On 27 Oct. I made a blog entry about a citizens right to detect radio wave length transmissions.
Mozilla announced an 1.0 version App recently for Android that will detect wifi and cell transmitters and report their location for data aggregation to Mozilla Location Service. It is called "Stumbler". Some very good technical discussion at that link.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Critical Thinking and Structured Thinking
This blog is the expression of things I think about. Some things more than others. A variety of things that have a common thread in that they involve some degree of objective looking at conceptual social structures, and subjective observation as to how they either fail to adequately accomplish their purpose or could accomplish it with a better structure (restructuring) and how that restructuring might be done. Generally, the natural structure of things (the hard science ordering of the world in order to manage the things in it as we have applied the Language of science to the Logic of nature to create our Structure of conceptual systems and their application to design then build material objects and systems to serve us.
The basic model is old and simple: Science discovers the rules of order, cause and effect in the natural world and expresses it in a language of science. Math for example. Engineers apply what science discovers and defines with its language to design man made object things, real and conceptual and plan for their construction. The language of Engineering is that of Science with an added application layer of engineering architecture to create a plan schema for Builders to implement into some real physical/conceptual thing or combination of the two. In the information age is trending more toward creating conceptual structures that result in physical structure things and therefore shifting the the relationship that has been historically to create things first and then develop the conceptual structure around it. For example: Planes, trains, automobiles and telephones were created and social conceptual systems were built around them.
So, what am I saying: Conceptual social system design increasing drives physical system development to serve it to the extent that a tipping point has been passed where physical system development is not the dominating driver of social conceptual systems built around the physical things created by scientists, engineers and builders.
I like structured novels. "Pillars of the Earth" was about structural building. The main character is Tom Builder. A builder of cathedrals. In accordance with the naming tradition he took on the last name "Builder" because that is what he did to distinguish himself from all the others named Tom.
Tom Builder built better cathedrals because the existing ones were neither structurally sound nor artistic enough (spiritually sound) to fill the user with awe through their representation of a spiritual aspect nature concept.
In order to build a better cathedral, Tom (by virtue of his intuitive nature to comprehend the science of structures as observed in the natural world) became a scientist, learned the language of science. He also became an engineer, learning the language of engineering. He also learned (or maybe intrinsically had) the nature of an artist. That human nature of conceptual logic beyond physical world logic that has its own language to express itself in the creation of an artistic structure that lives in both the natural world and the conceptual creative artistic world.
What is art? Hey, the answer to that is beyond me (don't have much of it or talent) but the nature of it founded is founded on the same structure of everything. The fundamental triad: Logic, Language, Structure. (Subject noun word thing, Verb action word to implement the nature of the subject noun. Object noun thing to receive the action of the verb).
Tom Builder was a one man band like Leonardo Da Vinci. A Darwin of his times.
Maybe that is why I enjoyed the book so much.
Ken Follet wrote the book. As the author he was also a one man band creating a work of art as Scientist, Engineer and Builder.
The basic model is old and simple: Science discovers the rules of order, cause and effect in the natural world and expresses it in a language of science. Math for example. Engineers apply what science discovers and defines with its language to design man made object things, real and conceptual and plan for their construction. The language of Engineering is that of Science with an added application layer of engineering architecture to create a plan schema for Builders to implement into some real physical/conceptual thing or combination of the two. In the information age is trending more toward creating conceptual structures that result in physical structure things and therefore shifting the the relationship that has been historically to create things first and then develop the conceptual structure around it. For example: Planes, trains, automobiles and telephones were created and social conceptual systems were built around them.
So, what am I saying: Conceptual social system design increasing drives physical system development to serve it to the extent that a tipping point has been passed where physical system development is not the dominating driver of social conceptual systems built around the physical things created by scientists, engineers and builders.
I like structured novels. "Pillars of the Earth" was about structural building. The main character is Tom Builder. A builder of cathedrals. In accordance with the naming tradition he took on the last name "Builder" because that is what he did to distinguish himself from all the others named Tom.
Tom Builder built better cathedrals because the existing ones were neither structurally sound nor artistic enough (spiritually sound) to fill the user with awe through their representation of a spiritual aspect nature concept.
In order to build a better cathedral, Tom (by virtue of his intuitive nature to comprehend the science of structures as observed in the natural world) became a scientist, learned the language of science. He also became an engineer, learning the language of engineering. He also learned (or maybe intrinsically had) the nature of an artist. That human nature of conceptual logic beyond physical world logic that has its own language to express itself in the creation of an artistic structure that lives in both the natural world and the conceptual creative artistic world.
What is art? Hey, the answer to that is beyond me (don't have much of it or talent) but the nature of it founded is founded on the same structure of everything. The fundamental triad: Logic, Language, Structure. (Subject noun word thing, Verb action word to implement the nature of the subject noun. Object noun thing to receive the action of the verb).
Tom Builder was a one man band like Leonardo Da Vinci. A Darwin of his times.
Maybe that is why I enjoyed the book so much.
Ken Follet wrote the book. As the author he was also a one man band creating a work of art as Scientist, Engineer and Builder.
Monday, October 27, 2014
China Economy Can't Continue to Grow Forever?
This link is just more crap about how China is going to slow down because.....it must! But it is a Harvard Study piece of crap so it must smell as sweet as roses and be a true as the bible.
More disturbing news about the Chinese Slump.
In a debt based money world where finance is based on a debt money system and debt based money finance feeds itself ever more generously with the money it creates from nothing to grow the finance sector that lacks a productive output product the "China Must Collapse" meme, or at least slow down and join everyone else in the race to the bottom would be a good observation.
However, if the fundamental nature of the game was changed by China to a debt free monetary system and finance be a function of positive money then the nature of the problem domain changes completely. In that domain finance becomes controlled and constrained to contribute to real productivity rather than sucking productivity out of the system in a zero sum game where decrease in real productivity and its flip side consumption suffers at the expense of increasing and redistributing the gains of finance, (making money on debt money unproductive finance ) goes to the 1%.
Chinese are very clever.
Will China rule the world with debt free money as the successor to Bankers ruling the world with debt money.
Yes, China will not win the Bankers game.
Bankers lose if China changes the game.
What is China's game plan?
When does the new game start?
When the old game collapses.
How close is end game?
A paradigm shift wins the game.
Trouble in China Rattles Western Banks
I am sitting on the Home Team side but I am cheering for China.
China is so inscrutable.
More disturbing news about the Chinese Slump.
In a debt based money world where finance is based on a debt money system and debt based money finance feeds itself ever more generously with the money it creates from nothing to grow the finance sector that lacks a productive output product the "China Must Collapse" meme, or at least slow down and join everyone else in the race to the bottom would be a good observation.
However, if the fundamental nature of the game was changed by China to a debt free monetary system and finance be a function of positive money then the nature of the problem domain changes completely. In that domain finance becomes controlled and constrained to contribute to real productivity rather than sucking productivity out of the system in a zero sum game where decrease in real productivity and its flip side consumption suffers at the expense of increasing and redistributing the gains of finance, (making money on debt money unproductive finance ) goes to the 1%.
Chinese are very clever.
Will China rule the world with debt free money as the successor to Bankers ruling the world with debt money.
Yes, China will not win the Bankers game.
Bankers lose if China changes the game.
What is China's game plan?
When does the new game start?
When the old game collapses.
How close is end game?
A paradigm shift wins the game.
Trouble in China Rattles Western Banks
I am sitting on the Home Team side but I am cheering for China.
China is so inscrutable.
Target Blue Eye- Citizen Right to Detect Wave Length Transmissions Shall Not Be Abridged
Target Blue Eye is an interesting communications detection device aimed at detecting government agency band communications European standard called Tetra (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) in Europe. It only detects the presence of signals it does not convey any signal content. Presence, strength location, etc. is only meta data about a communication.
Police do not like Target Blue Eye equipped citizens
Target Blue Eye is promoted as a traffic safety device but its application is notify users of police presence like a radar detection speeding device.
Target Eye is generic communication sniffer. Like the modified Android that detects cell towers, unregistered interception cell tower spoofers used for surveillance. They only reveal metadata.
Tetra protocol differs from the nature of cell phone protocol in that Tetra is exclusively a government communication protocol. That is another piece of meta data information. It tells that whatever is transmitting the radio signal is a government entity.
Radio frequency waves are fundamentally like sound or light frequency waves that a humans can naturally detect. They are beyond the range of human detection so we have devices that can detect them for us, carry communication content and deliver it to us in a range that we can hear, see, read, etc.
Every wave length that a human can naturally detect within given distance ranges and situations should also be unrestricted and detectable by any device a person wishes to use to detect its presence and meta data related to its existence, but not content.
It is, perhaps, a passive "gun rights" issue as well as a right to privacy in our persons and papers issue. The right to be stated like this:
"The peoples right to detect any and all wave length transmissions is self evident and shall not be abridged"
Police do not like Target Blue Eye equipped citizens
Target Blue Eye is promoted as a traffic safety device but its application is notify users of police presence like a radar detection speeding device.
Target Eye is generic communication sniffer. Like the modified Android that detects cell towers, unregistered interception cell tower spoofers used for surveillance. They only reveal metadata.
Tetra protocol differs from the nature of cell phone protocol in that Tetra is exclusively a government communication protocol. That is another piece of meta data information. It tells that whatever is transmitting the radio signal is a government entity.
Radio frequency waves are fundamentally like sound or light frequency waves that a humans can naturally detect. They are beyond the range of human detection so we have devices that can detect them for us, carry communication content and deliver it to us in a range that we can hear, see, read, etc.
Every wave length that a human can naturally detect within given distance ranges and situations should also be unrestricted and detectable by any device a person wishes to use to detect its presence and meta data related to its existence, but not content.
It is, perhaps, a passive "gun rights" issue as well as a right to privacy in our persons and papers issue. The right to be stated like this:
"The peoples right to detect any and all wave length transmissions is self evident and shall not be abridged"
Sunday, October 26, 2014
NSA Teresa Shea
Interesting coincidence that this news item today might relate to what I examined in this prior blog entry about the NSA Moonlighting problem. Might this be another example:
All the NSA Will Say About Its Alarmingly Entrepreneurial Top Spy Is That She’s Resigning
I think the real story here is not a conflict of interest but the exposure of the NSA secret policy to retain key critical employees on the government payroll by double dipping (illegal within the government pay system for the same hours worked) through laundering the double payment of government money through a private contractor to the government employee.
Does the government funnel money through contractors to pay key government employees to retain them in government service when the GS pay scale is inadequate to compensate them for that the private sector would pay so much more for?
Intelligence agencies, by the nature of their work sometimes have to do things that would otherwise be illegal. Like torture. Good people work for intelligence agencies. How does the institution get good people to do illegal things? Good people are logically moral and by their the standard of the employing government agency dedicated to value system of the institution. Maybe that criteria is why they were chosen in the first place. Is it simply a meme that the FBI tended to hire Irish Catholics as agents?
"We have to do this even if it is illegal because "good of the nation" what else can we do. If you are caught doing this you will be protected.
Is this a test question to enter classified compartmented programs:
Would you agree that the law of government employment that makes it illegal to par the same worker for two different job positions worked the same hours (double pay) was not intended to preclude the government from paying critical key employees absolutely necessary to the defense of our nation a salary equal to what their services are valued at in the private sector? Could you blame them if they chose private sector employment because it pays more?
Maybe the prior question is prefaced by this:
Was the Constitution really meant to be a suicide pact? In other words, The fundamental law the Constitution was certainly not intended to work against us if it would destroy us by complying with what it what it establishes as the law of the land.
A powerful question when it is put to a person that will (or probably has) sworn to support and defend the Constitution.
Maybe the antidote is: Now that we have established who you are we are now just haggling over price. But if what you have to do is for the greater good it is not wrong. The greater good is what this country was founded on isn't it?
Logic. Persuasion. Intelligence is good at twisting/hiding the truth as well as discovering it.
Was Teresa Shea payed by an unofficial government intelligence agency policy to funnel money to an essential employee through a private sector entity to equalize her combined government and funneled pay to what she would receive in private sector employment.
We just have to do it. People would not understand that it is being done for their own good. They would understand if we told them. Therefore we have to keep it secret. It is the right thing to do. The law was meant to protect us, not destroy us.
Don't you agree?
Did Teresa Shea agree?
Hmmmm.....
Follow the money.
But if the trail leads to the government the right thing to do is to make sure that it does not.
In some key intelligence positions a government employee knows to much about a secret program and how it is managed on the government side to even consider hiring a private contractor and paying accordingly. Unless, of course that employed private contractor individual was previously employed by the government with the appropriate security clearance. Such a person can be formally read out of a compartmentalized program when leaving the government but still be an "unofficial part of it when they become employed by a private contractor participating in it.
Private contracting companies participate in compartmented programs but their participation is under the belief of a cover story that they believe or at least do not question and ultimately know they better not question.
Is there an intended benefit of having a prior government employee who knows the real program inserted into a related private sector contractor? A win/win for the government when it comes to paying a salary. The prior government employee is still working for the government but not being paid by the government. Beholding of course to the government for sliding them into the job and not knowing who might as easily slide them out of the job is they fail to perform adequately. "You'll never work in this town again". A strong government control over a prior employee with unique skills and knowledge.
At the link news story about Teresa Shea:
"All the NSA would tell BuzzFeed is that Shea’s exit from her role was routine and long planned — “well before recent news articles” — and that she would remain employed in some capacity."
Moonlighting? The government eats its cake and pays for it too? It is still win/win. The business of Intelligence is about not losing.
"Shea is not the only high-ranking current or former NSA official coming under scrutiny for their financial dealings. Former agency director Keith Alexander was engaged in commodity trading linked to countries such as Russia and China — countries upon which the NSA spied heavily — while he was working at the agency."
Is Teresa Shea only a single example of many government employees working in key top positions in Intelligence agencies? It applies not only to top positions but there are key secret positions at all levels that simply must be government employees but must be paid more than the government can officially afford.
The NSA is afraid of having its secrets revealed. This story is one that they might be very afraid of. Consequently, what will the Agency do about it. It is not just a secret that applies to the NSA, if it is a secret (who knows?) but all government agencies performing top level classified work.
Who knows?
The matter is certainly getting a great amount of attention! It does not take a security clearance to go to this link and look at what might be secret information. It is Open Source intelligence.
