Will you consider a rule, of inclusion for international banking regulation: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.
“Social Contract between and among People and Governments” (1min)
Fixing the value of a Share at $1,000,000 USD and the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty. All money will then have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% per annum options to purchase human labor instead of barter. Mathematically distinct from money created at any other rate. The value of a self referential mathematical function can't be affected by fluctuations in the cost or valuation of any other thing. We will know regardless what currency is in hand it was created for secure sovereign investment and someone somewhere is paying 1.25% per annum on it we each share equally.
The psychological effects of being structurally included as equal financiers of our global economic system can't be quantified, but are most likely positive and profound.
I've been addressing imagined concerns for over a decade consistently illuminating additional benefit. Without logical argument against manifesting.
The rule is reasonably adopted by international banking regulators simply because it achieves stated goals. Similarly with UNGA and sustainable development goals. A reasonable settlement of suit brought to The Hague by any Nation or Nations for global parity in money creation. As global free trade agreement, once we agree on the money, there isn't much else to negotiate.
What a wonderful article, Roman! In my work (ex: https://link.medium.com/LpLt3vyWqkb) I take this all the way up to a framework for whole-Earth self-design, reframing moral growth in terms of Meadows' "power to transcend paradigms". Curious to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for sharing. Your writing is interesting and I broadly agree with your ideas. However, it seems to me that while the Free Energy Principle is useful for describing and characterising living systems, it's not necessarily useful for predicting whether the system will behave as life in the future or not. As long as humanity is not extinct, we can continue to justify its entire history as the history of improving collective sensemaking and agency; when it will destroy itself (or the whole Earth), some external observer could have said that the invention of consciousness, or language, or morality, etc. was the end of the coherent Whole. (Yes, even morality could be complicit -- the morality of individual humans could obviously depart greatly from the ideal of the Whole's self-realisation, e. g. explicitly value the destruction of humanity or the life on Earth.)
I also don't agree that ecological economics is "next to useless". It's indeed ad-hoc and FEP could (in theory, not sure in practice) put it on more solid "scientific" ground, vs. current moral or just emotional ground. But the propositions, such as that we should preserve the Amazon, the marine life, etc. won't largely change. And if they indeed change, e. g. FEP "suggests" that we should abandon attempts of saving certain ecosystems and millions of species in service of some other goals, there will always be people who would object to this on the moral grounds that go beyond the FEP framework. (However, it's worth noting that this is not worse than the current situation: the "capitalistic intelligence" disregards nature and there are some small objecting groups of people.)
Also looking forward to read your articles on purpose economics.
The two posts on the "purpose economy" look like your attempt to explain to yourself why Google is not evil, and, in fact, is at the forefront of saving the world. Sorry, but Google is evil. Does Google's "absolute zero" account for its hundreds of billions in ads revenue, most of which contributed to the development of "carbon-positive" businesses, global consumerism, and, in general, to the acceleration of the world's economy, which, Donella Meadows already pointed out in "Leverage Points" (in 1990?), moving too fast, and is now moving even faster.
The serious discussion of Google's being purpose-driven will only start when Google will commit to soaking *that* CO2 contribution from the atmosphere. Before, it's a typical greenwashing capitalistic company.
I agree that human nature is not entirely set in stone, and is modulated by environment. However, it's just as false to say that humans are entirely blank slates as well, and while I'm not sure if that's what you were implying that's what I got from your Krishnamurti quote. Moreover, the 20th century at least has a mixed if not outright dire record of technocratic controls failing.
Essentially, crypto as an ideology leans heavily on a prior that organic change (such as those in markets) is healthier than top-down technocratic dictat, and that an potential change presented in the language of code and voted for with nodes is, while not perfect, superior to one decided in the offices of a tech giant or in the ocean of spin surrounding national politics.
It probably also requires a prior that government != "things we do together"; In other words, that the State does not represent you and at least puts its goals & self-interest before yours, if it accounts for your interests at all. It sees government in the way a book like The Dictator's Handbook would see it, that government is only concerned with its constituents to the extent they make up a coherent voting block that can threaten power and is otherwise only concerned with maintaining the loyalty of key supporters (keys to power). Given what it takes to become a key to power in a dictatorship or democracy, learning how to read code is a small obstacle to participation in block chain governance.
As Scott writes, we will lift something to heaven, but until the time we can kill it, we must still pay the minimum fealty to Gnon.
You as well as other crypto proponents tend to depict the governments and traditional financial systems in much more negative tone than they actually are (modern democracies are very far from serving just a clique of elites) and commensurately present crypto more positively.
But regardless, both are just creating/feeding Moloch (greed, competition, status games) instead of attempting to subvert it.
A common idea I notice in the crypto space is that one person is wise/kind, a crowd or mob of people aren't. That sums up a lot of the zeitgeist behind decentralization.
Will you consider a rule, of inclusion for international banking regulation: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.
“Social Contract between and among People and Governments” (1min)
https://link.medium.com/AtaWSEUJU6
Fixing the value of a Share at $1,000,000 USD and the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty. All money will then have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% per annum options to purchase human labor instead of barter. Mathematically distinct from money created at any other rate. The value of a self referential mathematical function can't be affected by fluctuations in the cost or valuation of any other thing. We will know regardless what currency is in hand it was created for secure sovereign investment and someone somewhere is paying 1.25% per annum on it we each share equally.
The psychological effects of being structurally included as equal financiers of our global economic system can't be quantified, but are most likely positive and profound.
I've been addressing imagined concerns for over a decade consistently illuminating additional benefit. Without logical argument against manifesting.
The rule is reasonably adopted by international banking regulators simply because it achieves stated goals. Similarly with UNGA and sustainable development goals. A reasonable settlement of suit brought to The Hague by any Nation or Nations for global parity in money creation. As global free trade agreement, once we agree on the money, there isn't much else to negotiate.
Thanks for your observations and kind indulgence
What a wonderful article, Roman! In my work (ex: https://link.medium.com/LpLt3vyWqkb) I take this all the way up to a framework for whole-Earth self-design, reframing moral growth in terms of Meadows' "power to transcend paradigms". Curious to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for sharing. Your writing is interesting and I broadly agree with your ideas. However, it seems to me that while the Free Energy Principle is useful for describing and characterising living systems, it's not necessarily useful for predicting whether the system will behave as life in the future or not. As long as humanity is not extinct, we can continue to justify its entire history as the history of improving collective sensemaking and agency; when it will destroy itself (or the whole Earth), some external observer could have said that the invention of consciousness, or language, or morality, etc. was the end of the coherent Whole. (Yes, even morality could be complicit -- the morality of individual humans could obviously depart greatly from the ideal of the Whole's self-realisation, e. g. explicitly value the destruction of humanity or the life on Earth.)
I also don't agree that ecological economics is "next to useless". It's indeed ad-hoc and FEP could (in theory, not sure in practice) put it on more solid "scientific" ground, vs. current moral or just emotional ground. But the propositions, such as that we should preserve the Amazon, the marine life, etc. won't largely change. And if they indeed change, e. g. FEP "suggests" that we should abandon attempts of saving certain ecosystems and millions of species in service of some other goals, there will always be people who would object to this on the moral grounds that go beyond the FEP framework. (However, it's worth noting that this is not worse than the current situation: the "capitalistic intelligence" disregards nature and there are some small objecting groups of people.)
Also looking forward to read your articles on purpose economics.
The two posts on the "purpose economy" look like your attempt to explain to yourself why Google is not evil, and, in fact, is at the forefront of saving the world. Sorry, but Google is evil. Does Google's "absolute zero" account for its hundreds of billions in ads revenue, most of which contributed to the development of "carbon-positive" businesses, global consumerism, and, in general, to the acceleration of the world's economy, which, Donella Meadows already pointed out in "Leverage Points" (in 1990?), moving too fast, and is now moving even faster.
The serious discussion of Google's being purpose-driven will only start when Google will commit to soaking *that* CO2 contribution from the atmosphere. Before, it's a typical greenwashing capitalistic company.
I agree that human nature is not entirely set in stone, and is modulated by environment. However, it's just as false to say that humans are entirely blank slates as well, and while I'm not sure if that's what you were implying that's what I got from your Krishnamurti quote. Moreover, the 20th century at least has a mixed if not outright dire record of technocratic controls failing.
Essentially, crypto as an ideology leans heavily on a prior that organic change (such as those in markets) is healthier than top-down technocratic dictat, and that an potential change presented in the language of code and voted for with nodes is, while not perfect, superior to one decided in the offices of a tech giant or in the ocean of spin surrounding national politics.
It probably also requires a prior that government != "things we do together"; In other words, that the State does not represent you and at least puts its goals & self-interest before yours, if it accounts for your interests at all. It sees government in the way a book like The Dictator's Handbook would see it, that government is only concerned with its constituents to the extent they make up a coherent voting block that can threaten power and is otherwise only concerned with maintaining the loyalty of key supporters (keys to power). Given what it takes to become a key to power in a dictatorship or democracy, learning how to read code is a small obstacle to participation in block chain governance.
As Scott writes, we will lift something to heaven, but until the time we can kill it, we must still pay the minimum fealty to Gnon.
You as well as other crypto proponents tend to depict the governments and traditional financial systems in much more negative tone than they actually are (modern democracies are very far from serving just a clique of elites) and commensurately present crypto more positively.
But regardless, both are just creating/feeding Moloch (greed, competition, status games) instead of attempting to subvert it.
A common idea I notice in the crypto space is that one person is wise/kind, a crowd or mob of people aren't. That sums up a lot of the zeitgeist behind decentralization.
Is this an argument against decentralisation?