Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
by
realr0ach
on 16/10/2017, 19:20:25 UTC
Indeed. And that is a good thing. We had discussed in great detail why gold is a barbaric relic whose time is coming to an end.

Some old guys still take Bitcoin profits into gold or silver, but the younger (and even GenX) guys realize gold is dying.

You are fighting against the laws of gravity if you believe metals will be displaced by craptocurrency.  I'll take the Joseph Tainter position any day on this subject matter.  When complex systems implode, they don't shift over to an even more complex system, they either go backwards in complexity or enter a full dark ages.  Complexity is not inherently good, it's a liability.  Another crux of the Joseph Tainter argument when extrapolated to it's end point is that overspecialization is essentially a Fermi Paradox-style extinction level event.  The invisible hand of nature will force chaos and implosions at random intervals to prevent this.  The world doesn't want "total order" as you always reference the term as being bad/an impossibility.

Metals always survive these random interval re-orgs of nature because they are very basic elements and almost indestructable; craptocurrency does not.  Not to mention craptocurrency being a far inferior settlement system with no reason to even exist due to not removing counter party risk and having built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators - so called "miners").

Humans are not going into some type of permanent "knowledge age" as you seem to think.  Cyclical dark ages are kind of inevitable in the grand scheme of nature's design just like economic cycles.  If you actually did attempt to engineer some type of overspecialized "knowledge age", it would just make the coming cyclical dark age all the more severe and possibly lead to extinction.