What about Dowd? This at the link:
Dowd had agreed to work as many as 20 hours per work for Alexander’s firm, a deal that top NSA managers had approved. But a few days after the agreement was made public, Alexander pulled the plug on it. “While we understand we did everything right," he told Reuters, "I think there's still enough issues out there that create problems for Dr. Dowd, for NSA, for my company.”
The NSA is between a rock and a had place. It can't say it was done for the good of the country. But maybe it can if it worked for the torture problem? Probably not because torture was patriotic. This is something that about moonlighting money. Doing it for the troops is patriotic but doing it just for the money is........just plain old......
Teresa Shea is not new news. Her story was revealed 18 Sept by Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed seems to be patient zero by virtue of attribution in this outbreak of media interest to put it into terms recently popularized but seem to be equally appropriate to how a story that used to be called a "scoop" or "exclusive" spreads. The spread is the important thing. Patient zero source? Well, I suppose they get bragging rights as well as eyeball capture cred.
Picking up in the epidemiology theme: It appears that it it broke out on the 16th of October, the contagion was mild initially. Then it took off rapidly. It could be graphed using this time line link as input and expressed in terms of a correlating disease vector.
It would be interesting to overlay the geographic initiating related story reporting on a map to see where they did or did not cluster. Even more interesting to overlay the geographic points of where the story was read on the world wide web.
Subsequent note: I will leave the following paragraph in the sequence of my examination even although the paragraph following it clearly indicates that the search results of the following paragraph do not connect to actual stories in the hit link about "Teresa Shea" It is a puzzle!
It takes scanning the timeline of the Google hits for 17 pages just to get back to hits over 24 hours on "Teresa Shea". Maybe it is the week end big news skewing factor? Only one page more of hits take them back to 2 days ago. Then it takes 28 more pages of hits two days ago to take the hits back to the 3 days ago point. Buried in the Friday news cycle? Then it takes three more pages of hits in the time line to jump to 4 days ago. One more page to go to 5 days. Two more pages to go to 6 days.
Something strange in the time line results web hit results for "Teresa Shea" related to this story. After looking back a one month time line I went to one year and was still tracing back the time line to hits attributed to almost a year ago. Not possible for a story that first broke on 16 Oct. but there it is. Even within the one month time line of hits on "Teresa Shea" there are false positive results because going to the site I could not find mention of "Teresa Shea" even although the snippet in the hit return mentions the story. Maybe it is a news aggregation problem that breaks a direct time line link between the reporting news agency and the story reported meaning that at any subsequent time the news agency reported this story? I don't know, hard to follow. As elusive as Ebola false positives.
Does Google do exactly this kind of epidemiology analysis somewhere in its Lab?
Google knows all, sees all but.......how do they look at the picture?
All the NSA Will Say About Its Alarmingly Entrepreneurial Top Spy Is That She’s Resigning
I think the real story here is not a conflict of interest but the exposure of the NSA secret policy to retain key critical employees on the government payroll by double dipping (illegal within the government pay system for the same hours worked) through laundering the double payment of government money through a private contractor to the government employee.
Does the government funnel money through contractors to pay key government employees to retain them in government service when the GS pay scale is inadequate to compensate them for that the private sector would pay so much more for?
Intelligence agencies, by the nature of their work sometimes have to do things that would otherwise be illegal. Like torture. Good people work for intelligence agencies. How does the institution get good people to do illegal things? Good people are logically moral and by their the standard of the employing government agency dedicated to value system of the institution. Maybe that criteria is why they were chosen in the first place. Is it simply a meme that the FBI tended to hire Irish Catholics as agents?
"We have to do this even if it is illegal because "good of the nation" what else can we do. If you are caught doing this you will be protected.
Is this a test question to enter classified compartmented programs:
Would you agree that the law of government employment that makes it illegal to par the same worker for two different job positions worked the same hours (double pay) was not intended to preclude the government from paying critical key employees absolutely necessary to the defense of our nation a salary equal to what their services are valued at in the private sector? Could you blame them if they chose private sector employment because it pays more?
Maybe the prior question is prefaced by this:
Was the Constitution really meant to be a suicide pact? In other words, The fundamental law the Constitution was certainly not intended to work against us if it would destroy us by complying with what it what it establishes as the law of the land.
A powerful question when it is put to a person that will (or probably has) sworn to support and defend the Constitution.
Maybe the antidote is: Now that we have established who you are we are now just haggling over price. But if what you have to do is for the greater good it is not wrong. The greater good is what this country was founded on isn't it?
Logic. Persuasion. Intelligence is good at twisting/hiding the truth as well as discovering it.
Was Teresa Shea payed by an unofficial government intelligence agency policy to funnel money to an essential employee through a private sector entity to equalize her combined government and funneled pay to what she would receive in private sector employment.
We just have to do it. People would not understand that it is being done for their own good. They would understand if we told them. Therefore we have to keep it secret. It is the right thing to do. The law was meant to protect us, not destroy us.
Don't you agree?
Did Teresa Shea agree?
Hmmmm.....
Follow the money.
But if the trail leads to the government the right thing to do is to make sure that it does not.
In some key intelligence positions a government employee knows to much about a secret program and how it is managed on the government side to even consider hiring a private contractor and paying accordingly. Unless, of course that employed private contractor individual was previously employed by the government with the appropriate security clearance. Such a person can be formally read out of a compartmentalized program when leaving the government but still be an "unofficial part of it when they become employed by a private contractor participating in it.
Private contracting companies participate in compartmented programs but their participation is under the belief of a cover story that they believe or at least do not question and ultimately know they better not question.
Is there an intended benefit of having a prior government employee who knows the real program inserted into a related private sector contractor? A win/win for the government when it comes to paying a salary. The prior government employee is still working for the government but not being paid by the government. Beholding of course to the government for sliding them into the job and not knowing who might as easily slide them out of the job is they fail to perform adequately. "You'll never work in this town again". A strong government control over a prior employee with unique skills and knowledge.
At the link news story about Teresa Shea:
"All the NSA would tell BuzzFeed is that Shea’s exit from her role was routine and long planned — “well before recent news articles” — and that she would remain employed in some capacity."
Moonlighting? The government eats its cake and pays for it too? It is still win/win. The business of Intelligence is about not losing.
"Shea is not the only high-ranking current or former NSA official coming under scrutiny for their financial dealings. Former agency director Keith Alexander was engaged in commodity trading linked to countries such as Russia and China — countries upon which the NSA spied heavily — while he was working at the agency."
Is Teresa Shea only a single example of many government employees working in key top positions in Intelligence agencies? It applies not only to top positions but there are key secret positions at all levels that simply must be government employees but must be paid more than the government can officially afford.
The NSA is afraid of having its secrets revealed. This story is one that they might be very afraid of. Consequently, what will the Agency do about it. It is not just a secret that applies to the NSA, if it is a secret (who knows?) but all government agencies performing top level classified work.
Who knows?
The matter is certainly getting a great amount of attention! It does not take a security clearance to go to this link and look at what might be secret information. It is Open Source intelligence.
What about Dowd? This at the link:
Dowd had agreed to work as many as 20 hours per work for Alexander’s firm, a deal that top NSA managers had approved. But a few days after the agreement was made public, Alexander pulled the plug on it. “While we understand we did everything right," he told Reuters, "I think there's still enough issues out there that create problems for Dr. Dowd, for NSA, for my company.”
The NSA is between a rock and a had place. It can't say it was done for the good of the country. But maybe it can if it worked for the torture problem? Probably not because torture was patriotic. This is something that about moonlighting money. Doing it for the troops is patriotic but doing it just for the money is........just plain old......
Teresa Shea is not new news. Her story was revealed 18 Sept by Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed seems to be patient zero by virtue of attribution in this outbreak of media interest to put it into terms recently popularized but seem to be equally appropriate to how a story that used to be called a "scoop" or "exclusive" spreads. The spread is the important thing. Patient zero source? Well, I suppose they get bragging rights as well as eyeball capture cred.
Picking up in the epidemiology theme: It appears that it it broke out on the 16th of October, the contagion was mild initially. Then it took off rapidly. It could be graphed using this time line link as input and expressed in terms of a correlating disease vector.
It would be interesting to overlay the geographic initiating related story reporting on a map to see where they did or did not cluster. Even more interesting to overlay the geographic points of where the story was read on the world wide web.
Subsequent note: I will leave the following paragraph in the sequence of my examination even although the paragraph following it clearly indicates that the search results of the following paragraph do not connect to actual stories in the hit link about "Teresa Shea" It is a puzzle!
It takes scanning the timeline of the Google hits for 17 pages just to get back to hits over 24 hours on "Teresa Shea". Maybe it is the week end big news skewing factor? Only one page more of hits take them back to 2 days ago. Then it takes 28 more pages of hits two days ago to take the hits back to the 3 days ago point. Buried in the Friday news cycle? Then it takes three more pages of hits in the time line to jump to 4 days ago. One more page to go to 5 days. Two more pages to go to 6 days.
Something strange in the time line results web hit results for "Teresa Shea" related to this story. After looking back a one month time line I went to one year and was still tracing back the time line to hits attributed to almost a year ago. Not possible for a story that first broke on 16 Oct. but there it is. Even within the one month time line of hits on "Teresa Shea" there are false positive results because going to the site I could not find mention of "Teresa Shea" even although the snippet in the hit return mentions the story. Maybe it is a news aggregation problem that breaks a direct time line link between the reporting news agency and the story reported meaning that at any subsequent time the news agency reported this story? I don't know, hard to follow. As elusive as Ebola false positives.
Does Google do exactly this kind of epidemiology analysis somewhere in its Lab?
Google knows all, sees all but.......how do they look at the picture?
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Debt Money and the Turing Test
Thoughts in the prior blog entry spawned this blog entry.
The Winograd Schema Challenge is described in a paper to be found at this link.
The problem is determining what kind of a thing a thing is by only looking at what it does.
Judging from a written conversation between a real person and an unknown entity can the person accurately determine if the entity is another human being or a computer.
This is what the Winograd Schema Challenge says about the Turing Test:
The Winograd Schema Challenge is described in a paper to be found at this link.
The problem is determining what kind of a thing a thing is by only looking at what it does.
Judging from a written conversation between a real person and an unknown entity can the person accurately determine if the entity is another human being or a computer.
This is what the Winograd Schema Challenge says about the Turing Test:
"The Turing Test does have some troubling aspects, however.
First, note the central role of deception. Consider the case
of a future intelligent machine trying to pass the test. It must
converse with an interrogator and not just show its stuff, but
fool her into thinking she is dealing with a person. This is
just a game, of course, so it’s not really lying. But to imitate
a person well without being evasive, the machine will need
to assume a false identity (to answer “How tall are you?”
or “Tell me about your parents.”). All other things being
equal, we should much prefer a test that did not depend on
chicanery of this sort. Or to put it differently, a machine
should be able to show us that it is thinking without having
to pretend to be somebody or to have some property (like
being tall) that it does not have."
In the Logic, Language, Structure Trinity can the Logic of a computer conversation with a human be distinguished from the Logic of a human communicating with a human? For the computer to win depends on deception. Making a human being think that it is something it is not based on the interaction converstation.
The identity nature and properties of Money is perceptually known to us through our communications with it by what it does as a medium of exchange. Store of value? Hmm....let's just call it a believed medium of future exchange, otherwise it would have no value. We know money by what it does, past present and future. We therefore believe it to be an object. Good enough for the common perception but that is not how the money system is structured. Money is not an object but the functional product of a controlling contractual condition of debt creation. All money is the product of debt. We perceive it as debt most clearly when we get it directly through entering a contractual agreement where we receive or loan money based on a contract to repay in money.
In the Logic, Language, Structure Trinity can the Logic of a computer conversation with a human be distinguished from the Logic of a human communicating with a human? For the computer to win depends on deception. Making a human being think that it is something it is not based on the interaction converstation.
The identity nature and properties of Money is perceptually known to us through our communications with it by what it does as a medium of exchange. Store of value? Hmm....let's just call it a believed medium of future exchange, otherwise it would have no value. We know money by what it does, past present and future. We therefore believe it to be an object. Good enough for the common perception but that is not how the money system is structured. Money is not an object but the functional product of a controlling contractual condition of debt creation. All money is the product of debt. We perceive it as debt most clearly when we get it directly through entering a contractual agreement where we receive or loan money based on a contract to repay in money.
Apple Pay - Credit Card Killer?
Google this: Apple Pay "credit card killer" that's a link, no need to Google it!
Interesting ambiguity "credit card killer". The first meaning of course is that Apple Pay replaces the need for a plastic card.
Tim Cook, according to one web site called Apple Pay the "credit card killer".
What if Tim is hiding his intention for planned payment system to kill the credit card industry with a technological advancement......The credit card industry at the core is simply a clearing house. Matching up customer receipts and expenditures to accomplish bank account shuffling of funds between banks. Like bank clear checks.
Matching and clearing are relatively simple applications that pay the credit card industry a vast amount of money. Owner loyalty and perks? That is easy to offer by Apple as well. Insurance for last cards? What lost cards. Fraud? Not much. Consumer complaint settlement? That is something that can be spun off sold to a third party.
I think the long range plan is to kill off the credit card industry business model and profit making with a better, less costly and more efficient system.
That plan is a step to what beyond it.
Apple money? Positive money vs debt money?
The establishment credit card industry in the USA is too old, to entrenched in its back office operation to be a "Kill off" target. It is easier to establish a new technological money processing system in a foreign where the environment is more conducive due to government control that the USA lacks. (Plenty of control of government however) .
Apple Pay is targeting China big time! What if China gets a payment processing system that is the envy of the world for efficiency, benefits and price? The world will beat a door to it, or beat down the doors to get it. What is Tim Cook's real long range plan for Apple Pay? The check out counter might just be the foot in the door.
Just blue sky speculating...................
Chrome/Macintosh leaped on this entry with an immediate hit like they were reading what I was writing in real time! Must have some alert established with Google? I think I can figure the key words.
Interesting ambiguity "credit card killer". The first meaning of course is that Apple Pay replaces the need for a plastic card.
Tim Cook, according to one web site called Apple Pay the "credit card killer".
What if Tim is hiding his intention for planned payment system to kill the credit card industry with a technological advancement......The credit card industry at the core is simply a clearing house. Matching up customer receipts and expenditures to accomplish bank account shuffling of funds between banks. Like bank clear checks.
Matching and clearing are relatively simple applications that pay the credit card industry a vast amount of money. Owner loyalty and perks? That is easy to offer by Apple as well. Insurance for last cards? What lost cards. Fraud? Not much. Consumer complaint settlement? That is something that can be spun off sold to a third party.
I think the long range plan is to kill off the credit card industry business model and profit making with a better, less costly and more efficient system.
That plan is a step to what beyond it.
Apple money? Positive money vs debt money?
The establishment credit card industry in the USA is too old, to entrenched in its back office operation to be a "Kill off" target. It is easier to establish a new technological money processing system in a foreign where the environment is more conducive due to government control that the USA lacks. (Plenty of control of government however) .
Apple Pay is targeting China big time! What if China gets a payment processing system that is the envy of the world for efficiency, benefits and price? The world will beat a door to it, or beat down the doors to get it. What is Tim Cook's real long range plan for Apple Pay? The check out counter might just be the foot in the door.
Just blue sky speculating...................
Chrome/Macintosh leaped on this entry with an immediate hit like they were reading what I was writing in real time! Must have some alert established with Google? I think I can figure the key words.
Why Money?
Because Profit!
While this blog meanders wherever I choose, the bushes it beats are all about what money is.
What is money? What is the answer independent of looking at what money does, which is finance and economics.
Knowing a thing by knowing what it does (its functions) works in nature where natural laws apply. There is a tight connection between what a thing does and what it is that interacts with its environment by means of some relationship implementing action.
Money as a thing does not exist in the domain of natural law. It is a conceptual structure built on a scheme of conceptual rules that spring from, are spawned by, the human mind. What can spring from the human mind? Why, anything that we can think of! What springs forth has controlling natural law binding it. The product of the human mind is boundless.
What caused the concept of money (and here I mean to exactly define it as debt money because all our money is created by a debt relationship) to leap from a thing born in the mind as a concept to take form as a thing?
Profit!
Money leaped from the human mind as a structured concept. However the fundamental meta structure of all things is described by a simple trilogy: Logic, Language, Structure. I have talked about that many times in this blog. It not just a cornerstone to build on. It is the explanation of the entire universe. Physical and meta physical.
In the order of things, Logic comes first. It is the chicken. Structure is the egg. Language? That is the means to implement the relationship between Logic and Structure. It is an action. A verb that connects a noun subject and an noun object.
Is Profit a noun or a verb? Well, I'm waiting.......noun or verb!
It all depends and that perhaps is the first step in either creating or defining complexity. That sounds like it might explain something. It is a method to explain something.
Profit, or Loss (and don't forget this flip side negative of Profit) Can be either a noun subject, a verb action or a noun object. It all depends. Like everything it depends on the frame.
The frame of everything is Logic, Language, Structure. However, that gives three different ways to enter the problem domain. Logic is the front door of entry. Language and Structure are back doors that also get inside the problem domain. Logic is a top down entry. Language and Structure are a bottom up entry.
For example: Mathematics is a problem domain. A problem? Yes, anything we attempt to conceptually create through comprehending its components is a problem domain. Math is a problem as simple as 2+2 or complex as the universe. Its Logic, Language and Structure scale extremely well.....until it gets to things that cannot be explained in terms of its Language or Structure which are our human tools to comprehend the nature of the fundamental Logic. Our tools, Language and Structure are themselves the application of Logic that built them. Chicken and egg.
Money can be examined as a problem domain from three different points of entry: Logic or Language or Structure. The systemic nature of the problem domain of money is determined by which one of the points of entry is deterministic. Which point of entry is chosen to become the Logic father creator of the system. This is where the natural world differs from the purely conceptual worlds created by the human mind. In the natural world Logic rules. In the human conceptual world either Language or Structure can be chosen to rule the nature of the what ever we create. Chosen by our own definition not defined for us by Logic and only Logic of the natural physical world we live in. We leap the bounds of the natural world with great ease to the domain of the supernatural. We do it by the free will choice to say that either Language or Structure, not Logic may be chosen as the deterministic root of whatever we desire to conceptually create to serve whatever purpose we chose.
Back far enough in this blog are entries that look at environmentalists as the best designers of a monetary/financial system. They have a philosophy built on a natural law model. Maybe an excellent idea! Sustainability anyone?
This meandering thought is going off in certain direction. Back to the original thought.
Why money?
Because Profit!
Because Profit is a Language and a Structure. It could be a Logic thing but that would subject it to the rules of Logic. Money, our Debt Money System is not fundamentally Logical in the sense that an natural law domain that is ultimately Pure Logic rules the Language and Structure. Language or structure create their own logic. logic with a little "l" not a big "L". What is that called? False Logic? No, of course not! In terms of my way of thinking "False Logic" is impossible but "false logic" is possible when we make the rules.
That is what makes money essentially more like religion than a tree.
The "logic" of debt based money is driven by (product of) the Language or Structure of Debt Money and the purpose of the designers of the debt money system in choosing either Language or Structure as the dominant approach to creation of the logic.
What makes debt money hard to understand is that the designers of the debt money system chose both Language and Structure to describe the system but only chose one to define the system. The one that solves the Problem Domain. Their chosen Problem Domain was Profit.
Why Money?
Because Profit!
The sleight of hand pulled by the clever bankers that created Debt Money is that the users (marks or suckers) of the system conceptually see it as a Language as their user view of Money.....
(A refresher here: Language is the verb word in the trilogy of Logic, Language, Structure).....
Users perceive Money as a verb. What Money does.
Bankers perceive Money as a Structure that is determined by the rules of Debt as the solution to their chosen Problem Domain called Profit. Or, making money on money.
If I want to know what money is, within the contextual domain of the current monetary system of our country all I have to do is ask a banker.
The honest answer that a banker would give in reply to my question is..........
Money is Debt.
The full picture is:
Why Money?
Because Profit!
"Profit" is variable logic king of the relationship: logic, Language, Structure. (Subject Noun, Implementing Verb, Object Noun function of the verb) plug in the other two chosen variables in this equation and it becomes the following:
Profit, Debt, Money. Money being a function of Debt and therefore its nature as a object of the subject "Profit" is best called "Debt Money"
Profit is king of the private sector domain of Money.
There are only two sectors in the total Domain. Private and Public.
The public domain purpose related to money is not profit in terms of money but the public common good.
It is not Logical, using the big "L" of Logic that a decision making tool of money (because that in my view is essentially what money and what it does), that money be a conceptual construction born to serve profit motive.
What is the bigger scheme of things in which all this money exists to do something?
Private rights and the public good. The public good is assured and protected by granting to ourselves self evident private rights. Self determination of our individual freedom of choice to exercise those rights.
Logic with the Big "L" says to me to base what is created on the existence of something. Proclaim it to exist in a conceptual world that we create to serve ourselves in the natural world. Collectively in the common good. Privately in the pursuit of our own happiness that does not infringe the rights of others in the context of the Constitutional meaning of that word.
Money is the tool of both public good and private pursuit.
It is not Logical to me that money itself is the creation of a private banking enterprise for the purpose of serving itself first in terms of private sector profit based on debt. There is a glaring conflict of interest in that situation. A conflict of interest that has serious dysfunctional results and impact on the common public good that is based on the proclamation of private rights we have to create our system to serve our common good and general welfare. It is an idea based on what we have not on what we do not have.
It is a hell of a system when anything is structured on a fundamental idea of what we don't have in the first place to be proclaimed as a truth then give the key to resolving that negative based absence of something to an external controlling entity. That is what a bank is all about. A system structured on the absence of something essential to our existence that only a bank can provide through the creation of our contractual debt to it for their profit.
Money is a public domain problem, not a private domain profit making thing pretending to promote the common good that would otherwise not be served by public money systems. Money is a public asset without a debt counterpart, not a private system structured on debt to serve the private system entity.
We did not get the current money system all wrong and consequently not serving our best interest. Bankers got the money system all right to serve theirs. The Bank problem domain is finance, not money creation must be regulated the application of a public asset money system to finance. Debt must be is a function of contractual finance not the functional creator of money and bases of our monetary system.
The tyranny of an authoritarian system is founded on a negative condition premise of the base entities. Something that does not exist in the first place by definition of the controlling authority but is created by the controlling authority and granted for the use of whatever entities are subject to its control.
Private sector dominated debt money systems to serve private sector finance of both the private sector and the public sector is tyranny. Finance systems must be made independent of monetary systems by making the monetary system a public domain problem. That is exactly what the Constitution provides for. Money right of the sovereign system to create and manage. Our sovereign system is the government of the people yet we are ruled by those with the private banking power to create money for their profit.
This all makes sense to me..............................even if I beat around a lot of bushes to say it as best I can.
While this blog meanders wherever I choose, the bushes it beats are all about what money is.
What is money? What is the answer independent of looking at what money does, which is finance and economics.
Knowing a thing by knowing what it does (its functions) works in nature where natural laws apply. There is a tight connection between what a thing does and what it is that interacts with its environment by means of some relationship implementing action.
Money as a thing does not exist in the domain of natural law. It is a conceptual structure built on a scheme of conceptual rules that spring from, are spawned by, the human mind. What can spring from the human mind? Why, anything that we can think of! What springs forth has controlling natural law binding it. The product of the human mind is boundless.
What caused the concept of money (and here I mean to exactly define it as debt money because all our money is created by a debt relationship) to leap from a thing born in the mind as a concept to take form as a thing?
Profit!
Money leaped from the human mind as a structured concept. However the fundamental meta structure of all things is described by a simple trilogy: Logic, Language, Structure. I have talked about that many times in this blog. It not just a cornerstone to build on. It is the explanation of the entire universe. Physical and meta physical.
In the order of things, Logic comes first. It is the chicken. Structure is the egg. Language? That is the means to implement the relationship between Logic and Structure. It is an action. A verb that connects a noun subject and an noun object.
Is Profit a noun or a verb? Well, I'm waiting.......noun or verb!
It all depends and that perhaps is the first step in either creating or defining complexity. That sounds like it might explain something. It is a method to explain something.
Profit, or Loss (and don't forget this flip side negative of Profit) Can be either a noun subject, a verb action or a noun object. It all depends. Like everything it depends on the frame.
The frame of everything is Logic, Language, Structure. However, that gives three different ways to enter the problem domain. Logic is the front door of entry. Language and Structure are back doors that also get inside the problem domain. Logic is a top down entry. Language and Structure are a bottom up entry.
For example: Mathematics is a problem domain. A problem? Yes, anything we attempt to conceptually create through comprehending its components is a problem domain. Math is a problem as simple as 2+2 or complex as the universe. Its Logic, Language and Structure scale extremely well.....until it gets to things that cannot be explained in terms of its Language or Structure which are our human tools to comprehend the nature of the fundamental Logic. Our tools, Language and Structure are themselves the application of Logic that built them. Chicken and egg.
Money can be examined as a problem domain from three different points of entry: Logic or Language or Structure. The systemic nature of the problem domain of money is determined by which one of the points of entry is deterministic. Which point of entry is chosen to become the Logic father creator of the system. This is where the natural world differs from the purely conceptual worlds created by the human mind. In the natural world Logic rules. In the human conceptual world either Language or Structure can be chosen to rule the nature of the what ever we create. Chosen by our own definition not defined for us by Logic and only Logic of the natural physical world we live in. We leap the bounds of the natural world with great ease to the domain of the supernatural. We do it by the free will choice to say that either Language or Structure, not Logic may be chosen as the deterministic root of whatever we desire to conceptually create to serve whatever purpose we chose.
Back far enough in this blog are entries that look at environmentalists as the best designers of a monetary/financial system. They have a philosophy built on a natural law model. Maybe an excellent idea! Sustainability anyone?
This meandering thought is going off in certain direction. Back to the original thought.
Why money?
Because Profit!
Because Profit is a Language and a Structure. It could be a Logic thing but that would subject it to the rules of Logic. Money, our Debt Money System is not fundamentally Logical in the sense that an natural law domain that is ultimately Pure Logic rules the Language and Structure. Language or structure create their own logic. logic with a little "l" not a big "L". What is that called? False Logic? No, of course not! In terms of my way of thinking "False Logic" is impossible but "false logic" is possible when we make the rules.
That is what makes money essentially more like religion than a tree.
The "logic" of debt based money is driven by (product of) the Language or Structure of Debt Money and the purpose of the designers of the debt money system in choosing either Language or Structure as the dominant approach to creation of the logic.
What makes debt money hard to understand is that the designers of the debt money system chose both Language and Structure to describe the system but only chose one to define the system. The one that solves the Problem Domain. Their chosen Problem Domain was Profit.
Why Money?
Because Profit!
The sleight of hand pulled by the clever bankers that created Debt Money is that the users (marks or suckers) of the system conceptually see it as a Language as their user view of Money.....
(A refresher here: Language is the verb word in the trilogy of Logic, Language, Structure).....
Users perceive Money as a verb. What Money does.
Bankers perceive Money as a Structure that is determined by the rules of Debt as the solution to their chosen Problem Domain called Profit. Or, making money on money.
If I want to know what money is, within the contextual domain of the current monetary system of our country all I have to do is ask a banker.
The honest answer that a banker would give in reply to my question is..........
Money is Debt.
The full picture is:
Why Money?
Because Profit!
"Profit" is variable logic king of the relationship: logic, Language, Structure. (Subject Noun, Implementing Verb, Object Noun function of the verb) plug in the other two chosen variables in this equation and it becomes the following:
Profit, Debt, Money. Money being a function of Debt and therefore its nature as a object of the subject "Profit" is best called "Debt Money"
Profit is king of the private sector domain of Money.
There are only two sectors in the total Domain. Private and Public.
The public domain purpose related to money is not profit in terms of money but the public common good.
It is not Logical, using the big "L" of Logic that a decision making tool of money (because that in my view is essentially what money and what it does), that money be a conceptual construction born to serve profit motive.
What is the bigger scheme of things in which all this money exists to do something?
Private rights and the public good. The public good is assured and protected by granting to ourselves self evident private rights. Self determination of our individual freedom of choice to exercise those rights.
Logic with the Big "L" says to me to base what is created on the existence of something. Proclaim it to exist in a conceptual world that we create to serve ourselves in the natural world. Collectively in the common good. Privately in the pursuit of our own happiness that does not infringe the rights of others in the context of the Constitutional meaning of that word.
Money is the tool of both public good and private pursuit.
