sub6manletnozygos
Kraken
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2019
- Posts
- 3,872
- Reputation
- 5,750
Thesis: Current financial model - Capitalism
Currently, the model is 1 central bank in every country and many large commercial banks who have a trend of merging and therein destroying the smaller retail banks, which destroys the frequency of SME loans as larger banks have bigger balance sheets and are less likely to provide such loans, the larger they are. This concentrates wealth in a small, wealthy elite of corporate stakeholders who have the commercial interest to get the largest and cheapest loans, and therein benefit from the most exchange of goods and services, compared to smaller businesses who are priced out due to more expensive, and less accessible credit. As wealth is privatized and corporate losses socialized, against a backdrop of exponentially increasing Keynsian M2, parasitic inflation of assets held and declining or plateauing wages, social and political capital is concentrated in the hands of a few financial controllers. In other words, the rich get richer with no limits on the wealth divide.
Antithesis: Failure - Communism
Yet this concentration of wealth, political, financial and social capital, still occurs under communism expressed with a government controlled central bank which becomes the single nexus of financial power, and therein its political Achilles heel. Even if there was no private mode of finance or central bank on behalf of the people, but still absolute abolition of property, you would still have to rely on those in control fairly valuing the labor of its citizenry individually and for such a centralized body in control of the valuation of the labor of millions, this is a near impossible feat, especially when subject to human nature: that power corrupts absolutely as evidenced in the centralization of wealth (social and political capital) in communist governments where the executive class inevitably dominates the legislature, judiciary and treasury, by concentrating financial wealth earned by the citizenry into the coffers of the "state", which are really just a proxy for private controlled accounts of the political class.
Society would need some kind of absolute, finite, objective, real time, accurate assessment of labor and dispute resolution mechanism, which could NEVER come from a small centralized body given above; instead only an all encompassing AI could muster necessary millions+ data points to achieve fair valuations of labor that considers all the intricacies of varying social and political behaviors. But if this was programmed with biases (political, social, financial etc) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, then this could not be relied on. Such centralization of power would only be worsened if national central banks were replaced with one global central bank like the BIS, which in a comedically unlikely scenario, could render any other financial partitions as merely administrators of banking policy (note currently there is much infighting between BIS, states CBs and retail banks so humanity is safe for now). This would concentrate wealth earned by the world's labor into a comparatively smaller elite.
Synthesis: Middle ground
Germany's 1960s decentralized financial systems combined with modern tech:
Therefore, if the thesis is that capitalism is bad, due to the above, and the antithesis is that communism is similarly unsustainable, the synthesis is that an amalgam is needed: a largely decentralized financial system, that has both trusted and trustless financial infrastructure. This would be reminiscent of 1960s-1990s Germany and Japan with its 10000+ small retail banks and high frequency of SME loans, high velocity of money and equitable exchange, valuation and distribution of wealth, but combined with modern technology such as AI to lessen the impact of bureaucracy.
Issue: Technocratic surveillance
However, the issue with this is that modern technology centralizes services and therefore wealth, at far greater rates than in the 1960s (the fast fish, with many allies, can eat at the big corporate fish, or many big corporate fish can create commercial nets to catch all the fast intelligent fish - first movers advantage quelled by corporate mergers). This therefore, necessitates decentralization of tech innovations, and government sponsored, open-source tech infrastructure, so that the citizenry is insulated by the government from corporations privatizing technology with patents, such as what various AI companies are trying to do, which once again, concentrates power to a small elite of technocratic dictators, who now more than ever before have the potential to build digital prisons that control all aspects of a citizens life (proactively and retrospectively). For example, central bank digital currencies and AI surveillance, all connected to a carbon credit and social credit score could be used to punish citizens for wrongthink: expressing and acting in ways that are politically or socially unfavorable to the technocrats. In the future this may include real time bank account deductions for participating in protests, criticizing government on social media or perhaps even as simple as purchasing too much meat/eggs/poultry from small scale organic farms (which coincidentally isn't as profitable for large companies as centralized synthetic slop alternatives)
Solution: Open source technology
The solution to this is then technology that lowers bureaucracy and the need for state intervention, leading to less possible corruption, less retrospective intervention and less political persecution. This includes technology such as crypto; NFTs for govt services and tokenization of assets, services & goods; OPEN SOURCE, freely accessible AI/software/gene editing technology/polygenic risk scoring technology; cryptographically owned public social communities and defi for govt trustless loans, all with public ledgers to ensure some government control. This regulation of technology under free licensing agreements is thus paramount.
However, decentralization of technology is unlikely because territorial integrity of western societies has been all but undermined by corporations through revolving doors and lobbying: rendering western political systems technocracies rather than the traditional states. Even non-western states such as India, China, SEA are still technocratically centralizing power but through government supremacy.
The synthesis, is thereby countries that are either mildly authoritarian, but where the authoritarian elements are built in through code, that is created by group of benign dictators, or a direct democracy facilitated through a decentralized DAO, and localized to influence competing cantons/states. Both examples, would involve state run technocratic capitalism that redistributes wealth of corporate entities at a certain threshold, trustlessly through CBDCs, privatizing losses but which can easily redistribute funds in the form of welfare and low/negligible interest for small to medium term enterprise business loans, on merit.
Why it may be socially ogre for society
However, I think this is unlikely given dysgenics due to weakening selection pressures post industrial revolution. Given the reversal of the flynn effect and leading indictors of intelligence decreasing such as per capita genius and innovation, color differentiations, ability to count backwards etc, as well as declining physical health (correlated with iq), expressed through rising all-cause mortality, it is likely that humanity wont even be able to sustain current infrastructure let alone innovate beyond what we currently have, barring technological augmentation through CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring/AI etc. Yet, development of such technologies are limited because geniuses around the world have access limited especially given the trend of large corporations privatizing their access. Even if the western "moral considerations" stymying development of CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring to deal with dysgenics, were circumvented, successful augmentation before humanity reaches a irrevocable genetic tipping point is uncertain. As we progressively become more retarded, infrastructure will likely collapse under the weight of the growing populations, and the failure to innovate, which will lead to a Malthusian population collapse and a 1000 year dark age starting around 2200.
I write about this more here: https://looksmax.org/threads/declin...and-the-inevitable-malthusian-decline.744427/
>inb4 pseudo intellectual retard
Yes. That is my character on looksmax. I have no frens and I'm a kissless virgin.
Currently, the model is 1 central bank in every country and many large commercial banks who have a trend of merging and therein destroying the smaller retail banks, which destroys the frequency of SME loans as larger banks have bigger balance sheets and are less likely to provide such loans, the larger they are. This concentrates wealth in a small, wealthy elite of corporate stakeholders who have the commercial interest to get the largest and cheapest loans, and therein benefit from the most exchange of goods and services, compared to smaller businesses who are priced out due to more expensive, and less accessible credit. As wealth is privatized and corporate losses socialized, against a backdrop of exponentially increasing Keynsian M2, parasitic inflation of assets held and declining or plateauing wages, social and political capital is concentrated in the hands of a few financial controllers. In other words, the rich get richer with no limits on the wealth divide.
Antithesis: Failure - Communism
Yet this concentration of wealth, political, financial and social capital, still occurs under communism expressed with a government controlled central bank which becomes the single nexus of financial power, and therein its political Achilles heel. Even if there was no private mode of finance or central bank on behalf of the people, but still absolute abolition of property, you would still have to rely on those in control fairly valuing the labor of its citizenry individually and for such a centralized body in control of the valuation of the labor of millions, this is a near impossible feat, especially when subject to human nature: that power corrupts absolutely as evidenced in the centralization of wealth (social and political capital) in communist governments where the executive class inevitably dominates the legislature, judiciary and treasury, by concentrating financial wealth earned by the citizenry into the coffers of the "state", which are really just a proxy for private controlled accounts of the political class.
Society would need some kind of absolute, finite, objective, real time, accurate assessment of labor and dispute resolution mechanism, which could NEVER come from a small centralized body given above; instead only an all encompassing AI could muster necessary millions+ data points to achieve fair valuations of labor that considers all the intricacies of varying social and political behaviors. But if this was programmed with biases (political, social, financial etc) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, then this could not be relied on. Such centralization of power would only be worsened if national central banks were replaced with one global central bank like the BIS, which in a comedically unlikely scenario, could render any other financial partitions as merely administrators of banking policy (note currently there is much infighting between BIS, states CBs and retail banks so humanity is safe for now). This would concentrate wealth earned by the world's labor into a comparatively smaller elite.
