Monday, August 31, 2020

Bitcoin and the Scarcity Fallacy

A friend of mine suggested the other day that we should go to a Bitcoin standard rather than a gold standard due to the fact that Bitcoin is limited in numbers while gold is virtually endless in supply, so gold might one day be as worthless as sand. This prompted me to write the following reply:

Gold is a material that's used in jewellery and computers. This makes it a thing that we value relative to other things. If things in general become more expensive over time, as we've seen happening over the last 100 years, gold too becomes more expensive. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is not a material we can use to make things. No-one needs Bitcoin to produce stuff. However, gold is needed in computers, some of which are used to store Bitcoin. If Bitcoin suddenly isn't used in transactions, there's no value in it. That wasn't the case for gold when we went off the gold standard. Gold was still needed for jewellery and industry. The price of gold went up when we got off the gold standard. The same will not happen to Bitcoin the day no-one bothers to keep it.

Furthermore, materials are not priced according to their quantity, but according to their ease of production and the demand for their use. The universe contains an endless supply of materials of all sorts, including gold. But the cost of accessing and refining gold is so high that it will never be priced as low as sand, no matter how many gold asteroids Elon brings down to Earth. One kilogram of gold will always be priced somewhere between a car and a house.

I sold a house in Norway for a price corresponding to 16 kilogram of gold back in 2017. That same house is today priced at 10 kilogram. House prices in Norway have gone down relative to gold, and will most likely continue to do so since their prices are still historically high. The fact that we can read historic prices in terms of gold is one reasons for its status as money. By reading all prices relative to gold, rather than Kroner or Dollar, we can uncover hidden trends. Measured in Kroner, house prices in Norway are continuing up, but the gold price reveals a different truth. The same is true for the stock market which is lower relative to gold than it was in 2000.

433eros.jpg
Asteroid

By NASA/NEAR Project (JHU/APL). - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/near_20000214_mos2.jpg from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mission/near/near_eros_2.html, Public Domain, Link

Sunday, August 30, 2020

How Pink Floyd Corrupted the Optics Debate

Pink Floyd's famous album the Dark Side of the Moon has on its cover an illustration of a prism breaking white light into different colours. This iconic image is beautiful in its simplicity, attracting the attention of anyone curious about the nature of light. However, the image is also wrong. Light does not diffract on entry into a prism. It diffracts only on exit, as can be seen by careful observation of a real experiment.

Light dispersion of a mercury-vapor lamp with a flint glass prism IPNr°0125.jpg
Diffraction

By D-Kuru - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0 at, Link

This disconnect between Pink Floyd's cover and the real nature of light is unfortunate in that it has installed a false idea of reality in a lot of people's minds. Many students of physics go their entire lives assuming that diffraction happens both at the entry and at the exit of a prism. This in turn, leads to the assumption that light is a wave phenomenon. Snell's Law is frequently sited. Yet, all of this is incorrect. Light does not behave like waves. It behaves like particles wrapped inside pilot waves.

This would have been a trivial matter if it wasn't for the fact that the behaviour of light as it travels through a prism is the biggest mystery in optics. It's at the heart of an age long debate over the true nature of light. The wide distribution and general acceptance of Pink Floyd's cover as a correct representation of reality is therefore a big deal. It has confused an issue that is of great importance in physics.

A great deal of work has been done on optics, and much time has been wasted on the incorrect assumption that Pink Floyd was right. However, any text on optics can be immediately ignored if it uses illustrations in which light diffracts at both the entry and exit of a prism. Entire theories can be ignored as fiction. They answer questions that only exist in the minds of people but have no anchor in reality.

The damage done by Pink Floyd's cover is so wide reaching that most school books on optics give the impression that light diffract on entry as well as exit through a prism. Many students of physics are not only exposed to an iconic image on a record album. They are also told at school that the image is factually correct. A very important debate on the nature of light has thus been thoroughly corrupted.

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Interest Rates and Time Preferences

The concept of time preference relates to the fact that we generally prefer early consumption to late consumption, so we expect to be rewarded for any deferred consumption. However, there's a limit to how much we can consume in the present, and there's a constant need to save for the future. We are therefore willing to accept a loss in future purchasing power if consumption in the present is of little value.

The need to save for the future doesn't go away just because central bankers decide to set interest rates lower than inflation. All that happens is that it becomes less profitable to save currency. However, there are alternatives, and the closest alternative we have to currencies is gold.

An interesting feature of gold is that it is a commodity required in the manufacturing of jewellery, and therefore a part of the value hierarchy of the real world. If the world economy does well, gold does well. If the world economy does badly, gold does badly. If dollar prices go up for real world goods and services, the dollar price of gold goes up. The price of gold will fluctuate with sentiments related to jewellery, but will by and large follow the world economy.

One way of looking at this is to view gold as a type of bond tied to the world economy. It has a natural interest rate equal to the growth rate of the world. This natural interest rate is reflected in the price of gold, measured in currencies such as dollars and euro. While these prices swing a lot in the short term, they are remarkably stable over time.

Over the last 20 years, gold has had an average natural interest rate of about 10% per year relative to the dollar. Of this, much is due to the falling purchasing power of the dollar. But a part is due to growth in the world economy. Gold has tracked the world economy, and can be expected to do so for ever due to its use in jewellery.

The prudent saver, with a long time horizon, can for this reason save in gold with no worries about its eventual purchasing power. Unlike unbacked currencies, gold will never become worthless. On the contrary, it will keep its relative position in the value hierarchy of things.

Golden bracelets with snakes at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens on 1 June 2018.jpg
Jewellery

By George E. Koronaios - Own work, CC0, Link

The Totalitarian Paradox

All totalitarian systems through history have relied heavily on the myth that totalitarian control is the ultimate end towards which we are moving due to modernity and progress.

This myth is widely accepted, both by those who long for a totalitarian future and by those who fear it. But nowhere in history do we find any evidence in support of this. Totalitarian systems last at most a few generations, and very imperfectly at best. They are therefore nothing to be feared.

Fear is counter productive. It prevents us from acting rationally. Instead of us taking practical steps to rearrange our personal lives and finances, we sit petrified and frustrated at home, arguing among ourselves about what totalitarian candidate to vote for. But the way to deal with totalitarian tendencies has never been through petitions and voting. It has always been through subversive measures at the private level. The very opposite of totalitarianism is after all the private sphere. It is the private sphere that the totalitarians cannot ever conquer. There's simply too many people with too many connections and too many ideas for the totalitarians to ever come to grasps with.

Private interactions and conversations cannot be conquered. Not even the most totalitarian nut-job will propose a world in which no-one interacts with anybody else without their permission and a full transcript of what took place. Such a world would be impossible. There's no way to implement something like that. This means that there will always be room for private deals. Commerce, justice and law will always exists in the private sphere no matter how much totalitarians wish it otherwise.

Private relations and independent thinking extends all the way into the bureaucratic machine of the totalitarians themselves. The top layer may be fully staffed by totalitarians, and the bottom layer may be full of unthinking drones. But the executive layer is by necessity filled with individuals skilled in logical reasoning. Otherwise, no rational commands can be made, which would render the bureaucracy impotent.

The paradox of totalitarianism is that it requires individuals to be both rational thinkers and mindless drones at one and the same time. The more advanced and sophisticated the totalitarian system appears to be, the more it relies on this paradox. As a consequence, we get odd episodes where a single individual like Edward Snowden brings down decades of propaganda related to the nature of government surveillance.

Similarly, something interesting just happened over at Sandia Labs. A scientist pointed out the incoherent and baseless nature of claims pushed by his superiors. All it took was a short video for the entire establishment of his industry to be thoroughly shaken.

From history, we know that this is how sophisticated totalitarian states like the Austrian-Hungarian empire end. When the thinking part of the bureaucracy starts protesting, things come unglued. At some point, the totalitarians become so unhinged that no thinking person is willing to execute their orders.

This will happen again. In the meantime, whenever totalitarians are out in force, our best line of action is to strengthen our private ties so that we suffer as little damage as possible from the insanity that they unleash.

Three Surveillance cameras.jpg
Surveillance

By CC BY-SA 3.0, Hustvedt - Own workLink

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Cantillon's Sovereign

Richard Cantillon starts off his book on political economy by pointing out that all wealth has its source in productive land. From this, he ends up concluding that productive land is the best investment over time. However, he seems less sure of himself later in his book. Land can be confiscated. If the sovereign of the land gets greedy, there may be no profit left for land owners.

This derives directly from Cantillon's division of society into the sovereign, land owners and labourers, which corresponds to today's division into government, capital owners, and renters. A fair society according to Cantillon is one in which each of these layers get one third of the total production. But it's entirely up to the sovereign to establish this division. There's no guarantee that the sovereign will stick to this general rule.

