4 ms·

Before you can master others, as a cohort or larger groups, you must first learn to master yourself, and do so from a place of rational methodical reasoning wit

Before you can master others, as a cohort or larger groups, you must first learn to master yourself, and do so from a place of rational methodical reasoning with a relatively reasonable amount of risk management built-in to the things you cannot control (diversification). Most people want to solve big problems to make their mark, but those same people are at a fundamental disadvantage because they were taught in ways that coddle their thinking, that prevent them from seeing or getting an objective view of the problem, and thus their perceptual biases mislead them to solutions which only contribute to the problem. They look at a narrow time-horizon and don't realize outside that time horizon their solution is no solution at all. Most within our lifetime has been a nice summer day as it goes towards fall, but winter is coming. Some problems are so incredibly difficult that there is no good solution (i.e. an impossible problem), the general economic calculation problem in socialism is one of a few, previous solutions didn't work out because the flaws were not paid attention to. Societal problems as a general rule fall into these groups of problems, because if they were simple someone would have solved them about 100 years ago, and they would be non-issues today (which they aren't). Also, with regards to making a business of it, most of society is going in the wrong direction today, the incentives (subsidies) dictate that, and so you'll be fighting an uphill battle where all your competitors may have free money and opportunities that you don't have. They in the end will make more money (normalized in purchasing power), crowd you out, and buy you up in bankruptcy from free debt they are given from their good banking friends (and the market will shrink/sieve/concentrate). Parasites infest the money system, and are killing the host. That unfortunately is the nature of inflationary economies, we are well past the peak and so you will also be fighting losses from the underlying economy as well, and a strong understanding of economics that properly models these environments is a mandatory necessity. Mises wrote a series of papers back in the 1930s that rationally lays out the structural issues with central hierarchies (i.e. the structures we have adopted). He did so more generically (economics/socialism), but everyone important ignored what he had to say (not refuting it). Keynes (TGT) is still taught, but has been somewhat refuted now (Rallo), which also explains why it doesn't model outlier events (and we are in outlier territory). It certainly looks like inflationary economics with respect to the currency pool is a limited n-body problem (naturally and progressively more chaotic until exit or boundary conditions are hit). For business to work, you need to have a stable store of value that is a medium of exchange (liquid). No such thing exists now. You either have illiquid exchange for stable store, or liquid cash without stable store, and manipulation has been ongoing for years in many markets through the use of double legged options contracts at the primary dealer level (COMEX). The best thing you can do is study history, and economics and identify where things went wrong, and why they went wrong. Until you know that you won't be able to propose any solution to the societal cascade that's going to hit us in the next generation. Malthus law is pretty clear what we can look forward to during reversion to the mean (back to agrarian). The study is not straight forward because irrational thought, deceit, and lies plays a large part in that why, there are groups that speak falsehood more than they do truth and they are, through their actions directly supporting the destruction that is inevitable without a course correction. This path, you'll at the very least develop a very discerning eye which will only benefit you long term. History and Economics, and don't speed-read the communist/pro-socialist history unless you want to find yourself adopting destructive habits, and false justification. Keep an objective view, and identify whether the writer is rationally credible.

imtringued 2y ago
Money isn't a store of value. The concept of a store of value is impossible. Also, money isn't a medium of exchange, because there is no rule that says that delivery schedules have to align with payment schedules. In a hypothetical universe with premonition, all payments until the end of the universe can be settled by the first born human before the second human was born, long before there was an economy to speak of. Neoclassical economics is really weird. It predicts the absence of money, because all delivery schedules have already been planned. The organisation process has finished. It is centrally planned socialism in the mantle of a market economy. The more general liquidity preference theory is still mandatory if you want to model an economy where decisions are made in the absence of perfect information and ability to predict the future. Time preference sounds obvious until you understand that you need to know what the future looks like, before you can make a tradeoff between now and a discounted future.
- trod123 2y ago
  You are naively mistaken, and wrong on almost every supposition you made. Worse, you aren't following the bare bones rational rules needed to discern truth from falsehood. There can be no rational discussion without following these rules. This necessarily means that in a 4 state system, you would be wrong at least 75% of the time. This expands for each additional factor exponentially with the complexity to above 6 sigma in that system (with each additional factor, close to 100% false), very rapidly. For money to be money it must have 3 elements that cannot be violated. Those elements are well known and documented (by the general consensus of experts). There is no point debating this. Value is not an impossible concept, its subjective, but that by no means makes it impossible in the same way that quantum physics isn't impossible. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with the concept of superposition, what an observer is, and what the collapse of a wavefunction does with regards to quantum systems. There are equivalencies in economics that have gone unaddressed. Neoclassical economics has a very ambiguous definition, unless you define what you mean more clearly (such that there can be only one generally understood meaning), we can't refute what you say or even discuss it, it must be discarded as a matter of course. The classical definition I'm familiar with relies heavily on Keynes errors, but other definitions were contradictory in more than a few different ways (contradictions show rational premises and suppositions are false). I'm not going to allow any discussion to get bogged down in baseless drivel, where you claim the exact opposite based on my response (in deceitful hegelian fashion which the ambiguity allows), just for the sake of argument. Please clarify what you mean. Socialism in general fails given a wide enough time horizon, its fundamentally unstable. This was fully dissected in the 1930s-1950s by Mises from a structural view (in all its forms). Even the market types of socialism fail because its based on a Ponzi, where the underlying life of the currency isn't taken into account in the dynamics, it falls back to violence/feudalism with about an equal chance at collapse when the social contract and by extension elements of money/property are no longer upheld. It also neglects the fundamental requirements needed by individuals in an economy to function, but its failures are indirect (as are ponzi's in general). Adam Smith had a number of boundary conditions where the economic system stalls (and fails). Indirect though it is, they still cascade, and once wound up can't be diffused (because system deflation has been made impossible). Mises documented the 4 intractable problems with Socialism, and properly observed that Socialism cannot exist without some free market to discover pricing. Without that free market, distortions occur as printing (subsidies) are used, eventually culminating in failure if they warp enough. Virtual good manipulation (i.e. naked options), prevent a market from functioning properly. Keynes makes many assumptions, one is that general liquidity is preferenced and all that is needed is to adjust the rates accordingly, but that is rationally false. In outlier conditions this can be false when there can be no credibility in the currency (its no longer considered a store of value, or its expected that any value will be negated), value in the form of purchasing power, as in what happened with Weimar Germany prior to WW2. Your arguments are specious and neglect the common predictable failures in such systems, thus directly promoting a failed design in a safety-critical system, the outcome of which is first slavery, then destruction (as Malthus reversion takes hold, dependent interconnected systems with single points of failure are brittle; and central heirachy guarantees that at a structural level).