Synthesis: Middle ground
Germany's 1960s decentralized financial systems combined with modern tech:
Therefore, if the thesis is that capitalism is bad, due to the above, and the antithesis is that communism is similarly unsustainable, the synthesis is that an amalgam is needed: a largely decentralized financial system, that has both trusted and trustless financial infrastructure. This would be reminiscent of 1960s-1990s Germany and Japan with its 10000+ small retail banks and high frequency of SME loans, high velocity of money and equitable exchange, valuation and distribution of wealth, but combined with modern technology such as AI to lessen the impact of bureaucracy.
Issue: Technocratic surveillance
However, the issue with this is that modern technology centralizes services and therefore wealth, at far greater rates than in the 1960s (the fast fish, with many allies, can eat at the big corporate fish, or many big corporate fish can create commercial nets to catch all the fast intelligent fish - first movers advantage quelled by corporate mergers). This therefore, necessitates decentralization of tech innovations, and government sponsored, open-source tech infrastructure, so that the citizenry is insulated by the government from corporations privatizing technology with patents, such as what various AI companies are trying to do, which once again, concentrates power to a small elite of technocratic dictators, who now more than ever before have the potential to build digital prisons that control all aspects of a citizens life (proactively and retrospectively). For example, central bank digital currencies and AI surveillance, all connected to a carbon credit and social credit score could be used to punish citizens for wrongthink: expressing and acting in ways that are politically or socially unfavorable to the technocrats. In the future this may include real time bank account deductions for participating in protests, criticizing government on social media or perhaps even as simple as purchasing too much meat/eggs/poultry from small scale organic farms (which coincidentally isn't as profitable for large companies as centralized synthetic slop alternatives)
Solution: Open source technology
The solution to this is then technology that lowers bureaucracy and the need for state intervention, leading to less possible corruption, less retrospective intervention and less political persecution. This includes technology such as crypto; NFTs for govt services and tokenization of assets, services & goods; OPEN SOURCE, freely accessible AI/software/gene editing technology/polygenic risk scoring technology; cryptographically owned public social communities and defi for govt trustless loans, all with public ledgers to ensure some government control. This regulation of technology under free licensing agreements is thus paramount.
However, decentralization of technology is unlikely because territorial integrity of western societies has been all but undermined by corporations through revolving doors and lobbying: rendering western political systems technocracies rather than the traditional states. Even non-western states such as India, China, SEA are still technocratically centralizing power but through government supremacy.
The synthesis, is thereby countries that are either mildly authoritarian, but where the authoritarian elements are built in through code, that is created by group of benign dictators, or a direct democracy facilitated through a decentralized DAO, and localized to influence competing cantons/states. Both examples, would involve state run technocratic capitalism that redistributes wealth of corporate entities at a certain threshold, trustlessly through CBDCs, privatizing losses but which can easily redistribute funds in the form of welfare and low/negligible interest for small to medium term enterprise business loans, on merit.
Why it may be socially ogre for society
However, I think this is unlikely given dysgenics due to weakening selection pressures post industrial revolution. Given the reversal of the flynn effect and leading indictors of intelligence decreasing such as per capita genius and innovation, color differentiations, ability to count backwards etc, as well as declining physical health (correlated with iq), expressed through rising all-cause mortality, it is likely that humanity wont even be able to sustain current infrastructure let alone innovate beyond what we currently have, barring technological augmentation through CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring/AI etc. Yet, development of such technologies are limited because geniuses around the world have access limited especially given the trend of large corporations privatizing their access. Even if the western "moral considerations" stymying development of CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring to deal with dysgenics, were circumvented, successful augmentation before humanity reaches a irrevocable genetic tipping point is uncertain. As we progressively become more retarded, infrastructure will likely collapse under the weight of the growing populations, and the failure to innovate, which will lead to a Malthusian population collapse and a 1000 year dark age starting around 2200.
I write about this more here: https://looksmax.org/threads/declin...and-the-inevitable-malthusian-decline.744427/
>inb4 pseudo intellectual retard
Yes. That is my character on looksmax. I have no frens and I'm a kissless virgin.
Last edited:
