• About
  • BeyondOverton Travel
    • Silk Road (1): If Turkey is in crisis, it’s not obvious visiting it
    • Silk Road (2): Could beautiful nature and ancient history create a false sense of entitlement?
    • Silk Road (3): Fast Car
    • Silk Road (4):We took a bus ride to Iran
    • Silk Road (5): Border bothers
    • Silk Road (6): Chevrolet Land
    • Silk Road (7): Free-roaming camels and wild horses
    • Silk Road (8): China West to East
    • Silk Road (9): I have not told half of what I saw
  • BLOG
  • g88kboy Travel
    • On the Silk Road
    • Bulgaria : The Chicken crossed the Road
    • Turkey : The Country, not the Bird
    • Georgia on my Mind
    • Armenian Ayran
    • Iran – The Curious Land
    • An American in Azerbaijan
    • Uzbekistan: Golden Teeth and Neon Signs
    • Kazakhstan: Thirty Sweating Seniors
    • China Part One – Pandas Are Extinct
    • China Part Two: My TED Talk (Deep Analysis)
    • Phillipines – They Relax, I (pretend to😉) Study
    • Singapore: flashing trees and a torrent of tears
    • Malaysia: That ain’t no croc, it’s a log
    • Brunei: The Instinctive Fight for Superior Domination
    • Phillipines: Hello Friend Again
  • Outside the window
    • Bulgaria
    • Turkey
    • Georgia
    • Armenia
    • Iran
    • Azerbaijan
    • Uzbekistan
    • Kazakhstan

BeyondOverton

~ let's move this window

BeyondOverton

Monthly Archives: August 2017

Corporate vs. state UBI

04 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by beyondoverton in UBI

≈ Leave a comment

It has been amusing to observe how people keep have been getting Japan wrong throughout the years, both fundamentally, when it comes to society’s structure and wealth, as well as asset price-wise.

For example, the widow-maker’s trade: betting on higher JGB yields ‘for ever’ not realizing the power of technology to create superfluous extra (surplus) capital and labor in peace time. In fact, if one thinks of the famous hockey stick chart of human progress (also the chart used by Kurzweil to show Singularity), the chart of global developed markets sovereign yields going back centuries has a similar shape but in the opposite direction: steep and high 2000 years ago to flat and zero now. You could say, the higher the “culture” the lower the yield.

Similar for stock prices: people have been betting on higher stock prices not realizing the Japanese corporates’ eroding profitability due to the hidden cost of BS jobs and corporate Universal Basic Income (both represented in the low unemployment figures, see below).

Demographics plays a very small role in GDP because as society progresses labor’s utility in the production function has greatly diminished at the expense of technology.  It is not that dissimilar on the consumption side either. In the post-consumerism (increasingly digital) society that we live in, the young are consuming even less material things (the ones that matter for GDP) than the old. In Japan specifically, demographics has long ago stopped to matter.

Productivity, on the other hand, is a function of both labor and technology. We can very easily increase productivity when we substitute labor with technology. We have chosen to do the opposite, despite plenty of advances in technology, however, because we do not have an alternative method of distributing wealth rather than Work=Job=Income. In fact, if we choose to increase productivity right now while using the same old method of wealth distribution, inequality will rise even more.

Demographics and productivity are basically remnants of the old industrial model of classical economics – the same model which only looks at how to increase GDP without regard to human wealth being (again, it is very easy to increase GDP if that is our goal but that does not mean society would be better off).

Japan’s GDP per worker (i.e. a much narrower definition than GDP per capita) is and has been actually higher than the equivalent in the US during Japan’s supposedly lost decades (and that is despite a very slow adoption of technology – slower than what it could have been given an alternative wealth distribution method).

I can see a lot of similarities between how Japan has decided to structure its society and how some rich oil countries in the Middle East have done the same. Japan uses technology and the corporates to distribute wealth, while in the Middle East, is the state distributing and the source of wealth is abundant oil (note, there is a similar UBI mechanism also in Alaska and Norway).

There are numerous other UBI experiments going on in many different countries and cities. I wonder if the fact that society is very homogeneous in Japan and the Middle East help with UBI being more accepted: here I mean the right to citizenship being very strict and narrow. For example, in the Middle East, where technology is not so well advanced yet, it is foreigners who do most of the everyday jobs; Japan could easily use more robots to do the work. In both cases, only citizens would receive, unconditionally, the benefits of (someone else’s) labor and the spoils of technology or the luck of natural resources.

I am struggling to reconcile this new reality with the idea that in the past immigration and an open society have greatly contributed to human advancement by allowing for diversity and the free dissemination of knowledge. Now open borders seem to be a hurdle for any county which wants to introduce this new model of wealth distribution. In addition, ideas disseminate much easier due to the Internet and open source also allows anyone to benefit from new inventions.

