A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional

Friday, December 05, 2003

A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional

Ah yes, Edward. Quite a problem we seem to be in. Since Edward asked this question, I thought I might stick my head out and see how many chop it off. Somehow, I feel they may not since we are all in such a quandry... "What this means is that the seesaw analogy fails: Europe cannot go up while the US goes down: both need to descend together. So the problem here is architectural (any suggestions Lloyd?):"

As I stated in one of my posts at: MacroMouse and in thorough agreement with you Edward, "We have never been here before." Due to the vast imbalances in global ppp's, wages, debts, trade, wealth, exchange rates, etc., which have evolved since the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in 1971-`73, we face the most serious challenge since,oh who knows when, forever. So what would I do with the international financial architecture? If enough serious minds are willing to admit something needs to be done, then there are definately several answers.

The goal, of course, is to rebalance the entire global system. How? Well, many forms of external exchange clearing have been put forth since Plato first advocated it, though none overly appeal to me or many others, as suggested - they reduce too much autonomy. Therefore, I suggest several different forms of conventional exchange clearing and several unconventional forms of internal exchange clearing - which allow a higher degree of local autonomy. I see no other way to otherwise rebalance the massively out of balance system. If we had originally, in 1971, rebuilt the then broken system by making balanced floating exchange the law of the land, we wouldn't be here, but we didn't. Just for the record, we could have made a 10% maximum balance band law the IMF would have been mandated to follow when nation's ppp's drifted out of balance, that they should have been mandated to rebalance, even though we had abandoned the pegged system. A rebalancing framework could have and should have been set up at that time, even if it meant loaning, or using a standby agreement until hostilities ended, the money needed by the U.S. to finish the war, etc. It would have been smarter than destroying the entire system as has nearly happened. There were many ways to rebuild a workable system at the time, it was just the acrimony over the war that prevented such a wise course. I mention this for background on what now must be done.

I have only recently come across enough information and empirical evolution to possibly offer a few new and different answers. I am no where near ready, but I can set the framework. At the outset, moral hazard must be guarded against most in the workings of any new system. As Alfred Marshall suggested, we could use his units of purchasing power as a solid standard of a new architecture. I suggest a very large basket[20% of GDP] of commodities, production, goods, and services as the new standard for all nations. This large 20% is required because I further suggest using many forms of derivatives contracts and bond contracts as insurance for the new system of clearing - to satisfy the large financial interests. I suggest this be a minimal financial computer controlled international clearing architecture - politics removed after implementation. To implement, all capital markets must be either closed[short term] or laws of gradual rebalance must be written into the architecture implementation and evolution. This way all nations can maintain their sovereignty and autonomy more than other already advocated systems. If the laws and computer programs are properly written, the world can evolve over a given timeframe to a new global balance of all thus mentioned markets. Rebalancing is a simple accounting trick if enough financing is forthcoming, to do so. It will take much new IMF financing, but the rebalancing will recreate so much new credit productivity, it will pay itself back over time just as the massive public financing of global WWII did.

There is also internal exchange clearing, a non-conventional system, that I have written George Monbiot about. There are several of these variations, also, but for now I will enter my e-mail to George:

Earlier today I came across an article of yours about a meeting, to come up with an alternative to capitalism other than the other failed system - totalitarianism. I'd like to make a suggestion that there is a way to build such an architecture. BTW, you are my favorite author. The system I am talking about is already here, almost but unrecognized, as yet. On the one side we have what I refer to as Minsky's Heinz `57 capitalisms. On the other we have the Heinz `57 totalitarianisms. None of these are satisfactory. Yet, the answer lies somewhere inthe middle between the two. BushCo wants to implement an outrageously totally free [for the corporations that is] capitalism. China, on the other hand is moving from totalitarianism toward BushCo's totally free corporate capitalism. If it goes all the way this would be a big mistake, as the perfect mixed market capitalism lies in between.

What I'm talking about here is the world has a chance to help China develop the first perfectly balancedmixed economy of public and private enterprise. I use this example as the developed nations will not yet listen to common sense. Now, I know from reading your books and articles you can easily grasp this. If China were to naturally evolve to a state of 20% public enterprise markets and 80% private enterprise markets we would have a chance to witness something truly amazing in economic history, if properly organized at this % mix. As, at this total market mix the 20% public enterprise market could be used to keep inflation/deflation permanently in check throughout the 80% private enterprise market, thus allowing a fiat money system unlimited potential. I mention this about China as it is the only experiment in the world heading toward and most likely to reach this % threshold. It would be a great loss to the world if we do not recognize this once in earth's lifetime chance to grant the world a new path. E=1/5X is a formula for perfect competition capitalism.