Cantillon knew from history that sovereigns do on occasions go completely mad. There were periods in Roman history when taxes were confiscatory, and no-one in their right mind would have invested into land under such conditions. In times of war and unrest, productive land and capital is often laid waste. Laws may also be so restrictive that hardly any form of commerce is possible.

While discussing these types of extremes, Cantillon makes a remarkable statement about the nature of sovereignty. He claims that there are sovereigns among us that are not kings. Government is not the only entity that has the power to act without consent from higher authorities. Anyone in possession of gold can do this as well. Those who own gold are sovereign beings.

From this, we get a hierarchy of power identical to the one suggested in my book on political economy. Family elders can act as sovereign rulers, directing economic activity through their children and grandchildren. Largely isolated from government interference, the elders can do as they please. Their children and grandchildren are the ones interacting with government officials.

Under extreme conditions, the family sells everything for gold, which allows them to either move to somewhere else or sit out the insanity of their times. All sorts of constellations are possible, with family members living far and wide or tightly together. As long as they have gold, they can act independent of what government officials may deem legal. In the final analysis, it's possible to imagine entire regions breaking loose from a dysfunctional government and do things on their own.

It's no wonder then that government agents are generally hostile towards private ownership of gold. It's also clear why the British call their gold coin the Sovereign, because anyone in possession of such coins can do as they please.

1959 sovereign Elizabeth II obverse.jpg
Sovereign

By Heritage Auctions for image, Mary Gillick for coin - Newman Numismatic Portal, Public Domain, Link

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Cantillon's Land Calculations

Richard Cantillon spends several passages discussing land in his book on political economy. One thing he brings up is the division of income between labour, owners and government, where each actor receives one third as a general rule. Personally, I've come across this same line of thinking as part owner of a large family enterprise. Taxes, labour and capital gains were seen to be divided optimally when each party received one third. Any other division was considered excessive and ultimately unsustainable.

This means that this general rule on how to divide income has been around for at least 300 years, and is likely to be around for many years to come. It's therefore reasonable to use this rule when looking into investment opportunities into productive capital.

Cantillon is clear about the fact that owners of land and capital rarely work directly with what they own. It's not the land owner who works the land, and it's not the factory owner who works the machines. This too is still true for large scale agriculture and production. It's therefore likely to persist into the future.

What we find in Cantillon's book is therefore a way to calculate the value of enterprises. Only when the division between taxes, labour and capital income balances out equally do we have a sustainable model. Cases where the division is lopsided cannot be expected to last over time. If there's little capital income to be had, prices must come down before there's any sense in investing. Furthermore, conditions must be stable, or be expected to improve over time.

We can view productive land as an income generating alternative to gold. While gold and land will move in parallel over the long term, only land produces income. However, during times of excessive taxation or political unrest, gold will outperform land. Furthermore, land is not a very liquid asset, so it's senseless to invest in it without political stability and a relatively good compensation in terms of income.

When investing in productive land, we need to find out what we get in income from it if we rent it out to a farmer. Only when that equation gives us a reasonable return on our investment is it sensible to buy, and this is no less true if we intend to work the land ourselves. Our labour should not come as a compensation to cover up a bad deal.

Land can be further developed by catering to tourists, or by producing end products like wine and beer. However, this too must be left out of our initial calculations. If expected income is mainly from tourism or wine production, we're better off buying a hotel or a winery. Land has to be income generating when leased out to a professional farmer. Only then is it a worth while investment.

Grape Vineyard.jpg
Vineyard 

By Sanjay Acharya - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

My Tao - Unsustainable Sustainability

To find out what's naturally sustainable by default, and what isn't, imagine a world with no central bank and no government. Immediately, we see that only gold and silver can be money, credit becomes personal, and the family becomes the basic political unit, on top of which we include friends and neighbours. Projects that don't turn a profit are abandoned, and our efforts are redirected towards things that add value to ourselves and our families.

All of this is ignored by almost all politicians. They have a very different view of the world. To them, sustainability is about things matching their personal opinion on what is of benefit and what isn't. It makes no difference if what they wish for is profitable or not. What matters is the overall sense of sustainability. Individuals and families are not considered important, except as resources in their scheme of things.

From this we get a command economy in which politicians codify economic incentives and disincentives into law. Projects that please the political establishment receive subsidies while projects that they find dangerous or undesirable are burdened with taxes and regulations, or right out banned.

Sustainable energy is the political code word for energy that pleases the political establishment. There's nothing sustainable about this type of energy, because they only exist due to subsidies. Without the coercion of taxes, and investment mandates laid upon pension funds, green energy would be impossible. No-one would build wind turbines if it wasn't for the command economy we currently live under.

When politicians get scared, or want to scare their subjects, they produce all sorts of laws and regulations. They sometimes even shut down the economy, as we have seen happening this year.

To support this kind of unsustainable economic interference politicians turn to their central banks. They command them to print whatever amount of currency that is required to cover the most glaring holes created by their irresponsible and immoral edicts.

A curious side-effect of this is that a whole flora of industries pop up in order to profit from the dictates of politicians. Not only do we have unnatural activity in the wind turbine industry and other subsidised industries, we have all sorts of consultants and think-tanks that profit directly from this too. My own brother is currently makings his living from advising corporations on how to be more sustainable and inclusive.

Corporations hire the likes of my brother because the command economy rewards those that tag along with the wishes of the politicians. This is initially done for purely pragmatic reasons. However, those involved are quickly inclined to believe that whatever they are doing is both sustainable and intelligent, because it's far easier to do something believing it makes sense than to do it in the full knowledge that it's merely done for the subsidies that can be had. Independent though is thus abandoned. Instead, the edicts of politicians are taken as gospel.

This has the effect of corrupting the minds of even the most intelligent. My brother managed to state in private that the climate and the flue has made our times dangerous and uncertain. He, of all people, should have seen through this scam. But he has internalized his parroting of political correct thought so much that he even in private is unable to see the nonsense in it.

This means that a lot of intelligent people are completely blind to the ultimate consequence of this. There is a disaster approaching where pension funds will be found to be empty, where governments are bankrupt, and anyone depending on government subsidies will find themselves abandoned. Only those with a safe distance from the state will fare relatively well. Those dependent directly or indirectly on the command economy and its associated central banks will face hard times.

Windmills D1-D4 (Thornton Bank).jpg
Unsustainable sustainability 

By © Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Cantillon's Europe - The Game

Welcome to Cantillon's Europe, a board game based on Richard Cantillom's book on political economy.

The game takes place on a map of Europe, and can be played by 2 to 6 players. Each player is a sovereign ruler with the power to tax, wage war, and invest in productive capital.

Getting started

Order of game play is determined by dice toss or any other means suitable for this purpose.

To keep track of the various stages of gameplay, the game comes with a progress sheet. At the centre of this sheet, there is a wheel divided into six segments. These segments are marked with the numbers 1 to 6. The first player puts a flag of their chosen colour on the segment marked 1, the second player puts their flag on the segment marked 2, and so on for all players.

The map

The full map of Europe has 80 land areas and 29 sea areas. Land areas are marked with numbers, and sea areas are marked with letters. 12 land areas come with a city, marked as a black circle, and 7 of these cities come with a port, marked with an anchor. Note that cities are not independent areas, but part of a larger terrain. Any piece occupying this terrain is automatically part of the city and visa versa.

First draft of the map
First draft of the map 

The map can be folded in various ways to produce smaller maps. This allows for smaller campaigns. Any map configuration can be chosen as long as it has at least one city for each player. For example, a Nordic campaign can be played with up to 3 players, while an Atlantic campaign can be played with up to 4 players. Players can in this way scale their campaigns according to how many players they are, and how much time they want to spend playing.

When playing with a reduced map, only regions with a visible number or letter are included. No piece can occupy an unmarked region.

Pieces and markers

There are 3 types of military pieces:

  1. Taxman = flag with no base
  2. Army = flag with round base
  3. Navy = flag with rectangular base
Resource markers come in 3 primary colours (red, blue, yellow) and three secondary colours (purple, green, orange). The large resource markers represent land production. Their value is 1. The smaller markers in primary colours represent basic factory products. Their value is 2. The small markers in secondary colours are advanced products. Their value is 8.

Factories come in brown and three secondary colours. The brown ones are basic factories. The other ones are advanced factories.

Initial positioning

Each player chooses 1 area with a city as their starting point. This happens in reverse order of game play so that the player with the advantage of making the first move has the disadvantage of being the last to choose a city.

Each player puts 2 taxmen in their area. One that must remain in the city, and another that will move into an adjacent area or fleet. If the city comes with a port, put a fleet at the anchor. A resource token of appropriate colour is put on the land of the chosen city.

Any player can build a fleet if they occupy a coastal region. However, only ports come with a free fleet, and only when chosen as a starting city.

Game play

The basic idea of this game is that there is a constant flow of resources from land and into the hands of sovereign rulers. This constant supply of resources from nature and the labour of subjects is endless. Resources cannot dry up, so if there is a lack of tokens available at any stage of the game, new tokens must be created, or the players hoarding resources must resort to accounting so as to free up tokens for game play. E.g. A player hoarding ten yellow 1 value tokens can note this on a piece of paper before returning the tokens for further game play. However, most players will not resort to hoarding. They will spend their resources by returning tokens to the heap in return for factories, armies, so there will rarely be a lack of tokens.

Any taxes collected that are not spent by a player remains with the player. There is no limit to how much a player may hoard, but hoarders must be prepared to resort to accounting as described above if so required.

A player loses the game when he has no more cities. When this happens, the victorious player gets control of all armies, fleets, taxmen, factories and land that belonged to the defeated player. The game comes to an end when all enemies have been defeated, or when an agreed upon goal has been achieved.

Gameplay is divided into 8 stages. Only when a player has gone through all stages, is it time for the next player to do the same. To keep track of this, each player takes their turn moving their flag across the progress sheet. No mandatory stage (marked with a purple frame) can be skipped, and a player cannot move backwards. Once progress has been made into a new stage, going back to fix things cannot be done unless all players agree to this.

The stages ask for the player to:
  1. Tax (mandatory)
  2. Pay troops (mandatory)
  3. Expand
  4. Build new military units
  5. Position military units
  6. Generate land and factory output (mandatory)
  7. Build factories
  8. Finalize negotiations
Tax

Resource tokens are collected from land and factories controlled by the player.

Pay troops

Player pays each army unit 1 value unit to be sustained. Army units that are not paid for are removed from the board.

Expand

Player expands by moving previously positioned taxmen, armies and fleets forward by 1. Taxmen can only move into unoccupied land, while armies can also invade enemy occupied land. Only fleets can invade enemy occupied seas.

There is no rule forbidding a player from attacking allied forces, so only a player's own units are considered friendly. All other units are enemies.

Units that are completely separated from all friendly cities by unoccupied or enemy occupied land and sea are considered isolated.

No unit can move in such a way that it becomes isolated due to the expansion. Nor can a unit move in such a way that other friendly units become isolated.

At the end of operations, all isolated units belonging to the player are removed from the board. The player may in other words start an expansion with isolated units. They are only lost if still isolated after operations. Conversely, having isolated enemy units does not guarantee victory. Isolated enemy units that are able to re-connect with friendly forces during enemy expansion are not lost.

Newly conquered land and factories are taxed. Defeated flags and military equipment are removed from the board.

Military units can only invade regions adjacent to them. A player can attack the same enemy unit multiple times if he has available units to do so, and it's up to the player to continue an attack or call it off at any time.

Expansion from sea into land happens by first placing an army or taxman together with a fleet. Only 1 army or taxman can occupy a sea region with a fleet. If the fleet is sunk while carrying a military unit, both the fleet and army unit is lost. Once a bridgehead has been established across a sea, the fleet acts as if it was land. It cannot be moved in such a way that it isolates the bridge head from friendly cities.

Cities are like armies in that they offer protection.

Armies invading unprotected taxmen win automatically. Armies invading land defended by an army or city must toss a dice and get a dice toss higher than the opponent. Areas defended by both an army and a city require two dice tosses. Only if both dice tosses come out winning is the defending army defeated, and the city captured. Defeated armies and fleets on either side of a conflict are removed from the board.

Cities come under siege if they are surrounded by enemy forces in such a way that the city has no access to land beyond what it has of its own. Such a siege must be broken by the attacked player during their expansion phase. If not, their city is lost. All units are removed. The city, with associated land and factories is then taken over by the first player to enter the area. No dice toss is required in order to enter an abandon or otherwise unoccupied city.

Build new military units

1 taxman costs 1 value unit to build
1 fleet cost 2 value units to build
1 army costs 2 value units to build

Position military units

Player positions all units in suitable positions within his landmass and adjacent seas in preparation for next round of expansion.

A land area can have up to 2 land units. A land area must have at least one taxman or army unit in order to be considered part of a player's landmass. Land with no units is not part of any player's landmass, and produces no taxable income.

Islands can only be occupied by first moving a taxman/army onto a fleet. Islands with no fleet connecting them to a friendly landmass is considered isolated.

Fleets act as extensions to land areas. Fleets can in this way be placed adjacent to each other to create a bridge between landmasses that are far separated from each other by water. Armies can for instance be moved from Africa to Iceland if the areas of sea between these two landmasses are all occupied by the player's fleets.

Army units can move freely through land that is not occupied by enemy units, but must come to rest inside the landmass of the player. Fleets can move freely through unoccupied seas, but must come to rest adjacent to land occupied by the player. Fleets cannot pass through sea regions occupied by other players without permission to do so. Permission can be negotiated or bought if the other player so wishes.

Negotiations and trade are allowed throughout game play, but is explicitly called for at the end of a player's turn. Negotiations can be held in private, if so desired. To do so, the players involved can leave the room for their talk. The other players may try to spy on them, but cannot disrupt discussions or sabotage them in any way.

Generate land and factory production

Player generates land production by putting large tokens (value = 1) of relevant colour onto occupied land.

Player generates factory production by supplying resources from his treasury. This yields higher value products represented by small tokens of relevant colour.

All types of production yield taxable income which is taxed at the start of the next round.

Build factories

Building any type of factory costs 2 value units. However, advanced factories cannot produce without basic factory products as input, so there's no point in building them before basic factories are in place.

There are 3 types of basic factories:
  • Red (minerals)
  • Blue (wood)
  • Yellow (food)
These can only be built in regions with a corresponding colour. Every region has a colour code to indicate what sort of production it can sustain.

A region with a factory produces both land produce and factory goods as long as the factory is fully financed by the treasury. A basic factory takes local produce as its input. Example:

Yellow land produces 1 unit of pale yellow produce. Yellow factory takes on pale yellow unit to produce 1 unit of dark yellow produce. Pale yellow units have a value of 1. Dark yellow units have a value of 2. A region with no factory can therefore only produce 1 value unit every turn. But a region with a basic factory can produce 2 value units in profit every turn. Land produces 1 value unit without input, and a basic factory produces 2 value units with 1 unit input. This gives us 1 + 2 - 1 = 2.

A region can support 1 basic factory and 1 advanced factory, but no more.

Advanced factories come in 3 types:
  • Purple (blue + red)
  • Orange (yellow + red)
  • Green (yellow + blue)
Such factories take 2 units of basic produce to produce 1 units of advanced produce. The basic products must be of the right colour combination, as indicated above.

The value of each advanced product is 8. But it requires 2 units of basic products to function, so its net value to the player is 4. This gives us the following hierarchy of value:
  1. Land produce = 1 -0 input = 1 net value to the player
  2. Basic product = 2 - 1 input = 1 net value to the player
  3. Advanced product = 8 - (2 + 2) = 4 net value to the player
Net value calculations are only useful in order to determine net benefits of investments. Products stored in a player's treasury are valued at face value because all expenses for their production have already been paid. Advanced products have face value of 8. Basic products have face value of 2, and land produce has face value of 1.

A fully developed region with 1 basic factory and 1 advanced factory produces the following net profit:
  1. Land: 1 value unit
  2. Basic factory: 2 value units - 1 value unit in input = 1 value unit
  3. Advanced factory 8 value units - 2 basic units each with a value of 2 = 4 value units
Advanced factories can be placed in any region occupied by a player. They are valuable, but it takes time and resources to get them up and running. They are also vulnerable to supply chain disruptions brought on by enemies.

Finalize negotiations

Player finalizes trade and military negotiations before handing gameplay over to the next player.

The player can at this point choose to end their participation in the game. In the case of a 2 player game, this cedes victory to the other player. However, in multi-player games, there are several options. The player can choose to burn everything to the ground by removing all pieces, or the player can hand control of areas and associated pieces to other players. The player can also choose to do a bit of both. There's no limit to this. A player can even auction off regions and associated capital for real money if the other players are thus inclined.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Hávamál, Agorism and Gift Economy

Hávamál is well worth reading for anyone interested in ancient Scandinavian culture. It's short, concise and eye opening as to how people actually lived in Scandinavia during the Viking age. It's even funny at times, with advice on all sorts of things, including why we should be precise and on time when we go to parties.

After reading Hávamál, I was left with a clear sense of a lifestyle and economy that must have operated successfully in the past. In particular, I was struck by the importance of gifts and gift giving. It was clearly the main way of forging alliances between households. To stay on good terms with our neighbours we had to regularly offer gifts that should be neither too cheap nor too expensive.

Gift giving was essentially a system of credit that ensured that everyone was on good terms with everyone else. When dealing with strangers, barter must have been the norm. But this is not as extensively discussed as gift giving, indicating that most households were self sufficient, and only in need of outside help when undertaking larger projects.

This is interesting from an agorist viewpoint because ancient Scandinavians were essentially practicing agorists, the success of which relied heavily on gift giving. While we can trade through the use of barter, including the use of gold and silver coins, we need to form alliances in order to undertake larger projects.

In all of this, I was struck by the fact that my brother in law has in fact been engaging in this type of alliance building from the day I met him. He never fails to give me a gift on my birthday and for Christmas, never too expensive nor too cheap. He's a skilled artist, so he can produce a fine piece of art without much effort, and my wife and I now have several fine pieces hanging on our walls.

Art by Guilherme Castro
Art by Guilherme Castro 

The net effect of this is that my brother in law has built up a substantial amount of credit with me that I have recently decided to return. I'm determined to help him sell his art. I'm showing it off on Facebook, and I'm planning to make a fan-page as a blog. This is stuff I can do with little effort, in a similar way to how he can produce fine art without much work.

If successful, I will sell art for Guilherme in return for a gift every now and again. No money will ever flow between the two of us, and any money coming in will either be spent relatively soon or saved in gold or silver. In this way, we'll have a functioning agorist economy, hooked up to the "real" economy, to the benefit of both Guilherme and I.

The Stranger at the Door.jpg
Hávamál

By W.G. Collingwood (1854 - 1932) - The Elder or Poetic Edda; commonly known as Sæmund's Edda. Edited and translated with introduction and notes by Olive Bray. Illustrated by W.G. Collingwood (1908) Page 60. Digitized by the Internet Archive and available from https://archive.org/details/elderorpoeticedd01brayuoft This image was made from the JPEG 2000 image of the relevant page via image processing (removing text, crop, rotate, color-levels, mode) with the GIMP by User:Haukurth. The image processing is probably not eligible for copyright but in case it is User:Haukurth releases his modified version into the public domain., Public Domain, Link

Thursday, August 6, 2020

A Change in Humour

The signs are clear. We appear to be at the cusp of a new era. History books will likely tell of pre- and post-Covid economy, politics, fashion, architecture and entertainment in much the same way we refer to pre- and post- World War 1.

Everything is in flux. The winds of change are blowing fiercely, and icons will fall from grace. New faces and names will take their places.

An early indication of this can be found in how Ellen DeGeneres suddenly, and quite out of the blue, went from favourite darling in the entertainment industry to persona non grata. A personal attack on her management style quickly morphed into an attack on her humour. Her confrontational style, typical of the pre-Covid era, has suddenly become unacceptable.

The new style in entertainment is likely to be similar to what was in fashion back in the 1930s and 40s when economic conditions were hard, and everybody longed for a more relaxed and affluent society. There will be little demand for the aggressive and confrontational humour that has so defined entertainment since the 1980s. Warm, affectionate and subtle humour is likely to make a comeback, and from this we can infer what is likely to happen in entertainment in general, in architecture and in art.

Ellen DeGeneres 2.jpg
Ellen DeGeneres 

By photo by Alan Light, CC BY 2.0, Link

Monday, August 3, 2020

Pilot Waves as Time

Entropy has been suggested as time because it has direction. Drop a glass on the floor, and it's evident which way time flows, namely from order to disorder. However, this way of looking at time doesn't work for processes where there's no entropy.

Processes with no energy loss can be filmed and run backwards. It looks correct either way. But this is only because we are as yet unable to capture pilot waves on film. Once we do, we will see that no process is without direction, and that this has nothing to do with entropy. Even if there's no energy loss, we have the pilot waves to tell us which frame of film comes before or after a given frame.

The arrow of time

The only particles that have no pilot waves associated with them are zero-point particles in the aether itself. It can therefore be argued that the aether has no time of its own. It transmits and directs time, but time itself is local to each particle.

