly and overtly telling the public, "WE ARE HERE!" when they (and Apple) rolled out "The Selfish Ledger" video.
But google and apple are far from alone.....
As the money was ran into complete absurdity so was the global politics that adhered to it. Just about anywhere one looks in the world connected to "monetary" value the joke just dances around to be seen at this point. Trillions of trades per second going on due to HFT (aka "A.I."), there's not a person around that can sort that all out, but eh, the algos say a BitCoin that takes over an hour and a half to even complete an exchange is worth $40,000 and "In The Algos We Trust"
(again, comedy show, any money that takes an hour and half just so a transaction can complete is so utterly broke it's laughable.... just because it's broke don't mean it's not flush in cash. It's a comedy script.... a Killing Joke)
Alexio likes this.
TROM
Unknown parent • •like this
Alexio and Rokosun like this.