- Details
- Hits: 5710
"Saving the Planet" or Survival and What about "Money"?
By Marc Gauvin (c) 27/08/2022
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.
Isn't abundance having more than you strictly need? Can we speak of an "end of abundance" for the case where we no longer are able to sustain what we never really needed? If we have confused desire with need, technology with knowledge, subtle fallacy with truth and want with power, then isn't the problem one of a lack of truthfulness rather than of some dire circumstance?
Isn't it a question of realising that we really don't know what we are doing, instead of rationalising whatever we do as a sort of adaptation to motivate ourselves into doing "whatever it takes to survive"?
Consider the following:
Humanity didn't create itself, the universe did. So ultimately, we are not responsible for existing. What then is our true nature? Is it to be whatever we prove to be?
No other creature apologises for its nature, but simply pursues their natural impulses wherever those may lead, if it turns out that such brings them to extinction, then so be it, they certainly won't be the first nor the last.
The rate of net extinction of species, can only be calculated if we know the total numbers dynamically arising and dying. We are constantly discovering hundreds of new species every year. In only 2018, 229 new species have been reported to have been discovered [1], that means that at that rate and over the last five centuries 114,500 new species potentially have been added, yet we have only detected the extinction of 900 species in those 5 centuries [2]. Even if that rate is an underestimate that is still only 1.8 species a year.
No one can calculate the exact abundance of species and how they can adapt to human folly, we are constantly being surprised in this regard, for example in the highly radio-active Chernobyl forest ecosystem, species are flourishing [3]. Also, nature never ceases to surprise us with its ability to build life into the most unsuspected environments, producing life-forms that tolerate all sorts of "impossible" conditions e.g. volcanic snails [4].
So maybe the problem isn't "saving the planet" maybe it is preventing our own extinction i.e. what all creatures do with what nature gives them, and all ultimately fail sooner or later i.e. become extinct as "99% of all species that have existed are now extinct." [2]
But what is our nature? Is our nature to walk around with gadgets providing feedback from our environment, while suppressing our innate biological impulse processing? Is our nature to be subjugated to harebrained dogma and group think? Is it to be governed by an unstable money system of our own creation but that we never factor into our calculations, even though it is the single major influence on our behaviour, is that system here to ensure we become what we are "meant to be" i.e. gadget addicted geeks?
Is our penchant to "understand" our environment beyond immediate direct biological responses really our "nature"? The vast majority of mankind are not number wise and find themselves stifled by science and so called "progress" rather than feeling enabled, they are enslaved by progress more than they are freed. And the notion that "progress" and technology provides for mankind's success is simply a self-serving argument because it cannot factor in how we would otherwise have evolved. How do we really know that we are better off than how we might have otherwise evolved? Was our exodus from the paleolithic into the neolithic a fortuitous step towards a more meaningful "survival". Or was it a lethal step into collective enslavement and stupidity, sealing our premature extinction as "the transition to agriculture had an overall negative impact on human oral health, increased the incidence of infectious disease and nutritional deficiencies, and contributed to an overall reduction in human stature."? [5]
What we do know for sure, is that what we are currently doing is not sustainable and our survival is threatened more by what we are doing as opposed to by what we aren't doing. The question is what of what we are doing needs to go? Or should we continue trying to control the Universe (i.e. just do more) to compensate for our erred behaviour? Shouldn't we instead be focused on why we are doing what we are doing?
Currently a tiny percentage of humans are dictating that our nature and behaviour is wrong and if we do not deny our impulses by building and doing more to restrain the effect of our behaviour, we are doomed to extinction. But what if the solution is modifying the behaviour of just one or our own systems not imposed by nature? To understand which system(s) must go, we would need to apply our "systems science" to all relevant systems i.e. is it the SI system of units that is causing our erratic behaviour or is it some other system, like perhaps our money system?
One thing we will find is always missing in all these dictates and so called "science", is a thorough scientific analysis of "money" as a system. Why? Is it because our otherwise "sages" are so subdued by that system [6] that they fear discovering its affect on them? Is it that they might find that their relationship with the world through money satisfies their immediate impulses in a way that they do not want to change?
Wouldn't omitting such a thorough analysis invalidate their dictates? Isn't it a massive failure of negligence on their part to model "reality" and just happen not to include the money system and its systemic (system wide) effects i.e. effects that override any human behaviour under its yoke?
