Distributing free money? Quote please.

Efficient is an adjective. It gives extra information about something. E.g.: an efficient car. But "efficient outcome" = weasel words, presumably meaning "efficiently follow what I secretly think is the best way"...

Nothing is free. Everything has a cost of human time. What you mean is the access to information is more open thus more freedom. Freedom and openness is not the same as free meaning no cost.

That is part of the rationale of why Eric S Raymond proposed the name "open source" instead of "free software".

Freedom of information publishing and access enables the division-of-labor to increase, i.e. for expertise to become more focused. Which increases the collective knowledge of society, trade, and prosperity, but this is not the same as the knowledge is free.

The purpose of money is that it enables me as an expert programmer to trade with an expert surgeon without finding a patient who needs both surgery and custom programming to act as our intermediate barter.

So we will see money moving more towards its primary function as a medium-of-exchange with short-term store-of-value and less of as a long-term, hard-on store-of-value. Why? Because knowledge workers crave knowledge more than money, because they can't buy the NEW knowledge they want with money, even if they tried. I explained why new knowledge can't be created out-of-thin air at ANY PRICE in the following linked section.

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html#FinanceabilityofKnowledge

I expounded on that in 2013:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

Degrees-of-freedom is potential energy. I will go find my writings and research on that from my copute.com

---

http://copute.com/index.html.orig

Higher-Level
| Degrees-of-Freedom

The more degrees-of-freedom, then the more a system can adapt to cooperate and fit to a desired solution. Imagine a car without reverse. That would be one less degree-of-freedom. The car would have to go around the block, to go backwards. That is inefficient.
With low-level issues alleviated, increases in the degrees-of-freedom correspond to (i.e. eliminating barriers to) robust compositional expression of higher-level semantics.

Higher-Level
| Degrees-of-Freedom
| | Physics of Work

The well established physics equations for work, can be correlated to the software development process to understand that efficiency to obtain programs with the best fitness to the desired semantics, is (exponentially) proportional to the degrees-of-freedom present in the compositional expression of higher-level semantics.

Higher-Level
| Degrees-of-Freedom
| | Physics of Work
| | | Fitness

Fitness is how well a particular configuration of a system fits the desired solution, e.g. how well a particular program fits the desired semantics.

For example, there would be gaps (i.e. errors in fitness) between a bicycle chain and a curved shape it is wrapped around, because the chain can only freely bend (i.e. without permanent bending) at the hinges where the links are joined. Each hinge is a degree-of-freedom, and the reciprocal of the distance between hinges is the degrees-of-freedom per unit length. Employing instead a solid, but flexible metal bar, the metal would remain fit to the curve only with a sustained force. The resisting force is a reduced degrees-of-freedom and an error in fitness. Permanent bending to eliminate the resisting force, reduces the degrees-of-freedom for future straightening some of the bend for wrapping to larger curves or straight shapes.

Higher-level semantics are analogous to adding more hinges. Cases in the higher-level semantics which don't compose, i.e. aren't unified, or where the high-level semantics don't fully express the desired semantics, are analogous to permanent bending.

Higher-Level
| Degrees-of-Freedom
| | Physics of Work
| | | Efficiency of work

Efficiency of work is the ratio of the work output (i.e. performed) divided by the work input, i.e. the efficiency is 100% minus the work lost to friction.
The lower the friction, then less power is required to do the same work in a given period of time. For example, pushing a cart on wheels, requires much less power than to push it without wheels, or to push it uphill on wheels. The ground rubbing against the bottom of the cart, or gravity, are both forms of friction. The rubbing is analogous to the permanent bending of the metal bar in the Fitness section, because the top of the ground and the bottom of cart are permanently altered. The gravity is a form of friction known as potential energy.

Given the friction is constant, then the input power (and thus input energy) determines the rate at which work can be completed. If the type of friction is potential energy, then the more work that is performed, the greater the potential energy available to undo the work. This type of potential energy is due to the resistance forces encountered during the work to produce a particular configuration of the subject matter:


For example, a compressed spring wants to push back and undo the work performed to compress it.

Since the goal is to get more configurations (i.e. programs) in the software development system with less work, then these resistance forces must be reduced, i.e. increase the degrees-of-freedom so that fitness is closer to 100%. Visualize an object held in the center of a large sphere with springs attached to the object in numerous directions to the inside wall of the sphere. These springs oppose movement of the object in numerous directions, and must be removed in order to lower the friction and increase the degrees-of-freedom. With increased degrees-of-freedom, less work is required to produce a diversity of configurations, thus less power to produce them faster. And the configuration of the subject matter which results from the work, thus decays (i.e. becomes unfit slower), because the resistance forces are smaller. Requiring less power (and work), to produce more of what is needed and faster, with a greater longevity, is thus more powerful (efficient).


Higher-Level
| Degrees-of-Freedom
| | Physics of Work
| | | Knowledge

Knowledge is correlated to the degrees-of-freedom, because in every definition of knowledge one can think of, an increase in knowledge is an increase in degrees-of-freedom and vice versa.
Software is unique among the engineering disciplines in that it is applicable to all of them. Software is the process of increasing knowledge. Thus the most essential characteristic of software is that it does not want to be static, and that the larger the components, thus the fewer the degrees-of-freedom, and the less powerful (i.e. efficient) the software development process.

Communication redundance (i.e. amplitude) is a form of power, because its utility exists due to the friction of resistance to comprehension, i.e. due to noise mixed with the signal. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) depends on the degrees-of-freedom of both the sender and the receiver, because it determines the fitness (resonance) to mutual comprehension.

The difference between signal and noise, is the mutual comprehension (i.e. resonance) between the sender and the receiver, i.e. noise can become a signal or vice versa, depending on the fitness of the coupling. In physics, resonance is the lack of resistance to the change in a particular configuration of the subject matter, i.e. each resonator is a degree-of-freedom.




Degrees-of-freedom is the number of potential orthogonal (independent) configurations, i.e. the ability to obtain a configuration without impacting the ability to obtain another configuration. In short, degrees-of-freedom are the configurations that don't have dependencies on each other.

Thus increasing the number of independent configurations in any system, makes the system more powerful, requiring less work (and energy and power since speed is important), to obtain diversity within the system. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is trending to maximum entropy (a/k/a disorder), i.e. the maximum independent configurations. Entropy (disorder) is a measure of the relative number of independent possibilities, and not some negative image of violence or mayhem.

This universal trend towards maximum independent possibilities (i.e. degrees-of-freedom, independent individuals, and maximum free market) is why Coase's theorem holds that any cost barrier (i.e. resisting force or inefficiency) that obstructs the optimum fitness will eventually fail. This is why decentralized small phenomena grow faster, because they have less dependencies and can adapt faster with less energy. Whereas, large phenomena reduce the number of independent configurations and thus require exponentially more power to grow, and eventually stagnate, rot, collapse, die, and disappear. Centralized systems have the weakness that they try to fulfill many different objectives, thus they move monolithically and can fulfill none of the objectives, e.g. a divisive political bickering with a least common denominator of spend more and more debt[16].

Thus in terms of the future, small independent phenomena are exponentially more powerful than those which are large. Saplings grow fast into trees, but trees don't grow to moon (nor to end of the universe). The bell curve and power law distributions exist because the minority is exponentially more efficient (i.e. more degrees-of-freedom and knowledge), because a perfectly equal distribution would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, the end of the universe's trend to maximum disorder, and thus a finite universe with finite knowledge. It is the mathematical antithesis of seeking knowledge to have socialism (equalitarian) desires for absolute equality, absolute truth, or perfection in any field.

The organization of matter and natural systems (e.g. even political organization) follows the exponential probabilistic relationship of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because a linear relationship would require the existence of perfection. If the same work was required to transition from 99% to 100% (perfection) as to transition from 98% to 99%, perfection would be possible. Perfection is never possible, thus each step closer to 100% gets asymptotically more costly, so that perfection can never be reached. This is also stated in the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, wherein the true reality is never known until infinite samples have been performed (and this has nothing to do with a pre-filter!). The nonexistence of perfection is another way of stating that the universe is finite in order, and infinite in disorder, i.e. breaking those larger down to infinitely smaller independent phenomena.

The problem is that government is inefficient, because a) top-down is not as efficient at finding diversity of fitness as bottom-up (i.e. simulated annealing is only known global optimization algorithm), and b) vested groups corrupt and paralyze the centralized coffers. Right now we have bankers who keep the profits, yet socialize the defaults on their proprietary trading. QE was a way to buy the shit the bankers didn’t want and give them more money to go gamble with– it was never about getting more loans to businesses and restarting the real economy. And now we see the depositors will be bailed-in, but the defaults on proprietary trading will take precedence over the bank depositors and bond holders in bankruptcy. The G20 has turned into one huge fraud. So that is why I say upthread, don’t think your 20-something age bracket is going to win easily and that the politics of the boomers+corruption won’t succeed in taxing above the Laffer limit for a while as they spiral this sucker down into a police state.

So the Laffer limit is basically the breaking point where capital says “hell no” and goes to hide in a hole (in gold, but now we have a new technology). This is well underway as money velocity is way down globally and now it is falling over a cliff as you see all emerging markets reporting slowing and falling stock markets this week. I warned that this would happen and capital would run back to the dollar before the final big crash 2016.

It is not inflation that is the problem. We need inflation. The problem is that control over inflation is centralized, because money is a function of the majority. Fortunately we now have a technological solution that never existed before in the history of mankind.

As far as I can see, you entirely miss Michael’s thesis, which is that the [Chinese] government has to stop repressing the consumer sector, by getting out of the way, i.e. stop manipulating interest rates lower, stop propping up failed and inefficient [export] industries, and stop trying to pick the winners. The focus should be on doing less suppression, not on picking what sector to throw more top-down resources at.

There is already overcapacity in China for manufacturing and fixed capital investment projects.

It is possible to stimulate more demand with more debt, but this is just an illusion of employment until the expanding debt is written down.

China needs to move into higher-valued activities, in order to generate wealth, otherwise doing more of the same is making them poorer (using a forward valuation when the current unpayable debt is written-down).

But to move into higher-valued activities requires knowledge creation and knowledge creation requires fine-grained annealing (link contains a reference to Taleb’s Antifragility math). This is why I’m confident China can not rebalance without a Minsky moment implosion that topples their top-down manner of collecting and directing capital.

GA, you’ve restated what Michael wrote, you are not disagreeing with his point. The point is that exports may be understated and imports overstated, thus the true surplus (and nominal GDP level) is much higher and the consumption level percentage of the economy may be much lower than stated.

In short, the economy may be even more unbalanced than calculated.

The other interesting aspect is that exporters may not be as unprofitable as reported, except the profits are accruing to the illicit economy and to a fewer number of insiders, so thus is likely misallocated (even the highest IQ people in the world could not allocated capital more efficiently than millions of monkeys making individual opportunity cost decisions).

I like exploriment.

I have used delve naturally, "I will need to first delve into the code". However, I prefer to retain delve to mean when I am not necessarily implicating [experimental] modification.

My best alternative idea thus far is prodspect.

Other brainstorming:
edispect
editspect
experispect
modilyze
modelyze
twgeek
twerk