It is not Logical to me that money itself is the creation of a private banking enterprise for the purpose of serving itself first in terms of private sector profit based on debt. There is a glaring conflict of interest in that situation. A conflict of interest that has serious dysfunctional results and impact on the common public good that is based on the proclamation of private rights we have to create our system to serve our common good and general welfare. It is an idea based on what we have not on what we do not have.
It is a hell of a system when anything is structured on a fundamental idea of what we don't have in the first place to be proclaimed as a truth then give the key to resolving that negative based absence of something to an external controlling entity. That is what a bank is all about. A system structured on the absence of something essential to our existence that only a bank can provide through the creation of our contractual debt to it for their profit.
Money is a public domain problem, not a private domain profit making thing pretending to promote the common good that would otherwise not be served by public money systems. Money is a public asset without a debt counterpart, not a private system structured on debt to serve the private system entity.
We did not get the current money system all wrong and consequently not serving our best interest. Bankers got the money system all right to serve theirs. The Bank problem domain is finance, not money creation must be regulated the application of a public asset money system to finance. Debt must be is a function of contractual finance not the functional creator of money and bases of our monetary system.
The tyranny of an authoritarian system is founded on a negative condition premise of the base entities. Something that does not exist in the first place by definition of the controlling authority but is created by the controlling authority and granted for the use of whatever entities are subject to its control.
Private sector dominated debt money systems to serve private sector finance of both the private sector and the public sector is tyranny. Finance systems must be made independent of monetary systems by making the monetary system a public domain problem. That is exactly what the Constitution provides for. Money right of the sovereign system to create and manage. Our sovereign system is the government of the people yet we are ruled by those with the private banking power to create money for their profit.
This all makes sense to me..............................even if I beat around a lot of bushes to say it as best I can.
Tracing Money
Some hits on an old entry in this blog about tracing the billions of $100 bills sent to Iraq brings me back to what started my interest in a monetary system structured in the following manner:
All currency is digitized, serialized and denominated in units of $1.00 and maintained on a central record on this unit basis but related to the total aggregated amount of dollars "owned" by an entity expressed in an independent single registered entity account. The total total dollar value of all aggregated entity accounts equal the the total value of of all digitized dollar currency.
This structural relationship between currency and account separates the tight binding of currency and account in a single financial record into two related and balancing records.
Monetary account transactions in this structure occur when the owning entity of an account transfers ownership of some number of total dollars in the account to a new owning entity account. This transfer is recorded as a total dollar deduction from the expending entity account and addition to the gaining entity account.
In this conceptual structure account balances (always the total amount on current on hand balance) changes (equally but inversely) in the expending/gaining entity account. Currency is related to this accounting entry of total transaction funds transfer between entity accounts (because the currency record has been made an independent record but directly linked to the accounting transaction)
All currency is digitized, serialized and denominated in units of $1.00 and maintained on a central record on this unit basis but related to the total aggregated amount of dollars "owned" by an entity expressed in an independent single registered entity account. The total total dollar value of all aggregated entity accounts equal the the total value of of all digitized dollar currency.
This structural relationship between currency and account separates the tight binding of currency and account in a single financial record into two related and balancing records.
Monetary account transactions in this structure occur when the owning entity of an account transfers ownership of some number of total dollars in the account to a new owning entity account. This transfer is recorded as a total dollar deduction from the expending entity account and addition to the gaining entity account.
In this conceptual structure account balances (always the total amount on current on hand balance) changes (equally but inversely) in the expending/gaining entity account. Currency is related to this accounting entry of total transaction funds transfer between entity accounts (because the currency record has been made an independent record but directly linked to the accounting transaction)
Thursday, October 23, 2014
iPhone, Apple Pay and Financial System Edge Device
iPhone is the physical edge device in a global communication network. The implementation of NFC hardware in the newest iPhone 6 and the associated new Apple Pay application make it an edge device in a financial system. An edge device at the input interface to the existing system but also a point of entry to alternate payment transaction system as an alternative to being a front end for credit cards processing?
The Apple model is to have both device and operating system control as well as some core application programs of their own plus being gate keepers for app developers.
Looking at the current monetary payment system I have to think that an information systems engineer designers would say start with a clean sheet and design an financial operating system that will handle all of the monetary apps run on it. There must be some of those working at Apple, I am sure. Would Apple want to do this? Not in the USA but maybe in China?
The Apple model is to have both device and operating system control as well as some core application programs of their own plus being gate keepers for app developers.
Looking at the current monetary payment system I have to think that an information systems engineer designers would say start with a clean sheet and design an financial operating system that will handle all of the monetary apps run on it. There must be some of those working at Apple, I am sure. Would Apple want to do this? Not in the USA but maybe in China?
Math, Physics, Finance and Rocket Science
Bill Black, my hero, writes a two part examination of Finance and Rocket Science.
The second part is at this Link and it links to the first part.
Rocket science, the landing on the moon kind, is in the strictly controlling domain of natural laws. A framework in which to devise systems to put a person on the moon or in orbit with penalties for failing to devise systems parts and pieces to do it fail to comply with the laws of physics.
Rocket Science applied to the financial domain allow the science to dictate the system in which it operates to hit its target objective. Few controlling rules apply therefore fraud rules to manipulate the controls. Bill calls it control fraud.
Just like the complexities of physics shroud my understanding on how things orbit the earth so are complexities created to shroud how the financial system works to benefit those who designed and operate the system.
In finance the "Rocket Scientists" devise their own controlling system complexities unlike real rocket scientists are bound to work within a given framework.
It does not take rocket science to see the results of control fraud, it only takes rocket science to hide the complexity in how it is done. An easy thing to do when the problem domain operating system environment is designed by an entity that would benefit the most from its operation applications.
The second part is at this Link and it links to the first part.
Rocket science, the landing on the moon kind, is in the strictly controlling domain of natural laws. A framework in which to devise systems to put a person on the moon or in orbit with penalties for failing to devise systems parts and pieces to do it fail to comply with the laws of physics.
Rocket Science applied to the financial domain allow the science to dictate the system in which it operates to hit its target objective. Few controlling rules apply therefore fraud rules to manipulate the controls. Bill calls it control fraud.
Just like the complexities of physics shroud my understanding on how things orbit the earth so are complexities created to shroud how the financial system works to benefit those who designed and operate the system.
In finance the "Rocket Scientists" devise their own controlling system complexities unlike real rocket scientists are bound to work within a given framework.
It does not take rocket science to see the results of control fraud, it only takes rocket science to hide the complexity in how it is done. An easy thing to do when the problem domain operating system environment is designed by an entity that would benefit the most from its operation applications.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Gigapan
I have made prior blog entries about super high resolution cameras and progress in the state of the art and how it is being applied interested me today.
This link is recent, 19 October, gigapic at this link.
Take look. Conveniently all facing one way and well lit. Zoom in on faces as far as possible to test the resolution quality. If a friend was in the crowd might you recognize them? How about a computer doing facial recognition, categorization, analysis. It is a mass photo of a gathering that has a political agenda.
There is a mass gathering with a political agenda today in Hong Kong. What agency might be taking pictures of a surveillance nature there for what purpose. Previously, gigapics were taken of sports events or masses celebrating world champion sports victories in public places. All very innocent or were they simply test beds for other uses? The linked picture moves closer to identifying people in a public gathering of a political nature and making that picture available on the world wide web.
A sequence of pictures of a single mass event could follow a single person over time based on facial recognition. It is possible. Also identify nearby faces as the person traveled in a crowd to learn if they appears nearby in any prior or subsequent pictures.
Gigapan of the world series here at this link. Smile, Don't pick your nose
This link is recent, 19 October, gigapic at this link.
Take look. Conveniently all facing one way and well lit. Zoom in on faces as far as possible to test the resolution quality. If a friend was in the crowd might you recognize them? How about a computer doing facial recognition, categorization, analysis. It is a mass photo of a gathering that has a political agenda.
There is a mass gathering with a political agenda today in Hong Kong. What agency might be taking pictures of a surveillance nature there for what purpose. Previously, gigapics were taken of sports events or masses celebrating world champion sports victories in public places. All very innocent or were they simply test beds for other uses? The linked picture moves closer to identifying people in a public gathering of a political nature and making that picture available on the world wide web.
A sequence of pictures of a single mass event could follow a single person over time based on facial recognition. It is possible. Also identify nearby faces as the person traveled in a crowd to learn if they appears nearby in any prior or subsequent pictures.
Gigapan of the world series here at this link. Smile, Don't pick your nose
NSA Moonlighting Problem
The subject of this blog entry is examined at this link.
The government faces a talent pay problem. Private employment is competitive and people vote for where they will work with their feet. Government pay is fixed by the grade level of employment. Military pay levels for enlist or officers, civil service pay level for GS employees. There is some room for increased government pay based on specialty/bonus but that room for magnitude of application is limited in special cases.
In a situation where the government requires a government employee to perform a special job that only a government employee can perform, that cannot be contracted out at a higher price for some reason, the government is between a rock and a hard place when the person required for that particular job assignment by unique ability, position or other factor can get substantially more in the private sector for their skills.
One way around the rock and hard place and limit on the government to pay private sector compensation is for the government to pay a single uniquely required individual for two job positions for the hours worked in one position. That is by law illegal. Made illegal because it was done when it was not illegal at some point in time when it was discovered to be done.
Moonlighting implies that there is a day job for the government and then an independent night hour job in the private sector. Could the government pay the same person for employment in two government positions if they entailed different hours of performance? I don't know. Different hours are the key that would limit the usefullness and attraction of such a job to the employee. It becomes the same as overtime.
What if a critical, absolutely must have on the government payroll employees due to exclusive government needs were paid by a private sector employer for the same hours worked on government time if the government can't legally pay for the same hours worked on two different government position descriptions by a single employee?
The private sector employer might be considered very patriotic to pay a government employee for their work performed for the government!
Maybe not so patriotic if that private sector enterprise was receiving a ton of government contract money!
The big question is: Are the hours worked by an individual government employee also employed by a private sector company, related or not to the nature of work performed by the government mutually exclusive to government work hours? detatchment of private sector pay from hours worked through "consulting fees" laundering government money through the private entity might be a way around this and more appropriate to "top level" positions. All with the "understanding" of those involved.
Funneling laundered government money through a private enterprise entity is one step removed from the government paying a single employee twice for two different jobs for the same hours worked is consequently equally illegal.
Setting up the situation to be "necessary" only requires the compliance or control of those involved in the setup. If it involves secret operations then the whole thing takes place in the secrecy domain of "dark" ops. Those involved do it because "it must be done" and those that make the letter of the law would understand if they knew that the situation was one of vital national interest to protect the United States.
As a military officer I believed that the mere perception of wrongdoing was the high bar set for professional performance to be observed as a rule applying to the performance of my duties and judgment responsibilities demanding the highest standards of conduct.
The government faces a talent pay problem. Private employment is competitive and people vote for where they will work with their feet. Government pay is fixed by the grade level of employment. Military pay levels for enlist or officers, civil service pay level for GS employees. There is some room for increased government pay based on specialty/bonus but that room for magnitude of application is limited in special cases.
In a situation where the government requires a government employee to perform a special job that only a government employee can perform, that cannot be contracted out at a higher price for some reason, the government is between a rock and a hard place when the person required for that particular job assignment by unique ability, position or other factor can get substantially more in the private sector for their skills.
One way around the rock and hard place and limit on the government to pay private sector compensation is for the government to pay a single uniquely required individual for two job positions for the hours worked in one position. That is by law illegal. Made illegal because it was done when it was not illegal at some point in time when it was discovered to be done.
Moonlighting implies that there is a day job for the government and then an independent night hour job in the private sector. Could the government pay the same person for employment in two government positions if they entailed different hours of performance? I don't know. Different hours are the key that would limit the usefullness and attraction of such a job to the employee. It becomes the same as overtime.
What if a critical, absolutely must have on the government payroll employees due to exclusive government needs were paid by a private sector employer for the same hours worked on government time if the government can't legally pay for the same hours worked on two different government position descriptions by a single employee?
The private sector employer might be considered very patriotic to pay a government employee for their work performed for the government!
Maybe not so patriotic if that private sector enterprise was receiving a ton of government contract money!
The big question is: Are the hours worked by an individual government employee also employed by a private sector company, related or not to the nature of work performed by the government mutually exclusive to government work hours? detatchment of private sector pay from hours worked through "consulting fees" laundering government money through the private entity might be a way around this and more appropriate to "top level" positions. All with the "understanding" of those involved.
Funneling laundered government money through a private enterprise entity is one step removed from the government paying a single employee twice for two different jobs for the same hours worked is consequently equally illegal.
Setting up the situation to be "necessary" only requires the compliance or control of those involved in the setup. If it involves secret operations then the whole thing takes place in the secrecy domain of "dark" ops. Those involved do it because "it must be done" and those that make the letter of the law would understand if they knew that the situation was one of vital national interest to protect the United States.
As a military officer I believed that the mere perception of wrongdoing was the high bar set for professional performance to be observed as a rule applying to the performance of my duties and judgment responsibilities demanding the highest standards of conduct.
P vs NP Problem
Wikipedia describes the problem here.
I thought money was hard to understand!
Purely intuitive hat on here: Maybe there is some connection between the complexity of the P vs NP problem beyond their sharing of complex concepts.
Maybe the common connection is their shared perceptions of two fundamental things: what a thing is and what a thing does.
What the computer (money) thing is and what the computer (money) thing does. After all, isn't it all about the computational language trinity of Logic, Language, Structure?
Important note to understanding what follows: What I wrote preceding this was to frame the complexity level of the following examination of what Money is. By pure coincidence both the preface framing and the following examination relate independently to two extremely intelligent individuals with the last name Winograd that relate to complex problems in a logical manner.
I have known about and admired the intelligence of Terry Winograd since I bought and attempted to understand the book (Language as a Cognitive Process) he published in the early 80's when faced with a professional system design challenge that was way beyond my ability to accomplish but became a cornerstone in developing a fundamental approach to problem solving as well as another book I read at the time: Small Talk-80, The Language and its Implementation
I found some interesting discussion here at this link about the nature of what the thing is and what the thing does. The link looks at the Turing Test and the Winograd Schema.
It seems to me that the Turing Test is based on the idea that a thing is as a thing does. If it walks like a duck then it is a duck. Maybe the Winograd Schema is oriented more or in the extreme (I don't know if either applies) on the attributes of what a thing is rather than what it does.
In a schema and here I have to put in the context of object orientation, the iterative question is: What is this thing a child of what higher level thing? Until one gets to the point that there is no higher level except one that goes into a higher level domain than he physical world implementation of Time and Space that has both physical and meta physical children.
It gets big.
If a computer acts, behaves like a human then it is human?
If money acts, behaves like a medium of exchange then it is money?
In both question cases the answer is no! A thing is what it is. That nature is its logic that expresses itself through a language to create a structure. The creator of the structure and the object that uses language to create it is the dominant object in the relationship. Language and Structure are its shadows on the wall.
Money is debt in the current monetary system. Debt is a projection of what money is as Logic (debt).
Debt Money is false Logic (Object Noun) expressed through the implementing Language (Verb) of finance (debt creation process) to relate the Object noun to the Subject noun: Debt.
Debt Money is the defined Monetary System Logic.
But............
Debt Money is a qualification subset type of a higher level object: Money.
In the sub class domain of Debt Money as a qualification child of Money this is the true relationship:
Finance is the Logic, (subject noun) Debt creation is the verb Language implementing the function (action) relationship to an Object structure (noun) called Debt Money.
What rules the domain structure? What is the Logic of the whole thing?
The test:
What is the Logic that derives the system:
Is it
Finance
or
Money
???????????????????????????
If:
Finance
then
Money
If
Money
then
Finance
When Finance drives then all Money is Debt
When Money drives then Finance is.........what? A Contractual Obligation in the purest form???
A contractual obligation expressed in terms of Money as a situational case application of the Money Logic.
Its complex but it has a solution. Money and Finance are two equal level Logic children of a higher level Logic Object Parent:
Name that parent!
It's a test.......................
There are 184 response comments to this link: Turing test no longer useful - Winograd schema new test for AI. Goal is to be "Google proof"
The discussion is fascinating.
...............................................................................
I can see clearly now the rain is gone.
I can see all obstacles in my way.
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind.
It's gonna be a bright (bright) bright (bright) sunshinin' day
I thought money was hard to understand!
Purely intuitive hat on here: Maybe there is some connection between the complexity of the P vs NP problem beyond their sharing of complex concepts.
Maybe the common connection is their shared perceptions of two fundamental things: what a thing is and what a thing does.
What the computer (money) thing is and what the computer (money) thing does. After all, isn't it all about the computational language trinity of Logic, Language, Structure?
Important note to understanding what follows: What I wrote preceding this was to frame the complexity level of the following examination of what Money is. By pure coincidence both the preface framing and the following examination relate independently to two extremely intelligent individuals with the last name Winograd that relate to complex problems in a logical manner.
I have known about and admired the intelligence of Terry Winograd since I bought and attempted to understand the book (Language as a Cognitive Process) he published in the early 80's when faced with a professional system design challenge that was way beyond my ability to accomplish but became a cornerstone in developing a fundamental approach to problem solving as well as another book I read at the time: Small Talk-80, The Language and its Implementation
I found some interesting discussion here at this link about the nature of what the thing is and what the thing does. The link looks at the Turing Test and the Winograd Schema.
It seems to me that the Turing Test is based on the idea that a thing is as a thing does. If it walks like a duck then it is a duck. Maybe the Winograd Schema is oriented more or in the extreme (I don't know if either applies) on the attributes of what a thing is rather than what it does.
In a schema and here I have to put in the context of object orientation, the iterative question is: What is this thing a child of what higher level thing? Until one gets to the point that there is no higher level except one that goes into a higher level domain than he physical world implementation of Time and Space that has both physical and meta physical children.
It gets big.
If a computer acts, behaves like a human then it is human?
If money acts, behaves like a medium of exchange then it is money?
In both question cases the answer is no! A thing is what it is. That nature is its logic that expresses itself through a language to create a structure. The creator of the structure and the object that uses language to create it is the dominant object in the relationship. Language and Structure are its shadows on the wall.
Money is debt in the current monetary system. Debt is a projection of what money is as Logic (debt).
Debt Money is false Logic (Object Noun) expressed through the implementing Language (Verb) of finance (debt creation process) to relate the Object noun to the Subject noun: Debt.
Debt Money is the defined Monetary System Logic.
But............
Debt Money is a qualification subset type of a higher level object: Money.
In the sub class domain of Debt Money as a qualification child of Money this is the true relationship:
Finance is the Logic, (subject noun) Debt creation is the verb Language implementing the function (action) relationship to an Object structure (noun) called Debt Money.
What rules the domain structure? What is the Logic of the whole thing?
The test:
What is the Logic that derives the system:
Is it
Finance
or
Money
???????????????????????????
If:
Finance
then
Money
If
Money
then
Finance
When Finance drives then all Money is Debt
When Money drives then Finance is.........what? A Contractual Obligation in the purest form???
A contractual obligation expressed in terms of Money as a situational case application of the Money Logic.
Its complex but it has a solution. Money and Finance are two equal level Logic children of a higher level Logic Object Parent:
Name that parent!
It's a test.......................
There are 184 response comments to this link: Turing test no longer useful - Winograd schema new test for AI. Goal is to be "Google proof"
The discussion is fascinating.
...............................................................................
I can see clearly now the rain is gone.
I can see all obstacles in my way.
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind.
It's gonna be a bright (bright) bright (bright) sunshinin' day
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Life and Death and 100%
This link is right on the logic target.
"On Ebola, Like Terrorism, We Don't Actually Have to Be Right 100 Percent of the Time"
The justification logic thinking for invading Iraq: If there is the slightest chance (1% or anything less) that Iraq has an atomic weapon that will become a mushroom cloud over an American city we must invade. It really puts the decision in a binary domain. Extremely low probability has extreme decision making leverage in a binary live or die situation.
It expresses itself at the micro level as well: If there is the slightest chance that a kid with his hand in his pocket has a gun in it where a police officer is involved in a situational context of possible law enforcement then deadly force is authorized. Another example: Stand your ground. If someone simple thinks they are in danger then merely having that belief justifies the use of a weapon.
There has been much written as a result of Ebola coming to the USA. Much of the reasonable thought exposes situation where death due to other causes is just part of life in our society and does not get as much concern for extreme action.
Extreme action if the face of, or the defense of, (fill in the blank) is no vice!
Perfection is being right 100% of the time. Maybe more right than wrong is and doing the best we can based on our best social moral principals is a better cause for action.
Recent Ebola headlines have focused on the number of hospital workers exposed to and contracting Ebola. If there was the slightest chance of a hospital worker contracting Ebola from a patient what would that worker's decision be?
What is needed to make decision like this? Wisdom, justice, a social moral system with a framework that supports the best reasonable decision?
The "slightest possible chance" rule to justify extreme action applies at extreme ends of the action. At one end is the hero that risks their own life against impossible odds for the life of another. At the other extreme is taking the life of another if there is the slightest possible chance they may take yours.
It is a decision making problem. What is the criteria? The greater good? The lesser of two evils?
Maybe the greatest evil is to manipulate the outcome to dispose an illogical, immoral outcome by setting up a criteria for extreme action based on the slightest probability of being wrong.
So, this is "beyond the shadow" of a doubt territory. How often do we get that wrong but maybe the question is how often do we get it right and does that balance being wrong?
If social wisdom is a growing thing over the span of our social history what is the trend line. Maybe that is a better way to look at where we are going than a doomsday clock that says we live or die in the end. Maybe when we attain 100% wisdom we have heaven on earth? More right than wrong on the things that really matter and allocating our attention and resources decisions accordingly in hindsight in the court of human history judgment is perhaps the best ultimate judge of any action.
Take care of the absolutely worst first is a good way to prioritize actions but enough resources have to be allocated accordingly throughout the infrastructure to keep the entire system going while fighting alligators.
What are those alligators? Terrorists? Ebola? Maybe instead of identifying alligators the question is "Who Benefits"? and....how did they get us to do what we did in an extreme situation related to a situation of lesser priority when the benefit was not to us as the greater good of the many rather than the greater good of the few, by the few?
Tough decisions on tough questions. Terrorism, Ebola they test us. Challenge our decision making systems and find them logically and reasonably lacking. Actually, totally lacking in the extremely big things.
Examining the thoughts of this blog and consulting the common man's encyclopedia Wikipedia, the term "beyond the shadow of a doubt" implying no room for error is not accurate in the application to decisions in courts of justice. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard. Further, beyond a reasonable doubt that the burden of proof has been met.
Now I recall my judgment on invading Iraq when it was done. The burden of proof was on Husein to prove the negative. That he did not have WMD and specifically that interprets to nuclear weapons not a shell or two or even thousands of old chemical weapons the "discovery" of which supports the "gotcha" that Bush was right on WMD all the time. Everyone knows that WMD was nuclear despite the military definition of nuclear/chemical/biological (NBC).
The burden of proof was on the USA. Burden of proof to prove a negative is not reasonable but is a reasonable way to load the dice.
Side note: What is it about Ukraine that gets so many blogger page views?
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Ethereum
Way back in the time line of this blog I speculated on the broad application of the block chain concept used by Bitcoin to validate anything. Property titles, public notary functions, etc.
The leader in the broad application system to validate anything using the block chain concept appears to be Ethereum.
This is an explanation of Ethereum. I like the broad viewpoint that it is a "Social Operating System" upon which a whole world of various application programs can be run. My thinking produces a conceptual Monetary Operating System in which finance is an application program on the Operating System. Maybe that Monetary Operating system is just a subset extension of the bigger parent Social Operating System?
This Ethereum explanation is one among many to be found through Google ranging from simple to stuff I have little ability to comprehend beyond thinking this is something really big. Like looking at the moon.
Its Big!
In the process of writing the prior entry I discovered Ethereum and Steve Randy Waldman. He is described in Wikipedia as a computer programmer. They are bricklayers. Steve is an architect. Probably knows how to lay bricks too but workers with less vision can code. There are many "programmers" with the big picture vision of architects to be found on the web. Their public discussion of the big picture they see is fascinating and taking up all of my attention on this Sunday morning.
One big picture idea that emerges is the importance of Trust Based Systems. Centralized and Decentralized. What is the difference between Trust Based and Faith Based? Trust Base has a Block Chain. Faith based has a papal lineage chain in one example to validate the Trust in eternity. I have trust in Block Chain.
I really like this explanation of Ethereum at P2P Foundation:
"a initiative for trust transactions on the blockchain: Ethereum is a next-generation distributed cryptographic ledger that is designed to allow users to encode advanced transaction types, Smart Contracts and decentralized applications into the Blockchain.
URL = http://ethereum.org/
"ethereum it is not another cryptocurrency. It is rather a P2P financial infrastructure able to support any kind of currency design, if expressed as a collective Smart Contract."
The definition describes it as a financial infrastrucutre able to support any kind of currency design. While I suppose that it could support a currency design that created currency as a functional product of a bank loan that is not the architecture that designer of the Ethereum concept would endorse. In general I think they would see currency as an independent debt free monetary system thing of the Bitcoin nature. My conceptual design thinking as well. Separate money creation as an independent domain from contractual debt agreements relating to a debt free monetary system.
Ethereum is a social swiss army knife tool! A lego of crypto monetary and finance systems would be a better description.
If a divine scorekeeper is keeping track of good and bad deeds I am sure it must be in an eternal block chain log.
The ctypto currency could bear a motto: In Block Chain We Trust. The block chain ledger might even keep derivatives honest. That would be a fantastic accomplishment the financial world could not afford to have.
Nathan Schneider has some blue sky thoughts about Ethereum application and I think they are all doable:
With Ethereum, one could code a constitution for a nongeographic country that people can choose to join, pay taxes to, receive benefits from and cast votes in — and whose rules they would then have to obey. One could design a transnational microlending program or a scheme for universal basic income or a new kind of credit score. In one online video two Ethereum pioneers demonstrate how to code a simple marriage contract. The world’s next social contracts, the successors to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the U.S. Constitution, could be written in Ethereum’s programming language.
Stephen Palley makes a good comment here about Ethereum from the perspective of a lawyer. Something subtle related to what he said and kicked into my attention by the word constitution if reference to writing one in Ethereum is the beauty of the social system architecture design of the separation of powers in a check and balance method. System designers and programmers as agents of the public create the code law applied by society and adjudicated as necessary by the judicial branch. Since the coded law is generally self adjudicating, the judicial branch operates on minimal exceptions applying wisdom as necessary and overriding the coders as required by their judicial supreme court role.
That system design is something I thought about regarding a monetary system in a recent blog entry. It is good architecture.
Stephen Palley mentions Cucumber As a bridge from the natural language of lawyers to the machine language of coders. It could be used to create Ethereum contracts. Fascinating. Wikipedia describes Cucumber here.
Gherkin DSL
Enough for one Sunday! I learned a lot.
The leader in the broad application system to validate anything using the block chain concept appears to be Ethereum.
This is an explanation of Ethereum. I like the broad viewpoint that it is a "Social Operating System" upon which a whole world of various application programs can be run. My thinking produces a conceptual Monetary Operating System in which finance is an application program on the Operating System. Maybe that Monetary Operating system is just a subset extension of the bigger parent Social Operating System?
This Ethereum explanation is one among many to be found through Google ranging from simple to stuff I have little ability to comprehend beyond thinking this is something really big. Like looking at the moon.
Its Big!
In the process of writing the prior entry I discovered Ethereum and Steve Randy Waldman. He is described in Wikipedia as a computer programmer. They are bricklayers. Steve is an architect. Probably knows how to lay bricks too but workers with less vision can code. There are many "programmers" with the big picture vision of architects to be found on the web. Their public discussion of the big picture they see is fascinating and taking up all of my attention on this Sunday morning.
One big picture idea that emerges is the importance of Trust Based Systems. Centralized and Decentralized. What is the difference between Trust Based and Faith Based? Trust Base has a Block Chain. Faith based has a papal lineage chain in one example to validate the Trust in eternity. I have trust in Block Chain.
I really like this explanation of Ethereum at P2P Foundation:
"a initiative for trust transactions on the blockchain: Ethereum is a next-generation distributed cryptographic ledger that is designed to allow users to encode advanced transaction types, Smart Contracts and decentralized applications into the Blockchain.
URL = http://ethereum.org/
"ethereum it is not another cryptocurrency. It is rather a P2P financial infrastructure able to support any kind of currency design, if expressed as a collective Smart Contract."
The definition describes it as a financial infrastrucutre able to support any kind of currency design. While I suppose that it could support a currency design that created currency as a functional product of a bank loan that is not the architecture that designer of the Ethereum concept would endorse. In general I think they would see currency as an independent debt free monetary system thing of the Bitcoin nature. My conceptual design thinking as well. Separate money creation as an independent domain from contractual debt agreements relating to a debt free monetary system.
Ethereum is a social swiss army knife tool! A lego of crypto monetary and finance systems would be a better description.
If a divine scorekeeper is keeping track of good and bad deeds I am sure it must be in an eternal block chain log.
The ctypto currency could bear a motto: In Block Chain We Trust. The block chain ledger might even keep derivatives honest. That would be a fantastic accomplishment the financial world could not afford to have.
Nathan Schneider has some blue sky thoughts about Ethereum application and I think they are all doable:
With Ethereum, one could code a constitution for a nongeographic country that people can choose to join, pay taxes to, receive benefits from and cast votes in — and whose rules they would then have to obey. One could design a transnational microlending program or a scheme for universal basic income or a new kind of credit score. In one online video two Ethereum pioneers demonstrate how to code a simple marriage contract. The world’s next social contracts, the successors to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the U.S. Constitution, could be written in Ethereum’s programming language.
Stephen Palley makes a good comment here about Ethereum from the perspective of a lawyer. Something subtle related to what he said and kicked into my attention by the word constitution if reference to writing one in Ethereum is the beauty of the social system architecture design of the separation of powers in a check and balance method. System designers and programmers as agents of the public create the code law applied by society and adjudicated as necessary by the judicial branch. Since the coded law is generally self adjudicating, the judicial branch operates on minimal exceptions applying wisdom as necessary and overriding the coders as required by their judicial supreme court role.
That system design is something I thought about regarding a monetary system in a recent blog entry. It is good architecture.
Stephen Palley mentions Cucumber As a bridge from the natural language of lawyers to the machine language of coders. It could be used to create Ethereum contracts. Fascinating. Wikipedia describes Cucumber here.
Gherkin DSL
Enough for one Sunday! I learned a lot.
Thou Art Peter............
The subject of this blog entry is an appropriate way to kick off thoughts on a Sunday morning.
The thought: Religion is a social science. Science and religion have a hard time getting along. Some say they are not compatible at all others say they fit well together.....in their scheme of things.
It all depends on the scheme of things.
No, on second thought in order to deliver the direction that this is going the previous statement needs to be revised:
It all depends on the schema of things. Scheme or Schema. Pototo or Potato. Same-O, Same-O?
No, maybe the same thing that I like to put gravy on but how it is stated as a frame of reference makes the difference. Schema sounds so scientifically academic.
If Religion and Science have a hard time getting along together, Social Science are two words that also have a great amount of friction.
So, now that I have made a meandering, tedious intro to what I want say this is the link that kicked off the the morning's thought and the cornerstone of that thought that is the subject of this blog entry.
Econometrics, open science, and cryptocurrency
Maybe I liked it simply because the author beats around the bush excessively laying the ground work for what he wants to say in the end. I have long known that I should always take what ever is at the end of the first draft of whatever I have written and copy it to the beginning to bookend what is in between by stating where the whole thing is going and then plod through how it got there. That would be for the benefit of the suffering reader. Nobody reads this so I write like I think from the beginning. How is that? I only have the haziest idea of where I am going in the first place so welcome to the journey the way take it to find the pony under all the stinky stuff.
Going back through his archives it appears that the author, Steve Randy Waldman is a conceptually wandering kindred spirit. His wandering blog might not display the title of the entry I am referring to at the link if the most recent post is always the first to appear leaving all the historical ones to be found in the archive.
All who wander are not lost. The pony is down there somewhere.
Economics is a social science. Econometrics attempts to drive a round peg into a square hole, therefore suspect it "science" halo. It ain't. Pseudo science? It is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Steve does a good job of presenting the pitfalls into which it falls on the way to being honest. Then, in the end he gets to the pony with a shift to cryptocurrency that was stated in the title but I had to wade through the preamble to get to. Just like I write.
Just like I write but the pony at the end is this: Every conceptual structure needs a foundation building block that is the given basis with properties that control and determine the nature and derived functions of the system. A truth for both conceptual systems that describe natural law based systems. A truth for conceptual systems that are not based on natural law but the truth of social science conceptual systems proclaimed as truth to be self evident. The truth base of a social science based system?......why, it can be anything we want it to be.
The moon can be made of green cheese. Pigs can fly.
However, truths of social science are subject to the laws of natural science. One way to keep social science honest is to structure a conceptual social science system on an immutable truth that is the SuperClass Object Parent from which all of its children in the class inherit their attributes and methods. Their universal inalienable rights so to speak. Rights with associated methods to implement based on the case situation of any child of the parent object.
Ya just got to have a Superclass Parent Object in a system with a schema structure of children of children of children....etc.
The rock upon which the church is built. Peter was not the rock but the mortal child of the Rock upon which a social schema was built?
Get that?
So, likewise, Economics needs, must have, a rock upon which to build a schema.
It appears to me that the the rock of economics is cryptocurrency money.
Is the rock of the natural world fungible energy?
The grand trilogy of the universe: Matter and Energy related by the Speed of Light. The speed of light being Units of Time.
Apply this natural law controlling trilogy to create an Economics System Schema:
Money and Energy (the capacity to do work) related by Time. Money and Energy as a function of time. This equation demands that Money (matter) have a constant SuperClass characteristic attribute nature from the macro parent to the micro level child of Money.
Money is a human conceptual creation. Humans, like nature can create an implementation of real things that do not survive in the scheme of their own conceptual things. In both systems it is evolution, sometimes evolution called revolution depending on it being a function of time like continuum from rust to atomic explosion. Most often adaptation stands between the existing scheme of thing and the end of a physical or human conceptual world.
We have built as an aggregate of the human mind over time a conceptual Economic Schema on a fallacious foundation of what money does rather than what money is. The proof of that is that in the present economic system money is a child of what it does called finance. Finance is function of debt creation. Debt creation is the SuperClass Parent Object of a ChildClass called money.
If there was no debt there would be no money. That statement clearly describes what entity is the controlling Parent in the Economic Schema and which entity is the subservient Child. The purpose function of the child is to repay debt that created it. Since new debt money children are constantly born into the system over time as debt money children age and die through debt repayment the system perpetuates itself.
What is really being reborn and dying over time is not essentially debt money but essentially a contract between a creditor and a debtor represented by or expressed in the constant universal value assigned on a unit basis to money.
The current monetary system is a diversionary golden cow that the mass of humanity has created by default through its worship of an object that was really created by the banking system and serves it well as it serves us. Bankers like missionaries that went to foreign lands to do good and did extremely well. It is the colonizing model and now it is not colonies in foreign lands but the entire world that has become the colony of a small class of rulers.
Cryptocurrency is coming down from the mountain with a new set of laws governing economics carved in stone. The rock upon which to build a new system by evolution or revolution.
Time is not variable but change over time is. The social world and its economic schema is rapidly changing. Dysfunctional legacy money systems built on a failed cornerstone of debt money creation rather than asset value of positive money are going to fail. The orderliness or chaos of that failure is up to us as designers and users of our conceptual social structures.
Breakup banking functions and allocate (retake) the creation of money power by the state and implementation of that power to convert to a positive money cryptocurrency system in which banks become clients of the operating system for the public and private good in a monetary system where the banking system is simply an application program of the monetary operating system.
Who creates money determines who is in charge of the conceptual social structure of governance.
It is the golden rule.
In what manner will the current holders of the gold fight against the fundamental schema change that must take place for the common good that will take their power to control the creation of debt based money?
Here is the answer, just to be clear so the punch line does not fly over the head:
Discredit the ability of government to do anything right.
Funny how it is the banks that have created the current economic situation because it is the institution of the conceptual banking system schema to create the debt based money on which it makes money and makes money through financial manipulation that is not just socially unproductive in allocating resources but extremely destructive.
Not so funny.
Drown government in a bath tub and it will never have the power to take back its sovereign right to the creation of money as positive money. The power of the government derives from the people. When the power to create and control money that is the fundamental means to allocate private and public resources remains in the domain of the banking system the people are serfs of the elites, not masters of their own governance.
The thought: Religion is a social science. Science and religion have a hard time getting along. Some say they are not compatible at all others say they fit well together.....in their scheme of things.
It all depends on the scheme of things.
No, on second thought in order to deliver the direction that this is going the previous statement needs to be revised:
It all depends on the schema of things. Scheme or Schema. Pototo or Potato. Same-O, Same-O?
No, maybe the same thing that I like to put gravy on but how it is stated as a frame of reference makes the difference. Schema sounds so scientifically academic.
If Religion and Science have a hard time getting along together, Social Science are two words that also have a great amount of friction.
So, now that I have made a meandering, tedious intro to what I want say this is the link that kicked off the the morning's thought and the cornerstone of that thought that is the subject of this blog entry.
Econometrics, open science, and cryptocurrency
Maybe I liked it simply because the author beats around the bush excessively laying the ground work for what he wants to say in the end. I have long known that I should always take what ever is at the end of the first draft of whatever I have written and copy it to the beginning to bookend what is in between by stating where the whole thing is going and then plod through how it got there. That would be for the benefit of the suffering reader. Nobody reads this so I write like I think from the beginning. How is that? I only have the haziest idea of where I am going in the first place so welcome to the journey the way take it to find the pony under all the stinky stuff.
Going back through his archives it appears that the author, Steve Randy Waldman is a conceptually wandering kindred spirit. His wandering blog might not display the title of the entry I am referring to at the link if the most recent post is always the first to appear leaving all the historical ones to be found in the archive.
All who wander are not lost. The pony is down there somewhere.
Economics is a social science. Econometrics attempts to drive a round peg into a square hole, therefore suspect it "science" halo. It ain't. Pseudo science? It is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Steve does a good job of presenting the pitfalls into which it falls on the way to being honest. Then, in the end he gets to the pony with a shift to cryptocurrency that was stated in the title but I had to wade through the preamble to get to. Just like I write.
Just like I write but the pony at the end is this: Every conceptual structure needs a foundation building block that is the given basis with properties that control and determine the nature and derived functions of the system. A truth for both conceptual systems that describe natural law based systems. A truth for conceptual systems that are not based on natural law but the truth of social science conceptual systems proclaimed as truth to be self evident. The truth base of a social science based system?......why, it can be anything we want it to be.
The moon can be made of green cheese. Pigs can fly.
However, truths of social science are subject to the laws of natural science. One way to keep social science honest is to structure a conceptual social science system on an immutable truth that is the SuperClass Object Parent from which all of its children in the class inherit their attributes and methods. Their universal inalienable rights so to speak. Rights with associated methods to implement based on the case situation of any child of the parent object.
Ya just got to have a Superclass Parent Object in a system with a schema structure of children of children of children....etc.
The rock upon which the church is built. Peter was not the rock but the mortal child of the Rock upon which a social schema was built?
Get that?
So, likewise, Economics needs, must have, a rock upon which to build a schema.
It appears to me that the the rock of economics is cryptocurrency money.
Is the rock of the natural world fungible energy?
The grand trilogy of the universe: Matter and Energy related by the Speed of Light. The speed of light being Units of Time.
Apply this natural law controlling trilogy to create an Economics System Schema:
Money and Energy (the capacity to do work) related by Time. Money and Energy as a function of time. This equation demands that Money (matter) have a constant SuperClass characteristic attribute nature from the macro parent to the micro level child of Money.
Money is a human conceptual creation. Humans, like nature can create an implementation of real things that do not survive in the scheme of their own conceptual things. In both systems it is evolution, sometimes evolution called revolution depending on it being a function of time like continuum from rust to atomic explosion. Most often adaptation stands between the existing scheme of thing and the end of a physical or human conceptual world.
We have built as an aggregate of the human mind over time a conceptual Economic Schema on a fallacious foundation of what money does rather than what money is. The proof of that is that in the present economic system money is a child of what it does called finance. Finance is function of debt creation. Debt creation is the SuperClass Parent Object of a ChildClass called money.
If there was no debt there would be no money. That statement clearly describes what entity is the controlling Parent in the Economic Schema and which entity is the subservient Child. The purpose function of the child is to repay debt that created it. Since new debt money children are constantly born into the system over time as debt money children age and die through debt repayment the system perpetuates itself.
What is really being reborn and dying over time is not essentially debt money but essentially a contract between a creditor and a debtor represented by or expressed in the constant universal value assigned on a unit basis to money.
The current monetary system is a diversionary golden cow that the mass of humanity has created by default through its worship of an object that was really created by the banking system and serves it well as it serves us. Bankers like missionaries that went to foreign lands to do good and did extremely well. It is the colonizing model and now it is not colonies in foreign lands but the entire world that has become the colony of a small class of rulers.
Cryptocurrency is coming down from the mountain with a new set of laws governing economics carved in stone. The rock upon which to build a new system by evolution or revolution.
Time is not variable but change over time is. The social world and its economic schema is rapidly changing. Dysfunctional legacy money systems built on a failed cornerstone of debt money creation rather than asset value of positive money are going to fail. The orderliness or chaos of that failure is up to us as designers and users of our conceptual social structures.
Breakup banking functions and allocate (retake) the creation of money power by the state and implementation of that power to convert to a positive money cryptocurrency system in which banks become clients of the operating system for the public and private good in a monetary system where the banking system is simply an application program of the monetary operating system.
Who creates money determines who is in charge of the conceptual social structure of governance.
It is the golden rule.
In what manner will the current holders of the gold fight against the fundamental schema change that must take place for the common good that will take their power to control the creation of debt based money?
Here is the answer, just to be clear so the punch line does not fly over the head:
Discredit the ability of government to do anything right.
Funny how it is the banks that have created the current economic situation because it is the institution of the conceptual banking system schema to create the debt based money on which it makes money and makes money through financial manipulation that is not just socially unproductive in allocating resources but extremely destructive.
Not so funny.
Drown government in a bath tub and it will never have the power to take back its sovereign right to the creation of money as positive money. The power of the government derives from the people. When the power to create and control money that is the fundamental means to allocate private and public resources remains in the domain of the banking system the people are serfs of the elites, not masters of their own governance.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Dark Market for Personal Data and HTTPa
A professor of law writes an opinion piece published in the New York Times that examines the Dark Market for Personal Data. Information brokers that sell personal information gathered from any number of source. Information that reveals data about individuals that has substantial privacy content.
Being a law professor he proposes the establishment of regulatory law similar to that that applies to the credit industry and other business sectors that deal in private information.
Application of regulatory laws that specify what must or must not be done by business is old school. There are laws that apply to banks. They do not work anymore because banks are complex systems that easily find ways to avoid the law or evade the law. The simplest way to circumvent the law is to write small print into a system user (customer) agreement that says any and all personal information given by a user as a condition of use may be shared with third parties and third parties may share with other parties. All rights to privacy are waived. When there are enough third parties sharing enough detailed personal information about a single individual then a "personal profile" is created where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Little bits and pieces that anyone might not independently care about releasing but when aggregated may say something that the individual has a right to keep private.
No law is going to work to regulate the aggregation of information for commercial and even intelligence purposes.
Tim Berners-Lee is a systems creator, kind of an information systems law maker. That is where law has to be made in the information age. Not laws about what input or output of anything is regulated by the rules for the operating systems that process it. He proposes HTTPa as a means of regulating privacy information and I examined that concept in this prior blog entry.
An information age operating system can be viewed as a system of designing and applying laws for the operation of application programs. That is what law books did. A practitioner of the law had an office full of them. They created in the narrative form the legal operating system. Books are old school and so linear. Learning their entire linearity by plodding through all the law books a word at a time and being able to navigate its entire conceptual structure in a relational manner in the mind of a lawyer in order to practice it was and still is an art.
The new art of regulation is practiced by information system designers and applied by programmers. In order to change the system to regulate it new laws must be devised and written into the operating system at the exact critical controlling point. It is not sufficient to state what may or may not be legally input or output from a system.
If personal privacy is to be protected it will not be done by old school law makers and laws on the books. It will be done by information systems designers and programmers that implement their designs in the operating system controlling/supporting the application programs that run on the system.
The old school lawyer has old school control thoughts.
HTTpa is an example of new school legal control through operating system operating system management.
I wrote about HTTPa way back in the linear time line of this blog. One of the features of Google that I use often is specifying the time frame of a search when I want to see the latest result. This link is the result of a search on the term HTTPa in the time frame of the past week. I am so pleased that this excellent idea appears to be taking off so fast. So fast that I hope it will quickly catch up with the capability of the system to aggregate private information that violates the social right of personal privacy and its protection. It is an excellent example of insertion of a rule at a critical system control point to regulate the the core of system processes.
There are fundamental critical control points in any system at which the entire system may be regulated with a simple rule. Our governance operating system has many of them. For example "One man one vote" that core controlling law was changed to "One Person one vote" and the entire operating system rule changed the function of all application programs to comply with the rule.
One person, one HTTPa. Any single piece of private information or aggregated information about any individual must be connected to/associated with that person's systemic HATTPa and traceable through all application programs back to the original input of HTTPa linked personal private information to assure that the individual person associated with that HTTpa authorized the release and use of that information and it was used by authorized receiving entity in accordance with the terms of privacy agreed to by the person it relates to.
Individuals have a right their privacy and the control of it. HTTPa is a systemic rule that would protect that right. Transparency of information through HTTPa is the means to protect privacy. When privacy is violated it is a crime done in full public view as a function of the system design to make it transparent and expose it.
Oh, how I wish that the Banking operating system was design to give such transparency to its application programs. That, of course, is what the banking operating system was designed exactly not to do through an elaborate maze of smoke and mirrors that nobody really understands. Make a fundamental key change in the system to break the creation of money free from the financial application of money and it would be a better more transparent system based on a well established rule called institutional checks and balances on power by the separation of the law (the governing operating system) from the application of the law (governance administration) and justice control of the relationship between the operating system and its application.
Tim Berners-Lee has a habit of creating fundamental systemic ideas that catch fire and scale quickly because they are essentially elegant.
The Privacy Revolution is Here:
"A new era is upon us. That is why Berners-Lee is speaking out to the world, supporting companies that heed the battle cry. Berners-Lee recently joined MeWe's advisory board to help launch our next-generation communication network. The silver bullet of MeWe and other companies such as search engine DuckDuckGo is that they are engineered with "Privacy by Design" as opposed to "Privacy Band-Aids after the fact." In MeWe's case, there's no data scraping, facial recognition, or tracking cookies. The revenue model is based on respecting members as partners, offering optional services and products that are helpful to their lives."
Old School lawyer/law makers Washington have no idea how to design the nor regulate systems in the information age. They are only tools of those creating the information operating systems controlling our society that also produce the money to keep big business in charge of a bunch of puppets. Law makers in Washington can't even make any laws anymore, they do not even go through the motions very well as evidenced by producing really nothing, having no control of the operating system as our elected representatives. They will not initiate privacy regulation. Tim Berners-Lee will. Un-elected officials rule the system. There are many of those ruling it for their own benefit. Tim-Berners Lee is one of the few un-elected offficial working for us.
Let's see how many politicians grasp and run with the ideas of Tim-Berners Lee. What politicians will take up Tim Berners Lee call for an internet bill of rights and systemic controls to assure they are protected? An Internet Magna Carta That is something that politicians would do for the public good. They do not do that anymore. Data Sharing Needs Accountability.
Father Of The World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, Reflects On The First 25 Years Forbes 10/13/2014:
“The idea that privacy is dead is hopelessly sad,” Berners-Lee said. “We have to build systems that allow for privacy…People have the right to see how their data is being used.” As examples, he indicated that individuals’ personal medical data should be accessible to doctors and first responders, but not to insurance companies who might use the data to reject potential customers or raise their rates. He went on to say, “We should build a world where I have control of my data and sell it to you. Users should have control, access to and ownership of their data.”
Being a law professor he proposes the establishment of regulatory law similar to that that applies to the credit industry and other business sectors that deal in private information.
Application of regulatory laws that specify what must or must not be done by business is old school. There are laws that apply to banks. They do not work anymore because banks are complex systems that easily find ways to avoid the law or evade the law. The simplest way to circumvent the law is to write small print into a system user (customer) agreement that says any and all personal information given by a user as a condition of use may be shared with third parties and third parties may share with other parties. All rights to privacy are waived. When there are enough third parties sharing enough detailed personal information about a single individual then a "personal profile" is created where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Little bits and pieces that anyone might not independently care about releasing but when aggregated may say something that the individual has a right to keep private.
No law is going to work to regulate the aggregation of information for commercial and even intelligence purposes.
Tim Berners-Lee is a systems creator, kind of an information systems law maker. That is where law has to be made in the information age. Not laws about what input or output of anything is regulated by the rules for the operating systems that process it. He proposes HTTPa as a means of regulating privacy information and I examined that concept in this prior blog entry.
An information age operating system can be viewed as a system of designing and applying laws for the operation of application programs. That is what law books did. A practitioner of the law had an office full of them. They created in the narrative form the legal operating system. Books are old school and so linear. Learning their entire linearity by plodding through all the law books a word at a time and being able to navigate its entire conceptual structure in a relational manner in the mind of a lawyer in order to practice it was and still is an art.
The new art of regulation is practiced by information system designers and applied by programmers. In order to change the system to regulate it new laws must be devised and written into the operating system at the exact critical controlling point. It is not sufficient to state what may or may not be legally input or output from a system.
If personal privacy is to be protected it will not be done by old school law makers and laws on the books. It will be done by information systems designers and programmers that implement their designs in the operating system controlling/supporting the application programs that run on the system.
The old school lawyer has old school control thoughts.
HTTpa is an example of new school legal control through operating system operating system management.
I wrote about HTTPa way back in the linear time line of this blog. One of the features of Google that I use often is specifying the time frame of a search when I want to see the latest result. This link is the result of a search on the term HTTPa in the time frame of the past week. I am so pleased that this excellent idea appears to be taking off so fast. So fast that I hope it will quickly catch up with the capability of the system to aggregate private information that violates the social right of personal privacy and its protection. It is an excellent example of insertion of a rule at a critical system control point to regulate the the core of system processes.
There are fundamental critical control points in any system at which the entire system may be regulated with a simple rule. Our governance operating system has many of them. For example "One man one vote" that core controlling law was changed to "One Person one vote" and the entire operating system rule changed the function of all application programs to comply with the rule.
One person, one HTTPa. Any single piece of private information or aggregated information about any individual must be connected to/associated with that person's systemic HATTPa and traceable through all application programs back to the original input of HTTPa linked personal private information to assure that the individual person associated with that HTTpa authorized the release and use of that information and it was used by authorized receiving entity in accordance with the terms of privacy agreed to by the person it relates to.
Individuals have a right their privacy and the control of it. HTTPa is a systemic rule that would protect that right. Transparency of information through HTTPa is the means to protect privacy. When privacy is violated it is a crime done in full public view as a function of the system design to make it transparent and expose it.
Oh, how I wish that the Banking operating system was design to give such transparency to its application programs. That, of course, is what the banking operating system was designed exactly not to do through an elaborate maze of smoke and mirrors that nobody really understands. Make a fundamental key change in the system to break the creation of money free from the financial application of money and it would be a better more transparent system based on a well established rule called institutional checks and balances on power by the separation of the law (the governing operating system) from the application of the law (governance administration) and justice control of the relationship between the operating system and its application.
Tim Berners-Lee has a habit of creating fundamental systemic ideas that catch fire and scale quickly because they are essentially elegant.
The Privacy Revolution is Here:
"A new era is upon us. That is why Berners-Lee is speaking out to the world, supporting companies that heed the battle cry. Berners-Lee recently joined MeWe's advisory board to help launch our next-generation communication network. The silver bullet of MeWe and other companies such as search engine DuckDuckGo is that they are engineered with "Privacy by Design" as opposed to "Privacy Band-Aids after the fact." In MeWe's case, there's no data scraping, facial recognition, or tracking cookies. The revenue model is based on respecting members as partners, offering optional services and products that are helpful to their lives."
Old School lawyer/law makers Washington have no idea how to design the nor regulate systems in the information age. They are only tools of those creating the information operating systems controlling our society that also produce the money to keep big business in charge of a bunch of puppets. Law makers in Washington can't even make any laws anymore, they do not even go through the motions very well as evidenced by producing really nothing, having no control of the operating system as our elected representatives. They will not initiate privacy regulation. Tim Berners-Lee will. Un-elected officials rule the system. There are many of those ruling it for their own benefit. Tim-Berners Lee is one of the few un-elected offficial working for us.
Let's see how many politicians grasp and run with the ideas of Tim-Berners Lee. What politicians will take up Tim Berners Lee call for an internet bill of rights and systemic controls to assure they are protected? An Internet Magna Carta That is something that politicians would do for the public good. They do not do that anymore. Data Sharing Needs Accountability.
Father Of The World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, Reflects On The First 25 Years Forbes 10/13/2014:
“The idea that privacy is dead is hopelessly sad,” Berners-Lee said. “We have to build systems that allow for privacy…People have the right to see how their data is being used.” As examples, he indicated that individuals’ personal medical data should be accessible to doctors and first responders, but not to insurance companies who might use the data to reject potential customers or raise their rates. He went on to say, “We should build a world where I have control of my data and sell it to you. Users should have control, access to and ownership of their data.”
Friday, October 17, 2014
My Monetary System Concept
My conceptual monetary system structure is based on the establishment of money as object with uniquely serialized value of one dollar that always knows its relationship to a current owner identified by an owner account managed by a bank. The unit dollar is not held by or managed by the bank, only the customer account that has information on the the gross number of dollars in the account. The actual dollars that the account relates to exist is in a central digital monetary repository managed by an independent Monetary Authority. It is "cash in the vault". Where all the digital cash of the entire country is in a single digital vault. The total of all dollars in the Monetary Authority repository vault always equals the total dollar amount of all monetary accounts managed by banks.
Total digital cash of the entire country in a digital vault is in a vault that has a door that never opens because the cash in it does not move. Accounts related to the cash in the vault have transaction driven accounting balance balance changes but the cash itself is a static entity relating to accounting.
Money transactions involve changes involve changing the relationship of current owner of each unit dollar in Monetary Authority repository to a new owner of each dollar in response to the customer account balance managed by the bank.
It would seem that this essentially is the concept expressed at this link:
"Under the Positive Money version, for example, a person’s current account will constitute a legal claim on a fund held at the Bank of England, say, for the purpose of settling payments, and a payment by that person will consist of the transfer of that claim to the payment recipient via a payments systems operated, as at present, by that person’s bank. The Bank of England fund will contain one pound for every pound that is entitled to be spent, whether or not the entitled owner intends to spend it now, sometime, or never. There will be no daily scramble, as at present, to ensure that banks have sufficient funds available for spending to settle the amounts that customers wish to spend. Every customer has their own fund from which their spending is financed. The banks operate therefore only as agents of their customers in administering the accounts and the payments system.
In short, the primary responsibility of banks will no longer be to ensure that they have sufficient liquidity to settle customers’ payments, but to persuade customers, who in the near future do not intend to make all of the payments to which they are entitled, to make their unused money available for lending to others instead."
Joseph Huber says at this link, page 52:
Total digital cash of the entire country in a digital vault is in a vault that has a door that never opens because the cash in it does not move. Accounts related to the cash in the vault have transaction driven accounting balance balance changes but the cash itself is a static entity relating to accounting.
Money transactions involve changes involve changing the relationship of current owner of each unit dollar in Monetary Authority repository to a new owner of each dollar in response to the customer account balance managed by the bank.
It would seem that this essentially is the concept expressed at this link:
"Under the Positive Money version, for example, a person’s current account will constitute a legal claim on a fund held at the Bank of England, say, for the purpose of settling payments, and a payment by that person will consist of the transfer of that claim to the payment recipient via a payments systems operated, as at present, by that person’s bank. The Bank of England fund will contain one pound for every pound that is entitled to be spent, whether or not the entitled owner intends to spend it now, sometime, or never. There will be no daily scramble, as at present, to ensure that banks have sufficient funds available for spending to settle the amounts that customers wish to spend. Every customer has their own fund from which their spending is financed. The banks operate therefore only as agents of their customers in administering the accounts and the payments system.
In short, the primary responsibility of banks will no longer be to ensure that they have sufficient liquidity to settle customers’ payments, but to persuade customers, who in the near future do not intend to make all of the payments to which they are entitled, to make their unused money available for lending to others instead."
Joseph Huber says at this link, page 52:
"The compulsory identification of money and debt just creates banking-doctrinal confusion. It
confuses the instrument with the object, i.e. it erroneously identifies the unit of account with
what is accounted or measured, and confuses the means of payment with what has to be
paid."
Absolutely my thinking! The unit of account is different than what is accounted for. The unit of account is in the domain of one principal managing agency. The account to which it relates is in the domain of a different managing agency.
Further more, Joseph Huber says at the same link:
Absolutely my thinking! The unit of account is different than what is accounted for. The unit of account is in the domain of one principal managing agency. The account to which it relates is in the domain of a different managing agency.
Further more, Joseph Huber says at the same link:
"To currency teachings, the false identity of money and credit is the very root cause of the
system’s dysfunctions. Accordingly, the most fundamental component of any currency
teaching is to separate the control of the money supply from the use of that money in banking
and finance.36"
Oh Joy, maybe I am not crazy after all.
I thought that MMT embodied many of my concepts about money. It does as Huber explains but New Theory Currency school of thinking embodies so much more.
The home for MMT is New Economic Perspectives. although many others discuss general money matters there. My favorite is Bill Black.
The home for NTC appears to be Positive Money
Oh Joy, maybe I am not crazy after all.
I thought that MMT embodied many of my concepts about money. It does as Huber explains but New Theory Currency school of thinking embodies so much more.
The home for MMT is New Economic Perspectives. although many others discuss general money matters there. My favorite is Bill Black.
The home for NTC appears to be Positive Money
How Things are Put Together
I like to see how things that work are put together. What are all the piece parts, what are their properties, how do they relate to each other. At the other end of the thing is what is the total entity that the piece parts combine to create. What does the entity do in operation over time.
What is the money entity? What does it do.
Well.....that is why I write this blog. It amuses me to think that I can attempt to discover what it is and what it does based on empirical analysis using some scientific method based on an Object Oriented methodology. Darwin did the same.
Money is a nebulous big marshmallow. Tough to get my mind around it and grasp and understanding. The current money/finance system could certainly be understood as an entity compose of inter-related "truths" to the extent that they are stated descriptions of the objects and their related properties and behaviors that compose the system. To learn all that I would have to have a Phd in economics. Then I would know and understand. I could also get a Phd in religion and know and understand it as well. Equally, I could get a Phd in engineering, math or any of the hard sciences.
Money is not a hard science. Far from it. It has beliefs more associated with religion. Humor is not a hard science but actually, the question: What makes people laugh can be structurally explain with greater scientific credibility than either current social systems of money or religion.
The world wide web is a social system existing on the structure of a complex physical system built on the given properties of a hard science physical universe. Without that physical structure our social system would be based on word of mouth and the capacity of the human mind to store memories and the accuracy of those stored memories.
The world wide web can do a couple of things. It can structure human social systems in its physical likeness as far as it provides a guiding framework and tool that is logic based to manage and extend our intelligence for the common good and its advancement. It can be a tool to perpetuate and enhance social system behaviors that have always impeded the advancement of the general good.
Money and finance are world wide conceptual systems built on the application of modern technology to what are fundamentally mathematical systems of account with a controlling structure beyond the nature of math that is a body of contractual law.
It appears to me that money is a thing with primarily mathematical properties.
It appears to me that finance is a thing with primarily two party contractual properties related to money obligations that can conceptually be anything we wish them to be.
The world of finance is a loosey goosey thing. The hard science math properties of money would seem to be the one and only thing that might enforce a dominant regulatory control over the concept and operation of finance as the entity of last resort to keep the entire system operating.
The fact is that finance dominates money and over rules its enforceable mathematical capacity to regulate the system. Money is a product of finance double entry book keeping balance sheet concepts that create money. As long as money is a child product of finance and not an equal controlling object finance will be beyond the control of our society to assure that it benefits us all and not inordinately the small segment that the profit motive of finance seeks to benefit greatly in the allocation of asset value expressed in and fungible to money as a medium of exchange.
When systems that have a combined physical and logical entity relationship get too big and begin to produce an adverse function as a product of the dysfunction of its physical and logical design and control being under the managerial administration of the controlling authority that sub-optimizes system operation at the expense of its objective then it needs to be broken up into two parts. One part being and its independent physical aspect and the other being its conceptual application. The application cannot dominate the its independent physical aspect based on the dictates of natural science law.
The communication industry was broken up when a dominant controlling system administrator industry dictated its systemic physical system operation to be a function subject to a conceptual application for profit making to the detriment of the users of the system.
Looking back at the recent domination of finance over money and the dysfunction of management and the adverse resulting impact on our society gives the reason to separate money from finance, make money an object entity independent of finance contracts.
Naked Capitalism presents the dysfunction of the recent financial crises at this link and demonstrates that the tail of finance was wagging the dog of money to the extent that tail wagging the dog was supported by a government authority to the detriment of the public it owes its obligations to.
(long sentence following here with a concept not parsed by punctuation because it must be parsed by thought)
If and when (and inevitably there certainly will be if the financial system is not restructured) there is another liquidity crises and there is not enough liquid money available to resolve it and the solution continues to be the creation through financial means of money to resolve it rather than have the mathematics of an independent money system dictate failure of a financial institution (or any other institutional application) of the money system without failure of the monetary system then the entire system will collapse because of its inherent dysfuctional design.
The break up of too big to fail that insures the dominance of the financial system as a creator of money to serve finance must be accomplished by separating the creation of money from finance and giving that power to an independent monetary system authority.
The role of money is a basic operating system to serve our various social application programs that utilize the operating system for our public and private allocation of resource decisions. While finance is a stakeholder in that application system it is a user of the operating system, not its designer nor its self serving owner.
The conceptual governance structure of our nation was built on a separation of related powers. Seems to work fairly well after a fashion, at least better than any alternative. Money is a power that must likewise be separated from but related to in a balancing control manner to the power of finance to keep the system self controlling, honest and beneficially functioning in operation to serve us.
We are good at system design. Why is this most obviously dysfunctional system of finance allowed to continue? The power of money is the answer and who holds that power (meaning finance) that enables the dysfunction of society and our government.
The framers of our constitution were design engineers. Where are the design engineers today that would see the dysfunction of our financial system and the need to separate money from contractual debt finance?
Maybe the answer is that there is no money in it for the system design engineers. On the other hand there is no money in Open Source system design and implementation yet look at the generous contributions that the concept of Open Source has made to our social benefit.
Maybe selfless Open Source system designers are the modern day patriots on which falls the responsibility of restructuring the money system for the common good.
A common world wide monetary operating system supporting all financial public and private resource allocation applications is the end game level playing field self regulating objective.
Is that too complicated? Too hard to see? To big to comprehend? How it must all be put together?
Kaoru Yamaguchi explains the Debt Free Money System extremely well at this link to his pdf.
It is a system proposed by the American Monetary Act.
Professor Yamaguchi is a presenter at the American Monetary Institute Conference
Prof. Kaoru Yamaguchi will Skype from Japan on:
Public vs Debt Money Systems
- the American Monetary Act in a Nutshell -
Joseph Huber is also a presenter at this conference. This is his paper on New Currency Theory
His website is at this link.
This contrast his Currency School concept with Bank School concepts of money:
What is the money entity? What does it do.
Well.....that is why I write this blog. It amuses me to think that I can attempt to discover what it is and what it does based on empirical analysis using some scientific method based on an Object Oriented methodology. Darwin did the same.
Money is a nebulous big marshmallow. Tough to get my mind around it and grasp and understanding. The current money/finance system could certainly be understood as an entity compose of inter-related "truths" to the extent that they are stated descriptions of the objects and their related properties and behaviors that compose the system. To learn all that I would have to have a Phd in economics. Then I would know and understand. I could also get a Phd in religion and know and understand it as well. Equally, I could get a Phd in engineering, math or any of the hard sciences.
Money is not a hard science. Far from it. It has beliefs more associated with religion. Humor is not a hard science but actually, the question: What makes people laugh can be structurally explain with greater scientific credibility than either current social systems of money or religion.
The world wide web is a social system existing on the structure of a complex physical system built on the given properties of a hard science physical universe. Without that physical structure our social system would be based on word of mouth and the capacity of the human mind to store memories and the accuracy of those stored memories.
The world wide web can do a couple of things. It can structure human social systems in its physical likeness as far as it provides a guiding framework and tool that is logic based to manage and extend our intelligence for the common good and its advancement. It can be a tool to perpetuate and enhance social system behaviors that have always impeded the advancement of the general good.
Money and finance are world wide conceptual systems built on the application of modern technology to what are fundamentally mathematical systems of account with a controlling structure beyond the nature of math that is a body of contractual law.
It appears to me that money is a thing with primarily mathematical properties.
It appears to me that finance is a thing with primarily two party contractual properties related to money obligations that can conceptually be anything we wish them to be.
The world of finance is a loosey goosey thing. The hard science math properties of money would seem to be the one and only thing that might enforce a dominant regulatory control over the concept and operation of finance as the entity of last resort to keep the entire system operating.
The fact is that finance dominates money and over rules its enforceable mathematical capacity to regulate the system. Money is a product of finance double entry book keeping balance sheet concepts that create money. As long as money is a child product of finance and not an equal controlling object finance will be beyond the control of our society to assure that it benefits us all and not inordinately the small segment that the profit motive of finance seeks to benefit greatly in the allocation of asset value expressed in and fungible to money as a medium of exchange.
When systems that have a combined physical and logical entity relationship get too big and begin to produce an adverse function as a product of the dysfunction of its physical and logical design and control being under the managerial administration of the controlling authority that sub-optimizes system operation at the expense of its objective then it needs to be broken up into two parts. One part being and its independent physical aspect and the other being its conceptual application. The application cannot dominate the its independent physical aspect based on the dictates of natural science law.
The communication industry was broken up when a dominant controlling system administrator industry dictated its systemic physical system operation to be a function subject to a conceptual application for profit making to the detriment of the users of the system.
Looking back at the recent domination of finance over money and the dysfunction of management and the adverse resulting impact on our society gives the reason to separate money from finance, make money an object entity independent of finance contracts.
Naked Capitalism presents the dysfunction of the recent financial crises at this link and demonstrates that the tail of finance was wagging the dog of money to the extent that tail wagging the dog was supported by a government authority to the detriment of the public it owes its obligations to.
AIG Bailout Trial Bombshell III: Paulson Lied to Congress About TARPPosted on by Yves Smith
The government established a system where a financial conceptual sytem dominated a money structural system when it established the Federal Reserve. The money system will not control the financial contractual debt system until that present system is broken up into separate independently managed but functionally related money and finance entity systems.(long sentence following here with a concept not parsed by punctuation because it must be parsed by thought)
If and when (and inevitably there certainly will be if the financial system is not restructured) there is another liquidity crises and there is not enough liquid money available to resolve it and the solution continues to be the creation through financial means of money to resolve it rather than have the mathematics of an independent money system dictate failure of a financial institution (or any other institutional application) of the money system without failure of the monetary system then the entire system will collapse because of its inherent dysfuctional design.
The break up of too big to fail that insures the dominance of the financial system as a creator of money to serve finance must be accomplished by separating the creation of money from finance and giving that power to an independent monetary system authority.
The role of money is a basic operating system to serve our various social application programs that utilize the operating system for our public and private allocation of resource decisions. While finance is a stakeholder in that application system it is a user of the operating system, not its designer nor its self serving owner.
The conceptual governance structure of our nation was built on a separation of related powers. Seems to work fairly well after a fashion, at least better than any alternative. Money is a power that must likewise be separated from but related to in a balancing control manner to the power of finance to keep the system self controlling, honest and beneficially functioning in operation to serve us.
We are good at system design. Why is this most obviously dysfunctional system of finance allowed to continue? The power of money is the answer and who holds that power (meaning finance) that enables the dysfunction of society and our government.
The framers of our constitution were design engineers. Where are the design engineers today that would see the dysfunction of our financial system and the need to separate money from contractual debt finance?
Maybe the answer is that there is no money in it for the system design engineers. On the other hand there is no money in Open Source system design and implementation yet look at the generous contributions that the concept of Open Source has made to our social benefit.
Maybe selfless Open Source system designers are the modern day patriots on which falls the responsibility of restructuring the money system for the common good.
A common world wide monetary operating system supporting all financial public and private resource allocation applications is the end game level playing field self regulating objective.
Is that too complicated? Too hard to see? To big to comprehend? How it must all be put together?
Kaoru Yamaguchi explains the Debt Free Money System extremely well at this link to his pdf.
It is a system proposed by the American Monetary Act.
Professor Yamaguchi is a presenter at the American Monetary Institute Conference
Prof. Kaoru Yamaguchi will Skype from Japan on:
Public vs Debt Money Systems
- the American Monetary Act in a Nutshell -
 Prof.
Kaoru Yamaguchi |
Professor Kaoru Yamaguchi has continued to refine his
highly advanced modelling system to project how HR 2990 will
achieve monetary reform. He concluded it will: pay off the US national
debt as it comes due; provide the funding for infrastructure, which
solves the unemployment problem; and does these things without
inflation! Professor Yamaguchi has headed the System Dynamics Group of the Doshisha Business School at Doshisha University in Kyoto Japan. He presented hismacroeconomic model on the to a plenary session of the System Dynamics International Conference in Seoul (2010), being attended by more than 300 researchers. It was so well received that on July 26th, the same International Conference asked him to speak on this matter again, at their meeting in Washington, DC. Prof. Yamaguchi made a well received briefing to a packed room at the Cannon House Office Building in Washington DC, to congressional aides. This year he presents his updated study of the American Monetary Act, which also revisits the 1930s Chicago Plan. |
Martin Wolf, Financial Times: Stop banks from creating money (Positive Money) Is an enlightening video published 14 Oct. 2014.
Joseph Huber is also a presenter at this conference. This is his paper on New Currency Theory
His website is at this link.
This contrast his Currency School concept with Bank School concepts of money:
Currency School
Separation of money and bank credit |
Banking School
Money and credit are identical and thus cannot be separate. |
Separation of powers between the creation
of money and the use of money in banking
and the economy in general.
Banks should be free enterprises, but must not have the privilege to create themselves |
(... which is certainly true if asserting a
banking perspective of loaning money
into circulation).
|
the money on which they operate.
Control of the quantity of money is the
responsibility of a state authority (e.g.
central bank, treasury, currency
commission).
|
|