Ask these so called "experts", if according to their analyses, the money system is "passive" in the formal systems science sense of the term. If it is active (stable or unstable) ask what are its systemic effects on society when its imperatives are assumed by rote and by most all [7]?
If they refuse to answer, then you know that they are not being sufficiently thorough commensurate with their mandate and just like most of the rest of humanity, they are simply vying to satisfy their immediate impulses. Then all this business of "saving the planet" turns out to be just a ploy for some to ensure exclusive privilege and consideration over others.
Notice, that if funding were not skewed, UN officials weren't earning tax free six figure salaries plus travel and living expenses, there would be no UN let alone any IPCC. Moreover, if the money system were Passive, there would be none of the many systemic issues that depend on the current money system to exist and that are in one way or other, seen as threatening life itself. I leave figuring out how many of such issues depend on money to come about to the reader as an exercise.
[1]https://earthsky.org/earth/new-species-2018/
[2]https://ourworldindata.org/extinctions#how-many-species-have-gone-extinct
[3]https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
[4]https://earthandhuman.org/know-about-volcano-snails/
[5]https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1186&context=nebanthro
[6]https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Break out of "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids
a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA
- Details
- Hits: 8466
Passive vs Non-passive Money - Raging Inferno Analogy
By Marc Gauvin (c) 5/09/2021
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.
"While both share common knowledge, the problem of building a passive system is not the same as that of cancelling or containing the dynamics of an existing non-passive system."
You have a raging fire, you know the cause of the fire and how to put it out. You also know that the world would be better without the fire. So, do you:
1) Put out the fire or:
2) Build a model of a world without a fire amidst the fire to convince people of the virtues of a world without the menace of a raging inferno?
Remember, that while you're building the model, the fire continues to rage unabated and if you manage to build a semblance of a fire free model along side it, you still have the same problem you had at the onset of having to put out the now greater raging inferno. So, how does building a fire free model impact the fire?
What is it that prevents people from facing the raging fire head on from the onset? If all the undeniable proofs that a fire is not a good idea and how it can be put out easily, doesn't convince them to put it out, how will producing a fire free model amidst the now bigger and more daunting fire somehow convince them to put out the inferno?
What is a fire free model? Can it exist within a raging inferno or must it be created in isolation of any fire? Who can afford to create such a cocoon in which to exemplify fire free life? Will that experience be exclusive to a small number or as common place as life in the midst of a raging inferno? What does the project of building a fire free model teach us about putting out a fire, beyond preventing fire?
The truth is that if we have the knowledge to build a fire free model, we must understand fire enough to know how to put it out in the first place, right? So why would we choose to build a fire free model in the midst of a raging fire instead of directly putting out the fire? The answer is we either don't have a clue about fires or we are somehow suicidal.
The parallel between our current money system and the above raging fire analogy lies in recognising that both are unstable non-passive systems. As such and given the conditions, both share the same boundless dynamics converting what they touch into fuel for their boundless propagation, which is why both are highly contagious. Therefore, building a passive model is only possible in isolation of any non-passive system. Which means that building a passive model without first cancelling the non-passive system is a chimera, as it does nothing to address the propagation of the non-passive system.
While both share common knowledge, the problem of building a passive system is not the same as that of cancelling or containing the dynamics of an existing non-passive system.
Let's then get our priorities straight, do we want to directly deal with the raging money system and make it passive or are we going to let it continue while we unsuccessfully try to build a stable model amidst its boundless and incessant contagiousness?
The really sad thing is, that given some basic knowledge most all can learn, dealing with the raging money system is far easier than those without that knowledge can imagine and certainly far more relevant than any other action we can take.
Support the MSTA Resolutions.
Break out of "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids
a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA
Risk Without Austerity
- Details
- Category: Learn
- Published on Thursday, 10 June 2021 12:11
- Written by Super User
- Hits: 16490
Risk Without Austerity
Excerpt from "A Systems Engineering Approach to Formal Monetary and Financial Stability Without the Vagaries of “Austerity” "
By Marc Gauvin and Sergio Dominguez PhD. Eng
The instability of the system as described above (A Systems Engineering Approach to Formal Monetary and Financial Stability Without the Vagaries of “Austerity) ultimately renders debt and liability/risk unmanageable over time. This in turn leads to last ditch dire measures in the form of extreme across-the-board contraction of economic activity and diversity in the real economy. Such “austerity”, leads to serious real world consequences, that in the light of the revelation of money’s misrepresentation are wholly unnecessary and therefore cruel and unusual, constituting a powerful legal imperative to correct said misrepresentation [10] [17] [18].
