Why keep insisting on trickle down economy?

3 Dec 2017

Money flows from bottom to top, from consumers to retailers, to distributors, to wholesalers, to production owners. Making each higher layer richer and wealthier with each cycle.

Economy accelerates when there are more actors at each layer (by population growth or expanding variation in goods and services one can buy), they transfer larger sums of money at each transaction, the number of layers increases, and each transfer cycle is completed faster.

The trickle down theory is wrong because for it to be true, investors must be forced to invest at whatever risk and return profile, but they just move invest.

More often trickle down practices leads to hoarding behavior。 So it’s curious how some of the very top believe that by hoarding money at the top, they would get wealthier.

Transfer of tax burden from the super rich to the middle class.

Removal of support programs to people who will put 100% of what they receive back to the economy.

False messages that somehow human brains would be able to compete with computers that can each themselves how to be smarter.

Right now, around 20% of people lives in abject poverty. Their personal suffering also means a loss of 20% of the consumer class. When the number of people that have no way to earn increases, what is the long term impact to economic growth?

Why is this persistence to hoard? What agenda do the super rich see?


Social Compact in USA

Social compacts such as free education and healthcare to all can be paid, as long as the population is willing to be tax enough to meet the cost of the social compact.
Since the cost of these social compacts are always a percentage of the general economy, there should be a number in which the general economy can be sufficiently taxed to pay dor the social compacts.
The question then:

1. how to ensure cost effective social compacts

2. how to ensure parties involved in delivering those social compacts has no incentive to increase its per unit cost and/or has incentive to reduce its per unit cost

3. are the societ willing to bear the cost
Which case in America:

1. Not effectice. Military and healthcare cost exponentially higher than other countries with no clear exponentially higher benefit.

2. Privatize prisons? Non-single payor healthcare forcing care provider to forgo national level whoselase discount when negotiating with suppliers?

3. Americans are very individual, many people has deep belief on life free or die (for yourself)
Social compact doesn’t work in America, not vecause social compact doesn’t work