imtringued 2y ago

Money isn't a store of value. The concept of a store of value is impossible. Also, money isn't a medium of exchange, because there is no rule that says that delivery schedules have to align with payment schedules. In a hypothetical universe with premonition, all payments until the end of the universe can be settled by the first born human before the second human was born, long before there was an economy to speak of. Neoclassical economics is really weird. It predicts the absence of money, because all delivery schedules have already been planned. The organisation process has finished. It is centrally planned socialism in the mantle of a market economy. The more general liquidity preference theory is still mandatory if you want to model an economy where decisions are made in the absence of perfect information and ability to predict the future. Time preference sounds obvious until you understand that you need to know what the future looks like, before you can make a tradeoff between now and a discounted future.

trod123 2y ago
You are naively mistaken, and wrong on almost every supposition you made. Worse, you aren't following the bare bones rational rules needed to discern truth from falsehood. There can be no rational discussion without following these rules. This necessarily means that in a 4 state system, you would be wrong at least 75% of the time. This expands for each additional factor exponentially with the complexity to above 6 sigma in that system (with each additional factor, close to 100% false), very rapidly. For money to be money it must have 3 elements that cannot be violated. Those elements are well known and documented (by the general consensus of experts). There is no point debating this. Value is not an impossible concept, its subjective, but that by no means makes it impossible in the same way that quantum physics isn't impossible. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with the concept of superposition, what an observer is, and what the collapse of a wavefunction does with regards to quantum systems. There are equivalencies in economics that have gone unaddressed. Neoclassical economics has a very ambiguous definition, unless you define what you mean more clearly (such that there can be only one generally understood meaning), we can't refute what you say or even discuss it, it must be discarded as a matter of course. The classical definition I'm familiar with relies heavily on Keynes errors, but other definitions were contradictory in more than a few different ways (contradictions show rational premises and suppositions are false). I'm not going to allow any discussion to get bogged down in baseless drivel, where you claim the exact opposite based on my response (in deceitful hegelian fashion which the ambiguity allows), just for the sake of argument. Please clarify what you mean. Socialism in general fails given a wide enough time horizon, its fundamentally unstable. This was fully dissected in the 1930s-1950s by Mises from a structural view (in all its forms). Even the market types of socialism fail because its based on a Ponzi, where the underlying life of the currency isn't taken into account in the dynamics, it falls back to violence/feudalism with about an equal chance at collapse when the social contract and by extension elements of money/property are no longer upheld. It also neglects the fundamental requirements needed by individuals in an economy to function, but its failures are indirect (as are ponzi's in general). Adam Smith had a number of boundary conditions where the economic system stalls (and fails). Indirect though it is, they still cascade, and once wound up can't be diffused (because system deflation has been made impossible). Mises documented the 4 intractable problems with Socialism, and properly observed that Socialism cannot exist without some free market to discover pricing. Without that free market, distortions occur as printing (subsidies) are used, eventually culminating in failure if they warp enough. Virtual good manipulation (i.e. naked options), prevent a market from functioning properly. Keynes makes many assumptions, one is that general liquidity is preferenced and all that is needed is to adjust the rates accordingly, but that is rationally false. In outlier conditions this can be false when there can be no credibility in the currency (its no longer considered a store of value, or its expected that any value will be negated), value in the form of purchasing power, as in what happened with Weimar Germany prior to WW2. Your arguments are specious and neglect the common predictable failures in such systems, thus directly promoting a failed design in a safety-critical system, the outcome of which is first slavery, then destruction (as Malthus reversion takes hold, dependent interconnected systems with single points of failure are brittle; and central heirachy guarantees that at a structural level).