Moreover, this risk is mostly associated with arbitrary financial criteria without which, the “real” economy would only bear real world material and physical risk criteria, keeping in mind that typically purely financial assets represent two thirds of the total financial risk in the economy [8]. Finally, all financial risk is ultimately founded on the misrepresentation of money in that without it, financial mathematics as we know it would be impossible and so too would most of the “financial” economy without any harm to the economy.
However, in a scenario where as explained previously, money is defined logically as SOLELY the annotation of sums of value in terms of a common (arbitrary) unit attributed to each instance of transacting goods and services, by judicious management of the different permutations of transaction types that we illustrate below, we can illustrate how such severe “austerity” measures are not only not required, but ultimately increase risk over time towards total system failure.
Transaction Type and System Balance dynamics
As explained above in a Passive BIBO stable system, “currency" units arise as mere absolute annotations of value attributed to goods and services in transactions, where the positive and negative signs applied to account entries, serve only to determine the direction of value (goods and services) transacted between parties.
That is, all parties/agents are initiated in the system with zero balance and only by participating in one or other transaction of goods and services can any balance in the system be altered in either the positive or negative direction as the case may be.
To better understand this, consider the very first transaction in such a system for a population of two agents “U" and “I":
“I” provides a horse to “U” with a mutually agreed upon value of 100 units. Since I provides the horse, I’s account goes from zero to +100 and since U receives the horse U’s account goes from zero to -100. Units do not precede the transaction but arise out of the transaction. In such a system only U has received value corresponding to the exact same measure of value relinquished by I. Clearly, the total measure of value pending reciprocation i.e. “risk” recorded in the system at this point in time is 100 units or:
Total System Risk (System Balance) = the absolute value of the sum of either all positive or all negative balances in the system.
This “risk” represents “credit” for the estimated value pending future reciprocation of goods and services and NOT for currency units as tradable objects. That system risk, remains until U reciprocates in the future with some or other good or service of equivalent value, at which point all accounts including the System Balance return to zero.
In such a system, there are only four possible permutations of transaction types as follows:
A. Positive buys from negative (reduces system balance)
B. Negative or zero buys from positive or zero (increases system balance)
C. Negative or zero buys from negative (system balance unaffected)
D. Positive buys from positive or zero (system balance unaffected)
To understand how this is the case we can contemplate the following example of a community whereby positive and negative balances are generated as a function of transacting goods and services between agents: 
Fig. 1 Transaction Dynamics
All agents begin with a zero balance. Transaction 1 of value from Jim to Mary necessarily corresponds to type B (negative or zero buys from positive or zero), as a consequence the “System Balance” (total value pending reciprocation in the System) is the absolute value transacted (30 units). Transaction 2 is type D (Positive buys from positive or zero) from John to Jim while decreasing Jim’s positive balance by 10 units it increases John’s by that same amount such that the total sum of positive balances remains unchanged and equal to the sum of negative balances in the system (Mary’s -30) The third transaction is again type B (negative or zero buys from positive or zero) from John to Julie, adding 10 units to the sums of positive and negative balances in the system, thus increasing the System Balance (total absolute value pending reciprocation) to 40 units. The fourth transaction of value is of type C from Julie to Mary both with negative balances, as a consequence and similarly to Transaction 2 (type D) the absolute value of the sums of either positive or negative balances i.e. the System Balance remains unchanged. Finally, Transaction 5 being of type A (Positive buys from negative) from Mary to Jim reduces the System balance by 20 units.
Notice that of the four types of transactions, only type B increases the net system balance or level of unreciprocated value or measured risk in the system while in all other transaction types, no risk whatsoever is added to the system. [14]
Understanding the above in a system so defined to be Passive (stable) by virtue of money being defined as ONLY a mere record of value in terms of a common arbitrary unit (e.g. $, €, ¥, ₩, etc.), avoids any need to ever paralyse or exclude any agents from the system, because as long as overextended agents are capable of generating and trading new goods and services, ALL can continue to operate with unlimited C, D and A type transactions, not only without ever increasing risk in the system but reducing risk progressively over time with any number of type A transactions as required.