Oil (and all natural resources) are finite, while demographics means Japan is slowly running out of people to employ. None of this is a problem if the Middle East invests its substantial wealth in labor saving technologies (and constantly innovates) or if Japan changes it wealth distribution model. Is a country a free rider if it chooses to close its borders and take care only of its own citizens? What is the right model to structure society so that it works for everyone not just for only a small number of countries?

Blockchain as a trust bearer: from evolution in the developed world to revolution in emerging markets

03 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by beyondoverton in blockchain

≈ 1 Comment

Trust is at the core of human relationships. If we do not trust each other, it makes it difficult for us to cooperate and ‘build’ something together. Thus, progress does not happen (or it takes much longer for it to materialize). In the context of economic transactions, maintaining trust takes time and is costly as it requires the build-up a complex system of ‘middlemen’. By creating a secure, digital, distributed and decentralized database, blockchain is simply the latest, and most efficient, bearer of trust in an evolutionary cycle.

In the past when humans lived in small communities, trust was ‘easier’ to maintain as people knew each other well. For example, if I was luckier hunting than you one day, I could ‘afford’ to give some of my kill to your family trusting that you would do the same when a similar opportunity arises another time.

(Moreover, there was no upside to keep it all for oneself as, most likely, it would have rotten. In a sense, amidst the scarcity prevalent in these primitive societies, there was a momentary ‘lapse’ of abundance which possibly was at the base of people being so generous and cooperative in the first place. This simple observation raises profound questions about our human nature but this is not the time for such a philosophical diversion).

In this transaction, there was an exchange of real goods against the ‘unwritten’ promise of the opposite transaction at some point in the future. In essence, the lucky hunter was ‘gifting’ his unused part of the kill to the other party. Trust in this case worked because 1) we, cumulatively, remembered about the past transaction; 2) there was a huge cost of no-cooperation and thus loss of trust.

As the tribe expanded, these two conditions could easily be broken as our memory is fragile by nature. If in the past, the transaction simply took place between two people, now that was not possible without a third party, a middleman, ‘guaranteeing’ its credibility. The chief of tribe, for example, by the mere existence of his (it was mostly a male!) status was such a trust holder/verifier in those early days. But he could also forget and he could also intentionally misrepresent the past (scarcity of resources opened up the possibility of corruption).

One way around that was to start keeping track of the past transactions, the original ledger: that could be done either in physical format (sticks in a corner) or ‘written’ format (tallies in the dirt). This process did not last long as people, of course, figured ways to tamper with these early ledgers. The next natural step, therefore, was to find a more solid ‘ledger’, one which was more difficult to alter: what if we use very heavy, unmovable/undeletable objects instead? The Yap stones are a good example of this early form of trust.

As ‘society’ evolved, people branched out of their tribes and encountered others from foreign places with whom they wanted to interact. It was increasingly more difficult, however, to establish and maintain trust between two strangers: the transaction ‘ledgers’ they kept could have been different; the heavy, unmovable objects they could have used to record/‘verify’ their transaction, hugely impractical for people on the move. That is probably how the concept of ‘money’ as an exchange first appeared: when strangers meet and the risk of lost trust is great, we needed a revamp of the traditional exchange system. Debt and gifts require reciprocity which is not easy with strangers.

To paraphrase, it is much more pertinent to think of ‘evil’ as the source of all money, rather than the other way around.

Thus, the need for standardization arose as the concept of value became much more subjective. It was at this point that precious metals picked up the baton of trust holders/ledger keepers. “Precious” as in the sense of scarce, difficult or impossible to forge and easy to carry around. This gold system lasted for centuries supported by a framework of trust bearers, the kings and queens, breaking only temporarily a few times in history (i.e. under the Roman Republic and the Ming dynasty in China). Noteworthy is the set-up experimented in a few Italian city states during the Renaissance, which put in place the beginnings of the modern accounting system and the possibility of trust resting entirely on an institutional framework devoid of gold. This became a permanent feature, eventually, in the 1970s after the break-up of the Bretton Woods system.

Thereafter, economic trust has been maintained entirely by institutions like central banks. This trust was put in question after the 2008 financial crisis. This is when blockchain came into existence and has since slowly been establishing itself as the next bearer of trust in the cycle. Therefore, we could say, it is less revolutionary than evolutionary. By converting dispersed analogue information in a ‘all-in’ digital format, blockchain allows for the creation of a massive encrypted and secure database. Blockchain increases the efficiency of the trust system disproportionally to any other previous set-up.

At the moment, we may not trust the data we have been presented with in a transaction and would need middlemen to verify it by double-checking existing information. By storing all previous transactions, and the data that goes with them, in a distributed and decentralized database (without a central authority, tampering with it becomes more complicated), the blockchain mechanism, in effect, gets rid of these middlemen. For example, once all the information on a house is on the blockchain (has been verified once), it does not need to be verified every single time the house is sold/bought in the future. In addition, only new, incremental information needs to be verified.

Blockchain standardizes trust. It is interesting how recent commentators have compared Bitcoin with gold. Indeed, they both carry ‘information’ we can trust without question (especially when we transact with ‘strangers’ – which is now everybody in this time and age). Yes, blockchain is the same as the gold of the past – easy to ‘carry on’ and secure to exchange between two strangers from different ‘tribes’. Unlike gold, though, this trust is based not on physical properties (scarce, unmalleable, etc.) but on the evolution of our institutions which have allowed the technological progress we have experienced.

The digital world has no boundaries (for now). While we are questioning the merits of globalization at the moment, and whether this process is in reversal, such digital standardization in one country can easily spread across the world. Blockchain could thus actually speed up globalization and, therefore, substantially improve the prospects of some developing countries. Emerging markets assets have generally traded at a discount to their equivalents in the developed world, partially because of the huge institutional gap between the two.

Intrinsic value is indeed subjective but given certain assumptions can be modelled. The issue is that in emerging markets the assumptions can change literally overnight. In addition, there is the question of legal ownership, etc. For example, engaging in an exchange in a country with inadequate legal or executive system, where information is not readily available or cannot be trusted, is prone to be much more difficult and thus would require a substantial margin of safety. If indeed blockchain transforms the institutional framework of the emerging market world, it would not only raise asset prices there but, in the process, it could also accomplish what numerous NGOs and millions of financial aid money have failed to do in the past: make people accountable and subsequently raise everyone’s living standards.

Moreover, the lack of such trust legacy systems (fewer vested interests) in those countries may actually prove to be a positive development, as it could make it easier for some emerging markets to adopt the blockchain faster than developed markets. After all, there are plenty of examples where some developing countries leapfrog the developed world in adopting new technologies (i.e. skipping the evolutionary cycle completely – for example, mobile phones without first going through fixed phone lines; mobile banking without a bank account, etc.). In this sense, while in the developed world the trust system is slowly being updated through blockchain, this same process could be truly revolutionary in the developing world.

How the optimists blew up the universe

02 Wednesday Aug 2017

Posted by beyondoverton in AI, The last man standing will laugh

≈ Leave a comment

All technology revolutions need a breakthrough in three factors to succeed: energy, transport and communications (see Jeremy Rifkin’s work on this). The most plausible argument against AI reaching overall human-like capabilities could be energy availability. I don’t think we have the energy system required to accommodate such a massive explosion of AI. Organic systems, like the human brain, are still the most energy efficient systems present.

However, we, humans are flawed by nature. And this is good. I think limited intellectual capability exists for a reason. The fact that there is some kind of natural upper limit to human IQ/intelligence is an essential requirement for our survival as species: any system needs an OFF switch (natural or artificial) as part of its in-built safety design. Therefore, we may never reach Singularity, or we may reach an adverse form of Singularity, which in the process of optimization to reach its perfection state, self-destroys.

For all we know, this might have happened already in the past. The energy requirements to carry on the task of optimization are so large that this intensity creates a black hole which sucks in not only the Earth but also the whole Solar System. The only way humans are able to survive such a scenario event is to exit the Solar System just before the process of self-destruction. It must be humans, in organic form, exiting, for they must make sure that they preserve their imperfections as the only hope for future survival (a perfect trans-human or an AI-equipped machine would simply carry on with the process of optimization and eventually reach a similar event).

With the knowledge on hand, these humans do not search for a habitable planet but simply create a biosphere on the first available planet they encounter. Then they proceed to recreate our world – the proverbial Garden of Eden – under one main condition: “never bite from the tree of knowledge” for fear of a repeat of the above scenario again. And again, and again, the process keeps repeating itself…

The universe, therefore, has to be expanding all the time because, if not, these black hole explosions will eventually destroy it all. In other words, humans are just planet-hopping imperfect organic forms who, in search of perfection, leave nothing but black holes behind them. Long live the pessimists!

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2022
  • April 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017

Categories

  • AI
  • Asset Allocation
  • blockchain
  • China
  • De-urbanization
  • Debt
  • Decentralization
  • EM
  • Energy
  • Equity
  • FX
  • g88kboy
  • Monetary Policy
  • Politics
  • Questions
  • Quotes
  • The last man standing will laugh
  • Travel
  • UBI
  • Uncategorized
  • VR

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • BeyondOverton
    • Join 1,481 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • BeyondOverton
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar