Why should I admit my mistake while you have provided no compelling argument to demonstrate it?

I honestly thought that you would have a good argument to answer my interrogation. Your writings are of good quality and I iniatilly thought it was me who missed something, but in front of a lack of a solid argument to explain why finance doesn't give an edge in knowledge creation and why wage earning will stop being a thing in the future, I have no other choice than to think that you have at least one blind spot and therefore to think that the future will not look like you think it will be.

Are you aware that in developped countries the share of the industry in the GDP is only 20%?

That means 80% of the value added doesn't come from a factory. Nowadays to produce something you don't need to have factory.

Today the knowledge share of the GDP has never been higher yet we don't see the trend of the decreasing importance of finance you are prognosticating because of the rising importance of knowledge.

It seems you are living in a parallele and dichotomic world where in order to produce something one should either own a factory or be an independent knowledge worker. That's not the reality, just observe the world around you.

Since several decades  the bulk of the value added is produced by medium and small size companies, which don't need high fixed capital investment, which are hiring an increasing number of knowledge workers and which happen to have financial needs.

Now please show every body how ignorant I am, please do.

I don't care. It doesn't adress what I am saying.  
OK so because East Asia is emerging that means finance will no longer be important. You are a formal logic genious!
So because manufacturing is disrupted by 3D that means finance will no longer be important. Because we all that the only reason finance exist is for building factory!
You are less smart that you think you are, and I am smarter than you think. You seem pretty bad at assessing that kind of things.

I gain a little bit of serious following and now the low IQ idiots come out of the woodwork to make total fools of themselves at my expense.

I don't have obligation to refute all of their idiotic myopia.

BitAssHole is now added to my ignore list. Cripes.


It was yet another IQ test that you failed. That Asia could leap forward so fast after being retarded by 100 years (and being nearly entirely left out of the Industrial Age) says something about the quality of the Knowledge Age that is different. This will be more apparent when China's negative profit margin financed manufacturing sector and its financed condo bubble collapse next year and 50% of what is remaining is the self-funded, non-financed Knowledge Age components of the economy.

And that quality speaks to why it grows faster than usury. Duh. But I won't explain it more than that, because I rather enjoy seeing you fumble around in the dark when the details are pretty obvious for someone with a fair amount of reading comprehension.

As Warren Buffett says, "You won't really know who isn't wearing underwear until the tide goes out".


In fact idiot, you should do some research on percentage of the PROFITABLE economy being self-funded now versus a time when all means of production was significantly physical infrastructure (meaning the relative value of physical production has declined). If you want to argue, then dig up some relevant data. Else STFU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clojure#History

You sound a lot more sensible and in touch with the actual reality than him.

I tend to think the answer is A alone.

US Finance grow from 4.9% in 1980 to 7,9% of GDP in 2007: https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwj6op3G2L3HAhWG2RoKHS3gAuI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.hbs.edu%2Fdscharfstein%2Fgrowth_of_modern_finance.pdf&ei=WvHYVfqNL4aza63Ai5AO&usg=AFQjCNHrasrETalkvGt50OOz0bC-jXJUDQ&cad=rja share

In that period knowledge increased dramactically. It's enough to show that a negative linear relationship between knowledge and finance doesn't exist.

Now the guy is talking about exponantial function and treshold effect.
He keep talking about factories as if we were still in the Industrial Age whereas the industry account for only 20% of the GDP. So if there should have been a "singularity" point beyond which is destroyed the finance one could have hope it would already happen.
Until when should we wait for that "singularity" to happen? When industry account for 15%, 10, 5%, 1% of the GDP? It's nonsensical.

I have showed in my previous post that finance will always be needed in a foreesable future and the end of Industry Age will not change that because this end had already happened for the most part. One could argue whether the share of finance in GDP will increase or decrease, that would be an interesting debate but it's not what the guy is affirming. He is so far from reality that it's too easy to prove him wrong. Too bad his ego problem preclude him from accepting feedback.

CoinCube, I request you lock this thread. You are not obligated to of course. But I contributed more than 50% of the effort to this thread, and I have important work to do. I don't have time to waste on these idiots who are polluting the thread now, in my effort to try to retain the original high quality of the discussions that we had.

Everything comes to end. The ideal time to close this thread is now.

You are welcome to blame it on my request. I take full responsibility for any backlash.

Time will prove who was correct, and I know who that will be.


The tailcoat clingers will be coming out in exhausting waves now that I've gained some stature. They will play mindless games designed to suck the valuable production away from those who create in the Knowledge Age.

P.S. There is amble empirical evidence. I am not just not going to take the time to write it all down. Challengers can do their homework or not. It is their problem, not mine.

Agree but words do not tell the true mathematical reality.

3325 times larger = Knowledge Age growing at 50% per annum (1/2 of doubling) for 20 years (1.5^20)
    3 times larger = old world economy growing a 5% per annum for 20 years (1.05^20)

Humans can't visualize exponential growth. They have myopia when conceiving relative size.

This argues strongly that only the very dumb people will pursue the physical economy. And this it argues it will waterfall into irrelevance rapidly.

The physical economy will become subsumed by the Knowledge Age in ways that we still get our physical production, e.g. a 3D printer will create all your products and customized just how you want them. The value added won't be in the raw materials any more (the stuff that requires big capital investment). I already explained that someone I know went from being a moderately paid car mechanic who was attacked by the USG and lost everything to a highly paid 3D printer of custom pistons with a $600 3D CNC mill he built from spare used parts. Where is JP Morgan in this   Who built a factory with their weekly income in the 20th century before the personal computer?

BitAssHole deceives himself (and went from someone who I was cordially trying to teach the concept with my limited attention span these days, to ...).

If you are going to come into a long-standing thread and attack all the work that was done, do your homework first. Don't just present myopic Dunning-Kruger crap that shows how much you haven't understood. If a challenger has hard data, then present it.

1. TPTB have no conception of themselves benefiting from a Knowledge Age if they don't expand their monopolies. They are fighting over a smaller pie and have even stated that is their goal, e.g. Georgia Guidestones et al. Individual members may avail of anonymous means of hiding wealth and as anonymous competition within their ranks.

2. Boomers are philosophically against self-control and survival without a State. The State and hedonism are their glorious creation. They'll abandon it only when they're dead. The boomers drove the education and culture of the society of the generation after the X gen (my generation observed the transition and the State breaking the family unit so we rebelled, at least in the USA and I don't know about Europe). It is only the X gen (my generation) would are somewhat prepared en masse. From the latter generations in the West, there are a some exceptions on an individual basis and especially in the USA. Outside the West, the people are more prepared in the sense that many grew up surviving in difficult circumstances, even agrarian; and they have lower debt and State unfunded actuarial social welfare liabilities. But most in the developing world even though they didn't have the State take care of them, are very much socialist and want to copy the Western socialism asap.

3. So the likely outcome is very similar to Rome's fall. First the waterfall collapse, then as Constantine did, a renewed socialism religion towards global socialistic contract via a one world reserve currency with all axis powers sharing a vote in its global central bank. The youth of the world will follow starry-eyed into the NWO eugenics. The Knowledge Age will marching ahead growing much faster than that political morass. The political morass will be attempting to parasite the Knowledge Age with expropriation and taxation. I think in the end, that unproductive old world economy dies. But it will die hard because TPTB and boomers did such a glorious job of indoctrinating the world into socialism.


------------------------------------------------------
I know how fast things escalate (according to history et al) in a down-wards spiral - but spurred by your recent posts about the fall of Rome, I was contemplating that the real suffering in Europe/west likely won't come before a generational shift. Yes, we will likely see a waterfall event - and fall down very fast - however, we still have a two generations that have a lot of know-how. However, the young generation seems to largely have lost that - for several reasons. One being they never learned to take care of themselves (in many ways, physically, mentally, growing food, repairing things, hedonism, innovate etc) because the state does that for them. The older generations still have some of all that knowledge inherent in them. Secondly the thought is that the large rates of unemployment escalates this issue, where most young people in their most productive and years, where they should learn the most, are not learning anything new. They are not being handed any knowledge - in fact many places we see them being handed inferior knowledge (purposefully or not, e.g. Common Core).. And many are not seeking it themselves either.(i.e your point about Westerners being fucking lazy... most of them..)

By saying all that, I'm not disregarding things turning to shit real fast. I'm probably arguing why it will continue to keep falling down.

I am also thinking that if TPTP are smart(er) and not just self-propagandized to believe that top-down control rules everything, then they should allow for a knowledge age to flourish in which they themselves can benefit. If they tread too hard and too much they suffer themselves (in what's available etc.)

------------------------------------------------------
Aug 23

Armstrong's computer predicts that political divide in the USA but it might take longer than a few years. Looks like the USA will swing hard to the right politically this Nov 2016 election, then riding the up to the 2017.9 peak and then after fall into the economic abyss. 2018 forward is going to probably pandemic, war, chaotic shift in personal financial status every where.

So if I were you, I'd be preparing a plan B bug out for 2018ish, just in case you need it. If you don't need it, then great. But better to be prepared than not.

We disagree regarding fractional reserve. I think fractional reserve are fine as long customers are aware of it and free banking exists (ie. theere is fractional reserve in a free market environmet). But I will take time to read the link you provide later to understand the rationale.

Regarding the declining of uncertainty, I think the exact opposite will happen. More the technology improve and more the world is complex. And more complexity leads to more uncertainty.
In the Paleolithic it was easier to forecast what would happen the 10 next years (ie. not much) than it is today (despite TPTB need war's overconfidence in his ability to do so).

Regarding the increase of the longevity, I agree that we will live longer. But that could mean that the saving rate will go up and in that case there would be more resources (relative to the production) to invest via capital markets (ie. more finance).

Take a look at the post I wrote on finance above. If we still disagree after that I am happy to discuss fractional reserve further.

In regards to the paleolithic world being less uncertain I would disagree. It was very difficult for an individual to forecast would would happen in the ancient world. You are looking at the issue globally rather than from the prospective of an individual living in those times.

Today, I am confident that barring a rare tragedy all of my young children will grow into adulthood. Furthermore I am confident that I will likewise will live to an old age. There are no guarantees but the odds are good. Society is more complex but complexity does not necessarily equal uncertainty.

Life expectancy in Rome is thought to be somewhere between ages 20–30 due to high infant mortality. If a child survived to age 10, life expectancy was an additional 37.5 years, a total of 47.5 years. Rome was advanced civilization compared to the paleolithic era. Humans, are not fundamentally biologically different than we were in Roman times indicating profound uncertainty with significant early death and demise.

Finance is primarily a tool to push forward consumption and disperse risk. As risk declines the need for finance declines. Whether an increase longevity alone will drive a decline in finance is difficult to say. Humans will always want to push forward consumption often to the point of self harm. This in many ways this has been hard wired into us as we have come to exist in an environment where the future was uncertain and life was short.      

Cokayne, Karen (2013-01-11). Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 9781136000065.