Currency and bitcoin

Bitcoin seller: would you like to buy bitcoin? It’s been increasing in value
Me: Value? A currency has value because people, foolishly or forcibly, choose to put faith and credit to the currency, to the party that puts their name to that currency.
That party have been sovereigns, monarch and kings, then modern government. 
The value of bit coin depends on the faith and credit people have in it, and since there’s no sovereign behind bitcoin, this faith and credit depend on your ability to sell it.
Bitcoin seller: it’s fact that bitcoin been growing really fast in value
Me: Since you already own bitcoin, it’s not a surprise that you, and everybody else that already owns bitcoin, tell everyone else how great that story is. There’s nothing new to group of people puffing up the value of security or object with the hopes of fooling people to get real currency. It’s kinda funny how you yourself evaluate the value of bitcoin towards the US$, not bitcoin itself, it really shows what’s up.
Bitcoin seller: i have a billion Zimbabwe dollar, to remind me what happens if government screws up with our money.
Me: government, you’re comparing Zimbabwe dollar to what? US Dollar? Euro? Monopoly dollar? Are you seriously saying because the government of Zimbabwe lost the faith and credit of everyone else then the US, the G-20 countries will to?
Bitcoin seller: but government do fail and default on their debt, government can mess up.
Me: indeed government can and did fail, and it doesn’t take government to mess up their own currency, read about what George Soros did to the pound. Soros proves that money is just like silver or grain, you can corner the market for a currency if you have the ammunition.
So currency can fail for all kinds of reason, but you speak about authorities, so now I ask what happens if the bitcoin “authorities” screw up?
Bitcoin seller: that’s the beauty of bitcoin, it cannot screw up, because the ledger is distributed everywhere. Unlike centralized ledger, where you only need to breach the centralize ledger to compromise the transaction.
Me: well, that sounds like with bitcoin, a perpetrator has access to a lot of breach point instead of one.
Bitcoin seller: but since all the parties have a ledger, any mistakes would be immediately spotted
Me: well, what if many parties disagree with the transaction? It cannot happen? Well, all it takes is some “credible” parties to have another “credible” parties agree that indeed, their transaction ledger is different than the rest of the bitcoin ledger base. What’s next when that happens? Who will resolve it since there’s no central authority? Are you going to tell me that well, there’s actually an authority on bitcoin
Bitcoin Seller: the logic behind the record keeping and algorithms is robust. Satoshi Nakamoto has set the foundation of bitcoin principles in 2008
Me: you’re willing to rely on an non existent person? We still don’t even know who Satoshi is, or even if that is person. For all we know, Satoshi Nakamoto could be a working group in some government agency tasked with undermining other country’s currencies. 
This Satoshi is an awesome person when it comes to cryptography and yet nobody know who that person is? I find that unbelievable, a person with enough cryptography skill to set a global-IP-based multi-ledge transaction recording system updated in parallel and real time would be top employee in a top company.
Who has the best cryptography talent base? Who has the most interest in paying top dollar top the best cryptography minds? 
As to the algorithm, these questions that bitcoin miners has to solve, who created them? Who set the algorithm that enable miner to obtain bitcoin when in the process of managing bitcoin transaction, miners solve the question, and thus earn bitcoin?
Bitcoin seller: it sound like you think the government created bitcoin, but that’s impossible, in Jan 2014, Charlie Shrem the CEO of BitInstant was arrested for enabling bitcoin for money laundering.
Me: so the idea that the government would encourage people to do and grow a concept, only to punish people that have expanded and grow that concept, cannot be true? You don’t believe that the government is capable of cruel entrapment? You think the government has morality? No, the government has bureaucrats.
Do you know Benjamin Lawsky? The bureaucrat who created regulation on bitcoin, the bitlicense?
He created the application when he was working as a bureaucrat, the license was such that a lot of people complain that they cannot me the application.
He then quit his job as regulator, opened a consulting company that help companies to navigate the BitLicense application process, the process that he created.
How’s that for potential conflict of interest? 
Someone is saying I’m here to protect the customer, so I will create a fence and a gate for people to come in. Then he went outside the gate and charge people to get in.
There’s commercial tactic that’s called selling a solution by creating the problem. 
Who would’ve thought that these bureaucrat in western and corruption free countries would have such strong commercial sense.
These are the people that makes the government policy. 
Bitcoin seller: Hey, even the federal government sold bitcoin
Me: you’re confusing me. The federal government auction bitcoin that they confiscated when they shut down silk road. It doesn’t mean that they like bitcoin or want to continue using it or to endorse it. 
It just mean that they have something that other people say have value, and they want to see if there’s anyone stupid enough to actually give greenbacks for bitcoin to the federal government. 
The federal government could have auction those bitcoin, receive the greenbacks, then declare bitcoin banned the next day. 
Could they do that? Declare bitcoin worthless right after receiving money for bitcoin? Why not? Who tell the federal government what not to do? The uncentralized entity of bitcoin?
Bitcoin seller: hey, still as an investment, people say that what china bans, we invest. Look at google, look at facebook, China bans them. China bans bitcoin, so we should invest in bitcoin.
Me: there are several things in your statement, I will unpack them.
First, it sounds like lazy thinking, just because x, then y, sounds a lot like lazy thinking, and you should see why as I progressed.
Second, it sounds chauvinistic. Are you implying that if China does something, then it must be wrong or suboptimal? Have you entertained the possibility that China could be taking the most optimum point and the rest of the world are wrong? Whoa. Cannot happen?
Third, China government is very capable, just look at their economic growth data. China is not the only country with 1.x billion people ready to work, yet their growth had far outpaced global growth. So the data shows, when it comes to economics, China has been very good at beating every other country in achieving growth.
Forth, China bans Google and Facebook because they understand it’s potential and want to build their own version of Google and Facebook. Ever heard of Baidu, RenRen, Tencent, Alibaba? Have you check their revenue?
Five, does China bans bitcoin or all cryptocurrency? I think it’s all cryptocurrency. 
Why? Because as I said, sovereigns can create currency, why would China, a sovereign, allow another entity, in any form, the power to create currency? 
If I am China, I would prefer to enable the digitization of my currency, rather than giving space to someone else’s idea of a digital currency.
Bitcoin seller: well, bitcoin enables us to be free, to get out from the tyranny of government issued cash.
Me: well, why do I want to do that? First, I am not interested in things that can only be bought with untraceable currency, second, I am no interested in having freedom that nobody acknowledges as exist.
I touch on the validity of bitcoin, how about mt.gox? People lost their bitcoin storing it with mt.gox, and since this is a digital currency, i can only keep it online in the digital world, there’s no guarantee that my repository wouldn’t end up like mt.gox.
Bitcoin seller: mt.gox was an isolated incident and people keep using bitcoin afterwards.
Me: well, did they resolve how it happen? They cannot even know that and they still don’t know who steal all those bitcoin. And since they don’t know how it happen, how can anyone develop a fix? There’s no fix.
And doesn’t that mean that the very strength of bitcoin, the ability to be totally anonymous, is also it’s biggest weakness? If someone took my bitcoin or disagree on the provenance of my bitcoin, there’s no way I could retrieve my bitcoin back?
And off course people that already have bitcoin kept using bitcoin after mt.gox, what are they going to do? Just let the hype died down, admit that bitcoin is vulnerable and there’s no fix? How does that benefit people that already have bitcoin? What’s more beneficial to people that already own bitcoin, admit that their bitcoin are worthless or collectively keep piping up the hype to bitcoin?
Bitcoin seller: you make it sound like a big ponzi scheme that relies on people having bitcoin, at which point they then would have an interest to get other people to join to further increase the value of bitcoin.
Me: that’s because it is.
Bitcoin seller: are you saying i’ve been had? That i’ve bought useless stuff and now I am peddling it back?
Me: well, that’s tough, either I have to think that either you are smart and evil or you are dumb and kind. 
Bitcoin seller: but at least my bitcoin has value.
Me: well, that’s another strength of bitcoin that’s also it’s major weakness, that anybody could create their own version of bitcoin.
In fact, there are now so many versions of cryptocurrency that all of them, in my opinion, has no value.
Cryptocurrency can be created so easily, there’s no mathematical limit to the number of cryptocurrency variations that can be made. Anybody with a block chain can their own version or version of cryptocurrency.
And when something has unlimited supply, it has no value.

