Mats, That was a good link. I think your conclusion that economists does not understand how technology or life in general affects the economy. I think economists are being born out of the fact that we allow certain entities to manipulate the trade. I am not proposing reverting to barter economy but just for a moment think beck to when all economy was local. There was no way to manipulate the economy. One skill or asset was traded against another and the price (how much of one for type vs. how much of another) was all depending on supply and demand. Manipulation can only happen when we let someone with power over us all to decide the price. I think that is a process we have seen develop just like Moore's law. Progressively over the time since medieval times, at least. The new technology could actually take that power back to the individual. The infrastructure (i.e.the internet) is making it possible to communicate without a middleman. (Yes, in my opinion the government is a middleman or a mediator). The technology is there and we can actually deal with trade,money supply (resources and spending. We do not need economists to manipulate rather to help overcome disputes.(Not that we need more lawyers:)
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 4:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gilder's ideas in this latest book may be fresh, but his career is far > from it -- including some very stale ideas such as "supply side economics" > (which even some of its major proponents eventually admitted was > destructive to the middle class that Gilder supposedly championed from his > early days as an author) and being a major participant in the DotCon era > bubble. > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Mats Lewan <m...@matslewan.se> wrote: > >> I’ve always had doubts about economists understanding of how technology >> influences and changes the world and the society over time, and >> consequently also its financial and monetary realities. >> >> >> >> Renowned economist and author, George Gilde, has written the book *‘A >> 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money’*, which >> is discussed by Ray Kurzweil in this piece: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-renowned-economist-and-author-george-gilders-new-information-theory-of-money >> >> >> >> I think it brings out some fresh ideas on the failure of established >> economic theory. >> >> >> >> Personally I’m particularly interested in the aspect of Bitcoin with a >> fixed amount of money supply, making it similar to gold. Potentially this >> could be an important feature if the value of human work drops to zero >> through automation and the value of products and services falls drastically >> for the same reason. It could be what makes Bitcoin or some similarly >> designed crypto currency a winner. >> >> >> >> Note that Kurzweil points out to Gilde that supply of gold is not >> guaranteed to remain fixed, in the prospect of efficient transmutation >> technology. A refined algorithmic crypto currency might be more >> future-proof, although, as Kurzweil writes: *“I have concerns about the >> validity of bitcoin’s mining algorithm, and the extent to which this can >> ultimately be algorithmically subverted.”* >> >> >> >> >> >> Mats >> >> www.animpossibleinvention.com >> >> >> >> >> > >
