What is on the brain of a man, or a woman is often presented as a humorous graphic depicting the size of various areas of the brain in relation to the things that occupy our minds.
If Google was a collective brain, what would the graphic product of searches tell us about what is on our collective mind. That would be a macro analysis.
There would also me a micro analysis graphic for each individual that uses Google. Not just the search engine but all Google products.
What does our collective Google brain look like.
What does my own Google brain look like.
If I could capture all of interactions on the internet, what would my brain on the internet look like? I would be most interested in what my information seeking brain is most interested in rather than the internet interactions that I have for information maintenance like paying bills.
To see that graphic would be as simple as having a resident application on my computer through which all of my interactions with the internet pass and have that resident application analyze them based on data mining capabilities.
In other words: There are those on the internet that are very much interested in what my brain on the internet looks like. To fulfill this objective they would like to know every single interaction that I have on the internet. The extent to which they can do this is unknown but certainly quantifiable. Some might say the government either knows it all for everyone or at least those that are targeted because the entire population is to big a target in depth if not breadth.
Short of the government, Google probably knows the most about my internet interactions. A combination of Google and other entities are major choke points of entry to internet interaction. Just how much of my total interaction with the internet do they know. How much don't they know?
If their perfect objective is to know it all then how much short of their objective are they?
Collectively they have access to all my interactions on the internet. Just like my banker and the other institutions that deal with my money know everything about my money except what is currently in my cookie jar. No single entity knows it all unless I choose to deal with only one financial entity.
It would seem to be a good financial entity business model to become the one stop shop for all mey financial transactions. Just like it would be a good business model for an internet entity to be the one single gateway to the internet.
Wait... wait....what the!....Bendcable.com is my only internet access gateway when I am at home!
What if my only access gateway to the internet was by user ID and Password submitted to the Internet Gatekeeper and all access passed through that Gatekeeper. How could an internet entity get me into that position?
Hmm.... is there a business model here?
What if my only access to digital money was through a single Money Access Gatekeeper?
What if all the digital money in the USA was in one place (maybe a conceptual cloud) where only names of the current holder of that fixed, serialized money record changed, not the amount of money in a fixed account with the holder's name?
Total information knowledge available to an exclusive single third party!
What if access to my money information was totally private except if there was probable cause not for it to be private? Sounds like a right to be secure in my papers! A right to privacy.
How well does Google know the sanctum of my privacy. My mind. Its picture of my mind on Google?
How much would Google like to be my only access to the internet?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Google PageRank Objectivity and Truth
This morning I found a TED talk that connects to the Google algorithm I PageRank.
This TED Talk indicates what appears to me to be the application of that algorithm to tailer search results presented to the person doing the search.
One thought that I expressed yesterday was the possible contribution of a soft social science to the world of hard science to reveal quantum relationships. Hard science knowledge where information is revealed not filtered to the extent that filtering presents an unscientific view of the physical world.
Eli Pariser is (filtered, biased?) a journalistic truth seeker. (A paradox?) His TED talk presents evidence of Google selecting and presenting search results based on what it thinks the searcher wants to see or is looking for.
The subjective product of a social science application of an scientifically objective research algorithm is the antithesis of science when it presents skewed information based on ideological preference. Google's determination of an individual's ideological preference based on assumptions inferred by analysis of linkages in the person's search history.
If a person chooses to watch Fox News they have selected their poison of preference. We all get to choose. However, if we are presented with a subset array from which to to make an objective choice, thinking that we are looking at a truthful representation of the total population of choice available, truth has been manipulated.
Very unscientific of you if you present only the data that your boss wants to see. Have you ever seen that done in the scientific community? It does not really fly well does it? Unless the boss gives you a promotion, of course.
An algorithm used to reveal objective truth and accuracy in science has equal value in obscuring true reality in the social science.
Is that really a revelation? Or just a scientific confirmation of a known fact?
It is like school lunch. Who determines the mix of fats and vegetables that is good for us and then presents their selection to us? I would like to say we ourselves determine the choice from all possible choices based on informed intelligent decisions.
What happens when we depend on Google for our informed intelligence?
Probabilities are expressions of confidence in the world of science. I think Eli Pariser is probably right (not filtered or biased) about the danger of filtering/manipulation of information sub-optimized on what anybody wants to sell us and influence us to buy. Things like conceptual ideas or the things they relate to like bikes, boats or guns or candidates. I would depend on him giving me a better big picture of truth than I would get from Google.
That's life.
The difference between hard scientific life and social life. In science, accuracy, clarity is a function of distance from the truth to the extent that intervening variables are absolutely known or expressed as a degree of objectively quantified confidence that they are known.
In social life clarity and accuracy are influenced by filters with an increasing distortion (that could be quantified by a good algorithm) what we see starting beyond the tip of our nose or perhaps, more accurately, the second brain synapse.
Do no evil.
This TED Talk indicates what appears to me to be the application of that algorithm to tailer search results presented to the person doing the search.
One thought that I expressed yesterday was the possible contribution of a soft social science to the world of hard science to reveal quantum relationships. Hard science knowledge where information is revealed not filtered to the extent that filtering presents an unscientific view of the physical world.
Eli Pariser is (filtered, biased?) a journalistic truth seeker. (A paradox?) His TED talk presents evidence of Google selecting and presenting search results based on what it thinks the searcher wants to see or is looking for.
The subjective product of a social science application of an scientifically objective research algorithm is the antithesis of science when it presents skewed information based on ideological preference. Google's determination of an individual's ideological preference based on assumptions inferred by analysis of linkages in the person's search history.
If a person chooses to watch Fox News they have selected their poison of preference. We all get to choose. However, if we are presented with a subset array from which to to make an objective choice, thinking that we are looking at a truthful representation of the total population of choice available, truth has been manipulated.
Very unscientific of you if you present only the data that your boss wants to see. Have you ever seen that done in the scientific community? It does not really fly well does it? Unless the boss gives you a promotion, of course.
An algorithm used to reveal objective truth and accuracy in science has equal value in obscuring true reality in the social science.
Is that really a revelation? Or just a scientific confirmation of a known fact?
It is like school lunch. Who determines the mix of fats and vegetables that is good for us and then presents their selection to us? I would like to say we ourselves determine the choice from all possible choices based on informed intelligent decisions.
What happens when we depend on Google for our informed intelligence?
Probabilities are expressions of confidence in the world of science. I think Eli Pariser is probably right (not filtered or biased) about the danger of filtering/manipulation of information sub-optimized on what anybody wants to sell us and influence us to buy. Things like conceptual ideas or the things they relate to like bikes, boats or guns or candidates. I would depend on him giving me a better big picture of truth than I would get from Google.
That's life.
The difference between hard scientific life and social life. In science, accuracy, clarity is a function of distance from the truth to the extent that intervening variables are absolutely known or expressed as a degree of objectively quantified confidence that they are known.
In social life clarity and accuracy are influenced by filters with an increasing distortion (that could be quantified by a good algorithm) what we see starting beyond the tip of our nose or perhaps, more accurately, the second brain synapse.
Do no evil.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Quantum Networks
As computer science moves ever so slowly towards the advanced era of quantum computing, some Spain-based researchers are trying to understand how Google could work in such an environment.
In Spain, scientists are applying quantum physics principles to Google’s PageRank. That's the proprietary algorithm that lets Google rank pages in search results. In doing so, they believe they could revolutionise the use of the world-famous search engine. In a scientific paper published online last month, they also say they are anticipating the quantum future that hopefully lies just around the corner.
Report: Guy Hedgecoe, Madrid
This is the mp3 audio file that discusses what the researchers have discovered.
Report: Guy Hedgecoe, Madrid
This is the mp3 audio file that discusses what the researchers have discovered.
Google Chemistry
Wow! Just Wow!
Wow when the lights go on!
Yeah, but what do you see when the lights go on?
I don't know but it is something really big. That is all I know.
This link turned on a light: Click on it to read it.
Wow when the lights go on!
Yeah, but what do you see when the lights go on?
I don't know but it is something really big. That is all I know.
This link turned on a light: Click on it to read it.
Google Search Engine Software goes 'Chemistry'
I never understood chemistry. The harder it was to understand the more I rejected the understanding of it. Just like other things that I did not understand because I did not see the underlying structure of what a thing does. Sad to say, I have to understand the structure before I understand the function of the structure. Maybe the first day of chemistry the teacher explained structure. After that it was all functional reactions. At least it seemed like that to me in hindsight. I did not know whey I was not getting it then.
Maybe the problem was that structure was defined by function so study the function to learn the structure?? Hell, I still do not know.
Somehow the link between Google and Chemistry seems to open a door. It talks about the essence of object relationships in information.
There seems to be a strong link somehow between information structured by page rank presentation and chemical information. The "Wow" magnitude of that thought is derived from jumping to the wild idea that the same relationship might apply to money and the way I have come to view the relationship of what money is to what money does.
I could spend the rest of the day thinking about this..............
Ion. What is an ion anyhow and what does it have to do with chemistry? It is the Google algorithm
This is what Wikipedia says about an Ion.
This is how Google PageRank work.
PageRank was worth something. Check this except from the PageRank link:
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saving
When I don't know where I am at it is good to go back to somewhere that is a fixed point.
Time to go back to examine the super class called Saving.
Starting here with what wikipedia says about Saving.
Time to go back to examine the super class called Saving.
Starting here with what wikipedia says about Saving.
Position
Where am I at?
Still groping around trying to make sense of all these ideas about money. (Like life.)
Progress?
Maybe getting somewhere.
Rate of progress?
Something greater than zero.
Worth it?
Yes.
Why?
I enjoy it.
I have the time to spend on it.
All time is mine.
Spending some of it this way does more than amuse me.
It is productive investment of time.
Time does not sum to zero.
Does it?
I should spend time to think about that.
I am not at the same moment of time twice.
Maybe time is the only pure linear model of existence.
Is space the bowl in which it exists?
The bowl that has a relationship to no other thing but itself and that relationship is only implemented by the action passage of time?
The ultimate recursive model.
Unity.
Or just going around in circles!!!
Still groping around trying to make sense of all these ideas about money. (Like life.)
Progress?
Maybe getting somewhere.
Rate of progress?
Something greater than zero.
Worth it?
Yes.
Why?
I enjoy it.
I have the time to spend on it.
All time is mine.
Spending some of it this way does more than amuse me.
It is productive investment of time.
Time does not sum to zero.
Does it?
I should spend time to think about that.
I am not at the same moment of time twice.
Maybe time is the only pure linear model of existence.
Is space the bowl in which it exists?
The bowl that has a relationship to no other thing but itself and that relationship is only implemented by the action passage of time?
The ultimate recursive model.
Unity.
Or just going around in circles!!!
Parent and Child
S=I+(S-I)
Fundamentally, this equation is the expression of the parent class: Savings to a specific child: Investment, specifically identified and isolated from all other children in the class: Saving.
It is like a parent saying: I want to talk about my relationship to my children. Specifically, I want to talk about my relationship to Irving not all my children that are not named Irving.
Or perhaps the intention is to talk about the most important child; Irving the doctor in relation to all the other children that are not doctors but are lessor important in whatever they do.
S=I+(S-I) is therefore an expression of a more fundamental relationship:
All Child members of a Parent Class = Any single Named Child of a Parent Class + All other children of that class having individual class member names that do not have a the same name as any individually identified child of that class.
It is a way of saying: Let's put Investment at the center of our focus. The reason being that investment is the backbone that drives everything else. That is, of course, the point that Cullen Roche is making and supporting it with the thinking that it is the most realistic way to look at it. Out Investment in the center and see how everything else relates to it.
If Investment, as I think he defines it is Savings employed in Production as opposed to all other forms of savings not employed in investment (like money under a mattress) then then that kind of investment is certainly more productive (important) by definition and everything else is hoarding? Or maybe speculation? In any event non-productive or even detrimental to total systemic operation. Alternately, any savings that is not invested in productivity is sub-optimized in its application to some other employment.
Banksters are the greatest sub-optimizers in the system.
S=I+(S-I) Is not an astounding nor comples statement. It merely says: Let's talk about Investment. Describing the subject of conversation in a highly structured format (math) is an excellent way to start the conversation.
What is needed is a highly structured manner of carrying on the rest of the conversation regarding the relationship of Investment to all other things that are children of the parent Investment as well as relationship of Investment and its children to all other children of the parent Savings as well as relationships to all other classes in the total system (and their children) that are not Savings. It gets very complex, very quick.
Nested comments in a blog are a start. They create a mind map picture of teh conceptual structure being created by the words and relate the blog entry words to other blog entry words. That is barely a start at organizing and formalizing the model.
This is the information age. Operating systems and application programs are the product of organized thinking applied to complex concepts. The process to do that is well established in system design. State of art is Object Oriented Modeling for System Design. It is simply architecture built on a foundation of physical sciences applied to a Social Science that in many ways should and does follow the physical science model of dealing with facts until the point is reached that we choose the facts to be anything we want them to be.
When we get to the point where the facts on which a system is built is anything we want them to be then those that establish their conceptual statements as facts dictate the design of the system.
Statement of conceptual fact: Money is debt. So we get a debt money system.
That concept can also be presented like this:
Money = Debt + (Money - Debt) In this situation Debt is the backbone of the system. The most important thing that drives it. Debt is a child of the Parent: Money. The most important one. To Banksters it is the only one and anything that is not Debt is not Money. Or expressed in a simple math relationship: Money minus Debt equals No Money. A concept devised by the Banksters, controlled by the Banksters, owned by the Banksters. Debt as their concept has sub-optimized the total system to their great benefit.
M = Money
D = Debt
M-D=0
If there was no debt there would be no money.
In debt we trust. What is the fear of real money?
Real Money defined as:
M - D = Number greater than Zero (N>0)
Maybe a balance sheet equation is good for horizontal money but vertical money is not only a number that is not only something greater than zero but the sum total of all money in the system. That would make Debt a child class of the Parent class Money. The other children in the parent class money would be money that is not debt.
Fundamentally, this equation is the expression of the parent class: Savings to a specific child: Investment, specifically identified and isolated from all other children in the class: Saving.
It is like a parent saying: I want to talk about my relationship to my children. Specifically, I want to talk about my relationship to Irving not all my children that are not named Irving.
Or perhaps the intention is to talk about the most important child; Irving the doctor in relation to all the other children that are not doctors but are lessor important in whatever they do.
S=I+(S-I) is therefore an expression of a more fundamental relationship:
All Child members of a Parent Class = Any single Named Child of a Parent Class + All other children of that class having individual class member names that do not have a the same name as any individually identified child of that class.
It is a way of saying: Let's put Investment at the center of our focus. The reason being that investment is the backbone that drives everything else. That is, of course, the point that Cullen Roche is making and supporting it with the thinking that it is the most realistic way to look at it. Out Investment in the center and see how everything else relates to it.
If Investment, as I think he defines it is Savings employed in Production as opposed to all other forms of savings not employed in investment (like money under a mattress) then then that kind of investment is certainly more productive (important) by definition and everything else is hoarding? Or maybe speculation? In any event non-productive or even detrimental to total systemic operation. Alternately, any savings that is not invested in productivity is sub-optimized in its application to some other employment.
Banksters are the greatest sub-optimizers in the system.
S=I+(S-I) Is not an astounding nor comples statement. It merely says: Let's talk about Investment. Describing the subject of conversation in a highly structured format (math) is an excellent way to start the conversation.
What is needed is a highly structured manner of carrying on the rest of the conversation regarding the relationship of Investment to all other things that are children of the parent Investment as well as relationship of Investment and its children to all other children of the parent Savings as well as relationships to all other classes in the total system (and their children) that are not Savings. It gets very complex, very quick.
Nested comments in a blog are a start. They create a mind map picture of teh conceptual structure being created by the words and relate the blog entry words to other blog entry words. That is barely a start at organizing and formalizing the model.
This is the information age. Operating systems and application programs are the product of organized thinking applied to complex concepts. The process to do that is well established in system design. State of art is Object Oriented Modeling for System Design. It is simply architecture built on a foundation of physical sciences applied to a Social Science that in many ways should and does follow the physical science model of dealing with facts until the point is reached that we choose the facts to be anything we want them to be.
When we get to the point where the facts on which a system is built is anything we want them to be then those that establish their conceptual statements as facts dictate the design of the system.
Statement of conceptual fact: Money is debt. So we get a debt money system.
That concept can also be presented like this:
Money = Debt + (Money - Debt) In this situation Debt is the backbone of the system. The most important thing that drives it. Debt is a child of the Parent: Money. The most important one. To Banksters it is the only one and anything that is not Debt is not Money. Or expressed in a simple math relationship: Money minus Debt equals No Money. A concept devised by the Banksters, controlled by the Banksters, owned by the Banksters. Debt as their concept has sub-optimized the total system to their great benefit.
M = Money
D = Debt
M-D=0
If there was no debt there would be no money.
In debt we trust. What is the fear of real money?
Real Money defined as:
M - D = Number greater than Zero (N>0)
Maybe a balance sheet equation is good for horizontal money but vertical money is not only a number that is not only something greater than zero but the sum total of all money in the system. That would make Debt a child class of the Parent class Money. The other children in the parent class money would be money that is not debt.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
S= I + (S-I) The Object Oriented View
Savings equal Investment plus (Savings minus Investment)
Why did it take me so long to get it? Because that is not the way I would look at it. Meaning look at the same thing in a different way. I got it but when I wrestled it around to my way of looking at it I got it even better. So now, I could go back and talk to anyone that looked at the same thing from the viewpoint of the original formula.
Savings equal Investment plus (Savings minus Investment)
Is the same as saying;
Savings equals Investment plus the difference between Savings and everything else called a subset type of of Savings but is not called the subset of Savings identified as Investment Savings.
Or from the object oriented point of view:
Savings equal the total of all subset categories of savings.
Savings is a parent class. Investment is a child class of Savings. There are other child classes of savings. Child classes inherit properties of the parent class. Keep in mind there may be child classes of child classes but they all have properties of all parent classes above them plus some specific properties that distinguish them as a child of the parent that does not have those properties
Confused? It is OK. The point of view shoe is on my foot now. This is how I look at it. Roll it around in your head to see it my way like I had to do to see it the original way. You are on my turf now, no wonder it might at first be hard to see but if you think about it and go to the links contained in the previous paragraph it will become clear. It is looking at
S= I + (S-I) in a different way. In a way that may more productive because the examination of S= I + (S-I) can be conducted not with words expressing the thoughts about the basic concept of S= I + (S-I) in written blog entries but a structured object model expressing the same thing. Actually, a structured model which is always a step behind the discussion of blog entries as it takes the concensus of the blog entries and reformats it in Object Oriented terms.
Think of it this way: It is the railroad tracks immediately following the workers that clear the land, make the roadbed, lay the ties and rails. It shows the way they have come and points to where they are going. That is a linear relationship example. Object Oriented is relational. Still, not a bad example.
Investment has some of the properties of Saving as a child of Savings. It also has some properties of other parent classes. Maybe.
While this link discusses inheritance in Object Oriented Programming Languages, The prior work done by analysts to produce a statement and description of relationships that programmers can code used the same method to discover the class structure, how the classes relate to each other and what the properties of all the classes are. That is called Object Oriented Analysis and Design. It creates high level abstract model describing the problem domain and then builds it out in increasing detail. That is how complexity of systems is reduced to simplicity to the extent that everything fits together and can be examined in detail.
So: Investment is a child of Savings. It is also a child of a parent or parent that is not savings but through investment has some kind of relationship to savings. That relationship can be revealed by common links the child has to different parents. In a system, everything is connected to everything. Things at any level can be examined individually but the nature of their existence and functional methods has to be looked at systemically.
Savings and Investment are merely one point of entry to the entire system. Any point of entry could be selected. There is a problem when the problem domain with a system name becomes two problem domains, two different systems and are analyzed by different analysts as if they were the same system. At some higher level it is the same system derived from a the common super class.
Money is a Super Class. Savings and Investment are somewhere down in the class structure of what money is and does. It seems that there needs to be much more work done on establishing the properties of the Super Class money before getting into Savings and investment.
MMT addressed the Super Class. Did it well. It expresses solid concepts of Super Class: Money. As it examines and produces analysis of the progression of child classes it begins to express more detailed relationships. Some analyst designers of MMT got down to level of detail where its examination and expression of the nature of the properties and relationships of a child object conflicted with the nature and properties of as viewed by other MMT analysts and designers.
Since the analysts were, in effect, inheritor children objects of the parents of MMT they were at odds with parent MMT thought on some lower level design matters. They called themselves MMR.
It does not look like MMR intends to define an alternate superclass of money but differences at a subset child level.
MMT would benefit from Object Oriented Analysis and Design Groupware Development Methodologies.
Why did it take me so long to get it? Because that is not the way I would look at it. Meaning look at the same thing in a different way. I got it but when I wrestled it around to my way of looking at it I got it even better. So now, I could go back and talk to anyone that looked at the same thing from the viewpoint of the original formula.
Savings equal Investment plus (Savings minus Investment)
Is the same as saying;
Savings equals Investment plus the difference between Savings and everything else called a subset type of of Savings but is not called the subset of Savings identified as Investment Savings.
Or from the object oriented point of view:
Savings equal the total of all subset categories of savings.
Savings is a parent class. Investment is a child class of Savings. There are other child classes of savings. Child classes inherit properties of the parent class. Keep in mind there may be child classes of child classes but they all have properties of all parent classes above them plus some specific properties that distinguish them as a child of the parent that does not have those properties
Confused? It is OK. The point of view shoe is on my foot now. This is how I look at it. Roll it around in your head to see it my way like I had to do to see it the original way. You are on my turf now, no wonder it might at first be hard to see but if you think about it and go to the links contained in the previous paragraph it will become clear. It is looking at
S= I + (S-I) in a different way. In a way that may more productive because the examination of S= I + (S-I) can be conducted not with words expressing the thoughts about the basic concept of S= I + (S-I) in written blog entries but a structured object model expressing the same thing. Actually, a structured model which is always a step behind the discussion of blog entries as it takes the concensus of the blog entries and reformats it in Object Oriented terms.
Think of it this way: It is the railroad tracks immediately following the workers that clear the land, make the roadbed, lay the ties and rails. It shows the way they have come and points to where they are going. That is a linear relationship example. Object Oriented is relational. Still, not a bad example.
Investment has some of the properties of Saving as a child of Savings. It also has some properties of other parent classes. Maybe.
While this link discusses inheritance in Object Oriented Programming Languages, The prior work done by analysts to produce a statement and description of relationships that programmers can code used the same method to discover the class structure, how the classes relate to each other and what the properties of all the classes are. That is called Object Oriented Analysis and Design. It creates high level abstract model describing the problem domain and then builds it out in increasing detail. That is how complexity of systems is reduced to simplicity to the extent that everything fits together and can be examined in detail.
So: Investment is a child of Savings. It is also a child of a parent or parent that is not savings but through investment has some kind of relationship to savings. That relationship can be revealed by common links the child has to different parents. In a system, everything is connected to everything. Things at any level can be examined individually but the nature of their existence and functional methods has to be looked at systemically.
Savings and Investment are merely one point of entry to the entire system. Any point of entry could be selected. There is a problem when the problem domain with a system name becomes two problem domains, two different systems and are analyzed by different analysts as if they were the same system. At some higher level it is the same system derived from a the common super class.
Money is a Super Class. Savings and Investment are somewhere down in the class structure of what money is and does. It seems that there needs to be much more work done on establishing the properties of the Super Class money before getting into Savings and investment.
MMT addressed the Super Class. Did it well. It expresses solid concepts of Super Class: Money. As it examines and produces analysis of the progression of child classes it begins to express more detailed relationships. Some analyst designers of MMT got down to level of detail where its examination and expression of the nature of the properties and relationships of a child object conflicted with the nature and properties of as viewed by other MMT analysts and designers.
Since the analysts were, in effect, inheritor children objects of the parents of MMT they were at odds with parent MMT thought on some lower level design matters. They called themselves MMR.
It does not look like MMR intends to define an alternate superclass of money but differences at a subset child level.
MMT would benefit from Object Oriented Analysis and Design Groupware Development Methodologies.
More on Savings and Investment
The time view of money.
The previous post discussed I = S + (S-I) as discussed at this website.
Thinking about the comments in my sleep last night and the several times that Cullen Roche digressed to the more philosophical aspects of time as money that appeared in the website posts as well as his writings elsewhere I reflected on a comment that I made on one of his posts elsewhere.
I commented that I had invested 22 years time in the navy and that investment in time has paid off in time entirely my own to spend with security that has now extended to more time out of the navy (1986) than time in the navy.
Time and eternity. Cullen pointed out several times in his writing that time is finite. Good point. Temporal time is finite for us, everlasting time for us is not. That view depends on a religious or spiritual ideology.
Rewards in the next life, the infinite one are premised on performance in the finite life we are given. That is one idea. An idea I grew up with. Redemption and good works now plus belonging to the one true faith that sets all the rules stores up a record value that in final judgment gets us in the pearly gate. The prayers of those left behind reduce the time in purgatory if we fail to get over the bar but do not fail enough to fall into the pit of wailing, weeping, nashing of teeth in the eternal fire.
There is some risk in that reward. The risk that it might not really be there when the time comes (to an end).
Did I pull concepts of the rewards of eternity in to rewards of my life span with the change in my views of religion? I used to think of myself as a fallen away Catholic. Now I just think of myself as owning myself. Perhaps my childhood views of heavenly rewards after death and the travail of tears we call life was reset to heaven on earth as a reward for investment of time in work (good works) in return for money that was paid back in time in retirement where work for money was no longer necessary but the money continued as a function of the prior work contract to enable me to do anything I wanted with my time.
Anything I wanted to do with my time....It has been a wonderful life since retirement. The bonus is this: I loved what I did to get it, even if I now question the role of our military in current world affairs as well as a hindsight view of the role it played while I was a part of it. I am atoning for that as best I can. The childhood concepts are still strong.
So what did I do with much of my time since 1986? I competed in 8 Ironman triathlons. A race where an entire year of effort is paid back in an instant of temporal time.
Whitney Houston, bless her, said it best in her song "One Moment of Time"
Give me one moment in time
When I'm more than I thought I could be
When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away
And the answers are all up to me
Give me one moment in time
When I'm racing with destiny
Then in that one moment of time
I will be
I will be
I will be free
I will be
I will be free
Yes, Cullen Roche, you have some good views of time as money. We give time to get money, money buys us time to be free. What we do when have bought time so it is only ours, all ours, owed to nobody now or in the future is to make ourselves totally free in whatever way we choose. At a higher conceptual level, short of anything over the end of my time line I invested in something that took me to the edge of eternity and ultimate freedom.
Give me one moment in time
When I'm racing with destiny
Then in that one moment of time
I will feel
I will feel eternity
It is all about time. The connection of time to money. Ending the obligation of time to get money. Moving on to the fulfillment we choose to find. Whatever that greater reward there is in terms of our own desires for our expenditure of free time.
The reward of much time spent training in retirement was far great than a medal and a t-shirt. Those I shared it with know about that. Only I really know it.
The previous post discussed I = S + (S-I) as discussed at this website.
Thinking about the comments in my sleep last night and the several times that Cullen Roche digressed to the more philosophical aspects of time as money that appeared in the website posts as well as his writings elsewhere I reflected on a comment that I made on one of his posts elsewhere.
I commented that I had invested 22 years time in the navy and that investment in time has paid off in time entirely my own to spend with security that has now extended to more time out of the navy (1986) than time in the navy.
Time and eternity. Cullen pointed out several times in his writing that time is finite. Good point. Temporal time is finite for us, everlasting time for us is not. That view depends on a religious or spiritual ideology.
Rewards in the next life, the infinite one are premised on performance in the finite life we are given. That is one idea. An idea I grew up with. Redemption and good works now plus belonging to the one true faith that sets all the rules stores up a record value that in final judgment gets us in the pearly gate. The prayers of those left behind reduce the time in purgatory if we fail to get over the bar but do not fail enough to fall into the pit of wailing, weeping, nashing of teeth in the eternal fire.
There is some risk in that reward. The risk that it might not really be there when the time comes (to an end).
Did I pull concepts of the rewards of eternity in to rewards of my life span with the change in my views of religion? I used to think of myself as a fallen away Catholic. Now I just think of myself as owning myself. Perhaps my childhood views of heavenly rewards after death and the travail of tears we call life was reset to heaven on earth as a reward for investment of time in work (good works) in return for money that was paid back in time in retirement where work for money was no longer necessary but the money continued as a function of the prior work contract to enable me to do anything I wanted with my time.
Anything I wanted to do with my time....It has been a wonderful life since retirement. The bonus is this: I loved what I did to get it, even if I now question the role of our military in current world affairs as well as a hindsight view of the role it played while I was a part of it. I am atoning for that as best I can. The childhood concepts are still strong.
So what did I do with much of my time since 1986? I competed in 8 Ironman triathlons. A race where an entire year of effort is paid back in an instant of temporal time.
Whitney Houston, bless her, said it best in her song "One Moment of Time"
Give me one moment in time
When I'm more than I thought I could be
When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away
And the answers are all up to me
Give me one moment in time
When I'm racing with destiny
Then in that one moment of time
I will be
I will be
I will be free
I will be
I will be free
Yes, Cullen Roche, you have some good views of time as money. We give time to get money, money buys us time to be free. What we do when have bought time so it is only ours, all ours, owed to nobody now or in the future is to make ourselves totally free in whatever way we choose. At a higher conceptual level, short of anything over the end of my time line I invested in something that took me to the edge of eternity and ultimate freedom.
Give me one moment in time
When I'm racing with destiny
Then in that one moment of time
I will feel
I will feel eternity
It is all about time. The connection of time to money. Ending the obligation of time to get money. Moving on to the fulfillment we choose to find. Whatever that greater reward there is in terms of our own desires for our expenditure of free time.
The reward of much time spent training in retirement was far great than a medal and a t-shirt. Those I shared it with know about that. Only I really know it.
Friday, February 24, 2012
S= I + (S-I)
There is an amazing intelligent discussion going on at this site among some exceptionally thoughtful people. The discussion looks like groupware where the participants are so knowledgeable and skilled that it is like attending a pro ball game. Appreciating the level play but knowing that although I can play the same game too, it is nowhere near how they can play it. All I can do is watch and enjoy and cheer when they make their points with clarity and elegance.
This is the game: Revealing clarity and understanding an existing murky system. Shining light on it for us all to see. Turning on light bulbs.
I had to say it over and over. Play with it this in my head: S= I + (S-I) Saving equals Investment plus the difference between Saving and Investment. Cullen Roche says the backbone here is Investment. That is his primary point of entry to the big complex ball of money.
This is how it rolled around in my head.
Investment is Saving. True. I have investments that once was money that I could have spent on consumption. Instead I put it in investment. Stocks. "Oracle" I sold some and and consumed a trip to Hawaii. with a friend. The trip to Hawaii was saved for 30 years. If the total trip cost $4,000 then it was paid for by 400 dollars I saved by investing 30 years ago. Somehow that made the whole trip more enjoyable. I love deferred gratification. I have been doing it all my life starting with college and then a navy career. Time is short, no more deferrals! I have a deposit on an airplane that I do not yet know how to fly.
Saving is not Investment if it is not invested? Well, maybe not true. Saving in the medium of money as a store of value is an investment in that store of value by default but just having a pile of money removes it from utilization for production which is what money does when invested. Inflation gives a negative return on a mattress deposit?
Yes, I can see it. Cullen Roche said it often enough and I read what he said over and over in all the places he said it that it does sink in.
S= I + (S-I) is the rock to stand on, to build the model on. A core idea.
That is how he looks at it and builds on it.
I would look at it in terms of two objects whose relationship is implemented by an action.
Investment and Savings are the two objects. The action that relates them is investing.
Savings = Money I can use in any way I wish. I can spend it on consumption or save it. Investment is one way to save. Doing nothing with Money is another but that is not Investment. Calling it "Investment by Default" because I did nothing with the money except trust that it would always be wherever I hid it. That gums up the idea so forget about even thinking in that direction. Call it Money Not Invested. Investment means put to use in production with hope or expectation of return in greater but, realistically accepted, lesser amount of money in relation to the initial amount of money invested.
If Savings = Money not yet used for Investment or Consumption then the act of investing is the action that implements the relationship of Money to Investment. Consuming is the action that implements the relationship of Money to Consumption? This does not sound like an elegant or accurate way to present the relationship. The word Consumption is a bad choice for a noun name in the rule that the relationship between two noun things is implemented by an action verb.
To resolve this let me put it this way: Money is Invested in Production. Money is Spent in Consumption. Production = Consumption in simplest terms.
Good. The verbs Investing and Spending have some meaning in implementing the relationship between Investment, Production, Spending and Consumption. This kind of thinking might even lead to ideas of Capital....Labor....
Obviously, Cullen Roche defines Investment as money saved by employing it in Production not Consumption. Hmmmm.... What about investing in an object like a baseball card, work of art, trading money for an alternate form of object value that is not employed in the production of something for trade? I need to think about that but for now that is the same as not investing. Meaning it is only put a different thing under the mattress as a surrogate for money.
S= I + (S-I) I am starting to get it. I just have to put it in the object oriented relationship way of looking at things that is my way of thinking.
This is the game: Revealing clarity and understanding an existing murky system. Shining light on it for us all to see. Turning on light bulbs.
I had to say it over and over. Play with it this in my head: S= I + (S-I) Saving equals Investment plus the difference between Saving and Investment. Cullen Roche says the backbone here is Investment. That is his primary point of entry to the big complex ball of money.
This is how it rolled around in my head.
Investment is Saving. True. I have investments that once was money that I could have spent on consumption. Instead I put it in investment. Stocks. "Oracle" I sold some and and consumed a trip to Hawaii. with a friend. The trip to Hawaii was saved for 30 years. If the total trip cost $4,000 then it was paid for by 400 dollars I saved by investing 30 years ago. Somehow that made the whole trip more enjoyable. I love deferred gratification. I have been doing it all my life starting with college and then a navy career. Time is short, no more deferrals! I have a deposit on an airplane that I do not yet know how to fly.
Saving is not Investment if it is not invested? Well, maybe not true. Saving in the medium of money as a store of value is an investment in that store of value by default but just having a pile of money removes it from utilization for production which is what money does when invested. Inflation gives a negative return on a mattress deposit?
Yes, I can see it. Cullen Roche said it often enough and I read what he said over and over in all the places he said it that it does sink in.
S= I + (S-I) is the rock to stand on, to build the model on. A core idea.
That is how he looks at it and builds on it.
I would look at it in terms of two objects whose relationship is implemented by an action.
Investment and Savings are the two objects. The action that relates them is investing.
Savings = Money I can use in any way I wish. I can spend it on consumption or save it. Investment is one way to save. Doing nothing with Money is another but that is not Investment. Calling it "Investment by Default" because I did nothing with the money except trust that it would always be wherever I hid it. That gums up the idea so forget about even thinking in that direction. Call it Money Not Invested. Investment means put to use in production with hope or expectation of return in greater but, realistically accepted, lesser amount of money in relation to the initial amount of money invested.
If Savings = Money not yet used for Investment or Consumption then the act of investing is the action that implements the relationship of Money to Investment. Consuming is the action that implements the relationship of Money to Consumption? This does not sound like an elegant or accurate way to present the relationship. The word Consumption is a bad choice for a noun name in the rule that the relationship between two noun things is implemented by an action verb.
To resolve this let me put it this way: Money is Invested in Production. Money is Spent in Consumption. Production = Consumption in simplest terms.
Good. The verbs Investing and Spending have some meaning in implementing the relationship between Investment, Production, Spending and Consumption. This kind of thinking might even lead to ideas of Capital....Labor....
Obviously, Cullen Roche defines Investment as money saved by employing it in Production not Consumption. Hmmmm.... What about investing in an object like a baseball card, work of art, trading money for an alternate form of object value that is not employed in the production of something for trade? I need to think about that but for now that is the same as not investing. Meaning it is only put a different thing under the mattress as a surrogate for money.
S= I + (S-I) I am starting to get it. I just have to put it in the object oriented relationship way of looking at things that is my way of thinking.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Island Economics
Island Economics is a fun way to kick around otherwise unreal ideas for some real value. Explanatory value or alternate model value.
The following was taken from "Understanding Modern Monetary Realism" written by Cullen Roche.
"On a journey around the world with members of the US Navy we become shipwrecked and find ourselves on a beautiful island...…... I issue “reserve” notes and initiate an electronic system that tracks each citizen’s transactions……. "
Cruising on into fantasy:
The "reserve notes" are not paper but virtual shells on the central computer. Each virtual shell has a unique distinguishing mark (serial number) and denomination of one shell. Islanders trade one real shell to get a virtual shell in the i(sland)Cloud floating over the island that they worship. This establishes the system. They also receive a unique identity and iPhone 4s with near field capability and biometric owner identification ability to verify owner association and authorization to use of device as well as identify and verify paying and receiving owner in a transaction.
This is what happens when a transaction takes place:
Virtual shells do not move from the account of one owner to another in the iCloud, The identity of the current owner of each virtual shell involved in the transaction changes. Previous owner identity goes into history.
The virtual, marked shells exist forever. Owners do not. The base record is the one that lasts the longest. The fixed, center, constant virtual record of the money system becomes the money unit. The center record is not really the the holder of the money unit but it could, for viewing purposes, be presented that way. All money is associated to some holder.
Islanders stored their old shells in their own houses and still like to see what how many shells they have, even if virtual. A user view is created for them that presents the total number of shells bearing their unique identifier. They could also look at all the shells and their unique identifying marks and who the last previous owner was to be sure the system is not playing a shell game.
You, as shell system manager, are primarily concerned about the integrity and security of the money system because you will be exiled if your money system does not work as promised or if there are ever two shells with the same identifying mark or two identities on the same shell. The system would allow multiple identities to combine into one but that is a subsystem support model.
From this simple system model structure an elaborate system could be built.
It is scalable. That is an important thing in system value. Extensions can be added. It is a monetary operating system on which to base all application use.
It is also open source and transparent, anonymizing ownership depending on view authorization. It produces total monetary system management information when associated to all things bought and sold.
Various denominations of shells would be introduced to minimize transaction overhead so that one shell with a denominated value could represent many shells.
A beautiful place to vacation, which introduces the money exchange problem……….
Actually, there was an island with stones as money to big to move but everyone knew who owned them as they changed ownership in transactions. The original "fixed" record. Then there was the stone that fell off the boat while being carried from one island to the next……….
Maybe the whole idea is as old as stone…
The following was taken from "Understanding Modern Monetary Realism" written by Cullen Roche.
"On a journey around the world with members of the US Navy we become shipwrecked and find ourselves on a beautiful island...…... I issue “reserve” notes and initiate an electronic system that tracks each citizen’s transactions……. "
Cruising on into fantasy:
The "reserve notes" are not paper but virtual shells on the central computer. Each virtual shell has a unique distinguishing mark (serial number) and denomination of one shell. Islanders trade one real shell to get a virtual shell in the i(sland)Cloud floating over the island that they worship. This establishes the system. They also receive a unique identity and iPhone 4s with near field capability and biometric owner identification ability to verify owner association and authorization to use of device as well as identify and verify paying and receiving owner in a transaction.
This is what happens when a transaction takes place:
Virtual shells do not move from the account of one owner to another in the iCloud, The identity of the current owner of each virtual shell involved in the transaction changes. Previous owner identity goes into history.
The virtual, marked shells exist forever. Owners do not. The base record is the one that lasts the longest. The fixed, center, constant virtual record of the money system becomes the money unit. The center record is not really the the holder of the money unit but it could, for viewing purposes, be presented that way. All money is associated to some holder.
Islanders stored their old shells in their own houses and still like to see what how many shells they have, even if virtual. A user view is created for them that presents the total number of shells bearing their unique identifier. They could also look at all the shells and their unique identifying marks and who the last previous owner was to be sure the system is not playing a shell game.
You, as shell system manager, are primarily concerned about the integrity and security of the money system because you will be exiled if your money system does not work as promised or if there are ever two shells with the same identifying mark or two identities on the same shell. The system would allow multiple identities to combine into one but that is a subsystem support model.
From this simple system model structure an elaborate system could be built.
It is scalable. That is an important thing in system value. Extensions can be added. It is a monetary operating system on which to base all application use.
It is also open source and transparent, anonymizing ownership depending on view authorization. It produces total monetary system management information when associated to all things bought and sold.
Various denominations of shells would be introduced to minimize transaction overhead so that one shell with a denominated value could represent many shells.
A beautiful place to vacation, which introduces the money exchange problem……….
Actually, there was an island with stones as money to big to move but everyone knew who owned them as they changed ownership in transactions. The original "fixed" record. Then there was the stone that fell off the boat while being carried from one island to the next……….
Maybe the whole idea is as old as stone…
Grandson
I will not be around to actual see the future that I envision. A wonderful and exciting future. A future that my grandson will not only live to see but be a part of. A significant part, I expect. He is 15 and straight A's in school. A gifted athlete that excels in any sport he chooses. Handsome and socially skilled. He has everything going for him.
This summer we will travel in Europe together. A journey that I hope will contribute greatly to the distance he will go in life.
I wish my father was alive to see where the progress made during his lifetime has taken us. He was born in 1903. The year the Wright brothers flew. The excitement of his lifetime was trains, planes, automobiles, electricity, electronics. He enjoyed reading Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.
I was born in 1943. By the 1960's planes and automobiles were still exciting things in the physical world but my first trip in a jet airliner was not much different than the essence of flight today, which is not just the meal. Electronics were still evolving as far as consumer products go. It was the dawning of the applied computer age. My first assignment in the navy was stock control officer on a supply ship off Vietnam using an IBM punch card machine to keep track of all the inventory, issues and receipt processes as well as the related financial information.
Things have come so far since then but, like my father, I am and continue to be fascinated by their progress and even more fascinated by where they going. While I think I may see where they are going in a future that I will never know, grandson Declan will see it. So will his brothers.
Have I learned anything and turned that learning into insight and wisdom that might give Declan, who has so much potential, a leg up, a head start, an advantage in comprehending the future that he will be stepping into by seeing a clear picture of where the world is today.
One of my favorites is: I can't get where I am going if I do not know where I am at. I am exactly where I am at any given time. Where is that? I think that I get better at answering that question every day. At least, trying to understand and, I think, actually getting somewhere. Otherwise I would give up, get a rocking chair and focus on the past. Over and over and over until it was all over. Might as well have lost my mind.
Conceptual Things are the new exciting stuff of this century like Industrial Things were last century. The excitement of progress in a conceptual world that Declan will grow up in. We have the conceptual tools to create growth in that world like we had the industrial tools to advance in the previous century.
Industrial things also brought us a couple of world wars or simply the continuation of motivations for wars fought with better weapons. Territorial gain for power to control, extract, dominate for self interest. Conceptual things are the latest tools of war that achieve the same goals but with less mass physical destruction.
The bright future I see in contrast to war being fought with conceptual tools is that if we gain control of the concepts we can ultimately fight the war to end all wars. The war on cancer, drugs, other countries, religous wars, political wars, class wars, social wars of all kinds.
Money and Finance and the role they play this century is one of the most fascinating and exciting things that this century will probably see as they will be restructured by revolutionary new concepts that implement themselves in new systems that serve us better to get where we want to go.
By the end of this century, spirituality will emerge as the the next era of exiting conceptual expansion progression. While I think about that.....thinking.... thinking....it is really ahead of my time and far beyond what I care to think primarily about now. Others are and that is good.
Concepts of Money and Finance excite me now. Joining the navy for a career was the industrial vehicle associated with a social cause (I was really convinced I was defending my country against all enemies every time I took the solemn oath) for maximum adventure in my lifetime.
If I could do it again I would join up with the forces to defend the country from foreign and domestic enemies that would seek to destroy the public hopes and dreams of freedom, justice and equality. The enemies that are not vast armies that wage war. Vast armies do not benefit from war, they only die. The ones that profit from war in terms of power, control and self interest today do not have vast armies to fight their wars, only vast victims of ideology which, in large part the victims of the ideology support!
The ones that are profiting are very, very few. They have a great amount of power. They have a great amount of risk. Risk against which they cannot insure themselves for any amount of money
In the end, this concept will triumph: Power is derived from the consent of the people. The information age is all about empowering people.
Industrial war was, god help me, exciting. Conceptual wars of money and economics in this century is even more exciting. Unfortunately they will implement themselves in the remnants of old style industrial war making. The nature of old style industrial war will however be fundamentally different. Not armies and navies of millions of men with more or less equal magnitude/power relationship going out to fight the war instigated and directed by the few. The new equation is more like the management/union wars in the early part of the last century. A few that control only a few but the ones they control are armed with guns against clubs and they were backed up by a government that could send in the army if necessary.
Declan is going to grow up and live in exciting times.
This summer we will travel in Europe together. A journey that I hope will contribute greatly to the distance he will go in life.
I wish my father was alive to see where the progress made during his lifetime has taken us. He was born in 1903. The year the Wright brothers flew. The excitement of his lifetime was trains, planes, automobiles, electricity, electronics. He enjoyed reading Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.
I was born in 1943. By the 1960's planes and automobiles were still exciting things in the physical world but my first trip in a jet airliner was not much different than the essence of flight today, which is not just the meal. Electronics were still evolving as far as consumer products go. It was the dawning of the applied computer age. My first assignment in the navy was stock control officer on a supply ship off Vietnam using an IBM punch card machine to keep track of all the inventory, issues and receipt processes as well as the related financial information.
Things have come so far since then but, like my father, I am and continue to be fascinated by their progress and even more fascinated by where they going. While I think I may see where they are going in a future that I will never know, grandson Declan will see it. So will his brothers.
Have I learned anything and turned that learning into insight and wisdom that might give Declan, who has so much potential, a leg up, a head start, an advantage in comprehending the future that he will be stepping into by seeing a clear picture of where the world is today.
One of my favorites is: I can't get where I am going if I do not know where I am at. I am exactly where I am at any given time. Where is that? I think that I get better at answering that question every day. At least, trying to understand and, I think, actually getting somewhere. Otherwise I would give up, get a rocking chair and focus on the past. Over and over and over until it was all over. Might as well have lost my mind.
Conceptual Things are the new exciting stuff of this century like Industrial Things were last century. The excitement of progress in a conceptual world that Declan will grow up in. We have the conceptual tools to create growth in that world like we had the industrial tools to advance in the previous century.
Industrial things also brought us a couple of world wars or simply the continuation of motivations for wars fought with better weapons. Territorial gain for power to control, extract, dominate for self interest. Conceptual things are the latest tools of war that achieve the same goals but with less mass physical destruction.
The bright future I see in contrast to war being fought with conceptual tools is that if we gain control of the concepts we can ultimately fight the war to end all wars. The war on cancer, drugs, other countries, religous wars, political wars, class wars, social wars of all kinds.
Money and Finance and the role they play this century is one of the most fascinating and exciting things that this century will probably see as they will be restructured by revolutionary new concepts that implement themselves in new systems that serve us better to get where we want to go.
By the end of this century, spirituality will emerge as the the next era of exiting conceptual expansion progression. While I think about that.....thinking.... thinking....it is really ahead of my time and far beyond what I care to think primarily about now. Others are and that is good.
Concepts of Money and Finance excite me now. Joining the navy for a career was the industrial vehicle associated with a social cause (I was really convinced I was defending my country against all enemies every time I took the solemn oath) for maximum adventure in my lifetime.
If I could do it again I would join up with the forces to defend the country from foreign and domestic enemies that would seek to destroy the public hopes and dreams of freedom, justice and equality. The enemies that are not vast armies that wage war. Vast armies do not benefit from war, they only die. The ones that profit from war in terms of power, control and self interest today do not have vast armies to fight their wars, only vast victims of ideology which, in large part the victims of the ideology support!
The ones that are profiting are very, very few. They have a great amount of power. They have a great amount of risk. Risk against which they cannot insure themselves for any amount of money
In the end, this concept will triumph: Power is derived from the consent of the people. The information age is all about empowering people.
Industrial war was, god help me, exciting. Conceptual wars of money and economics in this century is even more exciting. Unfortunately they will implement themselves in the remnants of old style industrial war making. The nature of old style industrial war will however be fundamentally different. Not armies and navies of millions of men with more or less equal magnitude/power relationship going out to fight the war instigated and directed by the few. The new equation is more like the management/union wars in the early part of the last century. A few that control only a few but the ones they control are armed with guns against clubs and they were backed up by a government that could send in the army if necessary.
Declan is going to grow up and live in exciting times.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
If I Owned All the Ones and Zeros
The Onion had this wonderful satirical bit on Bill Gates patenting 0nes and Zeros.
If I owned the right to create ones and zeros out of nothing I'd be rich. Richer than Bill.
I would create them and then loan them out for use, charge interest while they were in use and when they were used in an application program and moved to trash or when the product of that application program was moved to trash then the ones and zeros would be extinguished. They would go back to the nothingness from which they were called. I would then summon them from nothing to existence once again to loan for use.
Yes, but....how would users pay me? Not with ones and zeros of which I have unlimited supply but in fractions of tiny square area measurements of property they own. This is the concept of micro payments with property as the medium of exchange. People owned less and less property for which they had exchanged to me for use of ones and zeros in terms of movies and twitters as well as managing their businesses. I would then rent back the use of their property to them for payment in money.
The banksters would create money out of nothing to lend to people to use to pay me in land micro payments for ones and zeros I created out of nothing to lend to them to use in application programs and the products of those programs. Eventually I would own all the land but I would rent it back to the people to use. I might even tell them how to use it or at least restrict its use any way I chose as a condition of use. When there was no land left with which people could make micro payments to me for use of my ones and zeros then other forms of servitude payments could be chosen by me.
Nobody is off the ones and zeros grid. This is the information age. Nobody can live without using ones and zeros or being used by ones and zeros.
Curses: Foiled by the Apple iCloud! In the iCloud there is only one instance of ones and zeros that is called an iTune and everyone that uses it has bought a right to use it. There is no longer a milllion or more instances of each iTune held on each persons iTune file.
Actually, Bill Gates was clever. He created the operating system gate to access all the ones and zeros. He also wanted to control the applications programs that would use his gateway.
Curses, foiled again by Apple.
Curses, foiled by Apple and Open Source operating systems and application programs.
Banksters rule. They have exclusive rights to money creation. No competition, no control, no open source. No problems. But Apple has a hundred billion dollars. Enough to start an iBank in the iCloud where all the money is a serialized digital record existing forever and the name of the associated owner of the money changes with transactions. The business model is no charge for the service, just skim off the related information value (like an user interest payment for use) for data mining. In this case the interest payment, information, is something produced as a value.
Banksters patented money. The best business model. Create something out of nothing at no cost and sell as a time based loan for a real payment on the loan plus interest. Do not create the interest to repay the loan. When the loan is repaid and the originally created money goes back to nothing then do it again.
The Banksters model was best until Apple and perhaps Apple and the division of Google call Strudel came along with real 100% money in the iCloud called iMoney replacing fractional reserve banking after the Bankster's license to steal was revoked by the government.
I wish I would have patented the alphabet or numbers.
Maybe I should patent the idea of all virtual money in one virtual place all serialized and denominated and existing forever with only the name of the associated owner changing as transactions are made in the buying and selling that money is used for.
If I owned the right to create ones and zeros out of nothing I'd be rich. Richer than Bill.
I would create them and then loan them out for use, charge interest while they were in use and when they were used in an application program and moved to trash or when the product of that application program was moved to trash then the ones and zeros would be extinguished. They would go back to the nothingness from which they were called. I would then summon them from nothing to existence once again to loan for use.
Yes, but....how would users pay me? Not with ones and zeros of which I have unlimited supply but in fractions of tiny square area measurements of property they own. This is the concept of micro payments with property as the medium of exchange. People owned less and less property for which they had exchanged to me for use of ones and zeros in terms of movies and twitters as well as managing their businesses. I would then rent back the use of their property to them for payment in money.
The banksters would create money out of nothing to lend to people to use to pay me in land micro payments for ones and zeros I created out of nothing to lend to them to use in application programs and the products of those programs. Eventually I would own all the land but I would rent it back to the people to use. I might even tell them how to use it or at least restrict its use any way I chose as a condition of use. When there was no land left with which people could make micro payments to me for use of my ones and zeros then other forms of servitude payments could be chosen by me.
Nobody is off the ones and zeros grid. This is the information age. Nobody can live without using ones and zeros or being used by ones and zeros.
Curses: Foiled by the Apple iCloud! In the iCloud there is only one instance of ones and zeros that is called an iTune and everyone that uses it has bought a right to use it. There is no longer a milllion or more instances of each iTune held on each persons iTune file.
Actually, Bill Gates was clever. He created the operating system gate to access all the ones and zeros. He also wanted to control the applications programs that would use his gateway.
Curses, foiled again by Apple.
Curses, foiled by Apple and Open Source operating systems and application programs.
Banksters rule. They have exclusive rights to money creation. No competition, no control, no open source. No problems. But Apple has a hundred billion dollars. Enough to start an iBank in the iCloud where all the money is a serialized digital record existing forever and the name of the associated owner of the money changes with transactions. The business model is no charge for the service, just skim off the related information value (like an user interest payment for use) for data mining. In this case the interest payment, information, is something produced as a value.
Banksters patented money. The best business model. Create something out of nothing at no cost and sell as a time based loan for a real payment on the loan plus interest. Do not create the interest to repay the loan. When the loan is repaid and the originally created money goes back to nothing then do it again.
The Banksters model was best until Apple and perhaps Apple and the division of Google call Strudel came along with real 100% money in the iCloud called iMoney replacing fractional reserve banking after the Bankster's license to steal was revoked by the government.
I wish I would have patented the alphabet or numbers.
Maybe I should patent the idea of all virtual money in one virtual place all serialized and denominated and existing forever with only the name of the associated owner changing as transactions are made in the buying and selling that money is used for.
Greece
Bill Mitchell commented here about the third Greece Bailout
In response to Bill's comment a poster named "ikonclast" said:
When conditions become intolerable for the masses they rise in revolution. This is the lesson of history. It is also the lesson of the contemporary world as witnessed recently in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Oman and Syria. Do the troika not understand the dangers of spreading this instability to the northern shores of the Mediterranean? Realpolitik and self-interest should dictate avoidance of this trend by the core states of the EU even if humanitarian considerations do not sway them.
The writing is on the wall as to where Greece is headed. All reason dictates that it should not happen.
Reason, general self interest and the greater good will lose on the present course.
Who benefits?? Someone with narrow self interest. .1 percent of the general self interest.
The writing was on the wall saying where we were headed with Iraq.
Who benefited?
Follow the money. It leads to 1% or .1%. By their self incriminating isolation to this small number we will know them. They will hide but their rarity and rewards in the power of money or political ideology as a result of the crises will expose them and those behind them.
Many are killed in war. A few make a killing.
Crises Capitalism? Crises Politics? Never let a good crises go to waste.
With so many standing to lose in a default why are things headed to the crises that seems to be inevitable.
They are headed to crises because somebody will benefit greatly.
It is all about power. Money or Politics. What other power do the few have over the many besides perversions of religion to serve those in control?
What is the essence of the power? To be the supreme authority in control?
Fear? Hate?
Might this crises be turned around to serve the betterment of all?
I hope the answer is at least the probability of a toss of the coin.
The future will depend on where Greece falls.
This New York Times piece from December, "U.S. Firms See Opportunities in Europe's Woes" looks at how American banks are snatching up customers, real estate and other assets overseas.
Do we see some relations to what happened in the mortgage market crises? Risk shifted to the public. Public assets shifted to private hands in order to settle the risk assumed and debt imposed on the public. Opportunity to buy cheap and rent back. Buy public assets, rent them back for cash flow. Get people to sell their family dishes and rent them back to them for whatever they can pay. Otherwise they eat off the gutter. Move assets from the many to the few?
Own or Occupy. Own or Rent. Raising debt means less ownership, more occupation. That is the trend. Does a person paying off a mortgage own their home or only occupy it until the debt is paid. Does that make debt look more like eternal rent?
We do not even own our own money, nor does any other nation. It is all created out of nothing by the banks. We just rent it. It occupies our pocket while it is owned by the bank.
The Occupy movement should change its movement name to Own.
We once made a bold statement that we own ourselves and what is ours by right.
The sovereign right to money creation is ours, it says so in the Constitution. That right that was granted to the Banksters. We must recind that right and reserve it for ourselves.
The debt money system is doomed. Real money and the abolishment of fractional reserve lending is the answer to the crises.
Does that sound revolutionary?
Who would benefit most from that? Who would benefit the least?
Banksters are too big to fail. Nationally. Globally. They mean that we cannot live without them. Therefore we pay. Not for their losses as risk shifting and loss to the public ledger but more accurately the shifting of freedom to slavery.
Good reading: "Greek Debt Accord Hostage to Political Passions"
In response to Bill's comment a poster named "ikonclast" said:
When conditions become intolerable for the masses they rise in revolution. This is the lesson of history. It is also the lesson of the contemporary world as witnessed recently in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Oman and Syria. Do the troika not understand the dangers of spreading this instability to the northern shores of the Mediterranean? Realpolitik and self-interest should dictate avoidance of this trend by the core states of the EU even if humanitarian considerations do not sway them.
The writing is on the wall as to where Greece is headed. All reason dictates that it should not happen.
Reason, general self interest and the greater good will lose on the present course.
Who benefits?? Someone with narrow self interest. .1 percent of the general self interest.
The writing was on the wall saying where we were headed with Iraq.
Who benefited?
Follow the money. It leads to 1% or .1%. By their self incriminating isolation to this small number we will know them. They will hide but their rarity and rewards in the power of money or political ideology as a result of the crises will expose them and those behind them.
Many are killed in war. A few make a killing.
Crises Capitalism? Crises Politics? Never let a good crises go to waste.
With so many standing to lose in a default why are things headed to the crises that seems to be inevitable.
They are headed to crises because somebody will benefit greatly.
It is all about power. Money or Politics. What other power do the few have over the many besides perversions of religion to serve those in control?
What is the essence of the power? To be the supreme authority in control?
Fear? Hate?
Might this crises be turned around to serve the betterment of all?
I hope the answer is at least the probability of a toss of the coin.
The future will depend on where Greece falls.
This New York Times piece from December, "U.S. Firms See Opportunities in Europe's Woes" looks at how American banks are snatching up customers, real estate and other assets overseas.
Do we see some relations to what happened in the mortgage market crises? Risk shifted to the public. Public assets shifted to private hands in order to settle the risk assumed and debt imposed on the public. Opportunity to buy cheap and rent back. Buy public assets, rent them back for cash flow. Get people to sell their family dishes and rent them back to them for whatever they can pay. Otherwise they eat off the gutter. Move assets from the many to the few?
Own or Occupy. Own or Rent. Raising debt means less ownership, more occupation. That is the trend. Does a person paying off a mortgage own their home or only occupy it until the debt is paid. Does that make debt look more like eternal rent?
We do not even own our own money, nor does any other nation. It is all created out of nothing by the banks. We just rent it. It occupies our pocket while it is owned by the bank.
The Occupy movement should change its movement name to Own.
We once made a bold statement that we own ourselves and what is ours by right.
The sovereign right to money creation is ours, it says so in the Constitution. That right that was granted to the Banksters. We must recind that right and reserve it for ourselves.
The debt money system is doomed. Real money and the abolishment of fractional reserve lending is the answer to the crises.
Does that sound revolutionary?
Who would benefit most from that? Who would benefit the least?
Banksters are too big to fail. Nationally. Globally. They mean that we cannot live without them. Therefore we pay. Not for their losses as risk shifting and loss to the public ledger but more accurately the shifting of freedom to slavery.
Good reading: "Greek Debt Accord Hostage to Political Passions"
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
More Math and Beyond
Pure Mathematics is the Operating System of Math.
Applied Mathematics are the Application Programs of the mathematics world.
There is only one operating system. There are millions of application programs.
Pure Money is the operating system.
Applied Money is all the application programs that use the Pure Money operating system.
Apple computer OSX is an operating system.
Application programs are all those things that use the operating system as a tool to do something.
I am studying this philosophy of money by Georg Simmel
I found it on a google search for "pure money". On page 210 he talks about pure money. On page 212 he talks about the unlimited possibilities for its use.
Just like Pure Science. and Applied Science.
The difference between pure money and pure science is that pure sciences based on the physical world. Pure money is based on a conceptual world. Concepts created by those that wold benefit most from the money. He says that pure money is not really therefore pure but the best shot at the idea that someone took and the idea is going through an iterative improvement process as we move closer to a better conception.
Pure Religion and Applied Religion????
There is no page in Wikipedia for the terms "Pure Religion" and "Applied Religion"
Hmmmmmm……..
Wikipedia does have an entry for "One True Faith"
There is an entry for Applied Economics in Wikipedia but none for Pure Economics. Not that Wikipedia is a comprehensive authority on everything, just the popular stuff. Probably an entry on Pure Economics by another name. However, I believe that any entry under Pure Economics would be like an entry under Pure Religion. Just different Economic Schools of Thought. Schools like science used to have when the world was flat and we were the center of the universe.
One true faith does not obviously divide into unlimited possibilities for its use because by definition One True Faith is a restricted operating system. Restricted to the applications that it dictates which I suppose would be called "One True Application" Otherwise called "My way or no way".
But that is faith. Not science. Or is that Religion? In any event it is not Purity of Thought like science or math dictated by the natural world applied to all the applications of that purity of thought in the natural world. Like money it is a conceptual construct of our minds, not one created for us by a Creator like the physical world.
Applied Mathematics are the Application Programs of the mathematics world.
There is only one operating system. There are millions of application programs.
Pure Money is the operating system.
Applied Money is all the application programs that use the Pure Money operating system.
Apple computer OSX is an operating system.
Application programs are all those things that use the operating system as a tool to do something.
I am studying this philosophy of money by Georg Simmel
I found it on a google search for "pure money". On page 210 he talks about pure money. On page 212 he talks about the unlimited possibilities for its use.
Just like Pure Science. and Applied Science.
The difference between pure money and pure science is that pure sciences based on the physical world. Pure money is based on a conceptual world. Concepts created by those that wold benefit most from the money. He says that pure money is not really therefore pure but the best shot at the idea that someone took and the idea is going through an iterative improvement process as we move closer to a better conception.
Pure Religion and Applied Religion????
There is no page in Wikipedia for the terms "Pure Religion" and "Applied Religion"
Hmmmmmm……..
Wikipedia does have an entry for "One True Faith"
There is an entry for Applied Economics in Wikipedia but none for Pure Economics. Not that Wikipedia is a comprehensive authority on everything, just the popular stuff. Probably an entry on Pure Economics by another name. However, I believe that any entry under Pure Economics would be like an entry under Pure Religion. Just different Economic Schools of Thought. Schools like science used to have when the world was flat and we were the center of the universe.
One true faith does not obviously divide into unlimited possibilities for its use because by definition One True Faith is a restricted operating system. Restricted to the applications that it dictates which I suppose would be called "One True Application" Otherwise called "My way or no way".
But that is faith. Not science. Or is that Religion? In any event it is not Purity of Thought like science or math dictated by the natural world applied to all the applications of that purity of thought in the natural world. Like money it is a conceptual construct of our minds, not one created for us by a Creator like the physical world.
Mathematics
ME
I never really understood math. I could add, subtract, multiply, divide and use pi somehow in an equation to find the circumference of a circle (if I could remember the formula). Distance = rate X time is one that I usually remember.
Math was always something that was done. "Do the math". That is how it was taught by the nuns. The function of math is the doing. The structural relationships of things that are used in the doing (the numbers) seemed to be an after-thought in teaching that had to be accepted on faith.
Even in high school physics, the teacher, Marvin Shanks, taught it on the "what it does" basis. He would say so often "you take and do this" that it was a joke among us that was often used to explain things like: You take your feet and put them on the floor and that is how you stand up. All we had to say after a while was "take and do this" and everyone laughed. Tom was the one that used the phrase so often, imitating Marvin Shanks so well it became his joke because he said it so well.
The only bright spot in grade school education was diagramming sentences. I loved it. I put the nouns on a line and everything was structured in relation to the noun. The thing came first and the doing, as well as the modifiers came second. To me it was the way to learn stuff. I always wanted to learn that way but was stuck in a system that was oriented to teaching the doing. Maybe that is what people mean today when they say that the education system remains aimed at teaching for an industrial society. Producing workers to do things on an assembly line.
Today I read this and was determined to understand it. While the headline was about the market crash the math was about the things that were behind the crash. It described the things in the equation in the forefront. Not what the market did as a result. The explanation excited me. I understood it but not the equations.
So I went to Wikipedia and started with "Equation" then went to "Equality" then "Differential Equation" they are all the conceptual "things" of the system. Maybe the first day of math in school was a definition of term but there was no explanation, maybe I missed the first day. The rest of the school year was learning by doing something with the things. Did I miss the boat.
It was not my way to learn and stubbornly I was not going to learn that way. I failed to understand a lot of things because I want to know what a thing is and what its parts are. The general world is more structured on what things do and the pyramiding of actions to get things done. Two different ways of approach. What a thing is. What a thing does. That is why I like the object oriented approach to programming. That is why I want to know what money is. Then I can figure what it does.
Money is a lot of things. It is information. It is decision making. It is a social media. Finally, I see today that money is mathematics. Specifically the mathematics of the things primarily behind what money does. All the economics math models bore me because they are employed by those that understand the things behind them to explain to the rest of us what those things do.
Politics is the same. So much focus on what it does, not what it is. I doubt few politicians understand what it is. They run on what it does. At the Palin stupidity extreme that is all they understand and got that wrong.
I might have been a great mathematician! Maybe not. But I can go back to school to learn it my way. The school of the internet were I can find the description and the nature of the thing and how all the things relate before looking at what they do.
In high school I got an old Ford flathead V8 engine from Terry's dad. I took it apart in the murder room did some things to it, reassembled it and returned it to him. I did the same with a Wisconsin engine that I got from Judy's dad. I learned by working with the parts.
Conceptual things like credit cards, mortgages, money used to be hard things to take apart to their component pieces. Hard to understand by looking at the information that was more readily apparent: The being what they did. The internet now makes these complex conceptual things easier to take apart, relate the pieces. That is what I am doing on the internet. Taking apart V8 engines called money, knowledge, computer programs all the other "things" in life to see what makes them tick.
Hooray for the internet! Things are still hard to understand but at least I can gain the understanding in my own way which makes them possible for me to understand, to the best of my ability. Ability that was handicapped by a round peg in a square hole approach in early education.
Education for the new age is different. Choice is offered on the internet. Not so much choice is offered in formal education which is lagging with legacy thought.
Back to Wikipedia to explore things that link to mathematics!
I never really understood math. I could add, subtract, multiply, divide and use pi somehow in an equation to find the circumference of a circle (if I could remember the formula). Distance = rate X time is one that I usually remember.
Math was always something that was done. "Do the math". That is how it was taught by the nuns. The function of math is the doing. The structural relationships of things that are used in the doing (the numbers) seemed to be an after-thought in teaching that had to be accepted on faith.
Even in high school physics, the teacher, Marvin Shanks, taught it on the "what it does" basis. He would say so often "you take and do this" that it was a joke among us that was often used to explain things like: You take your feet and put them on the floor and that is how you stand up. All we had to say after a while was "take and do this" and everyone laughed. Tom was the one that used the phrase so often, imitating Marvin Shanks so well it became his joke because he said it so well.
The only bright spot in grade school education was diagramming sentences. I loved it. I put the nouns on a line and everything was structured in relation to the noun. The thing came first and the doing, as well as the modifiers came second. To me it was the way to learn stuff. I always wanted to learn that way but was stuck in a system that was oriented to teaching the doing. Maybe that is what people mean today when they say that the education system remains aimed at teaching for an industrial society. Producing workers to do things on an assembly line.
Today I read this and was determined to understand it. While the headline was about the market crash the math was about the things that were behind the crash. It described the things in the equation in the forefront. Not what the market did as a result. The explanation excited me. I understood it but not the equations.
So I went to Wikipedia and started with "Equation" then went to "Equality" then "Differential Equation" they are all the conceptual "things" of the system. Maybe the first day of math in school was a definition of term but there was no explanation, maybe I missed the first day. The rest of the school year was learning by doing something with the things. Did I miss the boat.
It was not my way to learn and stubbornly I was not going to learn that way. I failed to understand a lot of things because I want to know what a thing is and what its parts are. The general world is more structured on what things do and the pyramiding of actions to get things done. Two different ways of approach. What a thing is. What a thing does. That is why I like the object oriented approach to programming. That is why I want to know what money is. Then I can figure what it does.
Money is a lot of things. It is information. It is decision making. It is a social media. Finally, I see today that money is mathematics. Specifically the mathematics of the things primarily behind what money does. All the economics math models bore me because they are employed by those that understand the things behind them to explain to the rest of us what those things do.
Politics is the same. So much focus on what it does, not what it is. I doubt few politicians understand what it is. They run on what it does. At the Palin stupidity extreme that is all they understand and got that wrong.
I might have been a great mathematician! Maybe not. But I can go back to school to learn it my way. The school of the internet were I can find the description and the nature of the thing and how all the things relate before looking at what they do.
In high school I got an old Ford flathead V8 engine from Terry's dad. I took it apart in the murder room did some things to it, reassembled it and returned it to him. I did the same with a Wisconsin engine that I got from Judy's dad. I learned by working with the parts.
Conceptual things like credit cards, mortgages, money used to be hard things to take apart to their component pieces. Hard to understand by looking at the information that was more readily apparent: The being what they did. The internet now makes these complex conceptual things easier to take apart, relate the pieces. That is what I am doing on the internet. Taking apart V8 engines called money, knowledge, computer programs all the other "things" in life to see what makes them tick.
Hooray for the internet! Things are still hard to understand but at least I can gain the understanding in my own way which makes them possible for me to understand, to the best of my ability. Ability that was handicapped by a round peg in a square hole approach in early education.
Education for the new age is different. Choice is offered on the internet. Not so much choice is offered in formal education which is lagging with legacy thought.
Back to Wikipedia to explore things that link to mathematics!
Monday, February 20, 2012
Bill Still Report #39
Spot on Bill. He states his 8 major planks. His plank as stated here is the one that will get us to the new financial paradigm. Nobody else is saying this about the most important thing in our future. The most important thing is not what all the other candidates have in their planks. Well, money is the most important thing and they all talk about it. Nobody has a real plan to attack the core of the problem. Maybe Ron Paul with his "End the Fed" idea but then he goes off the deep end with his ideas that are totally off the wall. Maybe I should say it a different way. That is the idea at the top of his tree on a climb to the moon.
I sent a donation to Bill just to applaud his ideas. They should be heard. They are the only real ideas to address the real problem. Unfortunately he will not be elected even if he is the best candidate. That is the core problem with politics analogous to the core problem of money. Neither will be resolved without a paradigm shift. Read that as Total Information System Redesign. Read it as writing on the wall.
Bill suggests a consumption tax of 18.8% which, along with other revenue would completely pay for our Federal tax revenue requirements. Looks like a flat tax, could be the bottom line of a progressive tax. A total bottom line revenue of 18.8% of consumption could be realized in many different ways. Many people have expressed a bottom line percentage of tax revenue as a level that should be adequate to fund the federal government. Good idea. Sounds like a basis for a budget!
These are all "more or less" numbers. The basic numbers are big, the exception numbers are small details as far as this discussion that deals with the generalities of the idea.
The 2012 federal budget is simply stated here:
Total Revenue: $2.469 Trillion
Total Expenditures: $3.796 Trillion
Total Deficit $1.327 Trillion
I sent a donation to Bill just to applaud his ideas. They should be heard. They are the only real ideas to address the real problem. Unfortunately he will not be elected even if he is the best candidate. That is the core problem with politics analogous to the core problem of money. Neither will be resolved without a paradigm shift. Read that as Total Information System Redesign. Read it as writing on the wall.
Bill suggests a consumption tax of 18.8% which, along with other revenue would completely pay for our Federal tax revenue requirements. Looks like a flat tax, could be the bottom line of a progressive tax. A total bottom line revenue of 18.8% of consumption could be realized in many different ways. Many people have expressed a bottom line percentage of tax revenue as a level that should be adequate to fund the federal government. Good idea. Sounds like a basis for a budget!
These are all "more or less" numbers. The basic numbers are big, the exception numbers are small details as far as this discussion that deals with the generalities of the idea.
The 2012 federal budget is simply stated here:
Total Revenue: $2.469 Trillion
Total Expenditures: $3.796 Trillion
Total Deficit $1.327 Trillion
| If annual Gross National Consumption is $15 trillion and it equals what we produce as Gross National Product then 18.8% of $15 trillion is: $2.82 trilllion. That is what the government would get on a consumption tax. Bill Still would replace the income tax with a consumption tax. As previously described in my blog entries: If all debt money was converted to real money where every dollar was denominated and serialized as a digital monetary unit on a central server where the associated financial entity changed as transactions were made then there would be total information control of all consumption. Total information control of all income. Then a consumption tax would be simple to apply. Application refinements would be equally simple. Simple. That is Bill Still's plan. Made even more simple by my plan. |
Friday, February 17, 2012
Debtors Prison
Max Keiser! He is always coming up with the greatest outlandish stuff: It is called reality and he is reluctant to describe it. He does it in an exceptional way.
This by Max: How the Gulag Casino Economy Works.
What he says ties into something my sister mentioned recently. After the slaves were free there was a growth in prison chain gangs in the south. Prison work groups. Prisoners working off their debt to society. A prison sentence imposed for some infraction of the law. Probably being unemployed with some window dressing put on that fact like vagrancy. No visible means of support while being black.
Chain gangs became the new forced labor pool. The old one was abolished as slavery. What fundamentally changed?
One of the comments on Max's statement linked to this:
The Prison System in the Victorian Age
Debtors Prison: Debtors prison was a place where they took people who couldn't pay their taxes, rent or debts. These places were commonly workhouses where they would make potato sacks, baskets and other mass-produced items. These are very similar to the ones in the Charles Dickens novel "Oliver Twist". A debtor's prison could also be a small jailhouse resembling a small house or shed. This would be a place for debtors and their families to stay in for a short sentence. Normally, if a debtor had family, then they would accompany him in prison.
My idea of debtors prison was a place a person was put until they could pay their debts. More of a joke than a reality because how could they pay their debts if they were in prison and could not work? The only way would be for someone outside the prison (family, friend) to pay the debt for them. Wrong idea!
Prison was a place where they could work to pay off debt. It was a work house. A cheap source of labor. Especially if the rate of debt payment in return for work could be set by prison. I wonder if the prisoners had to pay room and board?
Prisons have evolved to a place where a debt to society is paid and perhaps the progressive idea of rehabilitation is applied. Rehabilitation that some might view as society paying its debt to the prisoner because if we did not have such a dysfuntional society they would not be there in the first place. Prisoner as victim that is owed.
Are we all in prison. We are a debt society, Everybody owes. We cannot pay to reduce the total debt. Total debt keeps growing. Greece cannot pay its total debt. There was not enough money to pay total debts due in the Great Financial Crises. The Fed had to create trillion dollars of debt money out of nothing in order to pay debts due.
Are we all in a debtor prison that is nothing but a work house in which we are forced to work to pay off debts and are charged by the prison system for room an board. Paid by what the imprisoning system sets as well as what it charges? The same imprisoning system that loaned us the money in the first place. The system that loans us more money (debt) with which to gamble for winning reduction of our time in debt in terms of years, months, days?
A hell of a way to look at things but debt money is a hell of a system.
Nice touch to how you said it Max:
America will be surprised to wake up one day and find that each one of them owes these creditors hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the hundreds of thousans they alrady owe on mortgages, credit cards and cars. Aiding in this ‘bait and switch’ will be the religious supremacists in America who will push a revisionist message transforming the meaning of the concept of ‘original sin’ to be interpreted as ‘original debt’ meaning that to be born into debt is to be disabused of any doubt of God’s (read: Visa’s) existence.
By God! You must pay your debts. In Debt We Trust.
This by Max: How the Gulag Casino Economy Works.
What he says ties into something my sister mentioned recently. After the slaves were free there was a growth in prison chain gangs in the south. Prison work groups. Prisoners working off their debt to society. A prison sentence imposed for some infraction of the law. Probably being unemployed with some window dressing put on that fact like vagrancy. No visible means of support while being black.
Chain gangs became the new forced labor pool. The old one was abolished as slavery. What fundamentally changed?
One of the comments on Max's statement linked to this:
The Prison System in the Victorian Age
Debtors Prison: Debtors prison was a place where they took people who couldn't pay their taxes, rent or debts. These places were commonly workhouses where they would make potato sacks, baskets and other mass-produced items. These are very similar to the ones in the Charles Dickens novel "Oliver Twist". A debtor's prison could also be a small jailhouse resembling a small house or shed. This would be a place for debtors and their families to stay in for a short sentence. Normally, if a debtor had family, then they would accompany him in prison.
My idea of debtors prison was a place a person was put until they could pay their debts. More of a joke than a reality because how could they pay their debts if they were in prison and could not work? The only way would be for someone outside the prison (family, friend) to pay the debt for them. Wrong idea!
Prison was a place where they could work to pay off debt. It was a work house. A cheap source of labor. Especially if the rate of debt payment in return for work could be set by prison. I wonder if the prisoners had to pay room and board?
Prisons have evolved to a place where a debt to society is paid and perhaps the progressive idea of rehabilitation is applied. Rehabilitation that some might view as society paying its debt to the prisoner because if we did not have such a dysfuntional society they would not be there in the first place. Prisoner as victim that is owed.
Are we all in prison. We are a debt society, Everybody owes. We cannot pay to reduce the total debt. Total debt keeps growing. Greece cannot pay its total debt. There was not enough money to pay total debts due in the Great Financial Crises. The Fed had to create trillion dollars of debt money out of nothing in order to pay debts due.
Are we all in a debtor prison that is nothing but a work house in which we are forced to work to pay off debts and are charged by the prison system for room an board. Paid by what the imprisoning system sets as well as what it charges? The same imprisoning system that loaned us the money in the first place. The system that loans us more money (debt) with which to gamble for winning reduction of our time in debt in terms of years, months, days?
A hell of a way to look at things but debt money is a hell of a system.
Nice touch to how you said it Max:
America will be surprised to wake up one day and find that each one of them owes these creditors hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the hundreds of thousans they alrady owe on mortgages, credit cards and cars. Aiding in this ‘bait and switch’ will be the religious supremacists in America who will push a revisionist message transforming the meaning of the concept of ‘original sin’ to be interpreted as ‘original debt’ meaning that to be born into debt is to be disabused of any doubt of God’s (read: Visa’s) existence.
By God! You must pay your debts. In Debt We Trust.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
OWS Volker Rule
This opinion piece praises the Volker Rule submission made by Occupy Wall Street.
Well deserved praise!!!!
This is how OWS is to make progress:
A mass of people who are discontent with the result of a dysfunctional system express justified discontent and a few ideas. Some had no ideas.
Some subject matter experts come to talk to the mass of discontent OWS. They give them some ideas as to why the system is dysfuntional.
The discontent masses begin to understand the nature of the problem but have, in general, no technical expertise to address the problem and/or create solutions.
Technical experts join OWS to fight the existing system on a technical operating level where it is inherently weak, and it certainly is weak and ripe for exposure and revision.
Maybe the majority of OWS were unwashed and relatively uneducated but they put everyone to shame by yelling fire when everyone was either ignorant of the fire or declined to do anything about it even if they were in a position of authority to do it.
Now it the time for the 10% of the OWS that are subject matter technical experts to step in and do the intellectual work of the movement. They are the ones to counter the opposing 1% with the brains and money to get where they are. The differential is that the power of the 1% is more in their money than their brains whereas the power of the 10% OWS elite is in their brains and motivation not to make money but to make justice through a systemic change to achieve it.
I give my praise and support to those that created the OWS Volker Rule submission. I also praise those in the media using their particular technical expertise to through light on it and its importance.
The 1%(OWS) of the 99% called attention to the problem and will continue to that. With their continued support it is up to the 1% elite of the 99% to take the battle to the opposing 1% to fight on the turf claimed and solely occupied by that 1%.
The previous paragraph addresses the core of the fight but perhaps is more like 1% of the rich control the strings of the dysfuntional system having a base of 10% support. On the other hand the 10% of the OWS are technical experts in various fields that create the battle plan with the base support of the 89% and take to the 1% and their base of 10%.
Logic and commitment to objectives and ideals beyond money are on our side.
It is time for the technical experts, in whatever field they operate to step forward and join OWS and become its leadership to take up the challenge to fix things that have been identified by the 99%.
Kudos to those that produced the OWS Volker Rule submission. OWS in the street has made their point with their bodies. It is time for the gifted to apply their brains. Is this elitist? No, the gifted will also educate the rest of us. The movement must put the best and brightest at the front.
Bloomberg had this to say about the OWS submission.
Wonks!!!
Well deserved praise!!!!
This is how OWS is to make progress:
A mass of people who are discontent with the result of a dysfunctional system express justified discontent and a few ideas. Some had no ideas.
Some subject matter experts come to talk to the mass of discontent OWS. They give them some ideas as to why the system is dysfuntional.
The discontent masses begin to understand the nature of the problem but have, in general, no technical expertise to address the problem and/or create solutions.
Technical experts join OWS to fight the existing system on a technical operating level where it is inherently weak, and it certainly is weak and ripe for exposure and revision.
Maybe the majority of OWS were unwashed and relatively uneducated but they put everyone to shame by yelling fire when everyone was either ignorant of the fire or declined to do anything about it even if they were in a position of authority to do it.
Now it the time for the 10% of the OWS that are subject matter technical experts to step in and do the intellectual work of the movement. They are the ones to counter the opposing 1% with the brains and money to get where they are. The differential is that the power of the 1% is more in their money than their brains whereas the power of the 10% OWS elite is in their brains and motivation not to make money but to make justice through a systemic change to achieve it.
I give my praise and support to those that created the OWS Volker Rule submission. I also praise those in the media using their particular technical expertise to through light on it and its importance.
The 1%(OWS) of the 99% called attention to the problem and will continue to that. With their continued support it is up to the 1% elite of the 99% to take the battle to the opposing 1% to fight on the turf claimed and solely occupied by that 1%.
The previous paragraph addresses the core of the fight but perhaps is more like 1% of the rich control the strings of the dysfuntional system having a base of 10% support. On the other hand the 10% of the OWS are technical experts in various fields that create the battle plan with the base support of the 89% and take to the 1% and their base of 10%.
Logic and commitment to objectives and ideals beyond money are on our side.
It is time for the technical experts, in whatever field they operate to step forward and join OWS and become its leadership to take up the challenge to fix things that have been identified by the 99%.
Kudos to those that produced the OWS Volker Rule submission. OWS in the street has made their point with their bodies. It is time for the gifted to apply their brains. Is this elitist? No, the gifted will also educate the rest of us. The movement must put the best and brightest at the front.
Bloomberg had this to say about the OWS submission.
Wonks!!!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Volker Rule
The Volker Rule is not one rule but an intricate and integrated universe of specific rules all aimed at introducing and applying a set of rules to the game of finance. Finance is the name of the game. The rules that apply to regulate the game is one subset of the total finance game if the game was broken into its conceptual component parts. Rules exist control the play of the game. They can be conceptually extracted and looked at in isolation from the game but in operation they are an integral part of game play.
The nature of Business Rules is described by Wikipedia here. Finance Rules is a subset of the parent class: Business Rules. Business Rules are a subset of a parent class: Rules. In the parent/child relationship of the scheme of things there might be other intervening classes between Business Rules and the computer science superclass: Rules. Those other intervening classes are, for now, beyond this examination but in reality, it gets complicated. The fact that it gets complex and complicated is the entire reason for expressing it all as the best picture to reduce complexity to a readily apparent and manageable conceptual expression.
The conceptual expression of the Volker Rule is 500 pages of words. All these words relate to one another within the document and relate to other words describing rules elsewhere either formally in law or conceptually as an established way of doing business or governance.
Words worked well and will always work well to express fundamental conceptual relationships. Our Constitution is an example. Complexity grows quickly in implementing our social structures all the way down to the basic operating level where the rubber meets the road. This is true of rules associated with the complexity. As more rules are made, the more they relate and must be consistent with other rules.
If it is agreed that all rules ultimately result in a yes/no decision control and no two rules should contradict each other or in application to the same case then the rule system has integration and validity.
A structure of words, like the Volker Rule requires that we establish in our minds the conceptual relationship model of all the rules it contains as well as the relationship of those rules to conceptual structure of finance. That is a lot to hold in an mind map! A mind map that exists in our brain. Few can hold all that conceptual understanding in their heads. They are subject matter experts and exceptional people. If that mind map in their head is expressed as a relationship model using any of the current software modeling tools it is much easier for everyone to understand and consequently modify and refine.
If everyone could easily understand the things that only subject matter experts understand now what happens to the need for subject matter experts? They are still needed but not as a repository of existing complex descriptions expressed in written language but leaders at the forefront of exploring, expanding and refining the existing body of knowledge and reduction of its complexity to models we all understand. Perhaps that is nothing more than the progression of any and all knowledge from an art to a science.
The art of having the conceptual model of anything only in the head of an expert has always progressed for the good when that art is expressed in a manner that we all understand and based on that understanding can intelligently apply our collective thinking.
Read the Volker Rule. Read this link that has the following title: And then this link that is the actual OWS comment:
The nature of Business Rules is described by Wikipedia here. Finance Rules is a subset of the parent class: Business Rules. Business Rules are a subset of a parent class: Rules. In the parent/child relationship of the scheme of things there might be other intervening classes between Business Rules and the computer science superclass: Rules. Those other intervening classes are, for now, beyond this examination but in reality, it gets complicated. The fact that it gets complex and complicated is the entire reason for expressing it all as the best picture to reduce complexity to a readily apparent and manageable conceptual expression.
The conceptual expression of the Volker Rule is 500 pages of words. All these words relate to one another within the document and relate to other words describing rules elsewhere either formally in law or conceptually as an established way of doing business or governance.
Words worked well and will always work well to express fundamental conceptual relationships. Our Constitution is an example. Complexity grows quickly in implementing our social structures all the way down to the basic operating level where the rubber meets the road. This is true of rules associated with the complexity. As more rules are made, the more they relate and must be consistent with other rules.
If it is agreed that all rules ultimately result in a yes/no decision control and no two rules should contradict each other or in application to the same case then the rule system has integration and validity.
A structure of words, like the Volker Rule requires that we establish in our minds the conceptual relationship model of all the rules it contains as well as the relationship of those rules to conceptual structure of finance. That is a lot to hold in an mind map! A mind map that exists in our brain. Few can hold all that conceptual understanding in their heads. They are subject matter experts and exceptional people. If that mind map in their head is expressed as a relationship model using any of the current software modeling tools it is much easier for everyone to understand and consequently modify and refine.
If everyone could easily understand the things that only subject matter experts understand now what happens to the need for subject matter experts? They are still needed but not as a repository of existing complex descriptions expressed in written language but leaders at the forefront of exploring, expanding and refining the existing body of knowledge and reduction of its complexity to models we all understand. Perhaps that is nothing more than the progression of any and all knowledge from an art to a science.
The art of having the conceptual model of anything only in the head of an expert has always progressed for the good when that art is expressed in a manner that we all understand and based on that understanding can intelligently apply our collective thinking.
Read the Volker Rule. Read this link that has the following title: And then this link that is the actual OWS comment:
Occupy the SEC’s Comment Letter Objects to Excuses for Watering Down Volcker Rule (#OWS)
And then this link that is the actual OWS comment:
It is discussion on a complex set of rules all described in word relationships! I would have to study this for a long time to become a subject matter expert to have an effective idea about it much less make any contribution to it.
The rules of the game should not be so hard to understand. They are when expressed only in word relationships. They are better described in conceptual models better suited to the task of presenting information. The problem is that we all speak and understand in words. We do not all speak and understand in models that are a better system of expressing complexity.
I sincerely appreciate the contribution that the people who produced the OWS submission: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Baily, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth K. Friedrick, Eric Taylor, and others. They are subject matter experts that took their mind maps in their heads that understood all the complex relationships and produced a written document to improve the integrity and effectiveness of the Volker Rule. It was all in their heads because they are smart and spent years reading words to acquire the financial model understanding in their heads, which they hold in common.
My most fervent wish is that the complex financial model they have in their heads was expressed as formal computer science information model having greater ability and accuracy to convey information beyond the ability of pure word based model to give me an understanding of the rule problem and the solutions.
This is the information age! Yet we are still not using the best tools at our disposal to embody information and convey it in an increasingly complex system. Our education system is not adequately preparing us to do this.
The Business Rules Group is laying ground in the direction of a model for business rules development and means to express rules.
Business Rule Engines are moving the domain of rules toward a computer base. Then look at who IBM wants to sell its ILOG software to:
discussed here
ILOG:
ILOG -- a recognized industry leader in Business Rule Management Systems (BRMS), visualization components, optimization and supply chain solutions enrich IBM software portfolio and fortify IBM's Smarter Planet initiative.
Then look here at who IBM wants to sell its ILOG software to at their link. Business and Finance:
I will bet that the major financial institutions have invested in the computer based modeling of government rules and regulations to create a schematic model of all the complex relationships involved and expressed in high level abstraction models for top level management use. Otherwise who would they depend upon to draw the picture of the model for them. The answer is their lawyers. Computer based models would be more accurate and effective, organize and integrate the information better. Progressively they would replace the role of both lawyers and financial subject matter experts.
Perhaps the banksters have already re-engineered the Volker rule to a computer model designed to manage rule based systems. Top management therefore gets a better picture and understanding of the rules proposed by Volker. Then based on a better understanding of the rules and how they effect their business they "translate" what their computer model tells them back in to a word based submission to address the original word based rule document.
If the banksters are doing that then they would also translate the OWS submission using their computer based rule model software to see exactly how it relates to their plans.
There is an asymmetry here: One side is using the old fashion method of presenting rules in a word document. The other side is using computer technology to express the word document model is a more rational comprehensible, understandable and manageable manner. Once they understand the problem domain from that standpoint they produce a word based submission back to the originators of the word based rules.
The banksters have the upper hand as well as all the money to spend not only on buying new rules but examining existing rules expressed in volumes of words and translated into software systems that make them more manageable. I am sure that they just love doing business the old way: To externally deal with all the complexities of finance with a whole lot of words. To internally deal with it using computer information technology.
What tools were the creators of the OWS submission regarding the Volker Rule using other than what is in their heads? Doing it the old fashion way?
There is a legacy volume of government rules and regulations in a magnitude beyond my imagination that has been generated over the years and left to us in the form of written words. One political party wants to do away with them, especially those that regulate business. Some political party must take up the challenge of restating and presenting a better means to conceptually present all the rules using information technology. It would eliminate conflicts and erroneous rules in the system as well as rules contrary to our national guidance and objectives.
Maybe the first subset where that should be done is in the financial sector. If the financial sector has already done this then perhaps the government should just subpoena their high level models or nationalize them instead of doing, belatedly, exactly what they have probably already done.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Vensim Modeling
Fred Decker used Vensim to model Keen's model. Fred's model in Vensim is here.
Fred references Bill Mitchell at the end which takes me to an interesting thing that Bill Mitchell wrote relying on System Dynamics to present "A Flow of funds view of modern monetary macroeconomics"
Bill Mitchell: Another thinker in the league of professor Yamaguchi.
There is an interesting discussion following Bill Mitchell's blog entry about the flow of funds. MY observation is that the Austrian School of economic thinking is expressed only in words and not models. Connecting words in a dialog it is easy to get lost in all the connections. It is also easy to introduce relationships of concepts in the dialog or written explanation that do not hold water when connected to the other things in the system. My conclusion is the the Austrian School of thinking does not like System Dynamic Models.
Fred references Bill Mitchell at the end which takes me to an interesting thing that Bill Mitchell wrote relying on System Dynamics to present "A Flow of funds view of modern monetary macroeconomics"
Bill Mitchell: Another thinker in the league of professor Yamaguchi.
There is an interesting discussion following Bill Mitchell's blog entry about the flow of funds. MY observation is that the Austrian School of economic thinking is expressed only in words and not models. Connecting words in a dialog it is easy to get lost in all the connections. It is also easy to introduce relationships of concepts in the dialog or written explanation that do not hold water when connected to the other things in the system. My conclusion is the the Austrian School of thinking does not like System Dynamic Models.
Decomposition and Assembly
Just a side note before getting on with the simple system to solve all the world's problems.
It is ironic that the Bankster system born in historical functional decomposition approach of what the system does has today evolved to use the most modern technological system design approach of object oriented analysis and implementation.
Banksters use object oriented system development to structurally design the banking system at a lower level such as transactions. They probably use the same approach at higher levels in organizing the banking structure simply because that is the direction that object oriented design is taking.
The banking system is failing due to its inherent functional design failure of debt money. It is also failing based on the simple math of growing debt and interest. If the banking system which is organizing its lower level structures using object oriented approaches extended the same approach all the way up to the top super class object level "Money" I expect that they would come to the same realization that I have come to: They got the horse before the cart putting debt in the driver seat of their top down functionally oriented monetary system.
A valid system, proven by the test of system validity is that their is an integration of design and product of design if the system is evaluated from either a bottom up assembly or a top down breakdown of the conceptual structure.
A top down breakdown of the current monetary system as well as a bottom up approach would expose its fallacy.
A bottom up assembly of the banking system's current use of object oriented design methodology by simply extending it from its already established low level object classes would ask what a lower level object's class is in relationship to it's next higher level parent's class and its attributes. Take that approach all the way to the super class in the banking system called "Money" and presto: A new system emerges. The same system that I propose by starting from the Class Money and working down in a decomposition manner.
On with the decomposition of the object Money!
It is ironic that the Bankster system born in historical functional decomposition approach of what the system does has today evolved to use the most modern technological system design approach of object oriented analysis and implementation.
Banksters use object oriented system development to structurally design the banking system at a lower level such as transactions. They probably use the same approach at higher levels in organizing the banking structure simply because that is the direction that object oriented design is taking.
The banking system is failing due to its inherent functional design failure of debt money. It is also failing based on the simple math of growing debt and interest. If the banking system which is organizing its lower level structures using object oriented approaches extended the same approach all the way up to the top super class object level "Money" I expect that they would come to the same realization that I have come to: They got the horse before the cart putting debt in the driver seat of their top down functionally oriented monetary system.