Finally, although transitioning to a Passive money system from current practises, will no doubt evolve the nature of agent roles and even system topology, immediate uptake requires no penalisation nor sacrifice to any agent or entity in the system nor any cost or loss. The reason this is certain, is because the change is at the conceptual rather than the mechanical level. That is, once the conceptual change is assumed and requirements for Passivity satisfied, the same principles illustrated above will apply no matter what the initial starting balances are.
References
[1] BoE Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1 Money in the modern economy: an introduction By Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.(1)
[2] BoE Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1 Money creation in the modern economy By Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.(1)
[3] Money: Commodity or Measure Not Both (www.bibocurrency.com) 21/4/2014 rev. April 2015, Aug. 2015, rev. June 2016, rev. May 2017, rev. June 2018 M. Gauvin.
[4] von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Revised ed. New York, NY, USA: George Braziller, Inc.
[5] //cnx.org/contents/nVZ6PKeG@4/BIBO-Stability-of-Discrete-Time-Systems">https://cnx.org/contents/nVZ6PKeG@4/BIBO-Stability-of-Discrete-Time-Systems
[6] http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Passivity%20(engineering)/en-en/
[7] Gunter Stein “Respect the Unstable” IEEE Control Systems Magazine ( Volume: 23, Issue: 4, Aug. 2003)
[8] A WORLD AWASH IN MONEY Capital trends through 2020 Bain and Company. 2012 fig. 1.1. page 7.
[9] Narayana R. Kocherlakota, The Technological Role of Fiat Money* Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
[10] A proposal for harmonising current disparate (scientific and legal) definitions of money towards greater decidability in the provision of Justice according to universal principles of contract law Jorge Meira Costa and Marc Gauvin, 2015
[11] Formal Stability Analysis of Common Lending Practice, 2009 M. Gauvin, S. Dominguez
[12] Stable Currency Unit Theorem (www.bibocurrency.com) 2011, M. Gauvin, S. Dominguez
[13] The Beast of Compounding You Might Not Have Noticed (www.bibocurrency.com), Jan 10th 2020, M. Gauvin
[14] Austerity Fallacy (www.bibocurrency.com) 05/2015 rev. 7/2015, rev. 10/6/2018, M. Gauvin
[15] Passive BIBO Currency Distinguishing Claims www.bibocurrency.com Passive BIBO Currency Project 2013Marc Gauvin, Sergio Dominguez.
[16] Formal Passive BIBO Currency Specification www.bibocurrency.com, Passive BIBO Currency Project 2011-2019
[17] Legal Curriculum (https://www.moneytransparency.com/legal-principles)
[18] MSTA Resolution (https://www.moneytransparency.com/msta-resolutions) January-April 2020.
Break out of "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids
a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA
- Details
- Hits: 9233
A Relevant Tale About Clueless Proselytising in a Casino Driven Society
By Marc Gauvin
"...If "A" causes problem "B", then by definition any solution "C" that does not first eliminate "A" but instead tries to coexist with "A", CAN NEVER BE a solution to "B". And if "A" no longer exists, then any solution "C" to "B" is irrelevant because "B" no longer exists."
Somehow, a society was set up on the idea that control and access to ALL resources was to be decided by casino winnings independently of knowledge or expertise in any other domain.
The curious aspect of this society was that any resource or anything of value could be used as collateral to access casino chips in order to "get in the game" so to speak. And as anyone knows, the only way to diminish if not beat the house's edge is by amassing a boundless amount of chips or in the alternative securying a boundless source of chips in the future, e.g. by securing more resources faster than others.
As a consequence, everyone, no matter their intentions, was forced to make casino winnings their priority. This, of course, impacted the way people used resources particularly key resources like energy and food along with all the derivative products such as transportation and storage. That is, people with few chips had to trade many if not all their chips just to eat and thus obtain an inkling of hope of getting "in the game" at the casino, if not actually ever getting there. So, resources were produced to get as many chips as possible far beyond any real need, which given the unbeatable house's edge was an ever growing amount of chips. It was clear those with more chips got to decide about all and anything no matter their real knowledge about anything, and resources were being produced in tandem with the endless demand for chips by everyone rich or poor.
Among those with enough chips to be able to at least try to convince people about anything were those that found that they might be able to somehow get more chips by showing their ability to "influence" people, and this no matter what real knowledge they had about anything.
Now, most of these were so simple minded and obtuse that they would pontificate on how, within the context of this casino driven society, all key resources should be allocated and managed. Driven by their egos and obtaining "credentials" dished out directly and indirectly on the universal "casino chip" criteria, these prosyletisers thought they could tackle the resource issues with not only not knowing how to improve their odds at the casino, but apparently without the slightest idea of how the requirement for playing the casino brought about those resource problems in the first place.
The question is, was it because these proselytisers were clueless about the key to the whole shebang, or was it that they were testing their destiny like catfish probing for food in muddy waters? Or were they just placating their ego impulses in the hope of "gaining" "influence" for more chips for themselves?
Whatever their motives, their proselytising never helped solve anything other than to frustrate knowledge of the central importance of the chip game and how, therefore, their proposals were utterly useless. Why? Well it is simple, if "A" causes problem "B", then by definition any solution "C" that does not first eliminate "A" but instead tries to coexist with "A", CAN NEVER BE a solution to "B". And if "A" no longer exists, then any solution "C" to "B" is irrelevant because "B" no longer exists. To assert the opposite is, well, clueless proselytising.
Causes, Outcomes and Solutions
- Details
- Category: Learn
- Published on Thursday, 04 February 2021 11:28
- Written by Super User
- Hits: 11449
Causes, Outcomes and Solutions
By Marc Gauvin
Many refer to states such as anarchy, political self-determination or reverting to a pre-civilisation human state as "solutions". But they are not solutions, they are desired outcomes that require taking certain and different actions to achieve depending on where one finds oneself both individually and collectively. An individual caught in a trap cannot escape by ignoring the logic of the trap. That is, the individual must somehow understand the trap to become free of it, no matter how foreign that logic is to the individual nature.
Anarchy requires dissolving hierarchy in general and one common error is to assume that hierarchy necessarily is a manifestation of illegitimate and abusive power, a thus constitutes domination. But that by no means is necessarily the case, take for example a stadium's (central) score board that without affecting how the players play, can transparently keep a common score. Now, if the game happens to somehow be rigged on the field, then giving everyone their own score board and suppressing any "centralised" score board will not correct that rigging, it will just undermine keeping a common score preventing individuals from collectively realising how much the rigging (in the field) is affecting the score.
Keeping score is not the problem if it can be done correctly and fairly. If it cannot be done properly and fairly then by definition it is not score keeping. Humanity's shackles have become the lazy and lackadaisical belief that the score is somehow valid and by that negligence on the part of most everyone no one is looking to see how and why it may be invalid. When one does the science to formally unveil what is wrong, what one discovers is far more precise than any description or label of an outcome and so cannot be delimited by those.
If you are shackled you need to understand the nature of those shackles how they are locked and how they can be broken or unlocked. Describing and labeling the state of being free of shackles won't do anything to unshackle you and can even be counterproductive if such descriptions are sold as "solutions" when they aren't. Similarly, the other examples speak to the assumed nature of outcomes but do not represent the means to achieve those outcomes appropriately i.e. they are not in and of themselves solutions but the out come of the appropriate solution.
Now, when we say domination is "the cause", wittingly or not we are saying that domination itself has no relevant cause because if it did, then "the cause" would be what causes domination not domination itself. If domination is in any way selectively applied, then the conditions in which it is become the root cause of what domination produces.
When we realise this, then one has to ask whether domination is necessarily wrong and distinguish between when it is legitimate and when it is not. If for example one is caring for someone e.g. a child in a dangerous environment, domination can be what saves the child from being run down by a bus. Another case is self defense that requires the ability to dominated in order to protect one self or others.
A fundamental distinction that is too often overlooked and that arise by not distinguishing between outcomes and the causes that produce them, is the difference between wrong and systemic wrong. The latter is what is lethal because once a wrong becomes systemic then by definition its effect compounds by virtue of wrong + right = wrong. Wrong actions that are not systemic have isolated effects. A nuclear explosion is systemic while a random crime is not. A psychopathic serial killer while being systematic is not systemic because his actions do not induce others to become psychopaths. However, any logical error or erred belief can make people behave as psychopaths when otherwise they wouldn't. Finally if that belief or (il)logic is systemic in nature then the resultant psychopathic behaviour will become system wide even among a predominantly non psychopathic populace. In fact, such can come about by collective error without any need for conspiracy even if psychopaths are enabled by it.