Each particle interacts with other particles in a time frame that is local to itself. However, particles coordinate their pilot waves with each other. They produce wave fronts and resonant structures. Time is thus coordinated through all systems, yielding a real but non-physical notion of universal time. Atomic time, in the form of single particles and their pilot waves, combine to produce universal time in much the same way that these particles combine into grand structures and systems that include our bodies and the universe at large.

Sunday, August 2, 2020

The Physical and the Non-Physical

To be physical, things must have a direct cause that can be identified as a thing or a combination of things acting together. The thesis of my physics is that everything in the universe can be traced back to this. Matter can be subdivided into particles that can move. From this premise, my entire physics is constructed.

It follows from this that everything else is either a combination of matter and motion, or an abstraction with no real physical existence. As examples of non-physical abstractions, we have time, space, energy and mass. While these things are clearly real, they are non-physical in the sense that they are abstractions for something else. Time is relative motion. Space is aether. Energy is size at the subatomic, and mass is a complex abstraction that joins inertia with gravity. Inertia and gravity are two further abstractions where inertia is time delay in the distribution of energy, and gravity is a low pressure in the aether.

We have hierarchies of abstractions that all boil down to matter and motion. Close analysis of any of the above mentioned abstractions lead to this basic physics. Any honest discussion on time leads us to motion. We end up with clocks and relative speeds. Any honest discussion on space leads to the aether.

Pure energy, separate from particles does not exist. It must therefore be an attribute of particles, and I've concluded that it must be the size of particles. Mass too is a property of matter, and closely related to energy. It too has to do with the size of subatomic particles.

When we fail to recognize abstractions, we end up looking for something physical where nothing physical exists. We search desperately for some mass-particle, but find nothing but charged particles. We look for pure energy, but find no energy without an accompanying particle. We imagine space-time as something real, but find nothing but relative motion and strange actions at a distance, indicating an aether.

Mistaking non-physical phenomena for something physical prevents us from looking deeper. It sends us on wild goose chases. It confuses and muddles everything to the point of being impossible to understand.

Joseph Wright of Derby The Alchemist.jpg


Time, Energy and Consciousness

When energy is distributed through our bodies, there's a delay due to the fact that nothing moves faster than light. This delay is experienced by us as time.

Photon traversing an electron

Time has duration because the aether has a speed limit. However, this does not explain why time has direction. To understand the arrow of time, we have to look into how energy is distributed through inertial matter, because it's the direction of energy delivery that gives time itself direction.

Keeping in mind that time is not a physical entity, that it's merely an interpretation of delay and energy transfer, we see that our notion of time is a direct consequence of inertia and how energy distributes through inertial matter. To understand time, we must study kinetics and understand the importance of pilot waves, because it's pilot waves that dictate energy flow.

At any given moment, pilot waves define the state of a system, and dictate the further development of that system in a predictable manner. There is a forward direction implied in this, and it's this forward direction that we know as the arrow of time.

One way to visualize this is to imagine a single particle with an associated pilot wave. The leading end of this pilot wave represents the particle's immediate future, because that's where its energy is headed. The trailing end of the pilot wave represents the particle's immediate past, because that's where its energy came from. With everything being driven forward by energy flow, we end up perceiving time as something perpetually moving forward.


The arrow of time

We perceive time the way we do because we are made of inertial matter. Our very consciousness is part of this great system of inertial matter that we call life. As such, we experience time relative to our own inertia, both when it comes to duration and direction.

Consciousness is tied up to energy flow. Wherever energy flows is the future. Wherever it is right now is the present, and wherever it came from is the past. Consciousness is like a wave front, perpetually driven forward by the aether.

Saturday, August 1, 2020

The Arrow of Time

Time has two attributes. It has duration and direction.

Time's duration can be explained in terms of the speed of light. The fact that there's a speed limit that applies to all things means that all transfers of energy from one object to another is limited in how fast they can be made. The bigger a thing is, the harder it is to change its energy. Inertia is in this way a consequence of the speed of light and the limit this sets on how fast energy can be transferred from one object to another. Our subjective experience of time is therefore relative speeds. Time is the duration of one thing relative to another.

Time's direction is another matter. It has to do with the direction that energy flows. The past is where energy was before an event. The future is where energy will be after the event. Now is the state of the world in the present, which is defined in its entirety by energetic particles and their pilot waves.

Since everything in the universe, including our consciousness, is driven forward by energy moving from one object to another, our notion of time is that of perpetual forward motion.

A photon traversing an electron