The 20% public enterprise mix must be a total % market organization of all production, goods, and services in order to check inflation/deflation throughout the 80% totally free private enterprise side. A tripple entry banking system can be set up to finance. Alfred Marshall, at the turn of the century, mentioned such a similar mix with his units of purchasing power. This is the same thing, so to speak, at a much expanded macro level. If you can actually see this system, which I think you can, you must see the advantages a fiat system would possess when inflation/deflation can be market controlled, it frees the printing press to have free reign to build an unbelievably wealthy, healthy, strong, and viable moral capitalism.

If China were to discover this capitalism key, the rest of the world would be forced to emulate - gladly as debts and taxes would vanish or could be used productively. They most likely will cross the 1/5X threshold sometime in the near future as they are privatizing at a fast rate - almost 50% already. There is no need for them to cross it in disarray as is the case with many of Europe's social democracies and Russia's failed transition. They only need be shown the simple facts. Please dialogue with me to work out the details. The world needs us George.

I wrote three books about this system through the `80's and `90's. Trouble is they are very crude web published material - not enough free time. I am now retired and have the time to finish. My work will be rewritten and republished this winter. My first paper will be 20 to 30 pages long on global credit productivity - a totally new macroeconomic subject.

just a start, I have more,
everyone, dialogue with me,
Lloyd

Metaphysics of Emergence

Metaphysics of Emergence A Strange Kind of Being Emerges; Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. http://holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf 

Preliminaries — definitions of concepts of logical truth and necessity:

Preliminaries — definitions of concepts of logical truth and necessity:

The hierarchy of stable sets, then, consists at least of the empty  set, the set of logical necessities, the set of physical necessities, and the set of all truths. Since any proper subset of the set of logical truths fails to be logically closed, the set of logical truths is the smallest nonempty stable set. Marc Lange

1. Boltzmann’s continuum hypothesis (necessarily incomplete)(admitted by Boltzmann)

2. Boltzmann’s ergodicity (necessarily incomplete as to exact equilibrium)

3. Ramsey’s ergodicity (tends toward equilibrium)

4. Wittgenstein’s foundational logic for mathematics (as interpreted by Ramsey)(sum of all propositions possible represents logical infinity as a fundamental ground of math)(symbolically useful/used as to computer math software)

5. Cantor’s w incompleteness (as per Brower’s intuitionistic logic)(para-consistent logic)(logic is deeper still)

6. Are set-theoretical truths mathematical or logical (why the most basic set is logical)(the non-empty stable set)(logical truths form a stable set under CH and ØCH counterfactual necessity)(stable sets form a heiarchy)

7. Physical necessity and/vs. logical necessity (two definitions of logical necessity —classical and ergodic)(where ergodic applies to non-fixed/non-linear universal logic, i.e., logic of the universal mechanics, not exact universal logic, i.e., what exists in macro structures vs. what exists in micro structures of black holes — as per theory, also QM at super-positioning limit)

8. Godel’s incompleteness of his incompleteness theorem = hypothesis (new discovery sheds new light on Godel’s math being short of its full logic knowledge)

9. Necessary counterfactuals (i.e., by the necessity of a space-time continuum being mathematically un-closable, counterfactuals function as physical necessities for logical necessity, i.e., positive and negative charges of qm fundamental substance matter, except in the possibilities of theoretical black-hole super-positioning mechanics, thus allowing the two positions of logic over math impossibilities)(such a relational logic can’t be written into numbers, at this level of super-positioning)(maybe in the future, it can be mathematized; but, this is un-necessary to absolute foundations of logic, where such logic dictates its own closure by necessity of charge counterfactuals and the c-laws of physics — light, or charge as light velocity-spin collisions, is its own absolute governor on logic’s possibilities and necessities)

Summary of the concept of logical truth and necessity:

Since the time of Thales, Anaximander and Heraclitus we’ve been confronted with the fact of how the mind logically necessarily mechanically functions as to “argument to exhaustion”, or in modern terminology, “counterfactuals”. What is it about us bio-beings that allows us such high level of both logical and mathematical interpretation? I mean; Is it the mind’s eye’s geometric necessary mechanics of scalable intelligence only, or is there a deeper fundamental mechanical necessity in operation? For the last 4 or 5 years, I’ve thought it mainly the bio-organic mechanics of the mind’s eye’s geometric functioning, but I was having trouble grounding such mechanics, other than highly complex compounding of the many truth and proof systems available, but I now see another path — that of a more fundamental counterfactually necessary CH and ØCH logic.

We know the trouble really reared its ugly head with the logic and mathematical crises of the latter part of the 19^th century, when non-linear logic and maths were discovered, placing all fundamental classical logic and math in jeopardy. And, even with all the work done in math and logic since, from Piano axioms, Cantor and ZF set theory and its variants up through Von Neumann, Church-Turing, Godel, Tarski, Cohen, etc., and many other non-standard analyses since, there’s still been the nagging question of incompletenesses, in many areas, especially as to absolute foundations; foundations which could not be fully derived, either from the universal laws, maths or logics, without using the often fudged axioms. What would or could replace the questionable axioms? Many of us have surmised it to be some more basic system of math or logic, not yet discovered, and that is what I’ve discovered — At least, as far as I can see.

I just happened to wake up yesterday morning thinking about “The tensor scalability of imagination”, i.e., “Empires scale up and down over time, mainly by law, money and intelligence; and/or, the lack of intelligence, money and by symmetric and asymmetric law confusions, conflations and changes”; “Quantifiable truth requires a physical ground, even if only qm space”; “Linguistics’ over-formalization of non-fundamental formalization, i.e., Chomsky — Psychology can-not be formalized”; “So far, the only successful “Universal Languages” that’s ever been developed are logic and math; and then, there’s 137+ different formal logics and many more maths”; “Philosophy is a formal methodology of thinking about thinking, as abstraction, conceptualism, logic, etc., and being formal is thus an objective science” — When it dawned on me that what I was looking at was a fundamentally new way of looking at formalizable foundations in logic and math, from a perspective I’d never considered — That of; “The foundation of all quantifiable logic, math and truth systems is the fact that a completed continuum hypothesis is “Impossible of Proof” in any of these systems, thus acts as the counter-factual fact to found such physical realities upon — The Ø symbol is the foundation symbol of all truth proof systems, i.e., “Factual Incompleteness” is the foundation of all truth systems’ proofs.” ØCH extends all the way back to Thales’ counter-factuals, or arguments to exhaustion. Exhaustion only exists due to the incompleteness of ØCH possible. Logic, math and truth systems would not function without ØCH incompleteness, as there’d be no logical or physical counterfactuals to base such systems and thinking upon. CH Completeness must remain incomplete for our knowledge systems to function. The CH is only “Ergodic” — “Tends Toward Equilibrium” — But, ØCH complete — by necessity of logic, math and truth functionality — Otherwise; Counterfactuals could not exist to base any knowledge system upon. All logic, math and truth systems are true up to “Ergodicity”; But, ØCH complete… (Ø meaning “never” here)(CH complete would destroy all possibility of logic, math and truth functionality)(Realize this is just an early summary of my yet pregnant ideas, while the concept is complete in my mind — It’ll take me a while yet to polish and complete it)

ØCH and ØØCH can both be true, as in unified black-holes’ neutron charge non-existence, and all other natural phenomena of universal charges +’s and –’s counterfactual necessities outside black-holes and neutron stars — Thus; Physical necessity is not always logical necessity, allowing for absolute counterfactual facts and truths. The smallest non-empty stable set of pure logic is the ergodic ØCH. E = MC² except at limit — Limit = “Absolute Hydrodynamic Spin-Time Compression” in black-holes, where opposing charges neutralize — When all electrons and atomic structure merge into “Super-Super-Positioning”. No math exists for the above conditions — Only ØCH Logic — The sums and products of truths and counterfactual truths of the propositions involved. These facts alone are the reason logic is the more stable set, over and above set math.

If you follow this at all, give me some honest criticism, as imo, I’m looking at; The #1 Universal Law of ØCH Modal Necessity — CH Counterfactuals Absolutely Must Exist — Which actually changes and enhances the entire foundations of logic, and the logical foundations of math.

P.s.

Sorry for the mostly note infused prelim and summary. I’ll work it into a more condensed and presentable paper later. Just wanted to give you some idea what I’m working on.