We have to wonder why you are so against for example a 5% per annum debasement rate, when in fact that has been the reality since Mesopotamia. Is it because you are insecure without the motivation to enslave others? But don't worry, even in the Knowledge Age there will still be a power law distribution of capital (you still have the motivation to compete to be at the top of the social totem pole), but the capital will be stored in constant knowledge generation, not in stored digits for old misers to leech and enslave the youth with.
Old man (as I am too), if you can't continue producing then go silently into the night instead of stomping all over those in your wake.
Your delusion of a frictionless time preference is insanity.
Money that has been stored for a decade instead of being invested in creating more (knowledge) production, is no longer creating capital thus shouldn't be valued as capital.
The ability to transmit capital through time is no less important than the ability to transmit it through space.
Indeed and the key word is "capital" and not money. You continue to conflate the two.
I quote myself:
Some will create more knowledge value than others, and thus relatively be able to trade for more knowledge.
They will use fungible money to trade with, because it is more efficient than barter. But they don't need that money to retain its undebased value for decades. They will turn that money over as fast as possible to accelerate their own knowledge production. To the extent they can't, then it is best to debase that money, because they are no longer efficient with that much monetary capital. Thus it logically follows that if we don't want monetary capital to diverge from knowledge capital, then we must debase the monetary.
...
P.S. I do agree that there will still be some top-down organization, but it will become more localized (i.e. decentralized instances of localized top-down structures) and thus long-term stored money will wane.
The entire point is that money should be a fungible energy pump for moving non-fungible production through the economy. The money is constantly recycled, so that it remains congruent with the capital it represents. The more capital you can constantly create (surely your ROI can far exceed the debasement rate), the more money you can hold short-term. Thus the debasement rate is just a minimum ROI that must be attained. It is a filter on laziness or overconcentration of capital (because we know the more concentrated capital is, at some point it becomes less efficient).
Society will choose the money which accomplishes that goal. Even at 5% debasement, if you buried the money in a hole, it will still be worth 64% of its non-debased value after 8.6 years. And that doesn't even factor in all the increases in productivity due to rapid cycling (velocity) of money driven by the debasement, thus if productivity doubles in 8.6 years, you still increased your purchasing power by +29% for doing nothing other than burying your money in a hole.
And if you instead put your money to work in some activity that has a ROI > 5%, then your stored money doesn't even decrease in real purchasing power, even if productivity increases are at a standstill.
The entire point is that money should be a fungible energy pump for moving non-fungible production through the economy.
An enormous part of the economy is in the future.
Indeed but how far into the future? If I had the idea to create an Android app and waited 8.6 years before starting it and burying my money in the ground, by the time I started it, the market will very likely have changed and my app will no longer be needed.
You are conflating unproductive consumption with productive investment. Yes it is good to delay unproductive consumption, but that doesn't mean it is good to bury capital (as money) in a hole nor to deposit your money in a bank so it can lend money for unproductive consumption. A debasement rate makes it more difficult for lending to be profitable, and acts as filter on unproductive activities. It doesn't inhibit capitalism nor prevent one from aggregating more capital if they are more productive.
You arbitrarily pick 0% debasement out of a hat and declare it to be most ethical and optimum, but you have no logic which can support that arbitrary selection. Whereas, I am presenting logic for why 0% is not optimum, for it enables unproductive consumption and saving in banks.
The way to squelch usury and debt as a paradigm is to decentralize the debasement with PoW so the banksters can't capture the debasement. Then they have to actually compete to make high ROI investments instead of charging their losses to the public.
The money is constantly recycled, so that it remains congruent with the capital it represents.
When you create a reserve of liquidity, none of the real capital leaves the economy. All you do is make all the float more valuable. The real (social) capital remains in the network. By removing excess accumulation from one point in time and airdropping it back in at another point in time, you are able to create some serious waves, inject energy into the system, and compound value through (token)
capital formation. Itś all just symbol pushing, programming. Rob me of the ability to compound entropy in this way, and you destroy uncountable degrees of freedom.
I can't fathom how you can conflate so much. I thought you were a high IQ guy. Why can't you see that you are creating a strawman false dichotomy? Never did debasement take away (or even diminish) any of those things you enumerate as important, unless you conflate "capital" with "money". It was the capture of debasement by the central banks that is negative, not debasement. Debasement is positive, because frictionless systems don't exist.
The more capital you can constantly create (surely your ROI can far exceed the debasement rate), the more money you can hold short-term. Thus the debasement rate is just a minimum ROI that must be attained. It is a filter on laziness or overconcentration of capital (because we know the more concentrated capital is, at some point it becomes less efficient).
Lazy people don't do
capital formation.
Depends what you mean by "capital". If you mean money, then hell they do! Who the fuck are the banksters.
If you mean knowledge production, then correct.
Any minimum ROI required to stay in the game just means I need to concentrate a larger hoard in order to transmit value into the future. You make that endeavor exponentially more difficult with a linear increase in debasement. That sucks. Very poor trade-off: Linear benefit, exponential loss.
Complete nonsense. Come on man, if you aren't even going to think, then you are just wasting my effort and time.
And it shouldn't. The debased money drives the non-debased money out-of-circulation, as it should.
Only as long as the state forces them to take it. Remove coercion, and no one will accept your will-o-wisps. It's more like Gresham's dictat than law. If you remember the law, you must surely remember why it was true. Take away those conditions, and it is no longer true.
Nonsense again. You need to actually understand Gresham's Law[1]. People will chose the currency which has the most trade, because they need to be able to trade their money for things they need and want. Misers can choose physical gold over dollars today, and that has nothing to do with State coercion, rather market reality. Nobody wants to trade gold coins for Starbucks. Sorry man, you are delusional.
You argue with reality. No money has ever any money existed that wasn't debased. Why is that? Why didn't the population chose the non-debased gold coins? Because of the State was standing at every vendor with a gun to his head! Hell no. Delusional goldbug miser nonsense!
It is precisely this goldbug delusional nonsense which retarding the adoption of cryptocurrency[1]. But don't worry, I will fix that soon!
The problem with debasement in the past is it ended up in the central banks control.
Disagree: The problem with debasement is that it destroys the freedom to program. It places bounds on entropy.
More delusional nonsense.
Oh, and I have written 1000 lines of code in a day, on many occasions (much to the detriment of my health at the time). I've written about a dozen >>10kloc apps, and spent years working on a system over a million lines, ultimately leading the effort for a while. Which could never have been accomplished without a whole lot of capital formation.
You mean stored money capital, not knowledge capital. I programmed million user applications all by myself with no money upfront. Just me in a Nipa Hut in the Philippines with my computer and internet connection. And health willing, I will do it again soon (I am busy on it now).
And finally we get to the crux of your need for stored monetary slavery. It is because you get sick when you work too much, so you want to be able to parasite on those who work too much.
Learn how to have a healthy environment when you code. Exercise more. Have a nice view to relax your eyes. Get out in fresh air every day. Etc..
I am currently working on a project which requires a greater degree of capital formation than has ever been achieved in human history. If successful, it will benefit many many millions of people in the first generation, and hopefully those benefits will compound to the whole species in future generations.
How many million user programs have you written? Talk is cheap, show me the code. You attribute an erroneous value on yourself (and your fellow stored money top-down capitalists).
How do you know a priori that you are more wise than the person who invested his capital immediately instead of burying it in a hole to express a time preference? You can't know. Some percent will fail. That is why assigning 0% cost to time is very costly to the economy! Duh! At the asymptote of infinite time for capital to buried in a hole, the detrimental cost rises to infinity! Even a 15 year old could probably understand that simple equation.
You want to wish away friction from the time domain, but that is insane, because it never was in reality and there is no such thing as a frictionless system. You just transfer the frictional costs else where at great detriment to the economy and society. Duh!
The reason projects had to be so big and thus you need employees instead of active owners is because software production has not been remunerated in modules up to now[2].
[2]
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/495527.msg9972003#msg9972003
programming machines will be obsoleted one day. machines will program the machines. we will create our competition. and we will lose that round.
Utter nonsense and propaganda. I refuted Kurzweil[3].
[3]
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy
That's why you should stop thinking about money as a commodity.
I wasn't.
It's a symbol used to program society.
Exactly.
But if their capital is knowledge, and it can't be created with money (because creativity doesn't respond to money, it responds only to the heart and desire and serendipity), then how can I induce them with money?
That's a conceivable end-state to a lengthy process. Several forks in the path are possible, and that particular end-state may be very long indeed in coming. Please remember that we are not there yet.
A symbol is not knowledge, but the transition from commodity to knowledge must necessarily involve a transition from material to symbolic, if it is to be incremental.
However, knowledge is not fungible. Knowledge cannot be money per se. It can conceivably supplant money, but that requires vast degrees of social reorganization and at least one generational change. (Think Arthur C. Clarke.) You want to immanentize that eschaton, and I can respect that. Given a notion of inevitability (
pace Marx) I can't fault you for trying to advance that clock.
Meanwhile, there is work to be done, and God willing I am going about doing it.
The transition is well underway under your radar. You shouldn't place so much value on yourself being omniscient and thus valuing your stored money at 0% friction for perpetuity.
Can't you grasp that an entire generation of developing world knowledge workers has grown up without prioritizing materialism? Wait I will go find a survey on their priorities which I saw recently...(couldn't find it, but here are some I found[4])
We can argue about how long it will take for the waterfall transition to ensue, but there is no argument about it being inevitable.
You go on thinking you can get maximum motivation from programmers by offering them money, while I will push on with my theory that they will be most motivated by owning their own creations and really appreciation (both in ROI and social feedback loops).