A valid system, proven by the test of system validity is that their is an integration of design and product of design if the system is evaluated from either a bottom up assembly or a top down breakdown of the conceptual structure.
A top down breakdown of the current monetary system as well as a bottom up approach would expose its fallacy.
A bottom up assembly of the banking system's current use of object oriented design methodology by simply extending it from its already established low level object classes would ask what a lower level object's class is in relationship to it's next higher level parent's class and its attributes. Take that approach all the way to the super class in the banking system called "Money" and presto: A new system emerges. The same system that I propose by starting from the Class Money and working down in a decomposition manner.
On with the decomposition of the object Money!
System Dynamics (SD) Models
Insight Maker is an SD model system.
Users of insight can created reusable models. This is one of the models created by a user of insight. These models are intended to be reusable modules. It is a simple model but shows the power of expressing a basic idea of relationships that can be progressed to greater levels of complexity. Exactly the same way professor Yamaguchi presented his ideas.
The model referenced in the previous paragraph is simple. There is power in the simplicity, especially when it can be expanded to any level of detail needed to explain it to any level anyone cares to go.
Ross Perot used simple charts (are models) to explain fundamental situations like the "Great Sucking Sound" and debt "hockey sticks". He also used simple relational diagrams. He was also unsuccessful in his bid for the presidency. He used an unconventional way of presenting facts to the public. If Bill Still used the same method today to present a simple relationships of debt with links to his web site that expands the model to detailed levels he might meet with more success than Ross Perot.
Bill Still might meet with more success than Ross Perot because if he presented an expanded model, like professor Yamaguchi's then he would be framing the issue and debate upon his model. Let anybody attempt to demonstrate its falseness.
It appears from professor Yamaguchi's course description that he uses Vensim software for the presentation of his SD models. I would guess that he might have used the same software to document his Public Money system.
The problem is that simply talking about complex systems is not the most effective way of solving them. What is needed is a model of the basic system that we are talking about as the platform for discussion. Professor Yamaguchi made and excellent presentation of how the current monetary system works. I don't think that anyone could dispute it except in the details but he did not expand his model of the system to the details. He then submits his new monetary public money system model.
That is what discussion of the complexity of the system today needs. A base model, not just a word description, which is often opinion and not fact. The validity of opinion has a greater probability of falling when the things under discussion are given accurate relationships in a model of how the pieces fit together and their related information and functions.
There would be much less erroneous opinion and more factual understanding if the complex things like money and monetary systems were expressed in accurate models, not the model of what everyone thinks it is and does. That is the model in the minds of the many that the banksters take advantage of to defraud with the debt money system.
Users of insight can created reusable models. This is one of the models created by a user of insight. These models are intended to be reusable modules. It is a simple model but shows the power of expressing a basic idea of relationships that can be progressed to greater levels of complexity. Exactly the same way professor Yamaguchi presented his ideas.
The model referenced in the previous paragraph is simple. There is power in the simplicity, especially when it can be expanded to any level of detail needed to explain it to any level anyone cares to go.
Ross Perot used simple charts (are models) to explain fundamental situations like the "Great Sucking Sound" and debt "hockey sticks". He also used simple relational diagrams. He was also unsuccessful in his bid for the presidency. He used an unconventional way of presenting facts to the public. If Bill Still used the same method today to present a simple relationships of debt with links to his web site that expands the model to detailed levels he might meet with more success than Ross Perot.
Bill Still might meet with more success than Ross Perot because if he presented an expanded model, like professor Yamaguchi's then he would be framing the issue and debate upon his model. Let anybody attempt to demonstrate its falseness.
It appears from professor Yamaguchi's course description that he uses Vensim software for the presentation of his SD models. I would guess that he might have used the same software to document his Public Money system.
The problem is that simply talking about complex systems is not the most effective way of solving them. What is needed is a model of the basic system that we are talking about as the platform for discussion. Professor Yamaguchi made and excellent presentation of how the current monetary system works. I don't think that anyone could dispute it except in the details but he did not expand his model of the system to the details. He then submits his new monetary public money system model.
That is what discussion of the complexity of the system today needs. A base model, not just a word description, which is often opinion and not fact. The validity of opinion has a greater probability of falling when the things under discussion are given accurate relationships in a model of how the pieces fit together and their related information and functions.
There would be much less erroneous opinion and more factual understanding if the complex things like money and monetary systems were expressed in accurate models, not the model of what everyone thinks it is and does. That is the model in the minds of the many that the banksters take advantage of to defraud with the debt money system.
System Dynamics vs Object Orientation
Professor Yamaguchi presented his high level abstraction model in terms of System Dynamics analysis method and terminology.
High level abstraction model?? That means the big picture drawn in some sort of schematic relationship of things at play and how they play together. There is a formally defined way to create the big picture depending on what approach is taken. Really it is all the same picture but it is just drawn in different ways.
System Dynamic as a tool to draw the big picture is described here.
The concept is attributed to Jay Forresster. He presented it in 1956. It was a good way to describe a system and its operations. It remains valid and applied today. Object Orientation is another system description methodology. One that I prefer. They both work to describe the big picture. In my opinion, the Object Oriented method has a better path (more seemless progression) to the ultimate programming of a complex system using Object Oriented programming language.
While System Dynamic (SD) methods pre dated the emergence of Object Oriented methods, SD adopted/incorporated subsequent Object Oriented principals to refine SD. Today, SD is a refined method analogous to Object Orientation. In fact there are commercial brands that implements SD from high level abstraction all the way to programming in an object oriented language. I found the name of that product called AnyLogic yesterday.
Professor Yamaguchi applied SD to create his model diagrams. My ideal model would have used Object Orientation method. No big deal. I can see the logic both ways, just a matter of preference. The SD commercial product I cited in the previous paragraph provides for some degree of translation from SD to OO.
While searching the internet yesterday in connection with Professor Yamaguchi and his use of SD in economic analysis I came across and economics professor the happened to find Jay Forresster's writings and adopt the SD approach to economic analysis. Perhaps I can find his name again. He would appreciate professor Yamaguchi's presentation but is already aware of it.
Since professor Yamaguchi's approach is obviously (to me) the best cornerstone high level description of the current monetary system. Therefore it is the one to rally around and support. How many monetary engineers and economists are rallying around it? Might it be better expressed in the formalized OO method to gain the support of OO system analysts regardless of their existing monetary/economic knowledge?
In one way or the other it will require a core elite that deals in system design and implementation based on objectives of creating a monetary system that serves everyone with the greatest efficiency and simplicity as well a control in order to devise such a system.
High level abstraction model?? That means the big picture drawn in some sort of schematic relationship of things at play and how they play together. There is a formally defined way to create the big picture depending on what approach is taken. Really it is all the same picture but it is just drawn in different ways.
System Dynamic as a tool to draw the big picture is described here.
The concept is attributed to Jay Forresster. He presented it in 1956. It was a good way to describe a system and its operations. It remains valid and applied today. Object Orientation is another system description methodology. One that I prefer. They both work to describe the big picture. In my opinion, the Object Oriented method has a better path (more seemless progression) to the ultimate programming of a complex system using Object Oriented programming language.
While System Dynamic (SD) methods pre dated the emergence of Object Oriented methods, SD adopted/incorporated subsequent Object Oriented principals to refine SD. Today, SD is a refined method analogous to Object Orientation. In fact there are commercial brands that implements SD from high level abstraction all the way to programming in an object oriented language. I found the name of that product called AnyLogic yesterday.
Professor Yamaguchi applied SD to create his model diagrams. My ideal model would have used Object Orientation method. No big deal. I can see the logic both ways, just a matter of preference. The SD commercial product I cited in the previous paragraph provides for some degree of translation from SD to OO.
While searching the internet yesterday in connection with Professor Yamaguchi and his use of SD in economic analysis I came across and economics professor the happened to find Jay Forresster's writings and adopt the SD approach to economic analysis. Perhaps I can find his name again. He would appreciate professor Yamaguchi's presentation but is already aware of it.
Since professor Yamaguchi's approach is obviously (to me) the best cornerstone high level description of the current monetary system. Therefore it is the one to rally around and support. How many monetary engineers and economists are rallying around it? Might it be better expressed in the formalized OO method to gain the support of OO system analysts regardless of their existing monetary/economic knowledge?
In one way or the other it will require a core elite that deals in system design and implementation based on objectives of creating a monetary system that serves everyone with the greatest efficiency and simplicity as well a control in order to devise such a system.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Eureka!
I have found the model of my thinking that I knew someone, somewhere who is so much smarter than me at expressing it would have logically and reasonably have created it. The person that did that, in detail, is Professor Yamaguchi. Everything he has done in the detailed development of the complete model is the picture that I see. The model developed by Prof. Yamaguchi is here.
Dennis Kucinich presented Prof. Yamaguchi at a congressional briefing with these words:
For quite some time Stephen has been telling me you have to hear Professor Yamaguchi. He is a voice whose message has the potential to transform the world. And I’m glad to be here to help make [this] possible, with the co-operation of you members whose staffs are represented here and the organizations that are represented here.
The model developed by Prof. Yamaguchi is here. It has all the answers and detail to explain everything. It is complete and comprehensive. The debt money model cannot stand against it. The only thing that supports the debt money model is special interest held by the few but powerful that benefit from it.
Dennis's NEED Act is the simple toe in the door to open it so that this entire model of a complete Public Money System (Real Money rather than Debt Money) can be implemented. It is the only thing that will save us and the world from financial disaster. The current debt money model system simply as well a mathematically cannot go on. This is why I have been contributing to Kucinich. He is the only politician to make this system possible. If only Ron Paul would run on this model!!!
Professor Yamaguchi has planted the flag for the entire world to rally around. The new system is as real and obtainable as was American freedom and the need for revolution to free ourselves from the political and financial bonds that restrained our freedom. To that extent, the old model of how change comes about exists once again.
A crises that we cannot tolerate.
A statement of the crises and intent to separate from the cause of the crises based on principals. (Declaration of Independence)
Application of the principals of freedom and justice to a new form of social governmental structure model (Constitution) that will guide us in the future of our course as a nation.
Professor Yamaguchi's model is the one where I can find my niche to contribute. The one I could not turn into detailed structures like he did but is essentially the exact relationship among all the basic entities of the system that I see.
Eureka!
Dennis Kucinich presented Prof. Yamaguchi at a congressional briefing with these words:
For quite some time Stephen has been telling me you have to hear Professor Yamaguchi. He is a voice whose message has the potential to transform the world. And I’m glad to be here to help make [this] possible, with the co-operation of you members whose staffs are represented here and the organizations that are represented here.
The model developed by Prof. Yamaguchi is here. It has all the answers and detail to explain everything. It is complete and comprehensive. The debt money model cannot stand against it. The only thing that supports the debt money model is special interest held by the few but powerful that benefit from it.
Dennis's NEED Act is the simple toe in the door to open it so that this entire model of a complete Public Money System (Real Money rather than Debt Money) can be implemented. It is the only thing that will save us and the world from financial disaster. The current debt money model system simply as well a mathematically cannot go on. This is why I have been contributing to Kucinich. He is the only politician to make this system possible. If only Ron Paul would run on this model!!!
Professor Yamaguchi has planted the flag for the entire world to rally around. The new system is as real and obtainable as was American freedom and the need for revolution to free ourselves from the political and financial bonds that restrained our freedom. To that extent, the old model of how change comes about exists once again.
A crises that we cannot tolerate.
A statement of the crises and intent to separate from the cause of the crises based on principals. (Declaration of Independence)
Application of the principals of freedom and justice to a new form of social governmental structure model (Constitution) that will guide us in the future of our course as a nation.
Professor Yamaguchi's model is the one where I can find my niche to contribute. The one I could not turn into detailed structures like he did but is essentially the exact relationship among all the basic entities of the system that I see.
Eureka!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Post Script to the Prequel
Social Darwinism sucks. Idiots taking the laws of the natural plant and animal non human world and applying it to the world that we create for ourselves. They conclude that is the law upon which our conceptual social structures are based. Baloney. Our laws are whatever we choose them to be. Maybe they were natural animal laws when we were animals but we gained the god like ability to create conceptual laws and rules dictating the development of our social structures when we started to think.
I will grant that current systems are legacy systems based less and less on natural laws that dictate the development and behavior of animals. Some animal development and behavior is truly good and contributing to our social structure behavior. Some is not. We have the intelligence to know the difference and create our own laws that dictate how our social conceptual systems develop.
While I will take Darwin's deductive approach to get from what I observe at the top to get to the bottom explanation of how the system works those details are nothing more than the ideas of dead men that are not laws, just premise conditions subject to change as we become smarter and better at getting where we want our conceptual systems to take us.
For some that journey is no farther than where we are now and for them I suppose that the premises of our current financial and political conceptual systems are in fact laws as factual and solid as the laws of the natural world or those equally dictated by God through religion.
Cast off to set sail on the Beagle.
I will grant that current systems are legacy systems based less and less on natural laws that dictate the development and behavior of animals. Some animal development and behavior is truly good and contributing to our social structure behavior. Some is not. We have the intelligence to know the difference and create our own laws that dictate how our social conceptual systems develop.
While I will take Darwin's deductive approach to get from what I observe at the top to get to the bottom explanation of how the system works those details are nothing more than the ideas of dead men that are not laws, just premise conditions subject to change as we become smarter and better at getting where we want our conceptual systems to take us.
For some that journey is no farther than where we are now and for them I suppose that the premises of our current financial and political conceptual systems are in fact laws as factual and solid as the laws of the natural world or those equally dictated by God through religion.
Cast off to set sail on the Beagle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)