The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 03:03:59 am



Title: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 03:03:59 am
(https://i.imgur.com/QBab0h9.jpg)


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 11, 2017, 05:46:22 am
Human labor can produce valuable products.
IP and software is also a product, so it's not true that we are only talking about physical products.
For instance creating a game is creating more products.
So Scalar A is not constant.
Because according to the decisions you make or your management make, you can make more or less valuable products(such as software).

Also countries can have certain taxes for their citizens, but give state aid to certain corporates.
I think 5% of the population in Israel(Hi Tech engineers) is responsbile for 30% of the GDP(The GDP from Hi Tech in Israel)..


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 09:54:32 am
Human labor can produce valuable products.
IP and software is also a product, so it's not true that we are only talking about physical products.
For instance creating a game is creating more products.
So Scalar A is not constant.

All of those things are in Vector B (goods and mechanical services), so the are scaled by Scalar B.


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 02:33:28 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Ew06puP.jpg)


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 11, 2017, 05:46:17 pm
What are you saying? There is no growth?


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 06:17:30 pm
What are you saying? There is no growth?

Any economic growth must be related to the reduction of Scalar B.

We might also consider increasing the diversity of Vector B as a different kind of growth. Increasing the diversity of Vector B will give us more options regarding what we can buy, but not make it cheaper for us to buy things. Increasing the diversity of Vector A will in a similar way give us more options regarding what we can study to become.

I have now made this into a somewhat more congruent article: http://www.archania.org/a_vector_interpretation_of_economic_growth.html (http://www.archania.org/a_vector_interpretation_of_economic_growth.html)


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 12, 2017, 09:53:47 am
Growth doesn't have to be acceleration? You say like growth only happen when there is acceleration. It's not true.
For instance if the speed of producing bread is higher than the speed the bread is consumed, then there is going to be more and more surplus of bread, even if nothing change in the efficiency of producing bread.
That's exactly trickle down.
You seem only to care about the relative wealth and not the absolute wealth.
Relative wealth can remain constant or even become worse for the common people, but absolute wealth becomes better.


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 12, 2017, 01:22:03 pm
For instance if the speed of producing bread is higher than the speed the bread is consumed, then there is going to be more and more surplus of bread, even if nothing change in the efficiency of producing bread.

This is not true for bread and other types of food, since it decays.  It is however true for books, movies, and other types of information. That can however be considered as growing the diversity of Vector B, like I have said before.

I think lots of the confusion with modern economics, comes from not seeing the distinction between "increasing the diversity of Vector B" and "reducing Scalar B". Increasing the diversity of Vector B doesn't make us more wealthy, in the sense that we can afford to buy more goods. It gives us more options.


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 12, 2017, 02:58:45 pm
Growth is whenever the production is faster than the consumption. Distribution of products is not a simple average. Constant labour can bring growth if the production is faster than the consumption.


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 12, 2017, 03:04:10 pm
Growth is whenever the production is faster than the consumption.

Have you ever heard about bacteria and fungi? You know that there are bacterial and fungal spores in most of the food you are consuming? You know that there are bacterial and fungal spores in most of the air you are inhaling? These microorganisms can decompose lots of stuff, but they are especially good at decomposing food. So, no, there will not necessarily be any growth if you produce food faster than you are consuming it. Just lots of rotten food with bacterial and fungal colonies.

(http://www.planet-science.com/umbraco/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/63731/rotten%20apple_96277745.jpg)

(http://www.futuristmatt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/food-shortage.jpg)

(http://ballinodetidytowns.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/1/2/10123280/6172439_orig.jpg)


Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 12, 2017, 09:56:07 pm
I gave food just as one example, products can be all sort of things. Not just food.
Think that the rate of consumption doesn't need to be the same as the rate of production.
Also there are ways to preserve certain kinds of food.
For instance some companies preserve frozen oranges to produce orange juice from them the whole year. The fact that they produce more oranges than people consume make it possible for them.
At some point they will have more oranges than they could use.
But the idea is that a constant non changing production doesn't have to be in perfect balance with consumption. And when the balance of the production/consumption is positive, you get surplus you can use later on, or you can increase consumption once you accumulated more production.
That's why growth could just mean... we produce more than we use at this moment.
So the pie could change in size even when the vectors don't change, because the rate of production is faster than the rate of consumption.


Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 12, 2017, 10:49:36 pm
For instance some companies preserve frozen oranges to produce orange juice from them the whole year. The fact that they produce more oranges than people consume make it possible for them.
At some point they will have more oranges than they could use.

That is not growth, that is a buffer. Buffers require storage space, and if you are going to store food you might require refrigeration. Storage and refrigeration cost money, so buffers usually have a negative impact on the economy.


Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 12, 2017, 11:46:19 pm
It is growth.
I am not talking only about food.
If you have a buffer you can control the amount of work you can do, you can utilize your work for other things.
Or you can work less because you have a buffer.
The point is... growth is when output is bigger than consumption.
When the world's output is bigger than current world's consumption you can either work less or increase the current consumption.

Let's think about physics.
The gap between production y = 2*a*x and consumption y = a*x will keep increase eventhough the vectors are both linear(constant velocity)


Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 12, 2017, 11:57:01 pm
Let's think about physics.
The gap between production y = 2*a*x and consumption y = a*x will keep increase eventhough the vectors are both linear(constant velocity)

That would work in an abstract mathematical world, where nothing decayed, and we could store infinite amounts things for free. We are not living in such a world.

The equation you have made for consumption doesn't include everything that is removed, since lots of things decay. You would also need to have another equation for the extra costs related to storage.



Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Sargon on November 13, 2017, 12:08:03 am
Of course it's an approximation, but it's accurate until a degree.
The sun will also swallow the earth one day and I didn't include that in the equation as well.
It's the order of the magnitude that matters.
There are many factors I didn't include, such as changing population and many others.
The point is growth is when your production is bigger than your consumption.
The input and output, kind of like a diet.


Title: Re: A vector interpretation of economic growth
Post by: Zanthius on November 13, 2017, 12:10:49 am
Of course it's an approximation, but it's accurate until a degree.
The sun will also swallow the earth one day and I didn't include that in the equation as well.

It is horribly inaccurate. This would be more accurate for most consumer goods:

Production=Consumption + Natural Decay + Waste

The point is growth is when your production is bigger than your consumption.
The input and output, kind of like a diet.

This actually scares me, because it seems like you think of the money in your bank account as being equivalent with the fat molecules on your body. But fat molecules have an inherent value in themselves since they can be utilized as fuel by your body, while money is just a metric for measuring something else. That is why we get inflation if we put 1 billion USD into every bank account on the planet.  There wouldn't be any inflation of how much fuel people can get from their fat molecules, if everybody suddenly just got 20 kg of extra fat.



Title: Re: Money as dimensionless vectors
Post by: Sargon on November 13, 2017, 07:34:50 pm
Of course money is only a representation of the share you have of the global products, sort of.
And I talked about products vs consumption, I didn't mention money.
If you make more products than you consume you have more "products fat".
Now about decay... that's tricky because every products have all sort of preservation qualities.
So even if we include decay of products, then it's less than O(n) but still greater than O(1).
So it's a bit less than linear, but it is not balanced. So it stands true, as long as production has a greater order(of any order) than consumption, there is growth.
It can be O(n) or O(logn) or O(n^2)
What you talk about is not growth, but seems more like the relative distribution of the products.
I am not talking about distribution of products/wealth, I am talking about growth of the globe.
I am not sure if we still talk about the growth of the planet or countries, since you changed the thread's title.


Title: Re: Money as dimensionless vectors
Post by: Zanthius on November 13, 2017, 07:48:36 pm
This thread has evolved into a proposal for a new currency:

(https://i.imgur.com/PMmzVO6.jpg)

http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html (http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html)


Title: Re: Global economic growth
Post by: Death 999 on November 14, 2017, 12:10:14 am
For instance if the speed of producing bread is higher than the speed the bread is consumed, then there is going to be more and more surplus of bread, even if nothing change in the efficiency of producing bread.
That's exactly trickle down.

I do not see the connection between these two ideas.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Sargon on November 14, 2017, 01:19:00 am
The connection is that as long as there is growth, the rate of valuable things increase faster than the rate people consume it.
That means there is more room for consumption to increase in the future.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Death 999 on November 14, 2017, 01:27:33 pm
The connection is that as long as there is growth, the rate of valuable things increase faster than the rate people consume it.
That means there is more room for consumption to increase in the future.

But that's not what trickle-down means. Trickle-down economics is the idea that lowering taxes on the wealthy allows them to invest, so they do invest, so growth occurs, leading to the benefit you named. The problem with it is that letting the rich have more money doesn't lead to anything close to a sufficient amount of investment.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 14, 2017, 04:40:17 pm
But that's not what trickle-down means.

Exactly! We can't just redefine well established concepts whenever it suites our confirmation biases.

But even his modified definition doesn't fit with the reality we are living in. If it fits with anything, it might be with the growth of garbage on this planet.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Sargon on November 14, 2017, 08:19:44 pm
Trickle down is simply based on growth without caring how much rich the rich people get.
A 0% tax on rich people is not the ultimate goal of Trickle down, it's not "Reduce taxes as much as possible".
It's an optimization of taxes, a maxima between taxes(state income) and growth.

There is also no such a thing as "tax for the rich". It doesn't exist.
You can't tax someone based on how much money or asset he has, you tax people on transactions.
A rich person could take 1$ as his salary(like many coporate CEOs do) and you won't be able to tax him for that.

If the rich person doesn't invest or doesn't take a salary, you can't tax him,


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 14, 2017, 08:36:20 pm
Trickle down is simply based on growth without caring how much rich the rich people get.

So we are just supposed to ignore that rich people are inflating our economy?

(https://i.imgur.com/E0PXPVx.jpg)

It's an optimization of taxes, a maxima between taxes(state income) and growth.

So there is no difference between those who believe in trickle down and those who believe in progressive taxes? We also want to find the optimal level of taxes.

There is also no such a thing as "tax for the rich". It doesn't exist.
You can't tax someone based on how much money or asset he has, you tax people on transactions.
A rich person could take 1$ as his salary(like many coporate CEOs do) and you won't be able to tax him for that.

If the rich person doesn't invest or doesn't take a salary, you can't tax him,

Quote
A wealth tax (also called a capital tax or equity tax) is a levy on the total value of personal assets, including: bank deposits, real estate, assets in insurance and pension plans, ownership of unincorporated businesses, financial securities, and personal trusts.[1] Typically liabilities (primarily mortgages and other loans) are deducted, hence it is sometimes called a net wealth tax.

A wealth tax taxes the accumulated stock of purchasing power, in contrast to income tax, which is a tax on the flow of assets (a change in stock).

Current examples
  • Argentina: It is named Impuesto a los Bienes Personales, on assets above ARS 800,000 (US$53,500), the annual rates are 0.75% for 2016, 0.50% for 2017 and 0.25% in 2018.
  • France: There is a solidarity tax on wealth on any net assets above €800,000, if your total net worth is €1,300,000 or more. Marginal rates range from 0.5% to 1.5%.[2] In 2007, it collected €4.07 billion, accounting for 1.4% of total revenue.[3]
  • Spain: There is a tax called Patrimonio. The tax rate is progressive, from 0.2 to 3.75% of net assets above the threshold of €700,000 after €300,000 primary residence allowance.[4] The exact amount varies between provinces.
  • Netherlands: Interest income is taxed like a wealth tax. Up to and including 2016, the rate was fixed at 1.2% (30% taxation over an assumed yield of 4%). From the fiscal year of 2017 onwards, the tax rate progresses with wealth. See Income tax in the Netherlands.
  • Norway: 0.7% (municipal) and 0.15% (national) a total of 0.85% levied on net assets exceeding 1,480,000 kr as of 2017.[5] For tax purposes, the value of real estate assets are estimated to approximately 50% of the market value (25% if it is the taxpayer's primary residence).[6] The Conservative and Progress parties in the current government and the Liberal Party have stated that they aim to reduce and eventually eliminate the wealth tax.[7]
  • Switzerland: A progressive wealth tax that varies by residence location. Most cantons have no wealth tax for individual net worth less than CHF 100,000 and progressively raise the tax rate on net assets with a top rate ranging from 0.13% to 0.94% depending on canton and municipality of residence.[8] Wealth tax is levied against worldwide assets of Swiss residents, but it is not levied against assets in Switzerland held by non-residents.[8][9]
  • Italy: Two wealth taxes are imposed. One, IVIE, is a 0.76% tax imposed on real assets held outside Italy. The values of such assets are determined by purchase price or current market value. Property taxes paid in the country where the real estate exists can offset IVIE. Another tax, IVAFE, is 0.15% and is levied on all financial assets located outside the country, including, so far as the language seems to imply, individual pension schemes such as 401(k)s and IRAs in the US.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax)

There can also be corporate taxes:

Quote
A corporate tax, also called corporation tax or company tax, is a direct tax imposed by a jurisdiction on the income or capital of corporations or analogous legal entities. Many countries impose such taxes at the national level, and a similar tax may be imposed at state or local levels. The taxes may also be referred to as income tax or capital tax. Partnerships are generally not taxed at the entity level. A country's corporate tax may apply to:

  • corporations incorporated in the country,
  • corporations doing business in the country on income from that country,
  • foreign corporations who have a permanent establishment in the country, or
  • corporations deemed to be resident for tax purposes in the country.

Company income subject to tax is often determined much like taxable income for individual taxpayers. Generally, the tax is imposed on net profits. In some jurisdictions, rules for taxing companies may differ significantly from rules for taxing individuals. Certain corporate acts, like reorganizations, may not be taxed. Some types of entities may be exempt from tax.

Countries may tax corporations on its net profit and may also tax shareholders when the corporation pays a dividend. Where dividends are taxed, a corporation may be required to withhold tax before the dividend is distributed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax)

(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/statistics/images/type_share_historical.gif)


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Death 999 on November 14, 2017, 09:52:26 pm
Might want to better mark off where you're quoting, there, Zanthius


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 14, 2017, 09:53:51 pm
Might want to better mark off where you're quoting, there, Zanthius

I agree. Can you make a different quote color, when we are quoting something external? I don't like that we need to use the same color for external quotes. I feel like it gets mixed up with his quotes then.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 15, 2017, 01:15:47 pm
I don't really care about the american tax system.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 15, 2017, 09:44:24 pm
I have rewritten the upper part of the article, and introduced a proposal for a new currency called Standard Hourly Wage (SHW)

(https://i.imgur.com/ovgXW62.jpg)

http://archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html (http://archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html)


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 18, 2017, 01:20:39 am
Because of this article, I have been investigating cryptocurrencies lately.  I have already started mining a cryptocurrency called "monero", and I have decided to start building a huge GPU-miner to mine Ethereum.  Anyhow, I feel a bit bad about this, since I am using lots of computer power and electricity only to get money to myself. Except for destroying the national currencies, I am not sure how much this really benefits our society. So here I have made a proposal:

(https://i.imgur.com/WrSmrcD.jpg)



Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 18, 2017, 12:06:39 pm
I have now written about how this cryptocurrency can be used to keep the value of our currency at the Standard Hourly Wage (SHW)

(https://i.imgur.com/nzHpSgE.jpg)

http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html (http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html)

Doesn't anybody here have any objections to my proposal for a new currency system? It is really hard to develop things without insightful negative feedback....


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Death 999 on November 18, 2017, 06:41:53 pm
The crux of cryptocurrencies is proof-of-work. What you'd need is some way to require the proof-of-work to lead back to something socially useful.

I do not think this problem is solvable even in principle.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 18, 2017, 06:50:55 pm
The crux of cryptocurrencies is proof-of-work. What you'd need is some way to require the proof-of-work to lead back to something socially useful.

I do not think this problem is solvable even in principle.

I was thinking more like the algorithms could compete, and the more competition, time and computing power used to find a solution, the more the winner would earn.

So, for example:

if 100 algorithms using 1ghz each compete for 1 hour before finding the optimal solution, the winner would earn 100*1*1=100 * whatever the value is.
if 200 algorithms using 2ghz each compete for 2 hours before finding the optimal solution, the winner would earn 200*2*2=800 * whatever the value is.

Also, there could always be a "police algorithm" involved in the competition for all problems, and if the "police" algorithm finds a solution significantly faster than the first winner, it is dismissed.

I am sure you can find many weaknesses with this, but I defiantly don't see why something like this should be impossible to make in principle.
 
Also, I don't think it should be a necessity that the problem must be something socially useful. Just that it should be open for people to propose socially useful problems. If there aren't enough socially useful problems, they can compete for artificially generated problems.

I also think it would be more or less impossible to prove that something is a socially useful problem, and therefore it cannot be a requirement.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 18, 2017, 11:42:14 pm
I have made this graph to show why cryptocurrencies are better than national currencies, or why mining is better than central banks.

(https://i.imgur.com/9JT1i5J.jpg)

And I have also added this text, due to the feedback I got from Death 999:

Quote
However, since it is difficult to prove that a problem is a socially significant, it cannot be a requirement. It should rather be open for everybody to propose problems. And since there might not be enough proposed problems, there should also be artificially generated problems.

http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html (http://www.archania.org/money_as_the_relationship_between_labor_and_consumer_goods.html)

I really haven't though much of this before, but the cryptocurrencies are probably the most devastating force for national currencies (and even nation states themselves).  It has become quite obvious to me now, that the national currencies are going to lose the battle against the cryptocurrencies. Probably more than half of the world economy is going to be in cryptocurrencies around 2030, and after that, people are going to run away from national currencies.

I wonder if nations can find a way to survive the loss of their currencies... It will certainly be a blow to the very foundation of modern nation states.

EDIT: I might need to add about this to my "HOW YOU CAN HELP TO CHANGE THE WORLD INTO SOMETHING BETTER" article. Investing into cryptocurrencies seems to be one of the most efficient ways to change the world.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Death 999 on November 20, 2017, 12:01:52 am
Central banks fulfill genuinely useful functions - money supply is a very powerful lever, and putting nothing-in-particular in control of it leads to bad outcomes.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 20, 2017, 07:20:43 am
Central banks fulfill genuinely useful functions - money supply is a very powerful lever, and putting nothing-in-particular in control of it leads to bad outcomes.

Well, even if they once performed genuinely useful functions, they are a dying system. Let me explain:

Investors decide what to invest in mostly based upon two factors: security and growth.

In order for central banks to compete with cryptocurrencies regarding growth, they would need to have a negative rent, and a quite significantly negative rent. That wouldn't work very well, since that would give an incentive to banks and consumers to get as much loans as possible. Mining is inherently a better system than loans, since mining requires work. It is much better to control the value of a currency with difficulty of work, than with interest rate on loans.

(https://coinatmradar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/20170501_bitcoin_price.png)

The only reason why investors have been a bit reluctant to invest in cryptocurrencies, is because of security. They have considered the national currencies to be more secure. This however changes, as the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies increases compared to national currencies. The bigger the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, the more secure they will be considered.

(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58f8ae497522ca38008b4be7-1200)

No matter if you like cryptocurrencies or not, they are going to take over the world economy during the next 10-15 years. We might have a chance of making them less anonymous if we work together. The greatest treat I see with cryptocurrencies, is that some of them are very well suited for tax evasion and illegal activities, since they are so anonymous.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 20, 2017, 01:39:21 pm
You sound like a criminal, if you see these currencies like a treat :).


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 20, 2017, 01:41:47 pm
Anyway, I dislike the current cryptocurrencies because right now the most of them do the mining for the transaction verification, and this verifiacation is WAY slower than traditional methods. also it doesn't work when we establish ourselves as  a spacefaring race. instead of giving cash money you would be giving bitcoins with weeks of verification time between mars and earth, which is fucked up.
Also, liking crypocurrencies doensn't rhyme with my desire for a better environment. This mining bullshit that is neccesary is consuming so much energy which all goes to waste for nothing. For a single transaction you're consuming an american households useage of energy for 3 days. It is unmaintainable if the entire world starts using bitcoin.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 20, 2017, 02:49:39 pm
You sound like a criminal, if you see these currencies like a treat :).

Based upon the current exponential growth rate of cryptocurrencies, I made this graph to estimate when it will surpass the world economy. Of course, people will start to run away from national currencies long before that. And when people start to run away from the national currencies there will be hyper-inflation.

(https://i.imgur.com/pEDZmxu.jpg)

Imagine the old national currencies as swords, and the new cryptocurrencies as guns. Populations using swords had no chance against populations using guns, nor will the old currencies have any chance against the new cryptcurrencies. They are doomed.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Death 999 on November 20, 2017, 10:35:11 pm
I have a feeling that something in your model is going to fail before that happens.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 20, 2017, 11:29:17 pm
I have a feeling that something in your model is going to fail before that happens.

There is always uncertainty involved when projecting into the future. However, the cryptocurrencies seem to be very resilient, since there are so many different cryptocurrencies now. EU might be able to make some laws against them, but I doubt they will be able to do that in time. It takes way too much time to make changes in democratic countries, and they will probably just outlaw bitcoins if anything. But even if they somehow manage to outlaw them in time, they will continue to grow in the black market. And lots of countries in the world are not going to outlaw them, so there they can flourish. I doubt Donald Trump will outlaw them. He will probably rather invest in them.

I am going to write about this in the concluding remarks of my blueprint article.

I think one of the reasons why you are skeptical, might be related to that exponential growth curves almost always just last for a short while. Everybody knows that a bacteria culture under normal circumstances doesn't grow to the size of Earth in 48 hours, even if that is what we might expect from their exponential growth curve.

(http://cronodon.com/sitebuilder/images/Exponential_growth-600x471.jpg)

Bacteria cultures will only grow exponentially when they have enough sustenance. Since they almost always are limited by the amount of sustenance in their environments, they will usually never grow to such proportions.

In order to understand when the exponential growth phase for cryptocurrencies will end, it is important to understand what their sustenance is. It seems like they actually are feeding on the old national currencies. This is why I think my model wiill not necessarily fail.



Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 21, 2017, 09:37:04 pm
what about forks of those currencies that are happening right now?
or the way someone deleted 150 million ethereum due to a bug in the system? :)


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 21, 2017, 11:14:22 pm
what about forks of those currencies that are happening right now?
or the way someone deleted 150 million ethereum due to a bug in the system? :)

I don't think those things matter a lot in the large scale of things.

Here is what I have added to the concluding remarks:

(https://i.imgur.com/3zew9TJ.jpg)

http://archania.org/concluding_remarks.html (http://archania.org/concluding_remarks.html)


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 22, 2017, 10:04:56 am
you forget that in the future cryptocurrency might become the national currency of a country.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 22, 2017, 10:24:47 am
you forget that in the future cryptocurrency might become the national currency of a country.

Sure, but it is going to compete against all the other cryptocurrencies, and if you are going to have taxes on your national currency, people are likely to prefer more anonymous cryptocurrencies to evade taxes.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 22, 2017, 11:17:21 am
you forget that in the future cryptocurrency might become the national currency of a country.

Sure, but it is going to compete against all the other cryptocurrencies, and if you are going to have taxes on your national currency, people are likely to prefer more anonymous cryptocurrencies to evade taxes.

and where will they pay with these currencies? I doubt that you can get your daily supermarket needs with tax-evasion currencies.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 22, 2017, 11:30:03 am
and where will they pay with these currencies? I doubt that you can get your daily supermarket needs with tax-evasion currencies.

They can convert them into other currencies before going to the supermarket. However, of course I think we need pay taxes. Without taxes and central banks, we are going to get a complete anarchy. But that is kinda where the world is heading... People are not so smart. Maybe after the current economic system has collapsed, we can start using a less anonymous cryptocurrency.


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Scalare on November 22, 2017, 11:53:36 am
The evilcorps will just roll their own coin which we all can use to get discounts in stores :).


Title: Re: Money as the relationship between labor and consumer goods.
Post by: Zanthius on November 25, 2017, 01:03:47 pm
I have renamed "Concluding remarks" to "Global trends and concluding remarks", and added this to the article:

(https://i.imgur.com/58PGVGW.jpg)

I have also made several other modifications.

http://archania.org/global_trends_and_concluding_remarks.html (http://archania.org/global_trends_and_concluding_remarks.html)

Otherwise, I haven't worked so much on my website, since I have been rather busy with building a GPU-based cryptocurrency miner.

2025. That should be around the date when the Kohr-Ah death march ends. It begins much earlier.