Is life order or chaos?

Is life a form that represents higher or lower entropy?
If it is a form of lower entropy, then where has entropy had been/has been/is being increase to counteract life’s lower entropy and satisfy the 3rd law of thermodynamics?

Currency and Asset

Was writing a response to this question:

Then I thought that I might well put this into a blog post.

The vast majority of wealth in the world is purely subjective, a $1 million house is only worth $1 million as long as people is still valuing it that much. 
The difference between gold and other assets is the magnitude in difference between “intrinsic” and perceived value. 

A rare painting is very expensive during peace time, when people have the resource to contemplate attributing so much money to essentially paper and oil. But if, let’s say, a crisis such as war came, then the perceive value of a painting quickly diminish and people will value it as what it is, oil on paper. We can state that the magnitude of difference between intrinsic and perceive value for rare painting is enourmous.
Property might have less diferential in intrinsic and perceive value, but there’s still a differential. Even cash has a diferential between intrinsic and perceived value. If a government collapse, then its currency will likely to lose its value, eliminating the so called “wealth” of people who had relied on the subjective perceived value of that currency.
The differential between intrinsic and perceived value is more readily apparent during crisis such as war and when common sense scoffs at how ridiculously expensive an object is.
So, in essence, all non-gold non-currency wealth are worthless, because they have been paid for. They have been paid for with currency, and the seller holds the “real” wealth in currency, assuming the seller is willing to keep the currency he/she has as is. 
Very unlikely since people typically dislike holding too much cash, preferring other asset, and thus to use the currency to  buy another asset using. And then that currency again move hand. 
As currency moves hand, it enables the purchase of assets. The same $1 million, can enable the purchase of $1 billion “worth” of asset.

The speed at currency change hands is called velocity. The higher velocity, the more asset a country or its citizen can buy while minimizing creation of new money (inflation).

What enables velocity? Productivity. The more productive a country is, the faster can they make purchases with the same amount lf currency, the faster they can grow their wealth, while minimizing inflation.

Too Much Money

The negative interest rate is clear indicator that the world has an excess of capital. And an excess of capital that is so beyond existing aggregate demand that the only solution is for capital to die via negative interest rate.

It’s interesting that we finally reach a situation where the world needs less money to meet humanity’s needs.

There are 6 pressures that will define our world in the next 50 years:
– man’s envy. It’s unrealistic for everyone to have the lifestyle of the 0.01%, but everybody wants it.
– nature’s capacity to provide the lifestyle man desire. Nature would be strained if all 6 billion people want to consume 1000kg of magnesium in their cars, ostrich leather in their bags, and 40,000 gallons of water for their swimming pool. Money is a poor method to limit consumption because mother nature cannot speak and negotiate the base price of extracting resource from nature.
– automation, AI, and robotics capacity to replace more and more cognitive jobs. We might end with a world where the only job that require a human being is… nothing
– capital’s need to multiply. All capital owner seeks to grow their capital. They will employe people to find new markets or create new markets by converting “desires” into “needs”. Capital will pour into any growth geography or segments or industries that’s deemed safe. In the past, when capital cannot find new avenues of growth (mostly due to technology limitations), war happens. Then war not only destroys existing assets, allowing capital room to grow, but also resulted in technologies (e.g. Aircraft, radio telecommunication) that allow capital to enter new markets
– man pettiness, that misguided sense of fairness that is at the root of rejection to social programs to extend the benefits of civilization to the poor. That very US Republican Conservative attitude of social darwinism, “the poor is poor because they are lazy, stupid, etc; thus, let them suffer”, the attitude that allows public schools in affluent neighborhood to be much better resource than public school in non-affluent neighborhood.
– anarchist. mad mens who find themselves irrelevant in the current world order and seek to create and propagate their own imaginary society. ISIS is an example of this. The fact that many ISIS members comes from the west show that the problem is psychological, not geographical.

So we have men who seeks to have what other have and capital that is very happy to serve that appetite, and the reality of nature’s limitation and that fewer man is actually needed to do a job, and the ambivalence of providing money (power) to those who doesn’t work. And a fringe elements who just want to see the world burn.

So we could end up with a world where:
a. Capital is further concentrated to the 0.0000001%, and 99% of people who are basically jobless and either live on welfare or on poverty. Elysium
b. Man no longer need to work and focus on expanding their knowledge and are “paid” to learn and contributes new knowledge. Startrek.

Layman’s theory on light and particle

We are all light

Gravity slows us down to matter

Everything in the universe emit wave or is wave. Visible light is wave, infrared is wave, atom vibrate move & rotate.

What if particles are just “condensed” wave? Wait, if we remember E=mc2, then we know all matter is “condensed” light wave

Condensed by what?


How does gravity condensed wave?

Or is gravity an illusion and that it’s not gravity that condense light to matter

But it’s the Higgs Field that condense light to matter. Than in the presence of Higgs Field, energy is condensed to a level it becomes matter.

And that gravity, gravity is just an effect that happens where some parts of universe is compacted into matter and some not, and some part of universe has different degrees of particle density.

So gravity is like what happens if you an imaginary planar field, and you put a ball of condensed wave in this planar field, a curvature happens since the ball presses down on the planar field. If you stand near enough to the ball, you could be within that depression caused by the ball, and if you are within that depression, you experience gravity.

How does the condensation happen?

Matter, atoms, has or is in a lower energy state than light. If atoms were heated, it would turn physical state into less solid forms. Given sufficient energy, and atom would become light.

So perhaps the difference between atoms and light is the energy state they are in. Light is in hyper excited state, and atoms is a much less excited state.

Matter’s energy state has been lowered by something that it reaches such low energy state that matters becomes matter.

Perhaps like a net slows down a tennis ball, the Higgs fields slows the energy state of light to such an extreme, that it now has matter’s energy state and thus become or is matter.

And back to gravity, perhaps gravity is the side effect of light hitting Higgs field and slowed down to become matter.

Is this continuous? Gravity is continuous. Is gravity exist only when the light particle is transformed to matter?

Are we continuously being in a state of being converted from light to matter by the Higgs field?

Is all matter in the universe continuously experiencing gravity because it continuously the experience the side effect of it being continuously from light to matter?

Everything in universe is light.

Visible light is light, matter is light.

Something slows light to a point where it becomes matter.

What and how