Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Introducing Chiralkine Contracts

by ChrisCook Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 04:06:55 AM EST

I suspect some ET'ers will be interested in the work that Martin Hay is doing on what he describes as Chiralkine contracts, the Resolution of Zero and  
Chiralkine Logic

My instinct is (I am still attempting to entirely grok it, because I don't do abstract) that this is very important work.

It very much seems to tie in with my analysis (Reality-based Economics and the Last Big Thing ) in relation to pervasive confusion and misrepresentation at the heart of modern economics - thanks to two dimensional double-entry book-keeping - between the credit/equity (ownership) and debt relationship

The single entry tally stick is 1-Dimensional: current double-entry accounting is 2-Dimensional: and Martin Hay posits 3-Dimensional (triple entry) accounting.

Ian Grigg - who is pre-eminent in the field of e-payments, crypto and so on - was writing 8 years ago about Triple Entry Book-Keeping. Todd Boyle's netledger was in the same space five years before that, and Satoshi's Bitcoin architecture is very much in this zone.

But I digress.

Martin is essentially pointing out that there are in fact four economic states:

Mine: Not Yours (10);
Yours: Not Mine (01);
Both Mine And Yours (11);
Neither Mine Nor Yours (00).

It's really quite deep: by 'resolving zero' we see that there are two aspects of the Zero state, not a million miles away from two different directions to particle 'spin'.

Anyway, I thought I would introduce Chiralkine concepts to ET'ers for consideration and discussion since I think that 3-D accounting is an important concept. Particularly when we consider the architecture for an emergent next-generation, subject-oriented and people-centric Web 3.0 which may have security and personal control hard-wired into it.

I will invite Martin - whom I recently met at Cumbria University in Lancaster at a conference on community currency - to respond, expand upon and hopefully discuss his ideas.


Martin has directed me to this video which outlines the concepts

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 05:17:57 AM EST
The video omits the most important source of money creation: governments spending money into existence by direct credits to debtors. Yes, banks create money by making loans and by QE, (unfortunately only for the financial sector as currently practiced), but all of the other interactions of government with entities towards which it has obligations, from paying contractors to paying pensions and medical care providers, are performed by writing checks and the money is created by keystrokes between BoE and Exchequer. Fortunately the U.K. has its own sovereign fiat currency - no matter how desperately the various governments have tried to pretend otherwise since the 1970s.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So there are two kinds of money, call them left and right. Now suppose Alice has a green square which Bob wants. But Bob only has a red circle which Alice does not want.  

So, what do they do? Alice agrees to give Bob the green square if he can get her a blue triangle. To enforce the contract Bob gives Alice a Left IOU and receives a right IOU.

Question: are the IOUs generic or are they attached to what they want to exchange? In other words, is Bob's Right IOU from Alice only redeemable for the green square?

Anyway, now Bob goes off with his Right IOU and his red circle which he needs to exchange for a Left IOU and a blue triangle. He finds Charlie who has a blue triangle and happens to want the red circle. They exchange the circle and triangle and, since Bob needs a left IOU, Charlie gives Bob a left IOU in exchange for Bob's right IOU.

Now Bob goes back to Alice with his left IOU and blue triangle and completes the trade.

Question: why can't Alice just take an IOU from Bob in exchange for the green square, and why do they need two kinds of IOU?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to let go of the idea of an IOU if you want to think "chiralkine". It is very hard to do this. I keep falling back myself. An IOU is always paired with a UOMe. The two behave as one, like two legs walk one person.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm trying to understand your (*,*,*,*) notation, because it seems the left and right tokens are attached to specific persons sometimes, and sometimes not.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And this is why I end up talking quantum mumbo jumbo when I try to explain things - that is how the system actually works! Zeros seem to divide into oppositional pairs as other oppositional pairs collapse into zeros! What appears as nothing from one perspective (relative position) appears as something from another! Every change involves an exchange between two positions in two (R, L, R, L) numbers. The changes in the two numbers are complementary. In my game, I talk about each player's move as being made up of two components, one being for the benefit of the player and the other for the benefit of the player's opponent.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:01:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And this is why I end up talking quantum mumbo jumbo when I try to explain things - that is how the system actually works!


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and quantum computing also works using superpositions of states. The point is, it works.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But quantum computing is not mumbo jumbo.

There is nothing quantum about your ideas, so drop it.

Do you have any idea how many points you've recked up on the crackpot index in less than 24 hours?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An explanation of quantum computing comes across as mumbo jumbo, but the technology works. My explanation of chiralkine systems is being received by you as mumbo jumbo, but the technology works.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, an explanation of quantum computing has a relevant model behind it. It does not come across as mumbo jumbo if you understand the background, and you can always go look at the maths to make sense of it.

Your appeals to quantum mechanics are not relevant in any way I can see: they're in the same class as people appealing to QM to sell their latest new age sovereign remedy.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you look at the maths of chiralkine accounting, it does make sense. It is actually very simple, which is probably why people reject it. You can model exchange without debits and credits: without using positive and negative numbers. You need to use complex numbers to do this. You cannot assign meanings to each of these complex numbers that you can "picture" in your head. It is like trying to imagine the square root of not.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't look at the maths of it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Try this example. It is the only cogent explanation so far.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You need to use complex numbers to do this
Dude, you are not using "complex numbers".

You may be using numbers that are complex, but that's a different story.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In his introduction to his book, Laws of Form, G. Spencer Brown states that what he is actually doing is using "complex numbers". He illustrates the use of  these in his book, but more clearly in his lift control patent. They are "complex" in the sense that they have composed of more than one element, such as (not up, not down - 0,0). It is in that sense that I call chiralkine numbers "complex". They are not THE complex numbers that square to minus 1. Chiralkine arithmetic is much simpler. It does not use negative numbers.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you familiar with how the integers are constructed?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean through the equivalence relation

(a,b) ~ (a + 1, b + 1)

and the operation

(a,b) - (c,d) = (a+d,b+c)

?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and

(a,b) * (c,d) = (ac + bd, ad + bc)

I almost forgot.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, sure, you're constructing a free module on two generators over the Rig of natural numbers. Anything else?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:05:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a square root of -1 fer ya.

No need to "imagine" it: \[\pmatrix{0&-1\\1&0}\]

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is one of them.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you suggest a matrix that contains no negative numbers and yet performs an operation equivalent to multiplying by a negative number? Can you generate such a matrix from any other without using a matrix that does not contain a negative number?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, look: \[\pmatrix{0&1\\1&0}\] This is the construction of the integers numbers that Colman was talking about in the parallel comment: \[\pmatrix{p&q\\q&p}\sim p-q\in{\mathbf Z}\qquad\hbox{with}\quad p,q\ge 0\] Care for more mumbo-jumbo?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is the answer I had come to. It is (0,1,1,0).
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, how can you generate this from another 2x2 matrix?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What 2x2 matrices do I have at my disposal and what are the allowable operations?

Anyway, this is all very fun but you still have a bunch of questions unanswered about your system elsewhere in this thread.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, this is exactly on point. Can you obtain the permutation matrix you have identified by multiplying any other 2 matrices together? I know you can obtain the identity matrix by squaring the permutation matrix, and you can turn the identity matrix into the permutation matrix by multiplying it with the permutation matrix. But can you simply generate the permutation matrix from another 2x2 matrix without using the permutation matrix?

You can generate (0,1,1,0) from any of the other six states if you use the appropriate 4x4 matrix from the paper I cited to you.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, sure, quaternions will work. So what? What is the meaning of all this for accounting, anyway? You still haven't explained the relevance of matrix multiplication to your scheme.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:25:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It means that chiralkine numbers contain within them, as a subset, positive and negative numbers. They can be extracted. It means that you can represent all the states and operations that take place in an exchange, such as a mutual credit system, using chiralkine numbers and 4 x 4 matrices (quaternions).
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you're going to allow yourself to use 4x4 matrices to mix the components of your chilarkine numbers I suppose I could be allowed to do things like this: \[\pmatrix{1&0\\0&0}\pmatrix{0&1\\0&0}+\pmatrix{0&0\\1&0}\pmatrix{1&0\\0 &0}=\pmatrix{0&1\\1&0}\] Now you have to explain why your 4x4 matrices are "legal" and my way is not.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are several ways I can answer your question. One is to go back to G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form and talk about the drawing of distinctions. You need two 1's and two zero's to draw one, two or three distinctions. Recall that the chiralkine numbers fall into three sets of pairs, the complementary pair members of each of which add to (1,1,1,1) or equivalently to (0,0,0,0).

The other is to talk about chirality, which is inherent in quaternions. I am a chemist, so I think in molecules, not maths. Tetrahedral molecules can come in two chiral forms known as enantiomers. If you have a central carbon atom bonded to four different groups a, b, c and d, you can imagine that these groups point to the corners of a tetrahedron. You can imagine rotating the molecule so two of the groups are behind a plane projecting away from you and two are above it, projecting towards you. Now, let us imagine that we fix the positions so that a and b project away from us and c and d project towards us. There are two permutations for c and d, left right and right left. These correspond to the two enantiomers. This is the case whichever two of a, b, c and d you fix. Thus, two of a, b, c and d match up (two 1's) and two do not (two 0's). Whatever you do, you are constrained to six possible permutations of the 2 1's and 2 0's.

So I intuit (but do not know how to prove) that chirality underlies the properties of positive and negative numbers: (1,0,0,1) - the identity matrix,  and (0,1,1,0) -the permutation matrix. If this is correct, there is a very deep link between accounting, finance, economics and chirality.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Laws of Form
The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary. But LoF's mystical and declamatory prose, and its love of paradox, make it a challenging read for all. Spencer-Brown was influenced by Wittgenstein and R. D. Laing. LoF also echoes a number of themes from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead.

The entire book is written in an operational way, giving instructions to the reader instead of telling him what is. In accordance with G. S. Brown's interest in paradoxes, the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the statement, which says no such statements are used in this book.



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but that's not from Laws of Form or boolean logic, is it? It's from his work as an engineer.

Isaac Newton also wrote about alchemy and biblican exegesis. His work on physics is less than 10% of his lifetime output but it's all that's remembered.

So, your point is? Oh, yeah, patents! Patents are good. You are patenting the Chiralkine system, too, right?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See the Table on page 7 in the patent. Spencer Brown references this patent in his book. It relates to the same work. He is using complex numbers in a control system.

I have explained on our website why we have filed patent applications. It is to encourage investment in the research and development of chiralkine systems. A lot of people will only do things if you pay them or they stand to potentially make a return. If we could secure funding to start a kind of chiralkine foundation, then that would be fantastic. Patent applications would not be needed.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He is using complex numbers in a control system.
Truly revolutionary.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In any case, you're trying to name-drop Spencer Brown as if that somehow vouched for the soundness of your scheme which you are still refusing to explain in its own terms.

It is not obvious, for instance, why this example requires distinct L and R units of account. Can you explain why it breaks down if you only use one unit of account?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have not spoken with Spencer Brown about any of this. However, he does use what he calls complex numbers, and they are not THE COMPLEX numbers. He uses number pairs, such as up, not down; not up, down and not up, not down. I think this was a very clever thing to do.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
R and L tokens are not credits and debits. A number equivalent to a unit of credit can be recovered from chiralkine accounts, being (1,0,0,1). If a person in state (1,0,0,1) exchanges an R token for an L token, that person's state will change to (0,1,0,1). The other person's state will undergo a complementary change. With this inversion of chirality, the state of a property right (as viewed differently by each party) will also have its chirality inverted (e.g. from mine, not yours to yours, not mine). So the exchange of R for L tokens inverts chirality.

When R and L tokens are created, a property right that two people wish to transfer goes through a transition state. Symmetry breaking takes place. A property right different from mine, not yours and not mine, yours is created. It is a bit like a mortgage, but the two people each respectively own mirror opposite forms of this property right. I call it a chiralkine property right, for want of a known term.

In terms of rotations, the creation of R and L tokens involve 90 degree rotations for each party. The exchange of R and L tokens involve 180 degree rotations (or inversions) for each party. The redemption of R and L tokens involve 90 degree rotations for each party. The total rotation for a complete cycle of trade is 720 degrees.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But R and L tokens can be owned or owed, can they not? That's why you have 4 numbers, R owed, R owned, L owed, L owned.

(Or else I have failed to understand anything so far including from your carefully crafted example)

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are two ownership states for each of R and L tokens: (1,0,0,1) and (1,0,1,0) for R and (0,1,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) for L. They have different symmetries. The states (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,1,0) correspond with credit and debt. There are three distinctions between them. They are like enantiomers. (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) have only two distinctions: the two pairings within them are the same: [(1,0),(1,0)] and [(0,1)(0,1)]. When what each contractor "owns" is what they "owe" under a contract, then the contract is ready to be closed. It means that the pair have traded in balance with everyone else. The tokens are no longer needed as a means of exchange.

If you reduce the dimensions of the numbers, then you lose information inherent in the numbers about what each contractor needs to do for the pair of them to complete their contract - trade in balance with everyone else. You allow the R tokens to escape. This is what happens in a conventional monetary system. Money starts to pool. People stop spending it, and instead try to make more money by lending it for interest. There is no pathway for the R and L units to be reunited and so be redeemed. The money supply has to keep growing, so the amount of debt in the system has to keep going up. Society polarises into the many that service the debt (ultimately taxpayers when banks fail) and a few that have all the money.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 01:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If a person in state (1,0,0,1) exchanges an R token for an L token, that person's state will change to (0,1,0,1). The other person's state will undergo a complementary change.
If L and R tokens are fully exchangeable, why do you need the two? Why can you not make do with a single kind of token?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A monetary system needs to work like an electric circuit. A chiralkine trading system is like an electric circuit. The contract is like a battery. Potential energy is released as what people want to trade in and what people want to trade out become indistinguishable: as people close their contracts. In a three number system, governments and banks tap into that potential energy by taking tax and interest. They are like devices powered by the electricity that flows when trade is taking place. A chiralkine system has no resistors in it. Trades can be set up online and instantaneously closed without any intermediate store of value changing hands. The R and L tokens are simply information.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 01:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A monetary system needs to work like an electric circuit. A chiralkine trading system is like an electric circuit.

Electric circuits have only one unit of account, though.

For that matter, so does your system.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In a conventional monetary system, units of credit are supposed to flow through the system until they meet up with and mutually negate stationary units of debt. In real life, they tend to go off on their own, make friends with other credits and form into big pools and oceans.

In a chiralkine system, R and L units flow in countercurrent. The trading contracts force them to  circulate so that they meet and mutually negate.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In a conventional monetary system, this is what inflation and long-maturity interest rate operations do for you.

Which is why rentier interests are so adamantly opposed to inflation and long-maturity interest rate policy (LTRO in €-jargon, QE in Fedspeak).

It is true that insisting upon a receipt of spending in order for a credit to mature would solve the same problem that inflation and interest rate policy currently solves is supposed to solve. However, (a) it is not obvious that it is superior. (b) Your notation overcomplicates the operation. And (c) requiring creditors to present a receipt of expenditure for their credit to mature would be resisted just as vigorously by rentier interests.

Well-tested technical solutions to the problem you are trying to solve already exist, but they are not employed. Because the problem is political, not technical, and therefore amenable only to political solution.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 02:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very nice, but still nothing to do with accounting.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:10:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  • Man, our political process is fucked up!
  • I have an idea, let's replace our coins with quaternions!


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so what is wrong MATHEMATICALLY with the idea of using four numbers (quaternions) to control exchange instead of debits and credits? Nature seems to be able to manage to do it.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, no.

4 numbers is an array of 4 numbers.

A quaternion is an element of a division algebra with a multiplication rule.

Just because you have 4 numbers doesn't mean you have a quaternion.

Further, just because you have 4 numbers doesn't mean you have a vector either... because the vector geometry operations need not have an interpretation in terms of your 4 numbers.

So you have lists of 4 numbers which you can add (and maybe subtract). Okay, so you have a free module over the natural (or integer) numbers with 4 generators. Fine. That's all you have unless you can prove otherwise. The most you get to do is to permute the generators.

This still has nothing to do with accounting.

Can we leave linear algebra alone and go back to accounting?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not an answer to my question. Fundamentally, accounts are permutations from a state of "balance". Our present financial system is anything but balanced. You cannot control the system with debits and credits. You have to mess about with things like quantitative easing, interest rates and redistributive taxation. You can control any system if you can represent it in four numbers.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:46:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You cannot control a system is you use debits and credits.

But you can control any system if you use L debits and credits and R debits and credits.

You can control any system if you can represent it in four numbers.
What are you talking about?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Still irrelevant to accounting.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:44:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It links to a post on accounting - use of complex numbers to represent debits and credits.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It links because you yourself linked to your own post about accounting, in which you ask
QUESTION: In the case below should I have stored all my amount as positives decimal amounts then flag the amount as either being a "Debit" or "Credit" rather than storing debits as negative amount and credits as positive amount?
which has nothing to do with quaternions as it is a question about SQL.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And this
Another way of looking at this is to think of an accounting value as a complex number, where debits are real and credits are imaginary. This means that 4 debits + 3 credits = 4 + 3i. This makes it obvious that you can't simplify that any further by collapsing the imaginary term into a negative real term -- it's not the same number line axis. It would be the same as claiming that 4 + 3i = 4 - 3. Not valid math.
is just a trick to be able to store two numbers in a single database field. The multiplicative algebra of complex numbers plays no role whatsoever.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Debits and credits are not normally viewed as being orthogonal. They are normally viewed as being at the two ends of a line with zero in the middle.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You yourself allow debits and credits to be cancelled out, don't you?

If I have a 1R debit and a 1R credit, I can cancel them out, right?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait, we have an inner product of accounting entries now?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who would have thought it, but if they are chiral objects . . . .?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An explanation of quantum computing comes across as mumbo jumbo
For you, who don't have a clue of quantum mechanics or quaternionic algebra, it is mumbo jumbo. For people who know what's going on, it isn't. The problem there is jargon.

You, on the other hand, are trying to explain a simple accounting system consisting of tokens by mumbo-jumbo, using quaternions, entanglement, quantum computing, neural control of helicopters, and Kirk and Spock. That is mumbo-jumbo because when you scratch none of it is actually an explanation of anything.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My explanation of chiralkine systems is being received by you as mumbo jumbo
You have failed to provide an explanation of your system in its own terms. Instead you resort to irrelevant blabber about quaternions and quantum entanglement. That is mumbo-jumbo and disingenuous, intellectually fraudulent, use of technical jargon you don't understand.

There, I said it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe that there is a flaw in double entry bookkeeping, upon which our financial system is based, and that this flaw manifests itself in growing inequality, instability and nationalism. It should not be possible to create money (credit) simply by transferring ownership in a property right, because money (credit) is also used to effect a transfer of a property right. The two processes are different. In a  chiralkine system, a new kind of property right can be created as a transition state each time a pair of people wishes to initiate a new cycle of trade. There are thus two kinds of trade, one in which property rights change hands directly (using "money"), and another in which they change hands via a transition state (in which "money" is created for as long as the transition state exists).
by martinahay on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 05:44:07 AM EST
Sounds like a bridge loan.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When is money created simply by transferring ownership in a property right?

All the money creation transactions I can bring to mind involve creating a corresponding financial obligation that equals the amount of money being created. That is, all money creation transactions I can bring to mind off the top of my head involve capital as well as current transactions, where "simply by transferring ownership in a property right" sounds like a current transaction alone. That goes both for currency creation and bank deposit money creation.

So its no clear whether this is a flaw in modern monetary systems or a flawed understanding of modern monetary systems.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 07:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, someone who understands something about this topic at last!
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The use and creation of money are different processes.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me parse this for you since your English language comprehension skills are apparently substandard. When BruceMcF says
So its no[t] clear whether this is a flaw in modern monetary systems or a flawed understanding of modern monetary systems.
He means that what you call a flaw in modern monetary systems
I believe that there is a flaw in double entry bookkeeping, upon which our financial system is based, and that this flaw manifests itself in growing inequality, instability and nationalism.
is actually your flawed understanding of modern monetary systems.

I should also note that Bruce's is comment #14 in this thread so it's good that you "finally" take notice that he "finally" said something you (wrongly) think you agree with.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The use of 0s and 1s is interesting. If you look at for example software transactional processing (specifically the two-phase commit), the nature of doing a transfer from one account to another follows this 0/1 metaphor. This is easiest seen on say smart card or phone money.

Say Alice has 100 euros on her smart card, and wishes to connect up to Bob and transfer a few to him. The euros exist on her smart card at the beginning; this is 10.

At the end Bob has the euros transferred, and this becomes 01. But in between we must pass through either of the 00 or 11 states.

This is because, according to information theory, no two actions can be done at the same time. So systems (including Alice & Bob's smartcards) must choose to either do the addition to Bob first, or the deduction from Alice first.

Typically what happens is that engineers find themselves adding to Bob first - so the transaction goes 10 ⇒ 11 ⇒ 01. This allows for money to be created, as, in the instant between adding and subsequent deduction, there is money on both platforms. A cunning attacker can turn off Alice's platform before she's debitted. Money is created, and this system typically does not survive when attackers figure out the weakness.

Engineers then switch to the alternate path is to deduct Alice first -- 00 state. This then means that if the transaction breaks as it goes from 10 ⇒ 00 ⇒ 01, the money disappears, leaving a support problem for the operators. But this is more tractable.

by iang on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 06:10:36 AM EST
This description reminds me of the discovery of 'kiting' by my housemate and myself at college in the early '60s at Oklahoma State in Stillwater, OK. He asked me for a temporary loan which I provided in the form of a check drawn on my mother's account in Tuscon, AZ. He wrote me a check on his own account on an Oklahoma bank. I mailed the check to my mother for deposit. He deposited my check directly. In those days it took approximately two weeks for the checks to clear. Until it did we both had the amount of each check in our respective accounts. His account was likely backed up by his parents account. I didn't realize that this was illegal until he informed me that he had found it was called 'check kiting' and was illegal. Fortunately it never caused an NSF to either account and we were never charged. I still do not know whether this 'worked' because his bank gave him immediate credit for his deposit or because 'his' bank was really his parents' bank and their funds covered any possible NSF.

Now this would not work in the USA. All checks are credited to the account to which they are deposited at or shortly after midnight before a business day. Then all debits are deducted from those accounts. This occurs electronically across time zones between midnight and 4 am in the continental USA. There is still a delay for mailed payments, but the money and the debt  remain mine until the check is deposited.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as which of the two reasons, it could well have been both of them ~ AFAIR, back in those days, immediate credit for checks before they had cleared inter-bank check resolution was a privilege of some accounts, used to chase after attractive depositors, ...

... and if his account had an automatic overdraft from his parents account, that would make it more likely that his account would be granted immediate credit, since an overdraft-secured checking account depositor would be an attractive depositor in the 1960's.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 07:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Er - I think you're confusing faith with stuff.

The value of 'money' comes from faith, hope, and politics, backed up by physical violence.

Number games are a tertiary description, not a primary one. Being able to game flawed systems doesn't change that.

Nor does information theory.

This is because, according to information theory, no two actions can be done at the same time.

This is simply wrong. There's no reason at all you can't do two things at the same time in information theory. Not all information channels are strictly sequential.

In a robust system, the transactions you're describing should be atomic and indivisible, and there are various practical ways they can be made atomic.

If they're not, they're poorly designed - and a two-phase commit isn't a particularly good design, and hasn't been considered a good design for at least a couple of decades.

See e.g. this paper from 1998.

This is not to say having quadruple entry book-keeping might not be interesting.

But I'm not sure it would be useful, because the set of stuff neither parties own is going to be quite big, and including a full listing in every transaction is going to take a while. (See also 'You can't have everything - where would you put it?' Etc.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As an aside, I think a challenge remains here to come up with the right metaphor for displaying the concepts. I for one find the left-handed / right-handed metaphor unintuitive (and I never groked the electrical engineers' left- and right-handed rules).

In contrast, I like the economists' favoured metaphor of a 2 by 2 matrix:

....................Mine.............Not-Mine
Yours1101
Not-Yours1000
by iang on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 06:20:52 AM EST
We think by manipulating oppositional pairs: a dialectic process. Oppositional pairs arise through drawing distinctions. A first distinction separates 1 from 0. A second distinction separates +, - and 0 (think of charged positively, charged negatively and uncharged). A third distinction separates right from left. You cannot generate a right hand by subtracting a left. Monetary systems operate at the level of two distinctions (credit, debit and balance). Chiralkine systems operate at the level of three. This is why I have used the term chiralkine, derived from the Greek words for hand and movement: hence movement of the hands.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 07:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At a bit of a loss.

Is there a paper I can read before I start babbling offer constructive criticism?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:58:24 AM EST
That is a completely understandable response. Everything is new in this idea. You have to let go of a lot of things that we were all taught from a very young age, such as that +1 - 1 = 0, or that money (credit) is a store of value. You have to stop thinking in three numbers (+, - and 0) and start thinking in four numbers. The best way to grasp the idea is to look at the video and track how the four numbers change in the accounts. There is also an example of chiralkine accounting on the website www.chiralkine.com. There are no such things as credit and debt in a chiralkine system. The chiralkine numbers (R, L, R, L) simply provide information about what people need to do to complete their open trading contracts. Once the contracts are completed, the numbers are redeemed. The numbers force circular (equitable) trade.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With all the talk of Left and Right Hand Vector Rules I was "at a loss" if you used Representation Theory in your analysis and Model.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 05:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you. We are using representation theory for the coding phase of the project. The states and operators will be published in due course. The following paper has been very helpful in guiding our work.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/823704/files/0502092.pdf
It provides a mathematical link between the left and right handedness of molecules and the operations of exchange. Our website, including the FAQ section, provides much more detail than I can give in these short posts: www.chiralkine.com.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 02:48:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lots of people in history have had to give up the notion of their local money as a store of value ~ consider mid-1860's Confederate States of America, 1920's Germany, 1980's Brazil, 2000's Argentina, present day Zimbabwe.

Of course, in all of these cases, its been seen as representing a broken monetary system that requires fixing, with financial or real assets that function as a store of value being seen as superior to that broken local money.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 07:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the problem that this solves?  Or, at least, attempts to solve?
by Zwackus on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:48:52 AM EST
Without questioning, we use three single numbers (+1,  -1 and 0) to run all our essential systems, including our financial and property rights systems and our voting/decision making systems. We observe growing inequality, disenchantment with democracy, and an alarming overexploitation of the planet's resources. We blame those we think are in charge, and "the foreigners", not the three number system. There is a symmetry problem inherent in three number systems, a problem that only becomes visible when you think in four numbers. We human beings are chiral (handed). The information that we seek to exchange with one another through our networks is chiral. It needs to be processed in four numbers. Three number systems that we use to process information transmitted through our networks filters out the chirality. Our messages to one another: our attempts at agreement and fair trade, get distorted by the three number processing. This is why monetary systems keep falling over, trade imbalances develop and voting systems give unrepresentative outcomes. Does this answer help answer the question?  
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 01:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
we use three single numbers (+1,  -1 and 0) to run all our essential systems
Can you describe the usual algebra of three numbers that you say underpins all our essential systems? I'm not seeing it.

What are the operations we can do on these three numbers?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How are voting/decision making systems represented using this three number system?  There are all kinds of voting schemes, such as instant runoff voting, preferences, or the "Hot or Not" 1-10 system.

Why does handedness in financial transactions matter?

How is it filtered out by a three-digit information system?

Why is that bad?

by Zwackus on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 01:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Suppose you are asked to vote on the question do you believe that Scotland should become an independent country, yes or no. The effect of abstaining is the same as the effect of one person voting yes (+1) and another no (-1). The voting system is based on three numbers. The arithmetic is one minus one equals zero.

Now, imagine that zero lies on the boundary between yes and no. It is at one an the same time yes and no, and it is also at one and the same time not yes and not no. So, we can represent yes as (yes, not no); no as (not yes, no) and the boundary as equivalently (yes, no) and (not yes, not no). So now we have four states: (1,0); (0, 1); (0,0) and (1,1). We can use these four numbers to draw a second distinction: between accepting the question and rejecting the question. With four numbers, we can offer voters who wish to abstain the additional choices of accepting the question and rejecting the question.

In the case of Scottish independence, people have lived peacefully with that question left unanswered for hundreds of years. The majority of people may actually prefer that things are left that way, but they have no opportunity to reject the question by abstaining. Their voice is drowned out by the filtering effect of the three number system.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:43:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you trying to reinvent surreal numbers?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:47:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not know is the honest answer. I have been searching on the internet for several years to find a prior disclosure of the idea. The closest I have found is a representation of chirality using quaternions - the paper I cited. I am not using quaternions however. There are only six possible states in a chiralkine system. They are fully controlled by the 24 4x4 matrices in the paper. I can see that positive and negative numbers are embedded in these four numbers: as states (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,1,0).
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your idea has nothing to do with quaternions, except the use of 4-component vectors.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yet I got to the paper via quaternions. I had spotted that I was using number pairs, and I realised that quaternions can be represented as number pairs. I saw that each of the four number pairs I was working with (0,0), (1,1), (0,1) and (1,0) pairs up with a number pair representing a unitary quaternion: (1, 0), (0, 1), (i, 0) and (0, i). I searched the internet using appropriate keywords and found the paper. The difference between quaternions and chiralkine numbers is that quaternions each come in positive and negative forms: eight states altogether. I see only six states, so chiralkine numbers are simpler than quaternions. They do not involve positive and negative numbers.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:45:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Quaternions are much more than quadruples of numbers. They have a multiplication rule.

Since I cannot fathom how you can multiply two chiralkine accounting entries to obtain another, in a meaningful way, and you have not provided any indication of anything other than addition (and cancellation), there is, again nothing to do with quaternions here.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:52:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have experimented with the chiralkine numbers as 2x2 matrices. (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,1,0) are orthogonal, which is why they behave like + and -. The others are not, so if you multiply them, you get odd numbers like (0,0,2,0). I have drawn up a table of all possible combinations.

You can add chiralkine numbers together. So (1,0,0,1) plus (1,0,1,0) is (2,0,1,1). Again, I have drawn up a table of all possible combinations

I have also experimented with a kind of arithmetic that privileges 0 over 1 instead of 1 over 0. So instead of saying 1 + 0 = 1, not 0, we say 1 + 0 = 0 + 1 = 1 + 1 = no zeros, and 0 + 0 = 2 zeros. With this arithmetic, you generate the same kinds of states that you get when you treat chiralkine numbers as 2x2 matrices. For example (0,0,1,1) + (1,0,0,1) = (0,2,0,0). I have not got any further than this yet.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good. No quaternions, then.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see the connection. As I see it, a common voting system has a Yes/No/Don't know (abstain). Chiralkine voting makes it Yes/No/Both/Don't know. But as I described elsewhere in this thread, in parliamentary settings the Both alternative adds little because all positions can be used with another voting round.

Vectors, sure, but I don't know how using sureal numbers would be useful here. Feels like chartering a moon rocket to cross a creak.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The connection if there is any is that there are left and right numbers, and that (1|1) is not 0. And that you're free if you so like (apparently) to interpret (1,0) as +1 and (0,1) as -1.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not correct. You are trying to reduce a complex number below its irreducible form. It is like trying to treat a vector as a scalar.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So there is no connection to surreal numbers. Good.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:45:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please look again. There is a connection. With chiralkine voting, you can have an iterative process that results in a decision for which there is a real majority: that represents the wishes of a majority of all voters. I suspect that this is how our brain actually reaches decisions. It uses both symmetric and antisymmetric states, not just yes/no.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:49:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant I didn't see the connection Migeru made with sureal numbers.

martinahay:

With chiralkine voting, you can have an iterative process that results in a decision for which there is a real majority: that represents the wishes of a majority of all voters.

Sure, but it is not necessary to use Chiralkine voting for that. In a parliamentary setting you can just use more voting rounds to sort out if the porposal has support, and in an election/referendum situation iterative processses should be in the counting, not the rounds of voting. Two rounds for president is not over the top, but beyond that election fatigue can become an issue, instant run-off voting looks preferable.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't see the connection Migeru made with sureal numbers.
I'm grasping at straws. I'm actually (0|{1/n:n in Z}) away from writing this whole thing off as nonsense.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Either you are correct and it is nonsense - self-delusion if you like, or there is something that I have not communicated to you yet. If it is nonsense, where is the error? The fact is, the trading system works. We have used it many times around a table. The game works. I have played it with many people.

Chiralkine numbers can be derived by thinking in terms of co-ordinating musculature on the left and right sides of your body. This paper describes the use of simple (R,L) number pairs to control the flight of a quadcopter.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1741-2552/10/4/046003/article

The BBC did a report on it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22774499

(right, not left): right; (not right, left): left; (not right, not left): down; (right, left): up. G. Spencer Brown also uses the four states in his lift control patent: GB1006018 - see the Table.

Chiralkine numbers are definitely useful. My task is to determine whether or not they are more useful than simple numbers in a three number system: +1, -1 and 0.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, that's an interesting formulation.

By allowing for a clear rejection of the premises of the question, one can allow the voting public to reject false formulations or alternatives.

But is this sort of records keeping stuff really the big problem?  That is, would changing the way votes and opinions are tallied really open space for meaningful reform in the system, given that the biggest problems facing the system are not technical issues of the popular will being improperly diagnosed, but rather of malicious elites forcing a neo-feudal agenda upon the public, and lying through their teeth in every public debate?

by Zwackus on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:12:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With the voting system, we are drawing a second distinction: so we go from two options yes (1) or no (0) to four options: yes (1,0); no (0,1); accept question but don't care yes or no (0,0); or reject question (1,1). With chiralkine numbers, we bring in the possibility of drawing a third distinction. This is, I think, where their real utility will be found.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For that matter, the questions posed - in particular in referendums - are often as interesting as the answers.

In the Scottish referendum polls there appears to have been substantial support for a devo-max solution where Scotland would have home rule in most things but still be in a union on a few things. From what I understand the SNP were interested in including such an option in the referendum, but London wasn't.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My instinct is that it will underpin the next generation 'people-centric' internet by ensuring that individuals - not intermediary organisations, whether private or government - remain in control over the economic interaction in which they engage.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Martin is essentially pointing out that there are in fact four economic states:

Mine: Not Yours (10);
Yours: Not Mine (01);
Both Mine And Yours (11);
Neither Mine Nor Yours (00).

How about "you owe me" and "I owe you"?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:56:31 PM EST
This is interesting. I actually imagine there to be six states alltogether. The four Chris has listed, and two others that arise when money is being created, and that go away when money is redeemed. I have been referring to these as chiralkine states. When property rights go through a transition state between mine, not yours and yours,not mine money comes into existence. In this transition state, the property rights are not in state (0,0) nobody's, nor in state (1,1) everybody's. I wonder if your "you owe me" and "I owe you" can be mapped to (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1)?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems to me we don't actually know what we're talking about any more.

You invented this stuff. That's why I ask you questions and expect answers. I don't expect "oh, that's interesting, I wonder what my own symbols can or cannot represent".

But you already have patents so it must all be okay.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is my hope that readers will engage with what I am writing like Spock not Kirk? I am trying to communicate it impersonally to readers at Chris' request, not convince everyone that it is right. If it is wrong, where is the error?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's really quite deep: by 'resolving zero' we see that there are two aspects of the Zero state, not a million miles away from two different directions to particle 'spin'.
Oh, yes, wholly a million miles away from particle spin.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:57:10 PM EST
Did you see this paper that I provided a link to earlier. http://cds.cern.ch/record/823704/files/0502092.pdf

It connects chirality with particle spin. Indeed the maths works right up to galaxies, light years away from us. Chirality and particle spin are connected.

by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And I wrote this. I think I know enough about particle spin and representation theory.

Now I'd appreciate it if you stopped being cryptic and referring us to physics papers on quaternions. You should use metaphors to illuminate difficult topics, not use methaphors more obscure than the topic you're trying to illuminate (I submit most people will find quaternions more obscure than accounting).

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can try to explain the theory mathematically, or I can try to use metaphors. Articulating the idea is incredibly difficult. Most metaphors are actually rooted in a three number system, which is why you really do need four number maths to understand how the system works. Quaternions are four numbers. They are used in all sorts of applications, including representing rotations of figures in computer games. They are used in relativity, to describe how things behave relative to one another, as we do in our relationships with one another. That said, the important point is that with this four number system, we may have a way to retire banks.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quaternions are related to the rotation group in 3 dimensions. Explain to me what rotation in three dimensions has to do with economic relationships.

Warning: I am not impressed by math/physics jargon as I studied quantum gravity for my PhD. Please stay with both feet firmly on the ground.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also to 4D rotations, and I see you mention the O(4) group in a different comment. Still failing to see what 4D rotation has to do with contracts and payments.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the point might be that he knows perfectly well what quaternions are, as do a surprising number of people around here.

The mathematics might be clearer than the metaphors.

Also, a good rule of thumb to follow is not to attempt connections to bad metaphors about quantum mechanics unless you have an actual quantum model of what you're doing. The paper you cite has no visible connection to what you're talking about.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My reaction is more along the lines of this:
Also, we have nothing against metaphors; we merely remark that the role of a metaphor is usually to clarify an unfamiliar concept by relating it to a more familiar one, not the reverse. Suppose, for example, that in a theoretical physics seminar we were to explain a very technical concept in quantum field theory by comparing it to the concept of aporia in Derridean literary theory. Our audience of physicists would wonder, quite reasonably, what purpose such a metaphor served (whether or not it was apposite), if not merely to display our own erudition. In the same way, we fail to see the advantage of invoking, even metaphorically, scientific concepts that one oneself understands only shakily when addressing a non-specialist audience. Might the goal be to pass off as profound a rather banal philosophical or sociological observation, by dressing it up in fancy scientific jargon? — J Bricmont and A Sokal, What is all the fuss about?, Times Literary Supplement (London), 17 October 1997, p. 17.
which ties in with The Nonsense Math Effect which we discussed recently:
The background to this paper is my own subjective experience of a mid-career move from pure mathematics to interdisciplinary work in social science and cultural studies. In areas like sociology or evolutionary anthropology I found mathematics often to be used in ways that from my viewpoint were illegitimate, such as to make a point that would better be made with only simple logic, or to uncritically take properties of a mathematical model to be properties of the real world, or to include mathematics to make a paper look more impressive. In those areas in the social sciences and humanities in which it is broadly recognized that mathematics is a valuable tool, mathematical skills may still be generally too low for optimal use of this tool. There may be a lack of understanding of what mathematics can and should be used for and what it cannot and should not be used for. If mathematics is held in awe in an unhealthy way, its use is not subjected to sufficient levels of critical thinking.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid I remain especially suspicious of appeals to metaphors based on the stories we tell to try to explain quantum mechanics in English. Metaphor piled on metaphor isn't terribly useful.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The single entry tally stick is 1-Dimensional: current double-entry accounting is 2-Dimensional: and Martin Hay posits 3-Dimensional (triple entry) accounting.
That is a peculiar definition of "dimension". Current double-entry accounting can be modelled by arrow diagrams, where arrows are things that have a source and a target. Arrows are one-dimensional.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:58:59 PM EST
The theory is actually a bit more complex. The symmetry group O(4) has six "dimensions". You find these six "dimensions" when you do chiralkine accounting instead of double entry bookkeeping to represent the creation, exchange and redemption of "money". This is illustrated in the example of chiralkine accounting on our website. The four numbers are the (R, L) "owned" and the (R, L) "owed", making a four number (R, L, R, L) where R stands for right and L stands for left. This system of accounting holds both people in a pair responsible for creating money (of the form I owe you/you owe me - an antisymmetric relationship) to account for the redemption of the money. Only one person, the "debtor" is held to account in a 3-number system.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For what definition of "dimension"?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are six states in chiralkine accounting: (1,0, 0,1), (0,1,1,0), (1,0,1,0), (0,1,0,1), (0,0,1,1) and (1,1,0,0). The first two correspond respectively with credit (+) and debt (-) in a three number system, The last four all correspond with 0 (balance) in a three number system. Thus, all of the information of double entry accounts is recoverable from chiralkine accounts, together with a lot more information.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Am I allowed to do (1,0, 0,1) + (0,1,1,0) = (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,0,1) = (0,0,1,1) + (1,1,0,0) in your system?

Also, what do (1,0,1,0), (0,1,0,1), (0,0,1,1) and (1,1,0,0) mean?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The complementary members of each oppositional pair add to (1,1,1,1) or equivalently to (0,0,0,0). However, two non-complementary pair members add to give a unique number. Every composite number (a, b, c, d) can be decomposed to a multiple of (1,1,1,1) and one or two other numbers. The total number of each component in a four number is the same, and represents the value of all the open contracts in a system. What you are doing is taking four numbers (1,1,1,1) and equivalently (0,0,0,0) as a state of balance, and then perturbing the balance. With these three oppositional pairs, you can draw one (0,0,1,1)(1,1,0,0), two (1,0,1,0)(0,1,0,1) or three (1,0,0,1)/(0,1,1,0) distinctions. People can look at their accounts and see what they have to spend (1,0,0,1) or clear as debt (0,1,1,0). They only normally need to view the other numbers as 0 (balance) unless their contract pair member defaults. However, the other numbers tell which contracts remain open - what "money" still needs to be redeemed.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must be really thick. Bear with me here.

So the first two components of (a,b,*,*) represent the position of the first contracting party, and the last two (*,*,c,d) the position of the second contracting party?

And within each pair the first component (a,*,c,*) represents credit and the second component (*,b,*,d) represents debit?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am sure you are not at all thick. On the contrary. However, patience is needed if we are to achieve a meeting of minds.

The numbers represent the positions of people in a trading system relative to one another. Let me please emphasise the word relative. The positions are not absolute.

Two people in states (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,1,0) are relative to one another, in states equivalent to credit and debt. However, if say the one in state (1,0,0,1) changes state to (0,1,0,1) they are no longer in those relative positions. Think of them as being in a state of spent credit. The person in state (0,1,0,1) cannot change to a symmetric state (when the contract is cleared until the other person's state has changed from (0,1,1,0) to (1,0,1,0). Think of that person as being in state spent debt. When one person has reached state spent credit and the other state spent debt, the contract can be closed and the R and L tokens redeemed. The R and L tokens have effectively gone out from the pair into the community then come back again in the mirror image configuration, so the pair has traded with the community in balance.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:03:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you are trying to affect the morale status of the actors involved in the creation of debt?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit and debt are the children of two parents. I am trying to hold both parents to account until their offspring are ready to become independent (the credits and debits they have created have been redeemed).
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit and debt are the children of two parents. I am trying to hold both parents to account until their offspring are ready to become independent (the credits and debits they have created have been redeemed).
Explain, then, what is missing from the following double-entry accounting representation:

We have a single credit relation between A and B. This shows up as an asset on A's balance sheet and as a liability on B's balance sheet.

A and B are your 'parents', the credit relation is your 'child'.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are thinking in three numbers. Credit has no existence independent of debt. They are entangled.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit has no existence independent of debt. They are entangled.
Precisely what I said:
We have a single credit relation between A and B. This shows up as an asset on A's balance sheet and as a liability on B's balance sheet.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not exactly what you said. Under double entry bookkeeping, the entanglement is deemed to be broken when one person hands money (credit) over to another in exchange for goods or services. Chiralkine accounting keeps the "debits" and "credits" entangled until they are redeemed.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are describing a forward exchange contract where A is obliged to hand over something to B and B s obliged to hand over something else to A. That is perfectly amenable to double-entry bookkeeping, and it is indeed cancelled when the contracted echange is effected.

Explain how "Chiralkine accounting keeps the "debits" and "credits" entangled until they are redeemed" works differently. Because both halves can be redeemed separately? Then that's two one-way contracts or obligations.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, if A and B are exchanging goods and services, then that is simple barter. The challenge is for A and B as a pair to buy and sell things in balance with everyone else. At least three exchanges are needed to complete this cycle: A to C; C to B and B to A.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But when A has something B wants but B doesn't have something A wants you need the balancing trades to take place in the future.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 09:13:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Trying to make sense of this.

Alternative to Money - Example 2 | chiralkine.com

Alternative to Money - Example 2

Person A has apples, but eats bread; Person B has meat, but eats apples, and Person C has bread, but eats meat. They have no means of exchange. The bank lends a food trading token to Person A. It charges interest in food on the loan. It requires Person A to return the token with a slice of bread. The Government also levies a tax on each trade, payable in food. It will tax Person A two slices of bread for buying bread, Person B two slices of apple for buying apples and Person C two slices of meat for buying meat. Person A now buys bread from Person C using the token, then Person C buys meat from person B, and finally Person B buys apples from Person A. Person A now has the token back. Person A now returns the token to the bank and also pays the bank a slice of bread. Each person pays the government the food they owe. The moral of the story is to be satisfied with what you have, or others will take advantage!

Using a chiralkine system, chiralkine money would be created in R and L forms and exchanged for each transaction, then redeemed after the transactions have been completed; when each of Person A, B and C has both sold and purchased food.

Wouldn't the state take out a sales tax in the latter example too? Or is this a tax-avoidance scheme? If so, I think A, B, C might be better off bartering.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 03:51:49 PM EST
As we have explained on our website, taxation would need to be carefully considered before implementing a chiralkine exchange system at a national level. We have offered suggestions, drawing on the concept of the old European tally stick system of taxation. Chiralkine is certainly not any kind of tax avoidance scheme. It may integrate quite well with taxation at a local government level. However, the notion of money as a store of value is actually an artefact that comes from thinking in three numbers. In a chiralkine system, tokens having no value are exchanged (R for L) with each transaction. The tokens are simply information telling holders what they need to do next to complete the contracts they are in. Acquiring or giving away a token does not change a person's wealth in any way. Effectively people using the system are bartering: they are using real goods and services to pay for things, not money
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect some ET'ers will be interested in the work that Martin Hay is doing on what he describes as Chiralkine contracts, the Resolution of Zero and  

Chiralkine Logic

Chiralkine Logic

Things exist (1) or not (0).  Nobody has ever detected the existence of a negative thing (-1). Either we can detect something we are looking for (1), or not (0).

Imagine a stringed bow where you have taken the bow in one hand and the string in the other. You can detect if you are pushing the bow (1), or not (0). You can also detect if you are pulling the string (1) or not (0). The pushing and pulling can be represented by a number pair, where the first number in the pair is pushing and the second pulling. If you push on the bow but do not pull the string (1,0), the stringed bow will move away from you. If you pull on the string but do not push on the bow (0,1), the stringed bow will move towards you. If you do not pull and do not push (0,0), the stringed bow will not move. If you pull and push (1,1), the stringed bow will not move, but it will stretch. It goes from a relaxed state (D) to an energised state (L) ready to do work, like money in an economy.

Pushing and pulling a stringed bow are related in that one and the same person does either, neither or both, but not as positive and negative numbers. Pulling and pushing in balance is different from not pushing or pulling at all.

We have built a great, global civilisation based upon an irrational belief in negative numbers, debt.  We cannot eat negative bread, drink negative water or ride on a negative bicycle, yet we treat and sometimes abuse our fellow humans, because we believe that they possess negative things. At other times, we can find ourselves unable to employ the real services of our fellows, or may even starve when they have real food, because they believe that we lack the equally imaginary counterpart of debt, credit.  The ancient Egyptians had some funny ideas about an imagined afterlife that drove them to build pyramids for dead people.  We have really let our imagination rip!

Negative numbers are powerful tools to use in making calculations about real things, but they must disappear at the end of the calculations, not be left hanging in the air as if they are real things themselves.

That's supposed to be an explanation?

Chris, since you link to it approvingly, maybe you can explain it to us in your own words? Also, what does this have to do with economics? Or logic?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:04:47 PM EST
In double entry bookkeeping, debits and credits cancel. A person's financial position can be in credit, not in debt (1, 0); not in credit, in debt (0,1) or not in credit, not in debt - balance (0,0). The state credit, debit (1,1) is not recognised. However, this state should be recorded as such (1,1) when a person sells something to one person for created money, then buys something from a second person for that created money. There are actually two acts of creating money, involving two contracts.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The state credit, debit (1,1) is not recognised.
This is simply wrong. Especially since you yourself say
(1,1) when a person sells something to one person for created money, then buys something from a second person for that created money
The fact that credits and debits do not cancel out when the credit and the debit are with respect to different counterparties is basic, and recognised. I mean, that's the whole point of having balance sheets of assets and lliabilities: to be able to simultaneousy record a positive amount of assets and a positive amount of liabilities. And, of course, assets and liabilities do not cancel out even when they are in relation to the same counterparty. You need a special contract (in fact, considered exotic by accountants) in order to allow for netting of mutual obligations.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A T-bar account is like a balance or see-saw. For balance, it does not matter whether there is no weight on each side (0,0) or equal weights on both sides (1,1). Double entry bookkeeping treats both cases as (0,0) - debits cancel credits. It actually does matter in a real economy.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Double entry bookkeeping treats both cases as (0,0) - debits cancel credits
That is actually wrong. I can have a credit card and a current account with the same bank, both with equal balances. I can owe €1,000 on my card and have €1,000 in my deposit which is owed to me by the same bank. Nowhere is there any obligation to settle that to zero and the double-entry accountin system does not force you to do it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are no term or demand deposits in a credit card system. These systems intermediate credit extended by merchants to shoppers.

So your credit card balance is entirely distinct from and unrelated to what is going on in the banking system where there are deposits of two types, and there is a big difference between a term deposit and a demand deposit.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, say I have a demand account and an overdraft. There is no obligation to net them out.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Correct.

Both are undated obligations.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even if they were dated there would be no obligation to net them out.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When can a single T-bar account be in state (1,1): (credit =1 and debit =1)?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That can be represented by having an asset of 1 and a liability of 1, both with the same counterparty.

It happens all the time, in fact.

And netting of obligations doesn't automatically happen unless it's specified in the contracts.

So +1 -1 is not equal to 0 unless you have a netting contract.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm trying to get my head around it myself because I have been saying for a long time that I believe that there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of Economics.

This is based upon the fact that the financial instruments of modern finance capital have conventionally been of two conflicting types: either an absolute ownership (creditary/equity) claim, or a temporary debt claim by a person over productive capacity or productive assets.

The source of the flaw is the relationship between the Treasury and the central and private banks, and the 'deficit-based' nature of money created by credit-intermediaries-aka-banks.

What we see is that two different legal claims have been conflated as 'liabilities' of central banks, in the form of undated deposits (reserves - creditary instruments) and dated (term - debt) deposits.

The result is that the double entry book-keeping system as applied to a Central Bank is mis-leading and any Economics (ie practically all of them) built upon assuming that a negative is in fact a positive gives catastrophic bollocks results.

The need for an accounting system which enables us to address the qualitative difference of legal claims over productive capacity or assets has been obvious to me for years, and as I said above, I am aware of a couple of people who have done very interesting work at the data/accounting level and independently come up with 'triple entry' book-keeping which is in this space.

Ian Grigg points out that Satoshi's Bitcoin blockchains also live in this twilight zone.

Martin is addressing all this from another perspective, and envisages it dimensionally.

Sorry if his use of language does not meet the most exacting mathematical standards, but please, cut the guy some slack.

It is now possible (I'm doing it) to create new (actually, very old - 'Real Bills' anyone?) 'peer to peer' and 'peer to asset' credit instruments and to integrate these - within the correct protocols - to create a dis-intermediated and people-centric networked financial system.

In order for people to create and clear the credit needed for the circulation of goods and services and the creation of productive assets, there is in fact technically no need for currency at all. Whereas currency may in fact be an outcome of investment which funds productive assets by monetising its future use value over time.

It seems to me that at the heart of such a Market 3.0 system must be a data architecture which will enable individuals to maintain control at all times of all transactions in which they are involved without surrendering it to an agent, even momentarily.

That - I think - is where Martin's work comes in.

So please folks, give the man a break - he didn't ask me to drop him into the White Heat of ET's finest minds - and dial the tone down a bit.

Martin's here in good faith to try and explain his thinking.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry if his use of language does not meet the most exacting mathematical standards, but please, cut the guy some slack.
If he's not up to rather lenient mathematical standards he should cut the quantum mechanical quaternionic mumbo-jumbo. Then I'll cut the guy some slack.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems to me that at the heart of such a Market 3.0 system must be a data architecture which will enable individuals to maintain control at all times of all transactions in which they are involved without surrendering it to an agent, even momentarily.
There is more to economic relations than transactions. There are also contracts. As you of all people well understand, it's when you introduce an element of time into a world of transactions by entering into contracts that money and interest arise.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wherever a barter system involves credit aka time then the result is a monetary (credit clearing) system.

Wherever the use value of a productive asset is prepaid then the resulting credit object/instrument is potentially a currency which may come to be used (in addition to chain A>B>C>D>E>A settlements) in settlement of the credit obligations which arise in such a credit clearing system.

I think that 'interest' must be distinguished from 'return on investment'.

If a property owner sells a prepay rental unit returnable in payment for £1 of rent for 80p now then the investor makes an absolute profit of 20p or 25%.

But the rate of return over time depends literally upon how long it is before that unit may be returned against rent. Here the owner is not receiving money for the use of money (which is how I think of 'interest') but money for the use of land.

Such prepay rental credits (which I am prototyping) will in my view be the next generation of (by definition) local currencies the issuance of which will come to resolve and replace existing unsustainable debt in fiat currency.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wherever a barter system involves credit aka time then the result is a monetary (credit clearing) system.
Except the idea that money systems evolve out of barter systems is bad anthropology. Money systems evolve out of social credit systems and accounting systems, and barter economies result when people used to trading with money lose access to money.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't say that money evolved out of barter did I?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The result is that the double entry book-keeping system as applied to a Central Bank is mis-leading and any Economics (ie practically all of them) built upon assuming that a negative is in fact a positive gives catastrophic bollocks results.

The need for an accounting system which enables us to address the qualitative difference of legal claims over productive capacity or assets has been obvious to me for years, and as I said above, I am aware of a couple of people who have done very interesting work at the data/accounting level and independently come up with 'triple entry' book-keeping which is in this space.

In my view the key distinction here is between financial and nonfinancial assets. A financial asset is someone else's liability - essentially a contract and subject to double-entry accounting. A nonfinancial asset is a claim over a productive asset and not someone else's liability, nor subject to double-entry accounting.

None of this means there's anything wrong with double-entry accounting.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 06:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
None of this means there's anything wrong with double-entry accounting.

The problem is that both types of asset have to be accounted for in a double entry accounting system, and there is confusion and obfuscation when it comes to central banks and national accounts which obscures the reality of what is actually going on.

The distinction between financial and non-financial asset is that between debt and equity. Equity is also recorded in a double entry accounting system as well as a title registry of assets (as distinct from a transaction registry of obligations).

It is quite possible - and this is essentially what Martin is saying - to create an entirely positive asset-based accounting system - with credit issuance based upon the productive capacity of people and the productive use value of assets - and with no negatives.

In such a system there is no profit and no loss: merely the sharing of value mutually created.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is quite possible - and this is essentially what Martin is saying - to create an entirely positive asset-based accounting system - with credit issuance based upon the productive capacity of people and the productive use value of assets - and with no negatives.
Simply put, a system with no obligations? No liabilities? No IOUs? Or simply with no monetary liabilities? (I.e., I can owe you a thing or a deed but I cannot owe you money?)

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, no monetary obligations.

Credit obligations are of two types.

People-based - upon the capacity of individuals to provide goods and services over time.

cf credit clearing systems (eg WIR), credit card systems and so on and into Real Bills country.

Asset-based - the use value of productive assets over time.

Most modern money in existence - which came into existence through mortgage loans - I therefore describe as deficit-based (because created ex nihilo by credit intermediaries) but land/location - backed.

I am prototyping - through community property projects - land-based obligations in the form of undated rental credits issued at a discount to investors.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The distinction between financial and non-financial asset is that between debt and equity. Equity is also recorded in a double entry accounting system as well as a title registry of assets (as distinct from a transaction registry of obligations).
When you say equity do you mean equity assets (as in shares in a firm), or do you mean net equity (as in asset value minus liability value)?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We're homing in again on the key underlying issue here, which is the absolute nature of the property and monetary relationships which have underpinned modern finance capital for a 300 year aberration.

Equity is an absolute - Divine Right of Capital - infinite right of 'ownership'.

Debt (and other contracts like leases) involves an absolute dated and defined period of use.

These property rights are essentially obsolescent, having concentrated wealth unsustainably in too few hands.

I am pointing out that undated obligations, such as prepay credit instruments (or demand deposits or overdrafts) offer - within the right protocols - 'open capital' financing and funding options which pre-date modern capital, and which are re-emerging in use because they work when nothing else does.

eg Russia will not sell equity in their oil, and no bank or investor will lend to them, and they therefore resort to oil prepay contracts with eg Vitol,Trafigura and so on, who finance themselves with bank borrowing and hedge (or think they do) their market risk on-exchange.

Undated prepay/credit and collaborative protocols do not lend themselves to double entry book-keeping.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for using 200 words to not answer my very simple question
When you say equity do you mean equity assets (as in shares in a firm), or do you mean net equity (as in asset value minus liability value)?
As to
We're homing in again on the key underlying issue here, which is the absolute nature of the property and monetary relationships which have underpinned modern finance capital for a 300 year aberration.
absolute property is a concept originating at the latest with Roman Law (but the Romans did codify it best) so we're talking about a 2000 year aberration.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See Dominium.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. I'll see that and raise you

Nondominium

Back to the Future - 21st Century Land Tenure and Investment

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When you take double-entry accounting seriously you encounter things like these:
Minsky himself certainly paid attention to stock-flow consistency. This is not surprising since he underlined the fact that stocks of assets and debts led to cash flows and debt payments through time. Minsky, just like Eichner, had a clear understanding of the relationships between the various sectoral balance sheets. As the following quote demonstrates, he was fully aware of the all-important quadruple entry principle, which we will discuss in Chapter 2.26.
The structure of an economic model that is relevant to a capitalist economy needs to include the interrelated balance sheets and income statements of the units of the economy. The principle of double entry bookkeeping, where financial assets and liabilities on another balance sheet and where every entry on a balance sheet has a dual in another entry on the same balance sheet, means that every transaction in assets requires four entries (Minsky 1996: 77).
Further
Suppose, as we assumed in the transactions flow matrix, that firms distribute wages in line with production, that dividends are distributed according to past profits, and that interest payments, as shown here, depends on the past stock of deposits and on a rate of interest administered by the banking system. Suppose further that firms borrow, at the beginning of the production period as the circuitistes would have it, the amount needed to pay the wages of the current period. This is, as the circuitistes say, the first step of the monetary circuit (Lavoie 1992: 153). Thus in the first step of the circuit, both the loans and the deposits newly created by the banking system belong to the production sector. This initial step of the monetary circuit with private money is shown in Table 2.8A, which is a subset of the transactions matrix of Table 2.6.

A clear feature of Table 2.8A. is that it contains four entries. This is an illustration of the famous quadruple-entry system of Copeland (1949 (1996: 8)). Copeland pointed out that, `because moneyflows transactions involve two transactors, the social accounting approach to moneyflows rests not on a double-entry system but on a quadruple-entry system'. Knowing that each of the columns and each of the rows must sum to zero at all times, it follows that any alteration in one cell of the matrix must imply a modification to at least three other cells. The transactions matrix used here provides us with an exhibit which allows to report each financial flow both as an inflow to a given sector and as an outflow to the other sector involved in the transaction. In the current instance, the production and the banking sectors are the two parties to the financial transaction, and each sector must have two modified entries, since all columns must balance.

A peculiar feature of the quadruple-entry system is that it corrects a prevalent misconception regarding the creation and the role of money. In the mainstream framework, money is sometimes said to fall from the sky, thrown out of an helicopter, as in the famous parable by Milton Friedman. In that mainstream framework, which is highly popular in mainstream intermediate macroeconomic textbooks, money is a given stock, which seems to appear from nowhere, and which has no counterpart in the rest of the economy. Despite changes in the real economy, and presumably in financial flows, the stock of money is assumed to remain at all time constant. The quadruple-entry system shows that such a conception of money is meaningless.

(From Godley & Lavoie, Monetary Economics)

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 04:50:05 PM EST
Economics, money and modern accounting practice are all rooted in a three number system. New entrants like BITCOIN are as well. "Money" is really just information about the relative positions of traders in contracts for the exchange of goods and services. Unfortunately, the three number system has taken such a hold on our lives that it has become a religion. It takes a huge effort of will to think differently. You encounter massive hostility if you try to articulate a non-conformist view, because of all the vested interests.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Economics, money and modern accounting practice are all rooted in a three number system.
You continue to not explain what you mean by three-number system.
New entrants like BITCOIN are as well. "Money" is really just information about the relative positions of traders in contracts for the exchange of goods and services.
No, that is actually not the case. "Broad" money is any bearer instrument as opposed to a registered instrument.
Unfortunately, the three number system has taken such a hold on our lives that it has become a religion. It takes a huge effort of will to think differently. You encounter massive hostility if you try to articulate a non-conformist view, because of all the vested interests.
You are failing to articulate your view and blaming vested interests for your failure to make yourself understood.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sometimes the things that are hardest to see are those in plain sight. Good night and thank you for asking such perceptive questions. I will try to do better tomorrow.
by martinahay on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  Unfortunately, the three number system has taken such a hold on our lives that it has become a religion. It takes a huge effort of will to think differently. You encounter massive hostility if you try to articulate a non-conformist view, because of all the vested interests.

You are failing to articulate your view and blaming vested interests for your failure to make yourself understood.

Yes, I think that's the real problem here.  I, at least, really do want to understand what's going on here.  However, all the explanations made so far partake of metaphorical reasoning (which simply does not work for me, and which strikes others here as mumbo-jumbo hand-waving), conspiracy theory type hand-waving, or a simple re-stating of the premises as if that is sufficient, or as if we are too dull to understand.

I'm still looking for the answer to my question above - what is the problem this is trying to solve.  I'd like an answer that doesn't lead me to quantum spin and galaxies, or to human nature, or a just-so story about ancient human societies (one of my areas of expertise), or a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Lay it out for us.  Illustrate for us, through a simple transactional example, what the problem is with our current system.  Show us the negative outcome.  Then re-form that example using your own system, and point out how it is clearly better.

If nothing else, this will be a good mental exercise for you.

by Zwackus on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trying to explain this idea to ET'ers feels like being subjected to the Spanish Inquisition. It is very stressful. I did not sleep properly last night and woke up at 2:30 am with chest pains. Please do not be so aggressive. I am doing my best. I am trying to share an idea as a gift to my fellow humans, not exploit them. I have stated my objective for this project on the first page of our website. The idea needs really bright minds from many different fields to come together as a team to research and develop it. It is not ready to be rolled out as a usable product. If it does turn out to work as I have conceived, then it will indeed lead to new, people-centric systems as Chris Cook has said.

Start out by looking at the video and the sample contract and accounting steps on the website. See how the chiralkine four-numbers (R, L, R, L) change with each step. The four numbers behave like a right, left pair of right, left number pairs: [(R, L), (R, L)]. Some steps involve exchanges within pairs and some between pairs. Each step is accounted for by a change in two complementary chiralkine numbers, one for each trader. Each exchange of R and L tokens maps to a change in state of property rights from each of the two different perspectives of two traders. When R and L tokens are created, a property right goes into a transition state (shown by a circle held by two people in the video). This is like a mortgage on a house. When two traders exchange R and L tokens, a property right transfers directly from one trader to another: there is no transition state. Thus the system treats the creation of "money" differently from the use of "money". In our three number monetary system, you can buy something from someone irrespective of whether or not they are in debt, so there is nothing to stop credit (money) from separating permanently from debt and pooling in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In a chiralkine system, you must have R tokens to buy with, and you must have L tokens to sell with. You cannot hoard or lend out R tokens (credit).

Now, it turns out that when you represent the accounts of traders in an exchange as chiralkine numbers, there are just 6 states. Remarkably (to me at least), you can represent lots of other systems the same way, such as a new voting system. I have also invented a game, which is described on the website. The game is shown as being played on an 8 x 8 array of token spaces, each of which can be in one of six possible states corresponding with the 6 chiralkine numbers. I think of this array as being like a computer hard drive, but in which each "token space" can be in one of six states, not just 1 or 0. The game works just like an exchange. Moreover, you can view the states in the array as if you are thinking in 4, 3 or 2-numbers. For example, you can let (1,0,0,1) represent +1; (0,1,1,0) represent -1 and all the other four states represent 0. Alternatively you can let (1,1,0,0), (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,0,1) represent 1 and (0,0,1,1), (0,1,1,0) and (1,0,1,0) represent 0. Examples of these different views are shown on the website. Thus, you can see visually how a 4-number system (which displays in 6 states) contains a 3-number system (+1, -1 and 0) and a 2-number system (1, 0).

I think that we should be able to use chiralkine numbers to build networks through which we can exchange information about our economic relationships without going through an intermediary. If we use these numbers, we can become independent of intermediaries that process the information we seek to exchange down to three numbers (as in money and majority voting). If we let them do this, the intermediaries have control of us. If we use four numbers, we have control of our systems. We can signal when we "abstain" in a vote whether we are happy with all the offered options or we reject all the offered options.

I believe it would be worthwhile for people to engage with this idea and come together to help develop it. I cannot do it all on my own. As one correspondent has noted so accurately, my maths simply isn't up to it!

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:11:56 AM EST
Why can't you do everything with just one kind of token?

When Alice and Bob exchange tokens in your example, they end up with

A: (1L,0R|0L,1R)
B: (0L,1R|1L,0R)

Why can't they equally well do this?

A: (1|1)
B: (1|1)

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If Alice and Bob are in a simple barter, that is correct. In step 1, Alice "sells" Bob a cake. They represent this as Alice (1,0,0,1) and Bob (0,1,1,0). Now they complete the barter by Bob "selling" Alice some eggs. Alice goes from (1,0,0,1) to (0,1,0,1) and Bob goes to (1,0,1,0). Each now "owns" what they "owe", so the barter has been completed.

What money does, is it enables people to trade without barter. So money can be used as a means of exchange to enable Alice to sell Bob a cake, Bob to sell Fred a hamster, Fred to sell Wilma a wheel and Wilma to sell Alice some eggs.

The problem with money is that there is nothing to stop Alice from selling eggs to everyone and just buying eggs from Wilma, leaving Bob and Fred with mounting debts. More and more money has to be pumped into the system to keep it going. Alice and Wilma become very rich with all this created money.

If you use chiralkine numbers, you can control the system to prevent this pooling of money and accumulation of debt. When Alice sells to Bob, her state goes to (1,0,0,1) and Bob's to (0,1,1,0). The contract between them is only cleared if Alice goes to state (0,1,1,0) and Bob's goes to (1,0,1,0). Each of them has to both buy and sell something to close their contract. If either of them is in default, both of them are in default. This is how a means of exchange should work, so that trade is just the exchange of real goods and services, like in barter.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:06:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If Alice and Bob are in a simple barter, that is correct. In step 1, Alice "sells" Bob a cake. They represent this as Alice (1,0,0,1) and Bob (0,1,1,0).
Where is the "cake" here? I only see a generic "Bob owes Alice 1L, Alice owes Bob 1R". Is this an incomplete transaction? Has Alice actually given Bob the cake already? If she has, then Bob is better off because he has the cake but Alice and Bob both have a net position of 0. Alice owes one, is owed one, and has given up a cake. Raw deal for Alice.
Now they complete the barter by Bob "selling" Alice some eggs. Alice goes from (1,0,0,1) to (0,1,0,1)
So you're allowing Bob and Alice to exchange a left IOU for a right IOU as a result of Bob selling Alice the eggs?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I get that it can be stressful. It could help to know that the discussions can often go on for quite some time, it is ok to think things through and return a bit later. The forked discussions also allow one to return to a previous point in the discussion if there was something fruitful going on and then it went of the tracks.

In voting, I don't really see the problem that is to be solved. Yes, Chiralkine voting would retain more information, but in the end what matter is how the information is used. In a parliamentary situation you would have a meeting president whose task it is to untangle the motions. Say that you have motion A and B.

If they are conflicting, the president will ask for A or B (with the option to abstain for those who are voting) and then next the winning choice against the option to refuse it (again with the option to abstain).

If they are not conflicting, the president but them each against refusal.

Where problems usually arise is when you have several motions and in particular if they are in different aspects conflicting and not conflicting. And that has different proposed resolutions, depending really on how you prefer your organisational politics.

In a referendum or election situation you are usually limited to one vote, making things a bit more tricky. Some election systems has a "none of the above" option or a demand for a minimum participation rate (making abstaining into none of the above). The problem from a decision making perspective is that the "none of the above" option is often just an emotional safety valve, it does not effect the distribution of seats, while having a minimum participation rate introduces abstaining from campaining (in effect, not trying to convince anyone that you are right) as an option for the side that thinks they will loose.

So, my point is that voting system is not so much about having multiple options, but about how these options are used and how this influences the behaviour of those acting within the system.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have just gone through chiralkine.com and I have not found the (*,*,*,*) notation anywhere.

here and here it's just pairs of (owned,owed)

here also, but how the quantities owed and owned can have "units" of L and R.

And here you have a matrix in which rows represent debtors and columns represent creditors, and each cell of the matrix represents the L,R amounts owed by the row person to the column person.

But here's the problem with this scheme:

Transaction 1:  S provides a service to J. The agreed amount is 1 unit. Since there is no money available, S and J enter into a chiralkine contract which creates 1 R unit for J and 1 L unit for S.  The Community is owed 1R by J and 1L by S (simple transposition of the row sum).
S provides a service to J. As a result, S owes 1L to the community.

In exchange for what exactly does S now owe the community?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just prefacing: not snark, but how I interpret the system.

Migeru:

In exchange for what exactly does S now owe the community?

In exchange for his service he owes it to the community to use another service.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:49:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that is an interesting concept. Is that what it is?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I explained in an earlier post, we have not yet published on the four numbers. I have shared information with readers on our latest thinking, in the hope that this sharing will help move things forwards. I think that the four numbers are useful tools. They bring all the different aspects of what I call chiralkine under one mathematical structure. I can represent the positions of people in a trading exchange, for example as in LETS, using the numbers, and I can represent the positions of players in the game using the same numbers.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In my view, a paradigm shift like this can only be understood by demonstration.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When the word "paradigm" makes its entrance.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Give me another word and I'll use it.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:04:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Self-claims of "paradigm shift" are instantly suspect.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 08:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it's a case of guilt by association.  WAY too many crackpots have tried to cover up the basic incoherence of their ideas by talking about how it's a total paradigm shift, so OF COURSE it's hard to understand.

Now, some things are, in fact, hard to understand because they are new.  Some things in the early stage of development are not entirely understood by their creators.  And some things may, in fact, warrant a complete re-interpretation of existing modes of understanding. However, that last bit is pretty damn rare.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The problem that I have with this discussion so far, and which seems to be shared by others, is that there's a general description of something that might be interesting, and then several statements about how it's world-changing, without nearly enough detail or coherent explanation through simple and on-topic example.

I want to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I do think there's probably something interesting here.  However, it does not seem as if the originator of the idea is quite ready.  I'd recommend giving that person some time to come up with some solid, concrete examples and trying again in the future.

Then we'll be better able to talk about how paradigm-shifting it really is, or isn't.

by Zwackus on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:12:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem that I have with this discussion so far, and which seems to be shared by others, is that there's a general description of something that might be interesting, and then several statements about how it's world-changing, without nearly enough detail or coherent explanation through simple and on-topic example.

  1. Collect underpants
  2. ???
  3. Paradigm shift!


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:27:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am pursuing two objectives at present. One is to get a chiralkine system coded, so people can play with it and see it in action. The other is to get the underlying algebra nailed down. It will be much easier to explain the idea when it has been reduced to an algebraic formulation. I hope to be able to deliver on both these objectives in due course. Thank you for engaging with me on this. It has been a fantastic mental workout.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In current double entry accounting systems 'netting out' positions must be especially provided. It seems that the implications of what you are discussing would require netting out in situations where money had been created through credit creation by the lender. I can see that this might reduce some of the power asymmetry between borrowers and financial sector lenders with the ability to create credit money. What else it might do I cannot say, but it would seem to require a higher standard of underwriting by the credit creator, which would be a good thing.

But the base problem seems to me to reside in the power asymmetry, not the mathematics of representation, though the formal representation could reveal or conceal this power relationship to different degrees. But for this to be useful as a tool to change the existing power relationships it would need to be blindingly obvious to large numbers of people, something it clearly is not at present.

As to the reaction of ET members to your efforts a little background might be helpful. On ET there has been an ongoing criticism and deconstruction of what currently constitutes 'mainstream economics' since before I became involved in 2008. One of these episodes involved a discussion of how the creators of 'neo-conservative' economics back in the second half of the 19th century borrowed mathematics from an abandoned mode of analysis by Helmholtz and used it to underpin their economic theory without really showing how or why it applied in any but a formal sense. But the use or misuse of mathematics tended to provide economics an aura of scientific respectability while vastly reducing the number of people who could or would criticize its findings. The point is that you ventured onto a mine field unaware. But we are very interested in alternatives to the current paradigm.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In current double entry accounting systems 'netting out' positions must be especially provided. It seems that the implications of what you are discussing would require netting out in situations where money had been created through credit creation by the lender.
Several times in this thread, Martin Hay has claimed exactly the opposite: that current double-entry ccounting systems require netting out and that his system doesn't because it "resolves zero".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I see as his fundamental objection is to the lack of 'handedness', in this case the additional requirements that are imposed on the resolution of transactions based on money created by banks. But he might not agree.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 01:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you. Your understanding is correct. I think that our brains, having evolved to co-ordinate the left and right musculature of our bodies, work using signals that contain chiral information. I think that "muscle memory" and other memory is handled the same way. I see money working like a signal through which one person temporarily controls the musculature of another. For some reason, we have ended up using systems that process out the chirality from information that we try to exchange through our communications networks. The effect of deleting this chirality is to remove one of three distinctions inherent in each signal element that we send out. You cannot control the movement of a robot in 3-D using three numbers, but you can using four. You need four dimensions to control a system in 3-D.

I think Derrida would have found chiralkine intriguing. It actually might provide a way to deconstruct conventional maths!!!

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 01:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Derrida would have found chiralkine intriguing. It actually might provide a way to deconstruct conventional maths!!!


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is the sound of a bell alarming? It is just a series of waves or cycles.

Maths has been deconstructed and reformed many times in history.

You can only grasp new ideas if you have the courage to suspend disbelief and experiment with them. This is an especially stressful state for a mathematician to be in. It is like a priest being asked to reconsider his faith. The mere idea of something new is perceived to be a threat, but ideas really cannot hurt you. They are just mental constructs.

Maths is all about transformations. Things have to go into melting pots before they can be reformed. Chemists take transformations of states in their stride. The chemical industry was build by people who imagined new ways of combining elements to create compounds that solved specific technical problems. Deconstruction is the chemists' friend. So, no alarm here!!

by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can only grasp new ideas if you have the courage to suspend disbelief and experiment with them. This is an especially stressful state for a mathematician to be in. It is like a priest being asked to reconsider his faith. The mere idea of something new is perceived to be a threat, but ideas really cannot hurt you. They are just mental constructs.
Go on with your bollocks.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 03:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have patiently answered all your questions, and I have turned the other cheek to your personal insults, but please, why do you believe that it is not possible mathematically to handle exchange as described in the specific example of chiralkine accounting on our website using the six states and 4x4 matrix operators? What are we missing that you can see? Why will our coding project fail? The chiralkine contract has been checked by several lawyers. It properly handles exchange in a legal manner. The function of the exchange of R and L tokens is understood from a legal perspective. There is no imaginary store of value exchanged anywhere in the trades. We can handle all the trades represented in the accounts physically using paper R and L tokens and objects to pass around a table. We have done this endless times.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 03:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
why do you believe that it is not possible mathematically to handle exchange as described in the specific example of chiralkine accounting on our website using the six states and 4x4 matrix operators?

I still have not seen the correspondence between this example and your four-component vectors, despite asking for an explanation repeatedly. Do you want me to compile a list of all the questions that have been asked of you and are still unanswered?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You cannot control the movement of a robot in 3-D using three numbers, but you can using four. You need four dimensions to control a system in 3-D.
This is a curious statement about the number of degrees of freedom of "a robot" moving in three dimensions...

It's probably wrong, too, under any reasonable interpretation of what it actually means. If the "robot" is a pointlike object it has three components of velocity in three dimensions and three "numbers" suffice to control its motion. If it is a rigid body it has three components of velocity and three components of angular velocity so you need six "numbers" to control its motion.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yaw, pitch, thrust. You need 6 numbers to present its state, but only three to control.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With a four number system, you have six dimensions, which gives you control in 3-D: up (0,0,1,1), down (1,1,0,0), forwards (1,0 1,0), backwards (0,1,0,1), left (0,1,1,0) and right (1,0,0,1).
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Six.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure how relevent is the fact that it was based on an abandoned theory of physics. Even if they had used correct physics, this wouldn't have changed the fact that economics isn't physics (though I do wish they'd try string theory - they would be so busy with the math that they wouldn't have time to meddle with real policy).
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From Sample Chiralkine Accounting:
Transaction 1:  S provides a service to J. The agreed amount is 1 unit. Since there is no money available, S and J enter into a chiralkine contract which creates 1 R unit for J and 1 L unit for S.  The Community is owed 1R by J and 1L by S (simple transposition of the row sum).

Transaction 1 Table

...

Transaction 4: M sells goods to S. The agreed amount is 1 unit. M does not have any money, so R and L money is created by M and S under chiralkine contract #4 (CC4).

Transaction 4 Table

1. What are the values in these cells like when they are written out in 4-number notation? Or does a single 4-number array correspond to more than one cell in the table?

  1. When S provides a service to J, why is it assessed as "1 unit"? Is that arbitrarily agreed by S and J? Later in the game you write P provides a service to S. The agreed amount is 2 units. P owns 2L and S owns 2R, so no new money needs to be created. Why is the agreed amount 2 units? Because it is the largest amount that both S and P can exchange? Or because they are exchanging something which is in some sense twice as big as in transaction 1?

  2. When S provides a service to J, J receives 1R and S receives 1L. Is this arbitrary? Could it equally have been 1L for J and 1R for S or does the "chirality" have to do with the fact that it was S and not J that provided the service?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:04:35 PM EST
More unanswered questions
S provides a service to J. As a result, S owes 1L to the community.

In exchange for what exactly does S now owe the community?



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From here
If Alice and Bob are in a simple barter, that is correct. In step 1, Alice "sells" Bob a cake. They represent this as Alice (1,0,0,1) and Bob (0,1,1,0). Now they complete the barter by Bob "selling" Alice some eggs. Alice goes from (1,0,0,1) to (0,1,0,1) and Bob goes to (1,0,1,0). Each now "owns" what they "owe", so the barter has been completed.
"some" eggs. How many eggs? Is that also arbitrary?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you very much for engaging with this. I very much appreciate your patience. You are providing a lot of help to get this concept across to people, and helping me to sharpen my presentation skills.

So, the traders are represented by letters in the left hand column. The columns going across left to right record all transactions between all parties and the contracts they are in. The row sum provides the total amounts in each trader's account at a given time.

In a chiralkine, you need R tokens to buy and L tokens to sell. The amount of R and L tokens used is equal to the value of the transaction agreed by the traders, just like with euros, pounds and dollars.

In the first transaction, S provides a service to J. The agreed amount is 1 unit. S need an L tokens to do this. J needs an R unit. Neither has the requisite tokens. This means that S cannot sell the service to J in one step. They have to go through a transition step. So, they enter into a contract that binds them together until all the steps have been completed. Only when all the steps have been completed has the service been sold to J.

Now, they start out where S owns R but owes L, and J owns L but owes R. This is shown in the table. When they have completed the steps, S will own L and owe R, and J will own L and owe L. In effect, they swap R for L. They achieve this not by barter, but by trading with other people.

So, reading across the row for S in the table for transaction 1, S owns R and owes L. The state of S is (1,0,0,1). J owns L and owes R. The state is (0,1,1,0).

The four numbers can be seen to be made up of two (R,L) number pairs themselves arranged as an R,L number pair. I sometimes represent the chiralkine numbers as [(R,L),(R,L)] to emphasise this.

By convention, I look at right (R) and left (L) from my correspondent's viewpoint.

In the exchange, the number pair representing what is "owed" does not change unless R and L tokens are being created or redeemed. The number pair representing what is "owned" does change. With each trade, R is exchanged for L.

So, when S obtains something from another person, the number for S will change from (1,0,0,1) to (0,1,0,1). When J provides something to someone else, the number will change from (0,1,1,0) to (1,0,1,0). When they have both traded, they will be ready to close their contract.

As a mathematician, you will see that there are two states that have as the "owned" pair (1,0) and two states that have as the "owned" pair (0,1). In my game, the (1,0) states map to the black tokens with the red (1,0,0,1) or blue (1,0,1,0) markings. The (0,1) states map to the white tokens with the red (0,1,1,0) or blue (0,1,0,1) markings. I mention this now, because there are two other states that are symmetric as between the traders (or players). They are (0,0,1,1) which maps to an unmarked black token in the game, and (1,1,0,0) which maps to an unmarked white token in the game. In the symmetric states, red and blue are indistinguishable.

Imagine that you have a game controller that has a red button and a blue button on each of its left and right sides. You use both your hands to signal a number (state) to a computer using the controller. If you use both hands to press both red buttons or both blue buttons, you signal the same state (1,1,0,0). If you press neither button, you signal state (0,0,1,1). If you use only your right hand to press a red button, you signal (1,0,0,1). If you use only the right hand to press a blue button, you signal (1,0,1,0). If you use only the left hand to press red: (0,1,1,0) and blue (0,1,0,1).

I will stop with this post, as it is already too long, and provide an explanation of the second table you have selected from the accounts in another post.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I apologise, I should have reread this before I pressed post. I was rushing to get some breakfast!!!

The sentence should read:

Now, they start out where S owns R but owes L, and J owns L but owes R. This is shown in the table. When they have completed the steps, S will own L and owe L, and J will own R and owe R. In effect, they swap R for L. They achieve this not by barter, but by trading with other people.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a chiralkine, you need R tokens to buy and L tokens to sell. The amount of R and L tokens used is equal to the value of the transaction agreed by the traders, just like with euros, pounds and dollars.
Good thing it took only 200 comments to get to this insight.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:35:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is all in my head, but it will take a lot of very smart people asking all sorts of questions to get it out of my head in a form that can easily be understood! I do understand how everything in the system fits together to make it work.

Every change in the system involves complementary state changes of two chiralkine numbers, and these each involve exchanging a 1 for a 0 within a number. That is why you can represent the changes by having two people swap an R token for an L token. That is why the system works like money, as a means of exchange. For example, a person in state (1,0,0,1) can buy something from a person in state (0,1,1,0) by swapping an R token for an L token - going to states (0,1,0,1) and (1,0,1,0) respectively.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is all in my head, but it will take a lot of very smart people asking all sorts of questions to get it out of my head in a form that can easily be understood! I do understand how everything in the system fits together to make it work.
What.The.Fuck
The chiralkine contract has been checked by several lawyers. It properly handles exchange in a legal manner. The function of the exchange of R and L tokens is understood from a legal perspective. There is no imaginary store of value exchanged anywhere in the trades. We can handle all the trades represented in the accounts physically using paper R and L tokens and objects to pass around a table. We have done this endless times.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it is all in my head, and everything can be done manually, but I do not have an algebraic formulation yet.
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:17:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it is all in my head, and everything can be done manually, but I do not have an algebraic formulation yet.
Pretty please?

A + A = ?
A + C = D
A + D = ?
A + L = ?
C + A = L
C + C = ?
C + D = ?
C + L = ?
D + A = A
D + C = C
D + D = ?
D + L = ?
L + A = A
L + C = C
L + D = ?
L + L = ?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The four numbers can be seen to be made up of two (R,L) number pairs themselves arranged as an R,L number pair. I sometimes represent the chiralkine numbers as [(R,L),(R,L)] to emphasise this.
Has it ever occurred to you (or your lawyers) that it is insanely confusing to put the Right tokens on the left and the Left tokens on the right in your (R,L)?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I try to look at things from the other person's point of view, not my own. Hence R is on my left and, to me, your right.
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can I please just ask you to consider whether you intended to add spin into your comment by using the words "your lawyers". I have not retained any lawyers to represent me. I do not own people. People interested in seeing this idea developed have worked with me on it: lots of people from all over the world and from all sorts of backgrounds.
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
" I do not own people."

I resent that. We are a hired conscience, not a bought one.

by IM on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Comparison between Normal Arithmetic and Chiralkine Arithmetic
So...

(1,0) + (0,1) = (1,1)

but

(0,1) + (1,0) = (0,0)

This is beginning to be problematic. Apart from the fact that the table is incomplete as it doesn't tell you what A+A D+D, L+L and C+C are...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:18:37 PM EST
I am also failing to see how that is consistent with Self-Referential Numbers in Chiralkine Accounting where
What A owns is different from what A owes, so there is no self-recognition between the two. Hence the score is 0. The same is the case for B. The number pair is (0, 0), equivalent to the chiralkine number D.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I got to this insight from studying G. Spencer Brown's book. It was a friend of mine that introduced me to this book, thinking I needed to read it to better understand what I was trying to articulate to him about chiralkine systems.

I see chiralkine systems operating on the basis of the drawing of one, two and three distinctions. Things are in balance when there are no distinctions. When you have self-recognition, you have no distinction: identity. An identity matrix transforms a state into itself. This is self-recognition.

At the level of one distinction, we have two states 1 and 0. In "normal" maths we privilege 1 over 0. We mark it.

At the level of three numbers we have two distinctions. For example, positively and negatively  charged particles repel their own kind, but not one another or a neutral particle. The same goes for the poles of magnets. We think in single numbers: +, - and 0. We do not think in terms of number pairs: (+, not -), (not +, -); (not +, not -) and (+, -). Thus, we treat the symmetric states as equivalent zero.

At the level of four numbers, we have three distinctions. I can illustrate this best with my game. The C token can go on a D, L or an A token, but not on a C token. There is self-recognition of the C token with itself. The A token can go on a D, L or C token, not an A token. There is self-recognition.

I am using self-recognition as a tool to indicate where there is no distinction.

People want to trade until what they want to trade out is the same as what they want to trade in. At that point there is no distinction: there is self-recognition. Batteries are flat when there is no distinction between the terminals: there is self-recognition.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you see, my point is that you have at one point written

D = Not Left, Not Right = (0,0)

Then you go on ans say that

A owes L, owns R, therefore this is (0,0)?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless, of course, the D = (0,0) refers to the joint state of A and B, in which case the L, R balance of A's account is not a chiralkine number.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:20:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If person A owes L and owns R, they are in state (1,0,0,1). The number is constructed: {(owns), (owes)] = [(R,L),(R,L)].

Not left, not right can be expressed as a number pair (0,0).

Think of a human face. You distinguish two eyes: a left eye and a right eye. So, the face has a left side and a right side. Is there any part of the face that is not on the left or the right. Well, here is a paradox. There is no real area that meets this requirement, only an imaginary line. It is at once not on the left and not on the right (0,0) and on the left and on the right (1,1). This line crosses the nose, so since people do not spontaneously break into left and right halves, we must live with this paradox that our maths throws up at us. We can opt to talk about this imaginary line tracing through the nose and down the back of the head. Now the line has a front and a back. Suddenly we are talking about real areas again. The head has a front and a back. But wait, is there any part of the head that is not on the front and the back. Well, yes, there is an imaginary line that is at once (front, back) and (not front, not back). Amazingly, these terms can be distinguished as right and left!!! So, when we play this game of paradoxes, we oscillate between symmetric and antisymmetric states: which means that we oscillate between real areas and imaginary lines (boundaries). Areas map to oppositional numbers +1 and -1, and boundaries to zero. We collapse one oppositional pair (area) into zero as we open up another from zero.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If person A owes L and owns R, they are in state (1,0,0,1). The number is constructed: {(owns), (owes)] = [(R,L),(R,L)].

Not left, not right can be expressed as a number pair (0,0).

Think of a human face.

No, no "think of a human face". We're supposed to be doing arithmetic here.

Suppose a person A owes 3L to B and 2R to C, and is owed L by D and 4R by E. Then they are in a state (2,3,4,1). And then what?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have picked a complicated example!! That is good.

Let us break it down.

A must be in four contracts: one with B, one with C, one with D and one with E.

You have used mirror operator words "owes" and "owed", so first we have to sort your facts into the same frame of reference.

If A is owed L by D, then he owes R to D. If A is owed 4R by E then he owes 4L to E. So in total, A owes 7L and 3R. His state is (a, b, 7, 3). You have not specified what trades he has made, so we cannot determine his actual state. All we can say is that a + b is 7 + 3 = 10.

What you owe does not change through the life of a contract. What you own does, as you trade. You trade so that you can close your contract.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have picked a complicated example!! That is good.
<facepalm>

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:54:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me try again.

A is in state (2,3,4,1). Is that possible?

This means he owns 2R and 3L and owes 4R and 1L. Right?

That he owns 2R+3L does not mean that those are owed by someone else?

Does it matter who he owes the 4R+1L?

Where does "owing the community" come in?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:58:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(2,3,4,1) is possible. 2+3 = 4+1. It decomposes to:

0101
1010
1010
0110
0110

The person has two L units that he needs to exchange for R's to clear all his contracts. You would say he is in debt for 2 units.

The contract simply states that the two parties need to present the opposite form of tokens to the ones they start out with. We use the words "owe", "own" and "community" just to help people relate the concepts to what they are used to. There is actually nothing owned or owed in the system. The numbers are just information.

Have you looked at the contract on the website. It might help you follow what the R and L tokens are doing. They are taking you through the steps in completing the contract.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought these

0101
1010
1010
could be cancelled because they represent owning and owing one of the same (one L in the first case onr R in the second case). Correct?

Now,

(2,3,4,1) = (1,0,0,1) + (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,1,0) + (0,1,1,0) + (0,1,1,0)

apart from your

(2,3,4,1) = (0,1,0,1) + (1,0,1,0) + (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,1,0) + (0,1,1,0)

(I have highlighted the differences) How do you know your decomposition is the correct one?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When any two oppositional pairs are present, they can be added together to give (1,1,1,1) or equivalently to (0,0,0,0). This is true with debits and credits as well at the level of (0,1) and (1,0). It will be true for any multiple as well. (n,0,0,n) added to (0,n,n,0) gives n(1,1,1,1) or (0,0,0,0), etc.

The trick is to catch oppositional pairs before they mutually negate, and hold them until you are ready to let them go. We do not let a credit mutually negate a debt until something has happened.

So, you ask why I decomposed the numbers in the way that I did. The answer is very simple, because your person A must have traded in and out to get to the state where there is a (1,1,1,1) in the total account.

A person in state (1,0,0,1) can obtain an L token so as to be able to redeem his contract either by buying some goods or service, exchanging R for L [taking him to (0,1,0,1)], or by entering a second, mirror contract, which now places him in dual state (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1). He has spent both his credit and debit. He is actually ready to close both his contracts.

The point is that the accounts track that he is now in two contracts. With double entry bookkeeping he would be at balance.

In a monetary system, you can buy things from people irrespective of whether or not they are in debt. There is nothing to make the credit holder buy from people in debt. In a chiralkine system, you must have L tokens to sell, and if you have none, you have to enter into a contract. The system forces the circulation and redemption of the tokens.

These (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) states are a really important feature of the system. You can think of them as spent L (1,0,1,0) and spent R (0,1,0,1) - note the inversion. You can only clear them by negating with the complementary number in the account of the person with whom you have contracted.

In a monetary system, debits and credits in one account can cancel. This is how cash works. In a chiralkine system, when R and L tokens are redeemed, chiralkine numbers from the two accounts of two contractors are mutually negated. Cash cannot be used in a chiralkine system.

 

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, you ask why I decomposed the numbers in the way that I did. The answer is very simple, because your person A must have traded in and out to get to the state where there is a (1,1,1,1) in the total account.

A person in state (1,0,0,1) can obtain an L token so as to be able to redeem his contract either by buying some goods or service, exchanging R for L [taking him to (0,1,0,1)], or by entering a second, mirror contract, which now places him in dual state (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1). He has spent both his credit and debit. He is actually ready to close both his contracts.

Why is the following not possible?

A wants to sell something to B but neither has money. So they open a contract, the sale goes through and they are left with

A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

Now A wants to buy something from C. A has an R token that allows him to buy, but C has no money. Thus, they enter into a contract. The sale goes through, and they are left with

A: (1R+1L|1R+1L) or (1,1,1,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)

So in this example, (1,1,1,1) = (1,0,0,1) + (0,1,1,0). But you said this cannot be, it must be (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,0,1).

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 11:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A has performed his side of two mirror contracts. What this means is that he has exchanged something he did not want for something that he did. He is happy.

When B performs his side of his contract with A, A and B can close. B needs to sell something to do that. When C performs his side of his contract with A, A and C can close. C needs to buy something to do that.

The system is designed so that everyone trades in balance with real goods and services. Nobody starts to hoard imaginary stores of value (money). You get paid for real things with real things, not with money. The contracts keep the trade flowing.

For the accounts, we need to draw a distinction between the R and L that people need to exchange to complete their contracts and the R and L that people have already exchanged. This is why we need the four numbers. We use (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) for the spent tokens.

To a user of the system, what matters is how much  (1,0,0,1) or (0,1,1,0) is in his account, because if there is any of either he needs to do something before he can close his contracts.

What you have homed in on is a key distinction between double entry bookkeeping and chiralkine accounting. Double entry bookkeeping would treat the situation we are discussing as simple balance, which a user would interpret as a zero balance. It is why you can have cash in a monetary system, but not in a chiralkine system.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 11:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So there is no reason why

(2,3,4,1) = (1,0,0,1) + (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,1,0) + (0,1,1,0) + (0,1,1,0)

contrary to your claim.

So, you ask why I decomposed the numbers in the way that I did. The answer is very simple, because your person A must have traded in and out to get to the state where there is a (1,1,1,1) in the total account.
There was no reason not to decompose the numbers like I did.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A has performed his side of two mirror contracts. What this means is that he has exchanged something he did not want for something that he did. He is happy.

When B performs his side of his contract with A, A and B can close. B needs to sell something to do that. When C performs his side of his contract with A, A and C can close. C needs to buy something to do that.

...

To a user of the system, what matters is how much  (1,0,0,1) or (0,1,1,0) is in his account, because if there is any of either he needs to do something before he can close his contracts.

Does A need to be concerned about maintaining a (1,1,1,1) balance indefinitely? He performed his side of both contracts. Does he have any outstanding legal obligations or restrictions? If we agree that (1,1,1,1) = (1,0,0,1) + (0,1,1,0) in this case, what does A need to do before he can close his contracts?

Here's another example.

A wants to sell something to B but neither has money. So they open a contract. C and D likewise. The result is

A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

Now A wants to buy from C. A has R so he can buy, but C has no L so they also need to open a contract. You end up with

A: (1R+1L|1R+1L) or (1,1,1,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (2,0,0,2)
D: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

From the point of view of A, how does this differ from the previous case?

A: (1R+1L|1R+1L) or (1,1,1,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)

What outstanding obligations does A have that prevent him from netting his position out to zero?

Alternatively, A wants to buy from D. A has R and D has L so they can trade without opening a contract. The result is

A: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R|1R) or (1,0,1,0)

Can A and D now net their positions out to zero? What outstainding obligations do they have?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is probably a good time to ask you to look at a chiralkine contract, which is what Chris actually wanted me to talk about!!! However, I agree that the maths is more important to get established.

Exchange is all about trust. People do not trust one another, with good reason. Banks exist, because people do not trust one another. They manage the creation of credit. They chase up debtors. In business exchanges, which are based on mutual credit, the people that run the exchange manage credit, and chase up debtors. The goods one do this well. The bad ones mess it up, and everyone gets in a financial mess.

Chiralkine contracts provide a way in which pairs of people that trust one another can initiate cycles of trade, and then trade with strangers. For the contracts to work, the contractors must agree that the R and L tokens they create and put into circulation will be redeemed by the due date set on the contract. If one of them is in default, the other must make good. In effect, the two of them as a unit must stand behind the R and L tokens that they have issued into circulation, and on which everyone else is relying. So it is not enough to just exchange your R for L as required under the contract. You must also watch that your contract opposite also does his part. This is where the (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) states become important. They tell you what you are on the hook for if your opposite defaults.

So, as Chris said early on, what chiralkine provides is a people-centric system for managing exchange over a network. You contract with people you trust, and then you can trade with strangers. You can set up complete cycles of trade online. Your reputation as a person who closes their contracts is very important, because people will only contract with others they trust.

Now, you can also run the accounts in the background for a mutual credit system, and they will reveal which members of an exchange are not trading equitably. The problem ones are those that sell to people who are a poor risk then buying from another, so tying that another to the person who is a poor risk. For an extreme example, a bad trader might sell a pencil for the value of a car, then buy a car, ending up in balance and leaving the car-salesman trying to recover value from the person with the pencil.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, then.  A wants to sell something to B but neither has money. So they open a contract. C and D likewise. The result is

A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

Now, A buys from D. A has R and D has L so they can trade without opening a contract. The result is

A: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R|1R) or (1,0,1,0)

The date of the first contract expiration arrives. A and B cannot cancel because B is in default as he has no R. What is the penalty that A incurs?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The principle behind the contract is that the two people that create R and L and put it into circulation must redeem it. That is all that everyone else cares about. They do not care what is or is not fair as between the contractors. If the R and L are not redeemed, it means that there is a trade imbalance between the pair and everyone else.

So we assume that B is in default in this case. A and B are jointly liable to make good. If B will not perform his side of the contract then A must do so for him. A will have to sell something. Then A will return to state (1,0,0,1). The R and L can now be redeemed.

The performance of the contract is a private matter between A and B. They will have to sort it out between them.

As far as the exchange is concerned, B is warned or excluded from further trades. His reputation is damaged. He will not be trusted. A's reputation remains good. He can continue to open new contracts.

If A and B are both in default as a pair, the exchange has to make adjustments having the effect of redeeming the amount of R and L to the value of the contract. There are various ways of doing this. A and B would both have their reputations damaged, and they would likely be excluded from future contracts.

We are going to need to experiment with how defaults are handled. It is going to take time to optimise the rules of being a member of a chiralkine exchange.

So, we take away the need to manage trust from the banks and give it to individuals, but there are consequences if you do deals with people who let you down. That is the nature of exchange. There will always be bad apples you have to pick out.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So we assume that B is in default in this case. A and B are jointly liable to make good. If B will not perform his side of the contract then A must do so for him. A will have to sell something. Then A will return to state (1,0,0,1). The R and L can now be redeemed.
Are you saying that
A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
are in a position to close their mutual contract out?

I thought you could only close out if you were in either

A: (1R|1R) or (1,0,1,0)
B: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)

or

A: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)
B: (1R|1R) or (1,0,1,0)

depending on the direction in which the contract between A and B goes.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is probably a good time to ask you to look at a chiralkine contract, which is what Chris actually wanted me to talk about!!!
What makes you think I haven't already? It is gobbledegook, just like the rest of your website.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A is actually in two mirror contracts. In your notation A: (1R+1L|1L+1R), but I would put it as (1L+1L|1R+1R). A is in two contracts, neither of which are ready to close.

In the other example, A and D are each ready to close in their respective contracts, but they are not in a contract with one another. If B and C trade with one another, everyone can close out.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A is actually in two mirror contracts. In your notation A: (1R+1L|1L+1R), but I would put it as (1L+1L|1R+1R). A is in two contracts, neither of which are ready to close.
I put it as (1R+1L|1L+1R) because they are mirror contracts. In one A was a seller and in the other a buyer. You insist you need R to buy and L to sell. How can you justify writing the mirror contracts as (1L+1L|1R+1R)?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am writing (owned|owed), by the way.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point is that the accounts track that he is now in two contracts. With double entry bookkeeping he would be at balance.
Is somebody in a (1,1,1,1) position allowed to cancel it unconditionally? If not, what are the conditions that allow the position to be cancelled?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 11:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now we are cooking!

The answer is no. A person in a (1,1,1,1) position cannot cancel unconditionally. He can only cancel when his contract is closed. He cancels with the other party to the contract. When he cancels, he will go either to state (0,1,0,1) or state (1,0,1,0), depending on whether it is R or L that he has to present for redemption under the contract being cancelled. He is still in another contract.

Thus, with redemption, two 1's are stripped out of two accounts.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 11:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So A's position is NEVER simply (1,1,1,1). The left and right units are labelled by the counterparty contract they are attached to. Namely, in this case:

A: (1R(B)+1L(C)|1R(C)+1L(B)) or (1(B),1(C),1(C),1(B)).

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:09:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Correct. What appears as a zero state is actually two states, one on top of the other.
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example:

A wants to sell something to B but neither has money. So they open a contract. C and D likewise. The result is

A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

Now A buys something from C and B from D. Because C and D have the wrong kind of money, they need to open contracts. The result is

A: (1R|1L) or (1,1,1,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (1,1,1,1)
C: (1R|1L) or (2,0,0,2)
D: (1L|1R) or (0,2,2,0)

Now both A and B have undertaken mirror transactions to the ones in the original contract between them. Can they cancel, and what is the result of the cancellation?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you mean to say D buys from B?
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, actually.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, A buys something from C and D buys something from B.

A has bought and sold, so is in state (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1)
B has bought and sold, so is in state (0,1,0,1) and ((1,0,1,0)
C is in state (2,0,0,2)
D is in state (0,2,2,0)

A and B can close their contracts

A is now in state (1,0,1,0)
B is now in state (0,1,0,1)
C is in state (2,0,0,2) and
D is now in state (0,2,2,0)

If C and D trade for 2 units, everybody can close their contracts.

The simplest case is barter.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are absolutely right to ask what I mean here!

This arithmetic is based on the "rules" for the chiralkine game, but I can see that it is of very deep and general significance to how a chiralkine system works. There are symmetry changes going on with each change. The "additions" map to switching between symmetric and antisymmetric states: to rotations.

The states D and L are symmetric. In four numbers, I represent them as (0,0,1,1) and (1,1,0,0). The letters D and L come from the first number pair. D is (0,0) and L is (1,1). Because these are symmetric states, I looked for words in an oppositional pair that signify a symmetric relationship and selected dark (D) and light (L).

The states C (1,0) and A (0,1) are antisymmetric. For this reason, I looked for an oppositional pair of words that denotes antisymmetric opposites. I selected clockwise (C) and anticlockwise (A). These antisymemtric states each come in two forms (like fermion spin states!). I distinguish these by calling them red and blue. So, in four numbers, Cred is (1,0,0,1), Cblue is (1,0,1,0), A red is (0,1,1,0) and Ablue is (0,1,0,1). The tokens in my game show this.

Now, I can see that you can change a symmetric state into an antisymemtric state, and an antisymmetric state into  a symmetric state. However, you cannot change one antisymemtric state directly into another. This is forbidden. You have to go through a symmetric state.

So, a symmetric state D or L can change into an antisymmetric state C or A. An antisymemtric state can change into a symmetric state, but the change is not commutative (it works like quaternions). So C changes into L and A into D. I represent all this in the game as a C token placed on a symmetric L or D token gives that C token, but a C token can only be placed on an antisymmetric A token, giving a D state (0,0,1,1). An A token can be placed on a symmetric L or D token, giving that A token, but an A token can only be placed on an antisymmetric C state, giving an L state (1,1,0,0).

Using these rules, which I think are the quaternion rules for rotations, I can switch between A, C, D and L states. There are two kinds of 1 (A and C) and two kinds of 0 (D and L).

When you do two complementary operations, it is as if you perform a differential operation, like in calculus. You change a symmetric state, like x to an even power, to an antisymmetric state, like x to an odd power.

By now I will probably have completely lost you and everyone else!!!!!

What I am actually trying to do with all this is show that when you think in terms of state changes as between symmetric and antisymmetric (for which you actually need four numbers altogether) you can see what is understood thinking in a three number system as addition and subtraction. If you use non-commutative algebra, for which quaternions are adapted, you can avoid the need to use positive and negative numbers.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you use non-commutative algebra, for which quaternions are adapted, you can avoid the need to use positive and negative numbers.
Yeah, because quaternions don't have negative components (WTF!?).

Hey, I have a better idea: if you use nonassociative algebra, for which octonions are adapted, you can do projective geometry in the Fano plane to while the hours away while your barter transaction is completer.

By now I will probably have completely lost you and everyone else!!!!!
Yes! Isn't that fantastic!

By the way, you still have not answered the simple objection

that the table is incomplete as it doesn't tell you what A+A D+D, L+L and C+C are...
I'll spell it out for you. As you may have noticed I have no trouble with noncommutative algebra. However, your "addition" table is incomplete.

Care to complete this table? (you have not given a cogent explanation of the addition rules that allows the table to be reconstructed by an independent observer...)

A + A = ?
A + C = D
A + D = ?
A + L = ?
C + A = L
C + C = ?
C + D = ?
C + L = ?
D + A = A
D + C = C
D + D = ?
D + L = ?
L + A = A
L + C = C
L + D = ?
L + L = ?

I'm going to assume this operation is associative...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For one of the six states we have:-

(1,0,0,1) + (1,0,0,1) = (2,0,0,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (1,0,1,0) = (2,0,1,1)
(1,0,0,1) + (0,1,1,0) = (1,1,1,1) symmetric = +1 - 1.
(1,0,0,1) + (0,1,0,1) = (1,1,0,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (0,0,1,1) = (1,0,1,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (1,1,0,0) = (2,1,0,1).

In a symmetric state, no distinctions can be drawn. Just as 0 is the sum of any number and its negative, so the symmetric state is the sum of any chiralkine number and its complement.

(1,0,0,1) + (0,1,1,0) = (1,0,1,0) + (0,1,0,1) = (0,0,1,1) + (1,1,0,0).

To keep a memory of transactions until contracts have been cleared, we keep the numbers separate until we are ready for redemption. We pull out (1,1,1,1) to the value of the contract being closed.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(2,0,0,2)
And is this A, C, D or L? Or does it live in an entirely different space from A,C,D,L?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first two numbers denote the letters. It is 2C: i.e. it is composed of two C units (1,0,0,1).

You need to think of the numbers as vector sums. We have six unit vectors. (1,1,2,0) is C (1,0,1,0) and A (0,1,1,0). A D state is (0,0,1,1) and an L state is (1,1,0,0).

With the game, we can work in just the six unitary states.

Think of the game board as like a hard drive: there are cells each of which can be in one of six states.

With the game, we only need to work with the six unitary states. With the exchange, we have to work with sums of states, because each trade can involve different amounts of R and L, and multiple contracts. The coding of this is very challenging. We need to use an arithmetic, which is what you are getting at. That is what I have been trying to provide to you.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
C units (1,0,0,1)

...

C (1,0,1,0)

So, which one is it?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They are both C states, because the first two numbers in the chiralkine number are (1,0).

I think you are looking for absolutes in a system that is built on relatives. That is why you are finding things so unfamiliar.

Things that are the same looked at in one frame of reference are different when looked at in another.

This is why I went to the trouble of inventing the game. It forces players to look at all the states in different frames of reference.

You need to start thinking in terms of relativity. Trade and property rights are all about relationships: relativity.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I understand you correctly, the first two numbers represent the "owned" position. And (1,0) represents 1R+0L. Correct?

Therefore, you're saying that "C" means "owning 1R, owing one of anything". Correct?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
C denotes a chiralkine number of the form (1,0,,). A denotes a chiralkine number of the form (0,1,,). D denotes a chiralkine number of the form (0,0,1,1). L denotes a chiralkine number of the form (1,1,0,0).
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(1,0,0,1) + (1,0,0,1) = (2,0,0,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (1,0,1,0) = (2,0,1,1)
(1,0,0,1) + (0,1,1,0) = (1,1,1,1) symmetric = +1 - 1.
(1,0,0,1) + (0,1,0,1) = (1,1,0,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (0,0,1,1) = (1,0,1,2)
(1,0,0,1) + (1,1,0,0) = (2,1,0,1).
This is all commutative. Can you show me

A + C = D
C + A = L
which is noncommutative, in terms of 4-numbers?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is an extremely important point. Thank you for homing in on it.

I think that the human brain can flip between symmetric and antisymmetric states this way, and so afford us with co-ordination between the left and right musculature. I think it is how the brain draws distinctions: differentiates. The process of differentiation is the same as playing a C token and an A token in separate token spaces in the game. The C and A tokens are also operators. They are symmetry breakers. In fact, you would recognise them respectively as the identity and permutation matrices.

In the exchange, you effectively use them as operators to create and redeem R and L tokens. They are not used in the exchange of R and L tokens. They are used when you open and close contracts.

So, when you flip symmetric states (0,0,1,1) and (1,1,0,0) into antisymmetric states (1,0,0,1) and (0,1,1,0) you are using them as operators (performing 90 degree rotations). Similarly when you are flipping antisymmetric states (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) back into symmetric states - when R and L tokens are redeemed. Using the full sequence of steps in a trade cycle, we can flip states (0,0,1,1) and (1,1,0,0) respectively into (1,1,0,0) and (1,1,0,0) respectively which corresponds with an inversion of a property right: a sale/purchase transaction. You need a non-commutative operator to invert the property right.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:09:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fantastic. Can you now tell me how A,C,D and L act on a state (cR,cL,dR,dL)?

A * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?
C * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?
D * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?
L * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?

Thanks.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Symmetric states cannot function as operators. You cannot use them to draw a distinction: to break symmetry.

To draw a distinction, you have to use two antisymmetrically opposite operators on two states, producing +90 and - 90 degree rotations respectively.

The six states can be interchanged using 4x4 matrices. These are not A and C states, but some of them have the same effect as the identity and permutation 2x2 matrices. You can multiply the permutation 2x2 matrix (A) by itself to get the identity matrix (C), and you can multiply the identity matrix (C) by the permutation 2x2 matrix (A) to get the permutation matrix (A). With the 4x4 matrices, you can generate an A state from any other of the six states. You do not need the A state (a negative number) to start with.

This is not quite the maths we do at school!!  

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:32:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not quite the maths we do at school!!  
This is rather fucking the problem.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:37:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are seeding a new child.
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are full of it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You object that my references to the human body are irrelevant to the discussion, yet make them yourself!!

It is more helpful to focus on the cycles used in the co-ordination of movement rather than those used in the digestive or reproductive cycles. The former have to be chiral, and can be placed under conscious control. The latter can use smooth muscle.

I am interested in maths for what practical use I can make of it. If the maths says what I want to do can't be done, them I respect that and move on.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are trying to code this stuff into a computer and pretend you can "move on if the maths can't be done"?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have not shown me why the maths will not work. As I said, the system works in real world simulation with bits of paper for R and L tokens and objects to represent goods and services being traded. Bumble bees can fly even if maths is against them! If someone would kindly show me where I have gone wrong, then I can go off and do something more useful!
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please go off and do something more useful.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
Bumble bees can fly even if maths is against them!

Flight of the Bumblebee | Numbers | Science News

So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.

Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account.

If you want a better example, steam engines worked quite well and were widespread for decades before thermodynamics had come to the point of being able to model them satisfactory.

But for that to be convincing, it needs to demonstrably solve an actual problem. For example by following Zwackus' suggestion:

Zwackus:

Lay it out for us.  Illustrate for us, through a simple transactional example, what the problem is with our current system.  Show us the negative outcome.  Then re-form that example using your own system, and point out how it is clearly better.

If you do that, then you don't need algebra, or forays into quantum mechanics to show the usefulness of your system. If it is useful, it can then be modeled, but if you can't show how it is useful, then the model will not save it.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I have already done that many times. The idea is so simple that people keep pressing me to explain it in all sorts of complicated ways, so that they can "understand" it. The most obvious things: the ones in plain sight, are the hardest to see. If you just treat one part of debt and credit as an imaginary store of value, then you end up allowing a small number of people to accumulate lots of imaginary stores of value, and a large number of people end up with lots of imaginary negative stores of value that they cannot get rid of. It all starts when you allow someone to use cash to buy something off someone who is not in debt.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This entire thread is proof positive that no, you have not done it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The C and A tokens are also operators.
Symmetric states cannot function as operators.
A + C = D

...

C + A = L

Therefore, D and L, being the composition of two operators, are operators, despite being "symmetric".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me try to break through here.

What I mean is that a symmetric state does not effect any change in state. I suppose you would correctly pick me up here by saying that the identity matrix can function as an operator.

Symmetry considerations restrict what state changes are and are not allowable in any system. Certain things conform to conservation laws.

Operators that differentiate or integrate (add or remove distinctions: break or restore symmetry) are antisymmetric. You cannot change things if you use operators that change them into themselves.

So, while you are right as a mathematician that symmetric states are operators, I as a practical chemist discard them as being of no use in a chiralkine system. No harm will come.

What we are trying to do with a chiralkine system is to enable people to exchange goods or services. We have to break then restore symmetry. The monetary system does this one way, by creating the oppositional pair credit and debit. This system privileges those that hold the credit. By privileges I mean that their state is advantaged over the other: it is marked. We break symmetry in a different way, so that the two parties in a trade are treated equitably.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now listen closely.

D is different from L. You said so yourself.

Therefore not both of them can be the identity operator at the same time.

Therefore one of D,L has to be a non-identity operator.

Now, pretty please,

just give me the antisymmetric ones...
A * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?
C * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The identity operator in a chiralkine system is a 4x4 matrix with a 1 in each space in the diagonal from top left to bottom right.

The identity operator in a three number system (the system used in mutual credit trade exchanges) is a 2x2 matrix with a 1 in each space in the diagonal from top left to bottom right.

D and L are different states. They cannot be distinguished apart in a three number system. They appear as equivalently zero (neutral). They lie on the boundary between two oppositional states represented by plus and minus. You can recognise their existence when you use a complex number (number pair). You say (plus, not minus), (not plus, minus); (not plus, not minus) and (plus, minus). You cannot distinguish between D and L states using + and -. + identifies with + and - with -.

 

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 08:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I mean is that a symmetric state does not effect any change in state. I suppose you would correctly pick me up here by saying that the identity matrix can function as an operator.

Symmetry considerations restrict what state changes are and are not allowable in any system. Certain things conform to conservation laws.

Operators that differentiate or integrate (add or remove distinctions: break or restore symmetry) are antisymmetric. You cannot change things if you use operators that change them into themselves.

So, while you are right as a mathematician that symmetric states are operators, I as a practical chemist discard them as being of no use in a chiralkine system. No harm will come.

Okay, so you don't want the identity as an operator. Fine. Thwn why do you say
The C and A tokens are also operators. They are symmetry breakers. In fact, you would recognise them respectively as the identity and permutation matrices.
So C is an operator? And C is the identity matrix? And because the identity does not effect any change you don't want to call it an operator?

Hello!?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to the world of chiralkine systems!

All states in chiralkine systems are relative. They interconvert according to the symmetry constraints of the O(4) orthogonal group. In other words, they interconvert as defined by the 4x4 matrices that act on them.

To draw a distinction, you need to perform two operations on two states: the identity operation and the permutation operation. You have to check for self-recognition as part of the process.

Imagine four spaces, each containing one of a D, L, C and A state. Now imagine holding a C token over each of these in turn. It will go on all token spaces except C. Now imagine holding an A token over the four in turn. It will go on all token spaces except A. With both C and A, but not either alone, you can draw a distinction between the symmetric (D and L) and antisymmetric states (A and C). Unless you know absolutely whether the token in your hand is a C or an A, you cannot identify which of the tokens in the spaces is an A token and which a C token. Everything is relative. You have to rely on drawing distinctions.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:43:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Imagine four spaces, each containing one of a D, L, C and A state. Now imagine holding a C token over each of these in turn. It will go on all token spaces except C. Now imagine holding an A token over the four in turn. It will go on all token spaces except A. With both C and A, but not either alone, you can draw a distinction between the symmetric (D and L) and antisymmetric states (A and C). Unless you know absolutely whether the token in your hand is a C or an A, you cannot identify which of the tokens in the spaces is an A token and which a C token. Everything is relative. You have to rely on drawing distinctions.
Fair enough. Allow me to repeat myself:
Care to complete this table? (you have not given a cogent explanation of the addition rules that allows the table to be reconstructed by an independent observer...)

A + A = ?
A + C = D
A + D = ?
A + L = ?
C + A = L
C + C = ?
C + D = ?
C + L = ?
D + A = A
D + C = C
D + D = ?
D + L = ?
L + A = A
L + C = C
L + D = ?
L + L = ?

I'm going to assume this operation is associative...



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 08:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay fine, just give me the antisymmetric ones...
A * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?
C * (cR,cL,dR,dL) = ?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where are you trying to go with this?

We control the state changes in the system using 4x4 matrices.

What I am trying to get across is that certain of these 4 x 4 matrices do exactly the same as the identity (1,0,0,1) and permutation (0,1,1,0) 2 x 2 matrices do in a three number (debt, credit, balance) system do.

We do not need to rely on the maths of positive and negative numbers to handle exchange.

Why does this matter? Well, Europe is splitting into northern (creditor) and southern (debtor) areas, creating rising nationalistic tension, and a whole  generation of young people is being blighted with mass unemployment. If we could fix the problem with some new maths that does not rely on the unending creation of new debt, the benefits would be huge. That is why I am trying so hard to get this idea out into the public domain!!!  

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The process of differentiation is the same as playing a C token and an A token in separate token spaces in the game. The C and A tokens are also operators. They are symmetry breakers. In fact, you would recognise them respectively as the identity and permutation matrices.
When you say these things are operators, do you or do you not mean that they operate on 4-numbers?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a very deep point here, but I am not sure it is the right time to go into it.

The six states can be controlled using 4 x 4 matrices.

What is, I think, very interesting, is that two of the six states themselves can be used as operators. They can be used like plus and minus.

So, I have said that a chiralkine number has the form [(R,L),(R,L)] where the order of the number pairs matter.

You can actually rearrange the four numbers into two number pairs, such that you have a 2x2 matrix. It operators on the vector (R,L). The identity matrix leaves (R,L) unchanged. The permutation matrix inverts the order to (L,R).

I think there is something important here. There is a chirality built into numbers.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:30:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Summary

All steps in a chiralkine system are represented by states undergoing transitions in cycles. Every state is defined only in terms of its position in a cycle relative to another state. There are six states, and they can be interconverted using 4x4 matrices (quaternions).

Chiralkine systems use a complex number composed of four elements (R, L, R, L) to represent each of the six states. Two of the R and L are 1's and 2 are 0s. The relative positions of the states in the cycles are represented by the positions of the 1's and 0's in the chiralkine numbers.

Chiralkine numbers can be used to represent the relative positions of traders in cycles of trade to which they are contractually bound.

Because every state is defined only relative to another, the system relies on the drawing of distinctions. Each distinction is of the form "is" (1) or "not" (0). Using four elements results in there being up to three distinctions that can be drawn.

Conventional monetary and mutual credit systems rely on three simple (not complex) numbers. In these systems, only two distinctions can be drawn. To see this, consider the three numbers as uncharged (0), positively charged (+) and negatively charged (-). A positive charge can distinguish itself from (-) and 0. It is repelled by itself (1), but not (0) by a negative charge OR by a neutral charge.  

Three distinctions can be drawn in a chiralkine system. One way to see this is to think in terms of uncoloured or coloured, red or blue and mine or yours.

Thus, chiralkine systems operate differently from systems based on three numbers, such as monetary systems and majority voting systems.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:10:08 AM EST
From what I can see by having read halfway or so through the thread, this is functionally equivalent to a credit system with a clause requiring the creditor to provide receipt of expenditure equal to the credit (i.e. proof that he has spent the money back into circulation) as an additional condition for the debt to mature. This essentially prevents creditors from cornering the market on legal tender (which is the function that nominal economic growth currently serves).

That's actually not a horribad idea. It's not clear to me whether it is superior, inferior or complementary to using inflation to maintain financial stability in a context of limited real growth. To figure that out, I'd need to sit down with pen and paper for an hour or two that I most likely won't have this week.

But what I can immediately say is that it doesn't need the extra unit of account, or any of the fake jargon.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 01:57:56 PM EST
That is not quite right, but I think you see what the system is seeking to achieve.

It is not sufficient that the creditor spends the credit. It can then sit at its next port of call.

In a chiralkine system, when you "spend" what is known as "credit", the person receiving it actually receives "spent" credit. It cannot be spent again.

In chiralkine numbers, a person in state (1,0,0,1) spends the credit, and goes into state (0,1,0,1). The person that receives the R unit goes from state (0,1,1,0) to (1,0,1,0).

There is no cash in a chiralkine system. You have to have R units to buy and L units to sell. A person without L units cannot buy. Hence a person without L units (like debt) cannot accept R units (credit) - cash. The system forces credit and debt to recombine.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 02:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not sufficient that the creditor spends the credit. It can then sit at its next port of call.

So can your units, unless you require people to place the transacted commodity in escrow pending final clearing. Which would be a crippling imposition upon many forms of legitimate commerce.

A contract economy depends on currency for four functions. In descending order of importance:

  1. Currency functions as a unit of account for official transactions. Contracts are enforced in currency, and taxes are paid in currency. Solvency is measured in currency.

  2. Currency functions as a standard of deferred payment, enabling the marshaling of productive resources in advance of having a saleable product.

  3. Currency functions as a medium of exchange, solving the double-coincidence-of-wants problem.

  4. Currency provides a store of value against uncertain future obligations.

A system in which transactions are only actually transacted once you net out a whole daisy-chain of circular obligations fails to perform the second function and imposes crippling burdens on the third.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 02:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is one more (historical, anthropological) function of money: to assess legal fines.

This is oddly appropriate to our chiralkine predicament. Suppose A and B enter into a fraudulent Chiralkine contract. A sells B a pencil for 10k. They don't have any money, so they enter into a contract. The situation is

A: (10k R|10k L) or (10k,0,0,10k)
B: (10k L|10k R) or (0,10k,10k,0)

Now A goes and buys a car from C with his fraudilent 10k R:

A: (10k L|10k L) or (0,10k,0,10k)
B: (10k L|10k R) or (0,10k,10k,0)

At contract expiry, A and B cannot close the contract because B does not have the requisite 10k R.

Because B fraudulently created 10k chiralkine units, he could be assessed a fine of €10k or a debt of €10k to the chiralkine org.

Suppose now you can convert L units to R units from the Chiralkine organization by paying common money, at 1:1. Then B could buy 10k R-chiralkines for 10k L and €10k before contract expiration.

Either way, 1L + 1€ = 1R.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 05:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A has not sold a pencil to B in this example. He has entered into a contract with B. One person cannot create R and L units.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<sigh>

Okay, B did not fraudulently create 10k R units.

B fraudulently assisted A in inducing the Chiralkine organization to create 10k R and 10k L, with no real intention to trade the 10k L into 10k R in order to redeem them. However, A did use the 10k R that B assisted him to induce the chiralkine organization into creating in order to swindle a car out of a member of the chiralkine organization.

Now what!?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chiralkine is a system for enabling people to pay for and be paid in real things for real things. It does not include a transition state that is an imaginary store of value (money/credit/currency) that is earned and spent. Instead it includes a transition state that is a neutral property right created under a special form of contract. Chris Cook opened this discussion intending that we talk about the contract and neutral property rights, because this is where his ideas and mine seem to be converging.

I hope that this comment brings some focus and clarity back to what has been a very wide ranging discussion.

We can talk endlessly about the theory underlying chiralkine systems, but I invite readers to consider how they might experiment with using them practically once we have a prototype coded.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 02:59:57 PM EST
If you focused on explaining how the system works in simpler terms than through several pages of legalese and abstained from all the mumbo-jumbo on chirality, complex numbers, quaternions, logic, and paradox, we might have avoided the "rather wide-ranging discussion". But that would require that you understand the system well enough to explain it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair to me, you did ask, and that is actually the tortuous route that got me to the idea. This invention definitely is having a breach birth!
by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair to me, your website is unintelligible and inconsistent, you have avoided giving simple answers to simple questions on this thread, and often you have contradicted yourself even on the mechanics of your own system.

I only asked about a lot of things because you started dropping into this discussion papers on quantum mechanics, references to quaternions, to electrical circuits, to neural control of helicopters... as if they were in any way illuminating of the concepts. Despite very early warnings that irrelevant metaphors and especially mathematical jargon-dropping don't impress people much around here.

It's been painful even to get you to state that you need R to buy and L to sell. I'm not sure that detail is even on your website.

I've only kept going out of deference to Chris Cook, because if I'm going to write this thing off as nonsense after he brought it up at least I have to be satisfied that I tried to understand what he thinks he's seen in your system.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am sorry that you cannot understand the idea. Many people have great difficulty with it. However, there are people that do understand it, and they have helped or are helping me to develop it. I could not have got this far without them.

Innovation does not come in nice ordered packages like mathematics. It is messy. It disrupts. It offends. It comes in bursts. It goes down blind alleys.

Anyone who has the temerity to suggest that money is unnecessary to effect exchange is bound to be called a crackpot, and if others introduce his ideas as a paradigm shift, will be damned by that praise.

If you care to check up my background, you will find that I am a patent attorney. You will find some of the patents that I have written. These patents protect inventions that are in commercial use today. You or someone you know will almost certainly have been treated with drugs for which I wrote, prosecuted or enforced the patents in a court. I do understand technology. It saves lives.

Chiralkine systems are based on a contract that creates, as a transition state, a new kind of property right that is neutral. Our economy depends upon the creation, exchange and extinction of property rights.

Modern information technology offers the prospect of innovation in the field of property rights that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. Witness the rise of BITCOIN. It is time for people to put on their thinking caps and start figuring out how we can dig ourselves out of this mess we call our financial system. The old ways, based on credit and debit, have proven to be failures however you dress them up. We need a new mathematics and a new way of legal thinking.

I do not have a complete answer, but my intuition is that neutral property rights are a part. That is where I will be investing my resources.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand the idea. You cannot explain it. You dress it up in unnecessary mathematical jargon. I did not bring up quaternions or quantum mechanics. You did.
Anyone who has the temerity to suggest that money is unnecessary to effect exchange is bound to be called a crackpot, and if others introduce his ideas as a paradigm shift, will be damned by that praise.
What makes you a come across as a crackpot is dropping your credentials (first you were a chemist, now a patent attorney) as if they mattered, claiming that if people cannot understand you it's because of vested interests and not because your explanations are faulty, talking about all the effort you have spent on your theory as if that made it more understandable. Claiming intellectual descent from this or that author as if that made your theory more sound. And so on and so forth.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Constantly saying "this is very deep" about one's own work, and "I'm not good at math but my theory is correct and all I need is some really smart people to make it work" are dead giveaways, too.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 06:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To understand the concept of a neutral property right, you need to think in a new way. Instead of thinking in terms of single words (e.g. mine, yours, nobody's and everybody's) and single numbers (e.g. 1 and 0), you need to think in terms of word pairs and number pairs (complex numbers).

mine is (mine, not yours)
1 is (1, not 0).

What distinguishes mine from yours: what separates them? What is the boundary between them? It is (not mine, not yours) and equivalently (mine, yours).

What distinguishes 1 from 0: what separates them? What is the boundary between them? It is (not 1, not 0) and equivalently (1,0).

You can use these word pairs/complex numbers to think logically, and to solve problems. They are tools. You can construct systems based on them.

This is a proper, practical use of maths - to draw and use distinctions. It enables you to solve problems that involve the manipulation of real things, like trade in real goods and services.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now that you understand the idea, it is in your power to give me a huge gift, by explaining it to others in a way that they can understand. I am trying to give the idea away: to enable people to test it in the world of real things and see if it is of any practical value. I have no comparable gift to offer you in return, only my gratitude.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First I would have to agree with you that it is worthwhile.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sample Chiralkine Contract
Whereas the First-named Person wishes to provide to the Second-named Person and the Second-named Person wishes to receive from the First-named Person the following subject:

....................................... (Subject)

...

whereas the creation of the chiralkine money requires that the ownership of the Subject be transitioned through a state of chiralkine ownership having separately tradable L- and R-forms for the duration of the existence of the chiralkine money;

...

the First-named Person and the Second-named Person will create chiralkine money in R- and L- forms, each in the amount of the Amount, and chiralkine ownerships in the Subject, each in L- and R- forms,

they will separate the chiralkine money and ownerships in the Subject so that the Second-named Person receives the R-chiralkine ownership in the Subject and L-chiralkine money and the First-named Person receives the L-chiralkine ownership in the Subject and R-chiralkine money;

...

upon redemption of the chiralkine money, the ownership of the Subject is restored, fully transferred to the owner at that time of the R-chiralkine ownership in the Subject.

We are also informed that
The chiralkine contract has been checked by several lawyers. It properly handles exchange in a legal manner. The function of the exchange of R and L tokens is understood from a legal perspective.
So, this is presumably a contract under English Law. Suppose the contract needs to be enforced because one of the parties is in default. How will an English Court understand "R-chiralkine and L-chiralkine ownership"?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 04:30:24 AM EST
It is an agreement between two people that are members of an exchange that is binding on them as a condition for being accepted as members of that exchange. It does not need to be recognised by any law of any State. It can be between two people in different countries. The creation, performance and completion of the contract can be handled in a completely decentralised way, without the involvement of any States or financial institutions. BITCOIN similarly does not require the legal institutions of any State to underpin it. BITCOIN is not legal tender.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And you said you're an attorney?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, okay, my bad
The term "attorney" is however still used under English law to refer to someone legally appointed or empowered (who may but need not be legally qualified) to act for another person. Currently, the term is most commonly used to refer to someone so appointed under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to act in this manner in a Lasting Power of Attorney. Practitioners in specialist professions, notably intellectual property, are also referred to as attorneys, for example Registered Patent Attorney or Registered Trade Mark Attorney.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It does not need to be recognised by any law of any State. It can be between two people in different countries. The creation, performance and completion of the contract can be handled in a completely decentralised way, without the involvement of any States or financial institutions. BITCOIN similarly does not require the legal institutions of any State to underpin it. BITCOIN is not legal tender.

Bitcoin is also not a currency.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:17:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Deusche Welle: Germany lends real value to bitcoin virtual money (22.08.2013)
The German Finance Ministry has recently recognized bitcoin as a currency unit and as private money, subjecting holdings of bitcoins to German tax laws.

The move has somewhat polished up bitcoins still dubious image, putting Internet trading in the currency on a legal footing and allowing the exchange of the virtual currency into real dollars or euros. Online currency conversion sites determine the value of Bitcoins according to supply and demand.

...

However, since bitcoin was not universally recognized as a currency it remained private money, the German Finance Ministry said. Nevertheless, the cyber currency was subject to German tax laws, the ministry said, including value-added tax on sales and income tax on profits garnered from bitcoin business.

Figures, Germany is a gold-bug culture so of course they like bitcoin.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This isn't a recognition of bitcoins as currency, it's a recognition of bitcoins as a payment channel. Which is, of course, taxed.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:24:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is an agreement between two people that are members of an exchange that is binding on them as a condition for being accepted as members of that exchange. It does not need to be recognised by any law of any State.
Ah, so the Chiralkine organization is a mafia. You sign a contract with them and you cannot challenge the contract in court.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:17:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What organisation?
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "exchange" you keep talking about.

Any of a kind, of course.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is just a record keeper.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:29:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, wait. I have asked
Does A need to be concerned about maintaining a (1,1,1,1) balance indefinitely? He performed his side of both contracts. Does he have any outstanding legal obligations or restrictions?

...

What outstanding obligations does A have that prevent him from netting his position out to zero?

...

Can A and D now net their positions out to zero? What outstainding obligations do they have?

also
The date of the first contract expiration arrives. A and B cannot cancel because B is in default as he has no R. What is the penalty that A incurs?
to which you replied
As far as the exchange is concerned, B is warned or excluded from further trades. His reputation is damaged. He will not be trusted. A's reputation remains good. He can continue to open new contracts.

If A and B are both in default as a pair, the exchange has to make adjustments having the effect of redeeming the amount of R and L to the value of the contract. There are various ways of doing this. A and B would both have their reputations damaged, and they would likely be excluded from future contracts.

We are going to need to experiment with how defaults are handled. It is going to take time to optimise the rules of being a member of a chiralkine exchange.

The Sample Chiralkine Contract states
This contract is subject to the standard terms and conditions of the Bartering Organisation, which provide for outcomes in the event of defaults by one or more of the parties to this contract.
Now, unless I don't understand English contract law at all, this stuff is worth the toilet paper it is written on unless it can be enforced in the courts.

I did notice a standard portion of English legalese was missing from the Chiralkine contract: the bit where the parties refer to the English courts for contract enforcement and dispute resolution...

And before you go off on a tangent on English Common Law vs. Continental Civil Code Law... let's look at certainty in English law as it pertains to contract law

While agreement is the basis for all contracts, not all agreements are enforceable. A preliminary question is whether the contract is reasonably certain in its essential terms, or essentialia negotii, such as price, subject matter and the identity of the parties. Generally the courts endeavour to "make the agreement work", so in Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd, the House of Lords held that an option to buy softwood of "fair specification" was sufficiently certain to be enforced, when read in the context of previous agreements between the parties. However the courts do not wish to "make contracts for people", and so in Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston, a clause stipulating the price of buying a new van as "on hire purchase terms" for two years was held unenforceable because there was no objective standard by which the court could know what price was intended or what a reasonable price might be. Similarly, in Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v M&S plc the Court of Appeal held that because the price and quantity to buy would be uncertain, in part, no term could be implied for M&S to give reasonable notice before terminating its purchasing agreement. Controversially, the House of Lords extended this idea by holding an agreement to negotiate towards a future contract in good faith is insufficiently certain to be enforceable.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The law recognises a (charged) property right in money. We can go on believing in the ownership of imaginary things, or we can reconstruct our economy based on real things. The imaginary store of value thing, for all the hundreds of years of its development, does not work! It is wrecking the planet. We need to put a stop this neoliberal nonsense about imaginary stores of value that people have a "right" to own, which is supporting the whole financial edifice today, and get down to seeing things as they really are.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please address the content of my question, which is about contract enforceability.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have.

A chiralkine contract has two orthogonal components, like a permutation matrix. You want it to behave like a normal contract.

If you let the State interfere with the contract, then you will be back with imaginary stores of value. The members of the exchange must decide for themselves what consequences follow from defaults.

I think you are confusing property rights recognised by a State, and property rights recognised by members of an exchange.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:12:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All that matters for members of the exchange is that R and L units that have been put into circulation are redeemed. If they are not, then adjustments have to be made to restore the balance. R and L units are just information. The "organisation" is just a record keeper. It is not an enforcer. It is not a bank.

So, there is really no case that can be brought to trial as between the "organisation" and the members regarding defaults.

As between contractors, it is a private matter to sort out the consequences of defaults. The only things being traded are real. There are no property rights in R and L units, so a court cannot order one person to give units to another.

In a family household, one can recognise property rights that are not recognised in law. The family can recognise that a space "belongs" to one person. If there is a default, people get upset, but things get sorted.

The legal systems in use today are based upon, what a surprise - money. The remedy for breach of contract is normally assessed in terms of money.

So, when you ask about enforcement, what exactly do you mean? What remedies would you like to see in a system that does not use imaginary stores of value?

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, when you ask about enforcement, what exactly do you mean? What remedies would you like to see in a system that does not use imaginary stores of value?
No, you see, that's the question I have posed to you repeatedly about your system and which you have refused to address. You don't get to ask me the same question to support the soundness of your system.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you want to change the chiralkine system so it fits with a contract law system based on imaginary stores of value. You want to turn it into the old system. The question I have asked is appropriate. What would you as a court order as a remedy if there were no imaginary stores of value? Put another way, the person you have found liable simply does not have any money to pay the fine you wish to impose - he is in default.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you can't fine anyone for anything, and no one can file suit for damages.

Although presumably people can break your door down and take stuff. Although if there's no one enforcing mutually agreed contracts, then who's to say whether this is fair or not?

"You took my stuff! That's not what the numbers say!"

"I've got a gun, and you haven't. So sue me - oh, wait. You can't. Never mind, eh?"

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If there is no money (no imaginary store of value), then there is no money to steal or cheat with. It seems to me that the people I am discussing things with are liberals: people who want everyone to be free to do whatever they want. They are the opposite of what they pretend to be. Systems like money do not work, because there is not enough control built into the system. Money is a liberal's dream system.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:03:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're the one who doesn't want to go into enforcement mechanisms.

"The law says" carries only precisely as much force as the resident group of armed men is prepared to enforce it with.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That reply has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.

Impressively, you've also managed to make every sentence in it wrong.

'Liberals' have nothing to do with anything. A minority of people will cheat, lie, steal and exploit because they can. If they're successful, they gain extra resources and political power.

This creates a positive feedback loop which makes it possible for them cheat, lie, steal and accumulate more and more.

The challenge isn't to create a surreal hand-wavey bean counting system that has nothing to do with anything, but to create a political framework in which those positive feedback loops are damped (probably the best we can hope for) or eliminated (idealistic, and possibly not very practical, but still worth working towards.)

The hard part of the challenge is that any attempt to damp the feedback makes the cheaters scream like fuck and plot like mad things to go back to an 'open' system where they have unlimited power to exploit and abuse. (See also 'freedom', deregulation, empires, etc.)

The other hard part of the challenge is that most of the population cannot understand how these things really work. Most people are not exploitative crazies, and they find it difficult to imagine how it's possible for the ones who are to function.

'You won't be allowed to trade and no one will like you any more' is not a solution, because anyone who is a successful cheater can immediately think of a hundred loopholes that make that irrelevant.

A workable solution is going to have to start with the politics and work back, not start from the bean counting and work forward.

Just as software isn't politics, neither is adding up, no matter how complex.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you want to change the chiralkine system so it fits with a contract law system based on imaginary stores of value.
Look here. When I hear an English "attorney" say
Instead it includes a transition state that is a neutral property right created under a special form of contract.
Chiralkine systems are based on a contract that creates, as a transition state, a new kind of property right that is neutral. Our economy depends upon the creation, exchange and extinction of property rights.
Chiralkine numbers can be used to represent the relative positions of traders in cycles of trade to which they are contractually bound.
Chiralkine contracts provide a way in which pairs of people that trust one another can initiate cycles of trade, and then trade with strangers. For the contracts to work, the contractors must agree that the R and L tokens they create and put into circulation will be redeemed by the due date set on the contract. If one of them is in default, the other must make good. In effect, the two of them as a unit must stand behind the R and L tokens that they have issued into circulation, and on which everyone else is relying. So it is not enough to just exchange your R for L as required under the contract. You must also watch that your contract opposite also does his part. This is where the (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) states become important. They tell you what you are on the hook for if your opposite defaults.
and
The chiralkine contract has been checked by several lawyers. It properly handles exchange in a legal manner. The function of the exchange of R and L tokens is understood from a legal perspective.
the LAST thing I expect all this to mean is that English Contract Law doesn't apply.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 09:15:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a family household, one can recognise property rights that are not recognised in law. The family can recognise that a space "belongs" to one person. If there is a default, people get upset, but things get sorted.

Please do extend this enlightening metaphor to counterparties who have no vested emotional or business interest in maintaining a sound relationship.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:09:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not a metaphor. Property rights can be recognised at the level of a state, such that everyone is obliged to recognise them, or in a group defined by a relationship that binds its members. The obligation to recognise the property rights is tied to membership of the group: it is group law. If you do not obey the rules of the group, you are out. If you cannot trade, you are not going to live very long, are you!
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you can't enforce your contracts, you can't trade either. At least not in any manner consistent with maintaining a modern industrial economy.

And if enforcement is based on shunning, that places a very low upper limit on the number of people who can partake of your trading system. Which also precludes using your trading system to carry on industrial production.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But if you have a group, already bound by a relationship strong enough to settle their conflicts internally, does Chiralkine accounting really add anything?

In the case of a family, or another close-knit group, I would guess that introducing any accounting and trade risks having an alienating effect on the trades already going on. Owing someone a beer can't be settled by a cheque. Giving a bottle of wine does not replace the obligation to buy a beer, it just adds another obligation.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 12:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We think that a chiralkine system would provide a  good way to teach kids how everyone's enjoyment of their rights depend upon everyone meeting their obligations. You could use the system to equitably distribute tasks involved in running a household, classroom etc. More importantly, the kids can quickly see how a simpler system that works like credit and debt allows some people to hoard credits and so leaves others stuck in debt.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think introducing a trade system as a way to distribute tasks is far from the best system. Yes, it would teach the kids something, but so would does any model, for example everyone takes turn doing each task.

And I don't think the problem in a classroom setting would be accumulation of credits anyway. Rather it would be kids convincing other kids of doing their tasks and then defaulting. Because absent an enforcement mechanism that punishes debtors, going into debt looks far safer when it comes to task distribution then accumulation of credits (ie, doing other kids tasks for them, in the hope that they will do tasks for you in the future).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is that asymmetry between the positions of creditors and debtors that is the problem. The system leads to hoarding. That is why a system built on three numbers will not work. It is odd (antisymmetric). You need a system that is even (symmetric).
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 09:27:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your system introduces an asymmetry between L and R. R is for buying and L is for selling. That is why I claim that it boils down to 1R = 1€ + 1L.

By the way, it also means Colman was dead right when he asked you

Are you familiar with how the integers are constructed?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 10:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
antisymmetry, not asymmetry.

To effect exchange, you have to break symmetry. That is what debits and credits do.

When you break symmetry in one place, you reform it in another.

When you create R and L out of symmetric 0, you switch the antisymmetry of a property right (mine, not yours)/(yours not mine) into a symmetric (neutral - 0) state.

When you exchange R for L, you invert a property right.

It is all about symmetry.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't you know the State is like a household?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:22:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are building a system that is based on six possible states represented by a unit complex number. This complex number is made up of four numbers represented by R and L in (R,L,R,L). In the complex number, two of the Rs and Ls are 1 and two are 0. An example is (1,0,0,1). The total amount of each of the two Rs and each of the two Ls in all the unit complex numbers in the system at any time is the same.

Each change of state involves exchanging one or both 1s with one or both 0s in a unit complex number. Because the total amount of each kind of R and each kind of L in all the unit complex numbers in the system is the same, any change in one unit complex number must be accompanied by a complementary change in another unit complex number. For example, if one unit complex number changes from (1,0,,) to (0,1,,) another unit complex number must change to (1,0,,). We can use 4x4 matrices (quaternions) to effect the changes of state, and so control changing any one of the six states into any other of the six states.

There are many different applications for the system, depending on the meanings in words that we use for the states and changes between them.

One application is a trading system that enables people to pay and be paid in real things. Unlike the current monetary system which includes a transition state that is an imaginary store of value (money/credit/currency) that needs to be earned and spent, this system includes a transition state that is a neutral property right created under a special form of contract.

For example, if seller A and buyer B are trading, we can represent a purchase/sale transaction between them by starting seller A in state (0,1,1,0) (property right: mine, not yours) and buyer B in state (1,0,0,1) (property right: not mine, yours). When the exchange of the property right takes place, the state of seller A changes to (1,0,1,0) (property right: not mine, yours) and that of buyer B to (0,1,0,1) (property right: mine, not yours). These complementary state changes produce a direct transfer of the ownership of the goods.  We can also say that a change in state from (1,1,0,0) to (1,0,0,1) and a complementary change in state from (0,0,1,1) to (0,1,1,0) produces a change in the state of a property right from (mine, not yours)/(yours not mine) to a neutral state, which we might call (mine, yours) (e.g. 1,1,0,0) and (not mine, not yours) (e.g. 0,0,1,1). These complementary state changes produce a change in the state of a property right to a neutral transition state. Two people are tied together until they have completed a trading contract by each buying and selling real things.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:08:16 AM EST


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 09:38:20 AM EST
One feature of the Chiralkine contract is that it has a fixed maturity.
First-named Person and Second-named Person wish to trade subsequently with Members of the Bartering Organisation such that each has both provided and received subjects of amount at least equal to the Amount on or before the Completion Date of

....................................... (Completion Date)

whereas the Trading Pair wishes to create chiralkine money (R and L) in units equal to the Amount, for a period of time not to exceed the Completion Date and then redeem it

Imagine the following situation.

A and B want to swindle their local Chiralkine organization. For that purpose, they enter into Chiralkine contracts. A pretends to sell a widget to B. Since neither of them have any money, they enter into a chiralkine contract for 1 unit, and the resulting state is

A: (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

The contract expires in 3 months. In the interim, A uses his 1R to buy stuff from C, who is a member of the Chiralkine organization in good standing and has L available from previous activity. Now the situation is

A: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)
B: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

Shortly before the 3 months elapse, B pretends to sell another widget back to B. Because A has no R available, they enter into a new contract, and the result is

A: (2L|1R+1L) or (0,2,1,1)
B: (1R+1L|1R+1L) or (1,1,1,1)

The second contract also has a maturity of 3 months.

The first contract reaches maturity, and A and B close the contract: the result is

A: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)
B: (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)

Shortly before the 3 months elapse...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:17:31 AM EST
Shortly before the 3 months elapse, B pretends to sell another widget back to BA. Because A has no R available,...


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Inserting the origins of each R and L into B's state number prior to closure of the first contract, B's state is (A,A,A,A). A legitimate state would be (D,A,A,D) where D means different from A.

There will always be bad apples in any group, and it can take time to pick them out. However, the trades are all tracked, so there is nowhere to hide. Every R and L token in the system can tracked. This is not possible with money, which can get laundered or passed about in brown paper envelopes all too easily.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 12:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So when you used to play the game with "tokens" you cannot use tokens any more?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not understand the question. If you simulate trades with pieces of paper, you mark the R and L pieces with their origin - the contract under which they were created. This is how split tally sticks worked. Each half matched the other, because they came from one stick with a unique grain.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the real world, would chiralkine L- and R- "money" be issued in the form of physical tokens which people can exchange? Or would all transactions have to be cleared through a central information exchange?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I started out thinking it could be, but then realised that it would be very easy to cheat. I do think you could do it with digital tokens. It would be like having R and L BITCOINS. They would share a unique identifier that linked them to the contract under which they were created.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I already introduced that distinction before, here
So A's position is NEVER simply (1,1,1,1). The left and right units are labelled by the counterparty contract they are attached to. Namely, in this case:

A: (1R(B)+1L(C)|1R(C)+1L(B)) or (1(B),1(C),1(C),1(B)).



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you had already spotted that fraud could be picked up. You are very lucky to have a mind that is so quick and clear. None of thus stuff comes at all easily to me, especially the maths.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Question: do you then propose that
  1. L and R "money" should be labelled with the counterparties which originated it
  2. contracts can only be closed by using L and R "money" that wasn't originated by the two counterparties closing the contract?


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would break the system.

Hard.

(No I don't have a formal proof. But you end up with a network where you can have arbitrarily large imbalance between sources and sinks, and that cannot possibly be a good thing.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 05:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I'm not so sure, so let's check.

Let's take our usual example where we start with A and B trading via a contract, and likewise for C and D:

A: (1R(A,B)|1L(A,B)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
B: (1L(A,B)|1R(A,B)) ~ (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L(C,D)|1R(C,D)) ~ (0,1,1,0)

Now A trades with D without the need for a contract:

A: (1L(C,D)|1L(A,B)) ~ (0,1,0,1)
B: (1L(A,B)|1R(A,B)) ~ (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R(A,B)|1R(C,D)) ~ (1,0,1,0)

Now the time to close the contract between A and B is approaching and B needs to sell something. D is a willing buyer. However, D's only R money is R(A,B) which, under the new rules, is useless to B for closing his contracts with A which he is required to do. So B must ask D to open a new contract. This is a problem because it runs contrary to the stated intention of the Chiralkine system which is

Chiralkine contracts provide a way in which pairs of people that trust one another can initiate cycles of trade, and then trade with strangers.
A and B trust each other and opened a contract. Originally there was no requirement that A and B are trusted by anyone else to use their tokens for trade, and no requirement to open new contracts. But that has now been lost. B is forced to sell only to C (who may not want or need what B has to offer) or else convince D to enter into a contract (and D doesn't necessarily trust B). B is now in a disadvantageous bargaining position vis-a-vis C and D possibly forced to sell something worth substantially more than 1 in order to get an R unit not of the form R(A|B) from them.

A: (1L(C,D)|1L(A,B)) ~ (0,1,0,1)
B: (1R(B,D)+1L(A,B)|1R(A,B)+1L(B,D)) ~ (1,1,1,1)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R(A,B)+1L(B,D)|1R(C,D)+1R(B,D)) ~ (1,1,2,0)

Now A and B can close their contract:

A: (|) ~ (0,0,0,0)
B: (1L(A,B)|1L(B,D)) ~ (0,1,0,1)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R(A,B)+1L(B,D)|1R(C,D)+1R(B,D)) ~ (1,1,2,0)

Without token labelling, B and D could simply have traded without a contract and the result would have been

A: (1L|1L) ~ (0,1,0,1)
B: (1R|1R) ~ (1,0,1,0)
C: (1R|1L) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L|1R) ~ (0,1,1,0)

A: (|) ~ (0,0,0,0)
B: (|) ~ (0,0,0,0)
C: (1R|1L) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L|1R) ~ (0,1,1,0)

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And thus, in attempting to fix chiralkine contracts, we have recreated Free Banking.

What could possibly go wrong?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see a problem here. B can trade with D. B would go from state (0,1,1,0) to state (1,0,1,0). D would go from state (1,0,1,0) to state (0,1,1,0). If you own an R token, you can exchange it back and forth with L. All that matters is that you close your contract on time.

D will see that in going to state (0,1,1,0), he is no longer in a position to close his contract with C.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:24:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So your answer to
Question: do you then propose that
L and R "money" should be labelled with the counterparties which originated it
contracts can only be closed by using L and R "money" that wasn't originated by the two counterparties closing the contract?
is "no".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If, starting from

A: (1L(C,D)|1L(A,B)) ~ (0,1,0,1)
B: (1L(A,B)|1R(A,B)) ~ (0,1,1,0)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1R(A,B)|1R(C,D)) ~ (1,0,1,0)

B trades with D, the result is

A: (1L(C,D)|1L(A,B)) ~ (0,1,0,1)
B: (1R(A,B)|1R(A,B)) ~ (1,0,1,0)
C: (1R(C,D)|1L(C,D)) ~ (1,0,0,1)
D: (1L(A,B)|1R(C,D)) ~ (0,1,1,0)

If now B closes his contract with A, B is using the 1R(A,B) unit of "money" to close the same contract in which it originated. Since (for good reason) you do not want to preclude that, you need a more complicated scheme than

L and R "money" should be labelled with the counterparties which originated it

contracts can only be closed by using L and R "money" that wasn't originated by the two counterparties closing the contract

to prevent the exploit where A and B open a succession of offsetting contracts between them.

I have repeatedly asked you to spell out this more complicated scheme which you say you "have now seen". Pretty please?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have already said that we need to allow for barter, in which the R and L redeemed will originate with the counterparties.

Mutual credit B2B systems are already operating commercially. They handle about $11bn a year in transactions. They (at least the good ones) have sophisticated systems for detecting fraud.

Since chiralkine accounting contains all the information of double entry bookkeeping, it can run in the background in any exchange based on mutual credit. One thing it can do though that double entry bookkeeping cannot is tag the R and L units exchanged to their originators. You can ensure that R and L creators are redeeming their R and L, not hiding behind "zero" double entry balances that allow trade imbalances to build up in the system.

When you close a contract and redeem R and L, I can envisage tying the counterpart L and R to one another. I have not thought this through yet - we are still a long way from building a commercial exchange. I do not know whether this would be a useful thing to do.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
$ 11 bn/yr is tiny. It's tiny even relative to the GDP of tiny countries. And the GDP of a country is tiny compared to the turnover (which is what you are measuring here). And it's not at all obvious that barter can support industrial production.

No, let me rephrase that. There is every reason to believe that barter systems are not sufficient to support industrial production.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 08:55:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears that you do not understand what is meant by the term barter.

Barter is where people directly exchange real things.

Money is used as an intermediate stage in exchange. It is an IMAGINARY (not real!!!) store of value. People are paid for real things with it, and buy real things with it. It solves the problem of double co-incidence of wants.

"Money is the nothing we take for something before we can get anything." Soddy

Chiralkine solves the problem of double co-incidence of wants without using an imaginary store of value (nothing). People use information to enable them to exchange real things without going through an imaginary store of value.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 09:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears that you do not understand what is meant by the term barter.

Barter is where people directly exchange real things.

Money is used as an intermediate stage in exchange. It is an IMAGINARY (not real!!!) store of value. People are paid for real things with it, and buy real things with it. It solves the problem of double co-incidence of wants.

It appears that you do not understand barter or money.

Barter is what people who are used to trading by means of money do when they lose access to money.

Money did not arise out of barter in order to "solve the problem of double coincidence of wants". That is a fairy tale cooke up by Carl Menger (of the Austrian school of economics). If you subscribe to Austrianism there's probably no helping you.

Go learn some history and anthropology of money.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 09:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I barter even when I have money. It is fun.

Who said anything connecting barter with money?

History can be deconstructed in minutes. It is not helpful when you are trying to design a system that works.

Anthropology is also fun. I have lived with several peoples in the rain forests of Borneo and the plains of East Africa, studying their belief systems. The belief systems of people in monetary systems are much more interesting though.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Who said anything connecting barter with money?
Why, you yourself:
Money is used as an intermediate stage in exchange. It is an IMAGINARY (not real!!!) store of value. People are paid for real things with it, and buy real things with it. It solves the problem of double co-incidence of wants.
Though I'm beginning not to be surprised that you don't understand even what you're saying. Like a parrot.

Where are you parroting the "double coincidence of wants" from?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In your system, they use an imaginary store of immense confusion instead, which appears to be nearly infinite in extent.

Look - just give up. Please. Your system is silly and makes no sense. No one is ever going to adopt it, and it contributes nothing to the Greater Good.

There are more important things to worry about, and more challenging problems to solve.

We get that Money is Not Real™. I suspect most people here already understand this, so it's good that you're catching up.

What you don't get is that economics and accounting are a little more complicated than that, especially when they interface with politics.

Money is Not Real in exactly the same way God is Not Real. That doesn't stop people believing and acting as if.

Thing is, the reasons they believe and act as if vary. And some people benefit more from this than others. (Just like a belief in god.)

When you've worked out how to persuade everyone to stop acting as if and do something better, you may have a point.

This scheme does not do that. Not even close.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 10:00:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The system works. It accurately tracks each stage in exchange. It does so by using an "imaginary" neutral property right instead of an "imaginary" store of value. There are huge benefits to be gained by handling exchange this way.

What is it about the concept of a neutral property right that is so scary that nobody wants to even talk about it? Re-read Chris' introduction and comments please - and think about the concept independently of chiralkine, to control against any prejudice.

Systems are based on "real" and "imaginary" components: 1 and 0. Depending on your frame of reference, the "real" and "imaginary" bits swap sides. There are symmetric (neutral) and antisymmetric (charged) representations of the same system. Get over it!

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 12:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just so nobody can say I am not being crystal clear. You can recognise two antisymmetric states (1,0) and (0,1) and two symmetric states (0,0) and (1,1). You can see these differently from different frames of reference. Either (1,0) and (0,1) appear as an oppositional pair with (0,0) and (1,1) as indistinguishable; or (0,0) and (1,1) appear as an oppositional pair, and (0,1) and (1,0) as indistinguishable. In each case it looks like you have something (1) - a debit/credit pair, or nothing (0). You do not have to live in one frame of reference all your life, in spite of what all the experts tell you. You can choose to say that ghosts are real (1) and people are not (0). You do not have to treat property rights as (1,0) mine, not yours and (0,1) not mine, yours. The exchange system underneath is the same. If you choose to recognise neutral property rights as real (which is no different from believing in BITCOIN as a store of value), then you no longer need to believe in money as a store of value.  

 

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 12:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're clear as crystallised mud.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 03:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you yourself have already noted that antisymmetric opposite states (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) can together appear as 0. It depends on your frame of reference.

Taking your example, the planes in a crystal lattice appear differently as your viewpoint changes. It is the same crystal. If you rotate a circle 90 degrees about a diagonal, it becomes a line. If you rotate a line 90 degrees about a central pivot, it becomes a point.

All the numbers that define everyone's trading position ("money" and "property rights") in an exchange are interrelated. Everything in the system is defined relative to everything else. When you change the way you are looking at the system, everything transforms to the new frame of reference.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you yourself have already noted that antisymmetric opposite states (1,0,1,0) and (0,1,0,1) can together appear as 0.
You know what?

1 + (-1) = 0

<shocker>

Also, are you trying to teach me crystallography, now?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly! +1/-1 and 0 are two views of the same state. So, what happens to 0 when you treat +1 differently from -1.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does.not.parse

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 08:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is it about the concept of a neutral property right that is so scary that nobody wants to even talk about it?

That's not what's scary.

What's scary is dilettantes who are in love with some clever technical solution, yet don't understand the institutional background they are operating in.

In the most charitable possible interpretation of events, dilettantes in love with their clever technical solution killed about a million Russians within living memory, and are presently in the process of throwing half of Europe into civil war. (In the less charitable interpretation, they understood precisely what they were doing and did it anyway...)

Go back to playing with industrial chemistry. It's comparatively harmless - an industrial chemical accident will kill no more than a few hundred people and permanently sterilize a river or two. Economic accidents can start major shooting wars.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 02:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you think that performing an experiment to test if you can manage exchange better using four number accounting than double entry bookkeeping will result in the extinction of the human race? No radioactivity or modified gene is being released into the environment? Is the idea that dangerous? I appreciate that Marx's ideas were dangerous, but this one can be tested in a controlled environment. It is apolitical. Nobody here seems to have any confidence that it will work at all.

When you test a new drug for the first time, after extensive safety testing you give healthy volunteers a tiny dose. If there are no side effects, you very carefully raise the dose up what is believed to be the efficacious dose. Only then,if it is well tolerated, do you test it on willing patients. You have proper controls in your clinical trials, to make sure that you are correct in assigning any benefits you observe to the drug.

I am a scientist. I believe in doing controlled experiments to test hypotheses. I want to see comparative test data, not theory.  

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am a scientist.
Oh, spare me...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you think that performing an experiment to test if you can manage exchange better using four number accounting than double entry bookkeeping will result in the extinction of the human race?

I never said anything about extinction. Humans are like cockroaches: It's damn near impossible to kill 'em all.

But failed economic experiments do tend to have their casualties counted using numbers more commonly associated with runaway megaton-yield criticalities.

It is apolitical. Nobody here seems to have any confidence that it will work at all.

Your first statement explains the second.

Economics is politics by other means.
Corollary: People who string together sentences like "it is apolitical" in the context of accounting systems are either actively mendacious or clueless enough that they should not be playing with accounting systems, boiling-water reactors or mutated flu strains.

When you test a new drug for the first time, after extensive safety testing you give healthy volunteers a tiny dose. If there are no side effects, you very carefully raise the dose up what is believed to be the efficacious dose.

To remain in that metaphor, you don't even have a reliable synthesis procedure for the chemical you want to test. Talking about animal models, yet alone phase 1 trials is, eh, premature.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:21:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears that you do not understand what is meant by the term barter.

That is, of course, one possibility.

Another possibility is that you do not understand monetary contract economies.

Barter is where people directly exchange real things.

Money is used as an intermediate stage in exchange.


Among other things.

And while you have correctly identified that the function of money as a store of value is less important than, and should be subservient to, the function as medium of exchange, what you have failed to realize is that both of those functions are tails. The dog is the function of money as the contractual standard around which strangers are organized toward common goals. Money, in other words, is primarily a means to exercise power without having to in each instance send armed men around to exercise it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 02:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the name of the dog that you are taking for a walk?
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Behind your question is the reason why we have a financial services industry, with banks and central banks. Behind your questions is why LETS schemes fail, and why commercial trade exchanges have sophisticated controls to manage the flow of trade. Behind your question is the problem of how to manage exchange where people cannot trust one another.

What you are focussing in on is how to make those pairs of contractors that issue "currency" accountable for the "currency" that they create and put into circulation.

I wish that the answer to your question was a simple yes, but it is not. A chiralkine system must allow for the possibility that two people end up bartering (two mirror exchanges). It must also allow for the possibility that the R and L units are never placed into circulation. For example, the contract is cancelled, or the subject of the contract is treated as a gift.

Bank notes have unique serial numbers, but in general units of credit and units of debt are not tagged with the identities of their originators. There is no DNA in a monetary system that you can use to perform a paternity test or a forensic examination of a crime scene. With R and L BITCOINS, you could do this.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 03:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is false. All central and commercial banks keep records of their transactions, and those records go back some years.

If the political will existed to simply send a couple of chaps with wire cutters and forensic accounting skills to the server rooms of the major commercial banks, you could quite easily perform all sorts of regulatory and policing functions.

But there isn't, so you can't.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is correct. Credit and debt are not traceable to their creators. The creators have cosy anonymity.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is a political decision, not a feature of the accounting system.

If your accounting system requires creditors to surrender anonymity, then you are essentially saying that if the major political problems that prevent contemporary accounting from working properly are resolved, then you can introduce an accounting system without those problems.

Um. Duh. And the first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 08:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wish that the answer to your question was a simple yes, but it is not. A chiralkine system must allow for the possibility that two people end up bartering (two mirror exchanges). It must also allow for the possibility that the R and L units are never placed into circulation. For example, the contract is cancelled, or the subject of the contract is treated as a gift.
Once again you have not answered the question.

You also said

I have now seen ways to deal with your objection on money laundering. Thank you again for spotting it. I think our system can be made more secure than a monetary system, because it tracks all R and L units. Next please.
<sigh>

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
None of thus stuff comes at all easily to me
You invented this stuff!

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 03:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I had spotted that despite you illustrating your game with tokens around a table, in reality you do not intend to have circulating money tokens.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:31:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are no tokens circulating in a chiralkine system, only real goods and services.

The tokens used to represent money (cash) in a monetary system simply represent accounting information. They help people keep track of their relative trading positions.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 10:15:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you. This is a very helpful contribution. You have pointed out how two (and presumably more) people can act in a concerted manner to evergreen, and potentially stepwise increase the size of their contracts. What I need to think through is an algorithm that enables these practices to be identified. The system tracks all trades, so we know where each R and L unit has come from and gone to. Indeed we can label them as paired (like the two sides of split tally sticks). I will think on this and respond when I have the answer.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:59:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I have shown is that your system does not solve the problem you claim you have set out to solve. Any solution you propose is likely to be implementable on ordinary money systems, too. Therefore the problem is political, not an accounting problem. As JakeS said:
It is true that insisting upon a receipt of spending in order for a credit to mature would solve the same problem that inflation and interest rate policy currently solves is supposed to solve. However, (a) it is not obvious that it is superior. (b) Your notation overcomplicates the operation. And (c) requiring creditors to present a receipt of expenditure for their credit to mature would be resisted just as vigorously by rentier interests.

Well-tested technical solutions to the problem you are trying to solve already exist, but they are not employed. Because the problem is political, not technical, and therefore amenable only to political solution.



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Disruptive technology does not start out competing with the dominant technology on its own turf. It starts out on the periphery, learning and adapting, watching for ways to move into new niches. If it really is better than the dominant technology, then it will eventually outcompete it. The market does not play favourites. Even the law changes eventually in response to new technology.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This statement leaves all agency to 'the market'. There is little evidence that things have ever actually worked that way. The laws get changed due to the agency of powerful monied interests that reorder society to suit their economic needs.

The way a new technology 'out-competes' a currently dominant technology is by attracting a sufficient number of powerful, often including those currently supporting the currently dominant technology, to enable it to become the new dominant technology and have the laws changed as required. This will happen when the new technology makes things even more favorable to dominant capital. I have great trouble seeing how dominant capital would ever adopt technology and rules less favorable to itself except as the result of a severe threat to its own existence.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You want to solve the problem of hoarding. For this purpose you have designed a system.

Your system consists of

  1. "money" with an expiration date (the completion date of a chiralkine contract)
  2. a universal registry of transactions
  3. symmetric obligations for creditors and debtors
  4. an overly complicated accounting system
  5. a bunch of mystical bollocks
  6. a cutesy logo

As JakeS has pointed out, if you can augment the current fiat-money double-entry accounting system with

  1. "money" with an expiration date (the completion date of a chiralkine contract)
  2. a universal registry of transactions
  3. symmetric obligations for creditors and debtors

then you can solve the proble of hoarding without the need for

  1. an overly complicated accounting system
  2. a bunch of mystical bollocks
  3. a cutesy logo

Moreover,
  1. is related to the depreciating money of Silvio Gesell
  2. a universal registry of transactions is a desirable thing in itself to get rid of tax fraud, the bankrolling of criminal activity, and other purposes
  3. symmetric obligations between creditors and debtors were proposed by Keynes as the basis of his International Clearing Union and rejected at Bretton Woods

Therefore,
  1. none of the actually useful features of your system were invented by you
  2. the political obstacles for adoption of useful features are as strong as ever
  3. your mumbo jumbo and muddled thinking, not to speak of the overly complicated accounting system, get in the way

Can we be done with this stuff now?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The system comprises an information transmission network having a register maintained by a recorder, said register being open to inspection by said users and containing records of chiralkine money and chiralkine property rights created under chiralkine contracts.

It does not comprise money.

The advantages include:

  1. It does not contain an imaginary store of value, in pursuit of which people will cheat, harm, go to war over or kill one another.
  2. It does not privilege creditors over debtors.
  3. R units can only flow to people who have L units - people who are invested in the system. Cash cannot be used. The rich cannot get richer while the poor get poorer.
  4. Trade imbalances cannot build up in the system. Nationalistic tensions between nations should fall as a result, especially as between creditor Northern Europe and debtor Southern Europe.
  5. No interest payments/usury. It is compliant with e.g. Islamic banking.
  6. The creation, transfer and redemption of all units of R and L are tracked at all times. This makes it much less susceptible to fraud, money laundering and theft. It is both a "currency" creation and "currency" transfer system.
  7. It may be possible to configure it as a completely decentralised system that uses R and L digital coins tagged to contracts,
  8. There is no reason why anybody should not be able to participate economically.  Youth unemployment should fall.
  9. It is a fairer deal as between the generations than we have now.
  10. It can readily be configured with a complementary local tax system, that works like a contract.
  11. It should reduce hoarding of resources, as people can easily trade things vey fast (online) whenever they need/do not need to use them. This should take pressure off the planet.
  12. It is a good, equitable way to live your life by.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 03:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The system comprises an information transmission network

The monetary system as an information transmission/processing system: 2 drinks.

It does not comprise money.

Misunderstandings about the nature and function of money: 1 drink.

No interest payments/usury. It is compliant with e.g. Islamic banking.

Islamic banking: 1 drink.

There is no reason why anybody should not be able to participate economically.  Youth unemployment should fall.

Using monetary policy to fix un- and under-employment: Bottoms up.

I'm going to stop here, since I have a paper to finish this weekend, and so cannot afford to get completely shitfaced.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The benefits I have asserted for a chiralkine trading system are inherent in the way the system works. They flow from the way the 1'0 and 0's are exchanged in the complex chiralkine numbers.

Whenever you are trying to construct a system, you try to get down to sets of states and operators (actions that interconvert the states) that is an irreducible representation. For example, if you are using vectors, you will not use five where two orthogonal vectors will work. An irreducible representation contains all of the essential features of the system, like a patent claim recites only the essential features that characterise an invention.

A monetary system is a reduction of a chiralkine trading system. You can recover all of the features of normal accounts from chiralkine accounts. Credit is (1,0,0,1) and debit is (0,1,1,0). All other states are balance. The reductive step maps to allowing credits and debits to mutually cancel in one person's account. In other words, double entry bookkeeping allows a person without debt to accept credit.

What I imagine, and want to test experimentally, is whether a monetary system is actually an over-reduction. There are states and operators that are essential that have been cut out, because a monetary system is much easier to use (manually) than a chiralkine system. No-one in their right mind would try to operate a chiralkine system manually. However, with powerful computing technology, you can.

So, you are right that you can run an economy with a monetary system, and most of the time it seems to perform well. However, at other times control is lost. Everyone is looking for the holy grail - a way to control the monetary system. However, it the system is actually an over-reduction, then you can't. It is inherently flawed. You need more states and operators in the system.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 03:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The benefits I have asserted for a chiralkine trading system are inherent in the way the system works.
Assertion is not proof and therein lies the problem.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. Until this assertion is proved MATHEMATICALLY - like up to a level of confidence of six sigma - it will not be accepted. I cannot do that.

All I can do is build a system that I can show works (or not). If it works, people will not care how it works. Very, very few people understand how the monetary system works, and those that think they do have still not fixed the problems with it.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
proved MATHEMATICALLY - like up to a level of confidence of six sigma
Gaaaahhh

More bullshit, more jargon. More "my theory is correct, I just need smart people to do the math for me" crackpotness.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:29:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it works when tested, the maths will follow. If someone else figures out the maths first, and they check out, more resources will likely be made available so as to get it tested sooner. I do not understand the mathematical properties of the orthogonal group O(4). I do not understand Lie algebra. I do understand that if you pick the wrong symmetry group as a representation of your system, your system is not going to be controllable.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not understand the mathematical properties of the orthogonal group O(4). I do not understand Lie algebra.
Nor do you need to. Whoever led you down that garden path did not do you a favour. Really.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:46:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whenever you are trying to construct a system, you try to get down to sets of states and operators (actions that interconvert the states) that is an irreducible representation.

That is generally a parsimonious way to go about things, yes.

Your system doesn't do that.

So, you are right that you can run an economy with a monetary system, and most of the time it seems to perform well.

That is not the point. The point is that in order to remove your system's vulnerability to a simple cross-billing scam, you introduced a slew of political reforms which would make any accounting system which is compliant with the rules of basic arithmetic work.

Which tells me that you have it completely back-assward: You need to come up with a way to solve the political obstacles first, and then we can look at whether the monetary system would be better served by different accounting rules.

For the record, I'm betting "no."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:08:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It almost seems that the intention of the Chiralkine system is to abolish cash, too. That's yet another political reform that has been proposed for the ordinary monetary system.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While we are on the subject of politics, there is another advantage of a chiralkine system that I omitted from my list. The system can also be used in voting. It allows people who wish to abstain (are symmetric as between the options offered) to indicate whether or not they are for all the options or against all the options. With this system, everybody has a reason to turn out to vote. Parties would do wise to test candidates in primaries before they put them up before the general electorate. Politicians would wisely test out their policy ideas in like manner prior to putting them to a vote.

In many elections, most people do not turn out to vote. People that abstain generally do have an opinion: they just do not like the choices on offer. They can signal this using an over-reduced voting system.

So, a chiralkine system provides an alternative to the monetary system, an alternative to the tax system (which alternative is not based on taxing exchange -  a very bad system for a planet that desperately needs its resources used more efficiently) and an alternative to the voting system that distinguishes between two kinds of abstention.

All the time you keep coming back that the present systems are simpler to use. They don't work!

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Typo: They CANNOT signal this using an over-reduced voting system.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whenever you are trying to construct a system, you try to get down to sets of states and operators (actions that interconvert the states) that is an irreducible representation.
I don't want to be nasty. Really, I don't.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No-one in their right mind would try to operate a chiralkine system manually.
There, fixed it for you.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:16:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why not?
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because when it took us less than ten seconds to break it, using an off-the-shelf exploit that's been in the literature for at least two hundred and twenty-some years, you expressed great joy and wonder at the amazing discovery we made.

This, eh, does not inspire great confidence in the absence of other, as yet undetected, booby-traps elsewhere in the system.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Essentially the system boils down to 1R = 1€ + 1L, plus double-entry accounting.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not understand. Please could you expand. If you are saying that credits and debits are antisymmetric (hence 1R - 1L) then I can start to understand. Debits and credits are symmetry breakers. Once you have broken symmetry, you can use the "tokens" as operators to effect symmetry changes in other antisymmetric states: as from mine, not your to not mine, yours.

For exchange to take place, you have to break then restore symmetry. You have to draw a distinction between buying and selling, even though just one real thing hops physically from one identity to another. You have to draw a distinction between the state where what two identities have is what they want and where what two people have and what they want are different.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it's a Rube Goldberg device.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My favourite character is Professor Brainstorm. Heath Robinson's illustrations are wonderful.

But seriously, if you pick a symmetry group for your representation that is too small, your system will not be controllable.

I accept that it is not desirable to go about solving a problem by introducing more complexity if you can work within the representation you have, but nature does it all the time. Nature breaks the symmetry of simple systems, and makes better but more complex ones.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The mention of Rube Goldberg was not an endorsement. Neither should Heath Robinson.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
There is no reason why anybody should not be able to participate economically.  Youth unemployment should fall.

Unemployment is not necessary in double entry accounting, it is only a necessary condition if the treasury and central bank collude to keep unemployment up in order to keep wages (aka inflation) down. Full employment on the other hand is something you get if both treasury and central bank prioritises it.

To show why Chiralkine accounting does not help, take what Galbraith dubbed insular poverty, the case of a group that is in a state of poverty because of a total lack access to resources and goods. Galbraith gives poor rural areas and urban ghetto's as examples, but you could today easily add large groups of youths. The problem with being in such a group is not that you as an individual have nothing to trade (after all, you have your labor, or in the rural case some food) but that those you know and can trade with has similar goods. None of you have access to society's bounty, nor does those that have want to trade with you on terms that would give you access.

So unless this is a utopian future state - after the revolution when ownership has been equalised - no, Chiralkine accounting does not solve the problem with youth unemployment.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unemployment is not necessary in double entry accounting, it is only a necessary condition if the treasury and central bank collude to keep unemployment up in order to keep wages (aka inflation) down. Full employment on the other hand is something you get if both treasury and central bank prioritises it.
If you care about unemployment and monetary economics, read Bill Mitchell, not Martin Hay.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is just plain wrong. See, e.g.: http://koru.or.ke/bangla

You can start an economy in a slum if you provide the people with a means of exchange.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:19:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So what is Bangla-Pesa?

Bangla-Pesa | Koru Kenya

Bangla-Pesa is a program to strengthen and stabilize the economy of the informal settlement of Bangladesh, Kenya by organizing its more than 200 small scale businesses into a Bangladesh Business Network (BBN) through which its members can utilize a complementary currency to mediate trades.

And what does it do?

Bangla-Pesa | Koru Kenya

This currency forms a buffer against fluctuations in the money supply due to remittances, weather, holidays, sending children to school, political turmoil and so on. The fundamental driver of this economic stability and increase in trade is due to the BBN member's ability to trade their excess capacity.

So the normal functions of a local currency.

And yes, this can have a beneficial local effect on unemployment. But if it has to great an effect and central power has unemployment as a policy goal (easily spotted if the government has an independent central bank with an inflation target), then central power will come down on it as a ton of bricks.

So, what you are saying is that Chiralkine accounting can be introduced as local money, with the same effects as other local money. But that is an argument for local money, not for Chiralkine.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chiralkine would make a great local means of exchange. There is no cash used in the system, so no worry that a central bank will allege forgery - as in Kenya with Bangla Pesa. The system would ensure no trade imbalances build up. It could be integrated with local chiralkine taxation, to resource community services.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
There is no cash used in the system, so no worry that a central bank will allege forgery

Oh, but there is.

The reason they do that is not that the local currency introduces tokens, but that creation of local currency takes power away form the central bank. The allegation of forgery is just the specific charge in this instance. Fraud, ponzi scheme or aiding and abetting tax fraud are other possible charges.

If the central government is running a policy to deprive sectors of money, then they want to continue doing so. If competition gets serious, then in order to get rid of competition they send armed men with guns to shut operations down. What exactly it says on the warrant isn't that important, the central government can after all change the laws to suit its needs of shutting down competition.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just like claiming your own work is "deep", predicting your own technology will be "disruptive" is the hallmark of a crackpot.

Or of a snake-oil salesman or someone looking for a business angel or venture capitalist.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess we can put this down as a point for the postulate that you haven't truly understood an accounting system until you've built a working Ponzi scam with it...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the same logic, a person has not understood how to code if they have not thought through how any possible virus could disrupt their program.

Every R and L unit is tracked in our system as if the two are the two strands of a unique DNA, but I have not yet figured out how to catch this kind of fraud early on. This was a very good spot, for which I am grateful.

I am sure there will be many security flaws that we will need to address.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:27:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
MartinAHay
If someone would kindly show me where I have gone wrong, then I can go off and do something more useful!


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you show me why the security flaw cannot be fixed, then you will have succeeded. If you can see that the security flaw can be fixed, then please let us not play games.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Keeping a complete, public registry of all transactions would enable regulators to easily discover this sort of scam, and enable prospective transaction partners to perform due diligence with great ease.

But that is equally true for any other monetary system.

In other words, if you have solved the political problems with ordinary currency, then you can probably get your currency to work. But, eh, what precisely would the point be? You'd have already solved the problem.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are so emotionally invested in your own creation that you won't be convinced that your system doesn't actually improve on ordinary fiat money and double entry accounting.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have now seen ways to deal with your objection on money laundering. Thank you again for spotting it. I think our system can be made more secure than a monetary system, because it tracks all R and L units. Next please.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 01:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have now seen ways to deal with your objection on money laundering. Thank you again for spotting it. I think our system can be made more secure than a monetary system, because it tracks all R and L units. Next please.
No, no "next please".

Can you spell out how you propose to modify your system?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And if any of the proposed changes have also been proposed for reforming the conventional monetary system, please also explain why you are more likely to succeed at making them stick.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 04:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 08:04:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know what Bitcoins are.

One thing they're not is a currency.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 08:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This thread is getting so long that I am struggling to find all the new questions.

We have been talking about the identification of misuse of the system.

Have you identified another way in which you think fraud could be committed and go undetected?

Any accounting method is open to fraud. The technology you use to run it needs to have security built in. You have to confirm identities, transactions, etc. Banks use a great deal of such technology, such as chip and pin. Chiralkine systems can use this technology as well.

Is the problem that you have identified specific to chiralkine accounting, or is it generally applicable to any accounting system?

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 05:37:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Martin Hay:
I have now seen ways to deal with your objection on money laundering. Thank you again for spotting it. I think our system can be made more secure than a monetary system, because it tracks all R and L units. Next please.
Migeru:
Can you spell out how you propose to modify your system?
Martin Hay
Yatta Blah
Well, you didn't say "Yatta Blah". You said
This thread is getting so long that I am struggling to find all the new questions.
We have been talking about the identification of misuse of the system.

Have you identified another way in which you think fraud could be committed and go undetected?

Any accounting method is open to fraud. The technology you use to run it needs to have security built in. You have to confirm identities, transactions, etc. Banks use a great deal of such technology, such as chip and pin. Chiralkine systems can use this technology as well.

Is the problem that you have identified specific to chiralkine accounting, or is it generally applicable to any accounting system?

Which is not an answer to
Can you spell out how you propose to modify your system?
At least not a descriptive, operative answer.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:16:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see a problem with the system. I see challenges in the design of the technology platform that will run the system.

Exchange other than barter relies on trust. People can try to cheat any system alone, in pairs, in triples, etc. As best you can, you have to confirm their identity and the veracity of the statements that they make.

We imagine people using a SIM card. Most transactions will be made using cell phones. They could also use  cards with chip-and-pin technology. Each transaction will require postings from both parties, whose identities will be verified though the technology. Subjects being traded can be given a unique identity (e.g. bar code) and tracked through shipping. The system might be set up to work similarly to e-Bay or Amazon. As soon as the exchange network is big enough, nobody will need any money to trade - they will be able to buy and sell all they need through the exchange.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see a problem with the system. I see challenges in the design of the technology platform that will run the system.
More support for the idea that the problems you are trying to solve with "chiralkine" are not actually solved by the chiralkine, but by political/organizational/technological features that would "fix" ordinary money, too.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 06:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Any accounting method is open to fraud. The technology you use to run it needs to have security built in. You have to confirm identities, transactions, etc. Banks use a great deal of such technology, such as chip and pin. Chiralkine systems can use this technology as well.

In other words, if you solve the problem, the problem is solved.

Again, where is the value added over double-entry bookkeeping?

Is the problem that you have identified specific to chiralkine accounting, or is it generally applicable to any accounting system?

The problem is that you claimed your system to be robust to this class of problems. In fact, that was your main selling point. If this is, in point of fact, not true, then it's a bit hard to see what your system's raison d'etre is supposed to be.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 09:04:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the same logic, a person has not understood how to code if they have not thought through how any possible virus could disrupt their program.

Yes. That's precisely correct.

At the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), they used to have an exam in one of their coding courses where the students were to write a program that generated a certain number of unique error codes when they put it into the compiler. This is deceptively difficult and requires a really good understanding of your compiler's error handling routines.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This was a very good spot,

No it wasn't.

What Migeru outlined is a bog-standard exploit, so old and well-worn that Adam Smith warns the reader of Wealth of Nations to be on the lookout for it.

I am willing to bet that proofreading the notation was a bigger challenge than modifying the exploit for your system.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Many times in this thread the use of Chiralkines has been mentioned in connection with "goods or services". Now, according to the Sample Chiralkine Contract
Whereas the First-named Person wishes to provide to the Second-named Person and the Second-named Person wishes to receive from the First-named Person the following subject:

....................................... (Subject)

...

whereas the creation of the chiralkine money requires that the ownership of the Subject be transitioned through a state of chiralkine ownership having separately tradable L- and R-forms for the duration of the existence of the chiralkine money;

...

a register containing information identifying the First-named Person, the Second-named Person, the Subject, the Amount, the Completion Date, the creation and redemption of chiralkine money by the Trading Pair, the creation and redemption of chiralkine ownership in the Subject, each ownership in the Subject, the outstanding balances in R- and L-chiralkine money of the First-named Person and Second-named Person under this contract, and the current balances in R- and L-chiralkine money held by the First-named Person and Second-named Person;

...

the First-named Person and the Second-named Person will create chiralkine money in R- and L- forms, each in the amount of the Amount, and chiralkine ownerships in the Subject, each in L- and R- forms,

they will separate the chiralkine money and ownerships in the Subject so that the Second-named Person receives the R-chiralkine ownership in the Subject and L-chiralkine money and the First-named Person receives the L-chiralkine ownership in the Subject and R-chiralkine money;

...

upon redemption of the chiralkine money, the ownership of the Subject is restored, fully transferred to the owner at that time of the R-chiralkine ownership in the Subject.

This is all very fine, but ownership (ordinary or chiralkine, whatever that means) only appears to apply to goods, not services.

Suppose migeru wants to receive a therapeutic massage from melo. Since neither or them has money, they enter into a three-month chiralkine contract:

Melo:   (1R|1L) or (1,0,0,1)
Migeru: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

As a community-oriented person melo spends his R chiralkines, but migeru is a curmudgeon who can't be arsed, so at contract expiration

Melo:   (1L|1L) or (0,1,0,1)
Migeru: (1L|1R) or (0,1,1,0)

What happens to the L- and R-chiralkine ownership of the therapeutic massage?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:23:35 AM EST


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:25:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Melo will need to sell something to make good on Migeru's default. If he does not, both pair members are in default. That is how chiralkine works. It makes both members of a pair initiating a cycle of trade responsible for the R and L units that they place into circulation.

A contract can be based on goods or services. Since Migeru is in default, the massage has not yet been paid for, so Migeru has a private gripe with Melo.

It may be possible for Melo and Migeru to set up all their trades and close their contract before the service is performed. Online trading can be very fast.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chiralkine accounting reveals that the state of a person using credit changes differently depending on whether that person is buying something from a person who is in debt or who is not. This is important. It reveals that there are different symmetry changes taking place.

There is no problem with controlling the flow of credits in a monetary system (credits hopping from person to person). However, there is a problem with controlling the creation and redemption of credits.

Credit is exchanged when the ownership of a property right changes hands. Credit (and debt) can also be created when a property right changes hands. This is where the problem with the monetary system lies. There are not enough states and operators in the representation of the system to distinguish between the two different kinds of property rights changing hands. Chiralkine accounting tells you this. It tells you that you need more states and operators to properly represent the system. You need a state representing another kind of property right - a neutral property right. Which brings us right back to Chris Cook's introduction.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 10:28:18 AM EST
Exchange is all about identity (state) and drawing a distinction (action).

When a dog is taken for a walk, its identity does not change. A walked dog has the same identity as an unwalked dog.

Mathematically, we could represent the action of walking the dog on the dog's identity by applying the 2x2 identity matrix (1,0,0,1). We could represent the action of walking the dog on the dog's position in the dog walking cycle by applying the 2x2 permutation matrix (0,1,1,0).

A complete representation of the state of a dog in a dog walking cycle needs to include the dog's identity and its position in the dog walking cycle. The operator that transforms the state of the dog needs to leave the part representing identity unchanged and the part representing position inverted. Using chiralkine numbers and 4 x 4 matrices, you can construct a complete representation of the possible states of the dog and how these transform as the dog goes through its walking cycle. Applying the 4 x 4 matrix to the chiralkine number leaves the identity of the dog unchanged, but inverts the position (walked/unwalked).

With chiralkine numbers and 4 x 4 matrices, you can represent the state of a person (having an identity and a position in a cycle of trade) and how this state changes. We can draw a distinction between a state in which "credit" is unspent and a state in which "credit" is spent and another distinction between a state in which "debt" is unspent and "debt" is spent. This means that we can also draw a distinction between a state in which "credit" and "debt" are both spent and another in which "credit" and "debt" are both spent. These are the states (0,0) and (1,1) that Chris introduced at the start of this thread. You cannot use double entry bookkeeping to distinguish these two states, because it is based on drawing two distinctions, not three.  

by martinahay on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 03:56:51 AM EST
In a chiralkine trading system, real things are exchanged for real things, just like in barter. With money, real things are exchanged for an imaginary store of value (an imaginary property right).

In a chiralkine system, two people in a cycle of trade must each buy and sell something real to complete the cycle. Whereas a dog in a dog walking cycle simply has to go from an unwalked to a walked state, each of a pair of traders in a cycle of trade has to go from an unsold, unbought state to a sold, bought state.

In a chiralkine system, there is an imaginary neutral property right in things being exchanged under a chiralkine contract that corresponds with (buying, not selling)/not buying, selling). We flip the action of buying and selling into a state - a neutral property right. This gets around the need to invoke an imaginary store of value as a transition state. It also renders exchange symmetric as between the traders. In other words, one of them does not have to suffer the relative disadvantage of going through a debtor state.

by martinahay on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 04:32:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I know what it is like to be enamoured with your own idea. And some great thigns has come as the result of people hanging on to an idea and trying to fit it in anywhere. But it is also the source of a lot of crackpottery.

From the discussion here, my impression is that most aspects argued as beneficial are often found already in various forms of local currency. And Chiralkine is primarily constructed to work like local currency.

So then the question is if Chiralkine is better then the numerous local currencies in making them work. I am sceptical, I think the complexity works against it. But a) find an example of a system that broke down due to hoarding (they exist) and b) show that it would have worked if they had used Chiralkine (that is harder) and we have at least a basis for discussing if it is of use as local currency.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 04:46:07 AM EST
When I have the tools (code, etc), I will experiment and report back. Until then, all is speculation. However, the system is different from debits and credits. It has taken me a very long time to even get that across. People are now coming to a consensus that chiralkine is not an orc, even if they would not recognise it as a hobbit.
by martinahay on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 05:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This
When I have the tools (code, etc), I will experiment and report back. Until then, all is speculation.
in response to this
But a) find an example of a system that broke down due to hoarding (they exist) and b) show that it would have worked if they had used Chiralkine (that is harder)
is a cop-out.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 07:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Until a chiralkine trading system is tested, we will not know whether or not there are net benefits of using the current, inequitable monetary system. I other words, it may be that there are net benefits in allowing the growth of inequality and trade imbalances.

I would be very surprised indeed if human behaviour can be accounted for (reduced to metrics). I expect that you cannot reliably model any human belief system using any form of accounting system. I am not totally on the side of any accounting system.

It is my belief that the accounting system in use today is simply not fit for purpose as a basis for modelling our belief systems in ownership and exchange. It is too simple. It makes use of only two distinctions. Chiralkine accounting makes use of three distinctions.

The complexity of a chiralkine trading system is not a good reason for avoiding building and testing it. The cost of doing this is nano small in comparison with the cost of cleaning up after a financial crash. The potential benefits of using it are huge.

by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 03:39:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gee whiz, another cop-out. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 05:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So I'm late to the party.  From what I gather, the proposal here is a needlessly-complicated system that the author doesn't himself understand, which basically does everything we already do (or know how to do but lack political will) without solving the issues that hold back the current system.

I get that right?

Also, too, Austrian bitcoin leghumping.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 12:33:34 PM EST
The system is understood. It can be represented as states and operators using 1's and 0's. It is more complicated than our present monetary system, and in use it produces different effects.

Readers will treat the comments of others with caution. They are loaded with spin. The comments contain repeated assertions that author (one of the inventors) does not understand the invention. There are also many different assertions regarding the political views of the author, and his motivation for pursuing this project. These are pure speculation, and generally way off base. Readers will keep in mind that everyone commenting on chiralkine has their own agenda they are pursuing.

by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 04:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 05:48:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some things are just too simple to be believed. The brain plays tricks.

On the internet you can find an image of a spinning dancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer

The brain tricks the viewer into perceiving that the dancer is rotating. People can find themselves arguing over whether she is rotating clockwise or anticlockwise. The simple, but hard thing to perceive is that the representation is 2-D. There is maths behind the scene that enables changes in 2-D to be perceived as rotations. Computer games do this all the time.

Look at the chiralkine video, look at how the coloured shapes change hands and look at how the 1's and 0's in the table of accounts move around in the table tracking what is going on.

It really is that simple.

by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 06:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the internet you can find an image of a spinning dancer.
My apologies, I now realise you're aware of all internet traditions.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mathematicians spend lifetimes trying to understand things they invented. "I invented this" does not imply "I understand this."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 06:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you define "understand"? What, if any (real world) utility does your definition have?
by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 06:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"What" do you mean by "what" and "practical" here?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 06:39:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you define "mean?
by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 06:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Texts are quite easy to deconstruct, but despite this some texts get adopted as belief systems.

Pure mathematics is built on states and operations that are all defined relative to one another.

Applied mathematics seeks to map states and operators in pure mathematics to the elements of belief systems, defined in texts (words and grammar).

The states and operators of the mathematics of double entry accounting do not map to the elements of texts used to define the  belief system of ownership and exchange.

A different belief system (including a concept of a neutral property right) mapped to a different accounting system might, potentially have some utility.

by martinahay on Mon Aug 26th, 2013 at 07:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pure mathematics is built on states and operations that are all defined relative to one another
Please stop bloviating about that which you don't understand. It is painful.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 05:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Texts are quite easy to deconstruct, but despite this...
...a bunch of French philosophers and literature professors managed to make a career out of claiming it's quite hard, really.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The king is dead. Long live the king.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The credit is spent (has changed hands). Long live the credit.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The kings and the credits are not the same.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Readers will treat the comments of others with caution.

(snip)

Readers will keep in mind that everyone commenting on chiralkine has their own agenda they are pursuing.

Readers here don't need you telling them to treat this or that with caution, and they don't need you telling them what to keep in mind.  Contrary to what you've convinced yourself of through this clumsy-math-meets-new-age-bullshit, you're not operating above anybody here, intellectually.  (In fact, quite far below.)

Readers here are quite intelligent.  They're plenty capable of sorting it out for themselves.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 04:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The comments contain repeated assertions that author (one of the inventors) does not understand the invention. There are also many different assertions regarding the political views of the author, and his motivation for pursuing this project. These are pure speculation, and generally way off base. Readers will keep in mind that everyone commenting on chiralkine has their own agenda they are pursuing.
I will refrain from enumerating all the comments in this thread where "author", no speaking of himself in the third person like Julius Caesar, has claimed others don't understand this, that or the other; has made sweeping generalizations about the political views of others, and about their motivations. In particular, he has repeatedly made the (telltale crackpot) claim that disagreement with him is caused by vested interests.

Clearly the only person here with an agenda on Chiralkine is Martin Haywire BS (Oxen), since as the owner of any Chiralkine Intellectual Property, is the only person standing to gain from the adoption of his harebrained invention.

There, I said it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 05:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do the lions really fear being bearded in their den?
by martinahay on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh FFS.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It occurs to me we're performing a service to Humankind by continuing this thread, as any time you spend on here is time not spent spreading your system to unsuspecting victims.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clearly the only person here with an agenda on Chiralkine is Martin Haywire BS (Oxen), since as the owner of any Chiralkine Intellectual Property, is the only person standing to gain from the adoption of his harebrained invention.

There, I said it.

You say it as though there's something wrong with saying it.  He has a financial interest in it.  There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

And it is projection, of course.  I have no financial interest in it.

All this entire thread proves to me is that one should never trust a modern Oxford grad with economics.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is more complicated than our present monetary system, and in use it produces different effects.
I should note that
in response to this
But a) find an example of a system that broke down due to hoarding (they exist) and b) show that it would have worked if they had used Chiralkine (that is harder)
you answered
When I have the tools (code, etc), I will experiment and report back. Until then, all is speculation.
Therefore you'll excuse me if I doubt that you actually know or can explain how or why Chiralkines "produce different effects" from the "present monetary system".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 27th, 2013 at 06:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is reassuring to know that the knights guarding the secret of the holy grail are still vigilant.

If it can be shown that an exchange (B2B or P2P) can be run through a network using chiralkine accounting instead of debits and credits, then the financial and legal services industries have a new competitor.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 03:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it can be shown
If?

I'm disappointed. I though this harebrained scheme of yours had reached a more mature stage of development.

It is reassuring to know that the knights guarding the secret of the holy grail are still vigilant.
The Crackpot Index

  • A -5 point starting credit.
  • 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanicsdouble-entry accounting is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
  • 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
Another 10 points for emphasizing you've gone to Oxford. Another 10 points for mentioning self-certifications as if they were evidence of legal qualification.

  • 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
  • 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each old mathematical term you redefine

  • 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
  • 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
  • 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
  • 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
  • 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
  • 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
20 points for each use of similar prases such as "guardian knights of the Holy Grail" or other such nonsense
  • 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
I wonder if the Guardian Knights of the Holy Grail falls under this category instead

  • 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
  • 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, eh?

  • 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
  • 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 04:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you talk to a person who runs an exchange for a living, they will tell you how difficult it is to keep trade in balance using "credit" control. Accounting based on mutually negating debits and credits does not reveal which pairs of currency creators are introducing the imbalances. Running the past transactions of an exchange through chiralkine accounting will reveal this. It will reveal which "contracts" are still open.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clearly, the Chicago Board of Trade has been operating a futures exchange for well over 150 years but, to this day, they still haven't figured out how to keep track of open contracts (or open interest), nor how to use margin requirements to control "credit". Despite having introduced computerised trading decades ago.

Markets really are waiting for Chiralkine.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, what is your point? The example you have cited is not a closed system. Where does the money come from?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The example you have cited is not a closed system.
No, excuse me. You cited the example
If you talk to a person who runs an exchange for a living, they will tell you how difficult it is to keep trade in balance using "credit" control. Accounting based on mutually negating debits and credits does not reveal which pairs of currency creators are introducing the imbalances. Running the past transactions of an exchange through chiralkine accounting will reveal this. It will reveal which "contracts" are still open.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The example I cited is closed, yours is open.
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The example I cited is closed

No it's not.

It's not even a closed economy (though the accounting mimics one, which is both the beauty and peril of floating local currencies).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 02:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Money is not used as a medium of exchange in a chiralkine economy.

If a chiralkine economy is running alongside a money economy, then participants might belong to both (such that a chirakine economy functions as a complementary system). It would function much like a complementary currency system does now, except in that no step can be equated with earning an income in money.

It is conceivable that R and L units could EACH be allowed to be traded for money. The value of each kind of unit in money would depend on the balance of trade between the chiralkine economy and the money economy. A market could determine the exchange rates. Thus, an importer into a chiralkine economy would need to buy L and sell R, whereas the reverse would be the case for an exporter.

A lot of experimentation would be needed to test the dynamics of such a system before it was introduced as a live system. In principle, trade imbalances should not build up like they do between two money economies.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 03:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Preventing trade imbalances from building up is trivial, provided that the requisite political will exists.

Once again you have solved the problem by assuming that the problem is solved.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 03:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the problem could be solved politically, Keynes would have had his International Clearing Union at Bretton Woods or the G20 conference in 2009 would have agreed to set up negative feedback loops on mercantilistic imbalances.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 04:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Playing off Frank's thread:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Let's assume that we have a can-opener..."


Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The politician says "Are you hungry? I'm hungry too. Here's who you should blame..." while doing a deal with the economist to hide the restaurant on the next island from the others.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If it can be shown

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless she self-identified as female regardless, obviously.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Come to think of it, I'm not sure she does as-is, but that's a whole different story.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A couple of movie clips come to mind:

Here is Martin Haywire BS (Oxen) being repressed by the Guardian Knights of the Holy Grail

And here's a debate on abstract algebra



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 04:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We have used the same metaphor!!!
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 04:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We have used the same metaphor!!!
For your information: I am mocking the heck out of you in your face.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and we have used the same metaphor, so therefore . . . .
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a heads up for the knights, here are words from another grail hunter. Something called boundary logic appears to have captured several imaginations. http://www.rgshoup.com/prof/pubs/SpaceTime.pdf
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:05:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:12:47 AM EST
If there are two communicating selves, then a boundary must lie between them. In which place was the mind when it was last seen?
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39508-ridicule-is-the-only-weapon-which-can-be-used-against

Or maybe the trinity (+1, -1 and 0) does have something to do with drawing a distinction: the marked state, the unmarked state and the boundary between them. Maybe the boundary (0) is the source from which a second distinction can spring? You need to make use of more than one distinction to represent exchange of ownership of goods and services.

by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You realise the longer this continues the more hits this thread gets on Google when someone searches for 'chiralkine'?

I'd consider the possibility this may perhaps not be the best possible PR for your work.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If he's answering all the tough questions convincingly, why not?

Anyway, it is getting lots of hits on Google, but not on Bing or Yahoo, so far. More work is needed.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I've found the third state that Spencer-Brown missed - there's crossed, there's uncrossed, and there's really, really cross.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's because of ET's high page rank.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but nobody uses Bing or Yahoo.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The thread is headed "note to self".
by martinahay on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:12:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have to admit Chiralkine sounds cool. Perhaps a good title for fantasy novel? Or a band name? X and the Chiralkines?
by IM on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Martin Haywire:accounting::L Ron Hubbard:religion?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 05:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please, no. L Ron Hubbard was actually successful.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I refer to the Chiralkine website:

Things exist (1) or not (0).  Nobody has ever detected the existence of a negative thing (-1). Either we can detect something we are looking for (1), or not (0).

Is this whole clown shoes system designed because you're afraid of negative numbers or something?

I even watched that stupid video in the first comment.  The damned woman reading the script even seems to stutter as she thinks, "WTF is this shit?"  It was brilliant.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:11:19 PM EST
Things exist (1) or not (0).  Nobody has ever detected the existence of a negative thing (-1). Either we can detect something we are looking for (1), or not (0).

Somebody call the Chinese.  Marty Haywire just called bullshit on 2,200 years of human thought.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it just needs a chiralkine explanation.

The aggregate of votes is made up of antisymmetric components [(1, 0) and (0, 1)], and symmetric components [(0, 0) and (1, 1)]. It is like an electronic signal. The process for analysing the vote cancels out pairs of antisymmetric opposites and pairs of symmetric opposites, leaving a residual antisymmetric component [(1, 0) or (0, 1)] and a residual symmetric component [(0, 0) or (1, 1)]. These cancelling operations are each a form of differentiation. For the cancellation of the antisymmetric components, it is as if the 1's and 0's in the (1, 0) and (0, 1) pairings are redistributed as (1, 1) and (0, 0), which are symmetric, and so indistinguishable in this class.  For the cancellation of the symmetric components, it is as if the 1's and 0's in the (1, 1) and (0, 0) pairings are redistributed as (1, 0) and (0, 1), which are antisymmetric, and so indistinguishable in this class. Finally, the residual antisymmetric and symmetric components are themselves differentiated, such that the pairings are indistinguishable in this class. In the present example, the residue is (1, 1).

A chiralkine voting system could be used as part of an iterative decision making process, in which arriving at a residue (1, 1) prompts different symmetry breaking, and a new vote.

If individual neurons could function like voters and the brain like an electorate, then the brain could use a chiralkine voting system to take decisions, switching between symmetric and antisymmetric states, and also via iteration, to learn.

So far I've learned that chiralkine means:

  1. Use a lot of words you don't understand.
  2. Hint at Cool Deep Stuff.
  3. Clown shoes.

But mostly 3. Also.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's like Tom Friedman arguing that the world is flat.  He will literally travel back in time, against the current of human thought.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 07:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 03:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A means of exchange built on negative numbers is
unstable and inequitable.

Regarding the use of the word "damned", so first comes ridicule, then damnation. Is the stake ready yet?

by martinahay on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 03:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A means of exchange built on negative numbers is unstable and inequitable.
Sorry to repeat myself, but what negative numbers are there in this? \[\left\{\pmatrix{R&L\\{}L&R}\colon R,L\ge 0\right\}\]

Similarly, there are no negative numbers in double-entry accounting.

But you know all this, you're just obfuscating.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 04:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If two people have no money and wish to initiate a cycle of trade, they can create a credit/debt pair. The environment in which they trade is such that the person with the credit is privileged. Credits are treated as things that can hop from person to person without changing. Debts are treated as things that cannot hop from person to person. They can only be negated by credits.

So the environment is like a chiral field. It acts differently on the two states.

by martinahay on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 04:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
If two people have no money and wish to initiate a cycle of trade, they can create a credit/debt pair.

I think this premise and the assumption that large-scale problems flows from it is problematic.

In the examples on your webpage the basic situation is people who has resources but not money and wishes to trade with each other. In that case a local currency works, but you haven't shown that Chiralkine would work better then those that are already out there. Indeed when I asked for an example of a local currency system that had suffered from problems that would be solved if they had used Chiralkine instead you had none.

Then you jump to the problems of debt and and trade inbalances on the national and international scale. But these are very clearly a result of power, power that does not spring form accumulation of credits, rather credits springing form power. As you may recall, the big US banks were insolvent but saved thanks to being "To big to fail". If power was a result merely of credits they would not have had the power to pull that of. Instead they got a heap of new credits for being powerful.

So on the scale were it might be useful - local currency - you have not shown that there is any problrm to fix. And on the scale were you can point to problems, your basic model of how they arise (trade and creation of credits and debts to facilitate trade) is clearly flawed.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 07:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit creation is a political function, whether it is the State, the banks, or the Chiralkine Collective that does it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 08:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can buy things with credit. Why can you not sell things with debt?
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 03:13:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean B gives C goods and in return C promises to pay off B's debt to A?

Sure you can make such a contract. Where it breaks down is enforcement, in many jurisdictions if C breaks the contract with B by not paying A, B still has to pay the debt to A while gaining a similar claim on C.

But that goes for personal credits too. The reason government issued money is impersonal credits is that the government backs it with goons with guns. And doing so allows the government to marshall society's resources and services without resorting to planned economy. On the other hand if debt was impersonal too, then the taxe-debts (another part of marshalling resources) could as easily be transferred and instead of shopkeepers, craftsmen and farmers being forced to deliver something valuable to the state (or those the state provides with money) all the tax-debt is transferred to Drunken Tom, c/o The Gutter, in exchange for relatively small amounts of alcohol.

So, yes credit-debt is an unequal relationship power, just like master-serf. But renaming the serf does not fix that.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are very close to getting the idea.

Instead of recognising that goods can be owned either by B or by C, imagine that there is another state of ownership. It is a neutral state of ownership. It is different from joint ownership. It is a state when B is selling a thing and C is buying a thing. It is a state that lies on the boundary between B owns the thing and C owns the thing. At one and the same time, the thing is (owned by B, owned by C) and (not owned by B, not owned by C).

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, that is not hard. Happens all the time and creates interesting legal situations when a business goes belly up and ongoing sales and purchases has to be pressed into owned either by B or C.

And there are all kinds of relationships between master and serf too. But I don't see how that answers anything of what I wrote.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And without talking quantum mechanics "mumbo jumbo", we have found common ground that two people (B and C) can be in a superposition of two ownership states that can break so that one owns a thing and the other does not.

Neutral property rights do indeed create interesting legal situations, but you could harness them if you could control the legal outcomes when the superposition breaks (the ownership flips back from neutral to normal).

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and dropping everything that likens an economic system to quantummechanics is a good thing. But I still do not see how it adresses what I wrote about why debt is not as impersonal as government backed credit.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 07:18:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing in the equation:

+1 -1 = 0

that privileges +1 over -1, or indeed allows an understanding of +1 independent of -1.

0 is equivalently a superposition of +1 and -1.

There is nothing in exchange that privileges one person over another.

There is a buyer in every sale, and a seller in every purchase.

There is no reason to treat buyers and sellers asymmetrically.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 07:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But as we get back to, exchange is only one function of money, and the wrong place to look for why credit gets higher status then debt. In a non-forced trade, both buyer and seller has some power. Though they don't have to be equals at least they can most of the time walk away or find another trade partner, which gives some leverage.

To understand why credit and debt are treated asymmetrically, we need to look at them as instruments of power. And then taxation is an example, or the role of debt in accumulating peasant land, or the calssic mafia way of treating debts. But note that when power goes the other way around, when the debtor is the powerful one, then that debt is no hinderance to keep power. For fictional example in addition to the TBTFs, I recently read The Three Musketeers, where the musketeers in question regularly run up tabs they can't pay and simply threaten with deadly violence if the landlord objects. This is treated as humor and the high-status violent men are treated like heroes.

So credit and debt are not only instruments of trade, but also instrument of power, and you are trying to argue that they should not be instruments of power, by looking at trade.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If people could exchange without using (asymmetric) debt and credit, then the power of which you speak would be diminished.

Until the advent of IT, there was no practical way of handling exchange other than through barter or through debt and credit. You cannot have both debt and credit notes or coins circulating - it is too easy to cheat.

With a networked computer or phone system, you can handle exchange without debt and credit. What you have to give up is cash. Cash can be used to buy things from people who have no debt to give in return.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You cannot have both debt and credit notes or coins circulating - it is too easy to cheat.
No easier than it is to cheat with ordinary money.

This is a strong claim you're making, you should justify it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you had credit euro notes and debt euro notes circulating, instead of just credit euro notes or debt euro notes, people could cheat simply by throwing notes away.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:53:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not if people need to have L notes in order to sell. They will demand to get their L change when paying with R.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it wouldn't. Because credit isn't an accounting function, it's a decision making and executive function, used to ration the distribution of power and privilege.

It's perfectly possible for governments to lend with little or no interest. See e.g. QE, negative interest rates, and stimulus.

In that situation, the credit exists to privilege certain actors and to reward them for certain kinds of activities.

The problem with the system you're proposing - aside from the fact that it's banal and trivial - is that it's politically tone deaf.

There's no requirement to profit from credit. It happens to be used as a form of tribute in many cases, but it's a complex form of tribute with some element of risk on the lender's side - unlike traditional tribute, where you simply kill or maim a 'debtor', or steal goods to the equivalent of and then some, if they 'default'.

The point is that 'debt' and 'credit' are instantiations of existing power imbalances. People privileged with power (and a certain amount of random luck) propagate the imbalances in various ways.

The financial system is one of many possible options they can use to coerce the relatively powerless into providing tribute and acting in ways counter to their own interests. (The others include naked force, rhetoric, PR and think tanks, propaganda, advertising, religious mania, war-mongering, slavery, political destabilisation, and so on.)

You're simply ignoring political reality and pretending to yourself that your self-styled genius has the power to wave it away with one of the most triumphant and penetrating intellectual insights of the early 21st century.

In reality - perhaps not.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:47:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I have claimed no special status. I was asked to explain my idea, and I have done my best to do that.

Your comment that chiralkine is "politically tone deaf" accords with my belief that it is apolitical. It is not for or against any political position. It is simply an accounting protocol that will allow people to exchange things equitably, like in barter, without using money.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your comment that chiralkine is "politically tone deaf" accords with my belief that it is apolitical. It is not for or against any political position. It is simply an accounting protocol that will allow people to exchange things equitably,

If your protocol is useful only for equitable exchanges, then it's useless for basically all ordinary commerce.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 03:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is another way of saying the same thing that commerce is inequitable? By "commerce", do you mean trade conducted with money.

People are motivated to trade until what they want to trade out is indistinguishable from what they want to trade in. Thinking in symbols, what they want to trade in is "A" and what they want to trade out is "B". When the two are indistinguishable, A is C and B is C.

With a chiralkine system employed on a network, there is the potential for many people to reach state C very fast. It is like a trade superconductor, because nobody else is taking a cut (tax or interest) each time a trade takes place.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 04:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, by commerce I mean trade. Full stop.

By far the largest component of "trade" is actually (barely) concealed tribute payments.

Which you would know if you pulled your head out of your ass and looked at the actual institutional realities of the real world.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 05:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you include barter within your definition of trade?
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 06:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What are the units of tributes, and how do you detect, represent and measure them? If two people exchange a red apple for a green apple, who is giving and who is receiving this thing that you call a tribute.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 06:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And if two people exchange a magic unicorn pony for a sparkling rainbow fairie, then who is giving and who is receiving tribute?

Your question is deliberately obtuse, because you are implying that the sort of exchange you describe in it is in any way interesting to a description of the material provisioning of society (the organization of which is the primary use of accounting systems). Anybody who actually believes that is a Libertarian crackpot (but I repeat myself).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 06:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you cannot define an experiment through which you can detect and measure this thing that you call a tribute, then how can you know whether or not it exists?
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 07:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Swedish researcher Alf Hornborg has written quite a bit on unequal exchange. On of the measurements he uses is weight of total flows of goods.

Because if country A exchanges kilos of apples, flour etc for a single 1/2 kg apple pie from country B, then the way the resources is flowing is pretty clear. Add that country B once destroyed country A's pie-making abilities, that governments in country A that talk about independent pie-making abilities are embargoed or couped and that in the last couple of decades country A has had to sign treaties demanding outright tribute in exchange for even using the term Apple pie (TM) and your model of international trade is more closely resembling what actually exist.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 10:09:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The monetary and political systems are conflicted.

A first step might be to demonstrate, on a very small scale, that exchange can be handled equitably without money.

A next step might be to demonstrate, on a very small scale, that group projects can be resourced without money.

A further step might be to demonstrate, on a very small scale, that decision making for group projects can be handled democratically without simple for/against majority voting.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 10:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All of those are trivial on a small scale, and the solutions that work on the small scale immediately break down when you scale them up. And vice versa: The solutions that work on the large scale immediately break when you attempt to apply them to the internal organization of small communities.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 11:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes of course barter is a form of trade. And of course it is driven mostly by power relations.

But anyway, barter doesn't - and of necessity cannot - happen on any industrially interesting scale. So if you design a system to facilitate barter then you are automatically excluding most of the things we use accounting for.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 06:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"barter doesn't - and of necessity cannot - happen on any industrially interesting scale"

With chiralkine accounting, the benefits of barter can be realised without the use of money.

In barter and in a chiralkine system, you buy and sell real things with real things. The weakness of barter, which precludes it from being scaled up, is that it cannot address the problem of a double co-incidence of wants. http://economics.about.com/od/termsbeginningwithd/g/doule_coincidence_of_wants.htm

Exchange through a network using a chiralkine system could be conducted on a huge scale.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 07:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If Fred and Wilma exchange coloured apples, then no tribute changes hands.
If Betty and Barney exchange coloured apples, then no tribute changes hands.
If the apples are coloured red, green, yellow and pink, then no tribute changes hands.
If Fred receives a yellow apple, Wilma receives a green apple, Betty receives a pink apple and Barney receives a red apple, then no tribute changes hands.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 07:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But this is not kindergarten.

Try again and explain what happens if one side has guns and lawyers, and the other doesn't.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 07:46:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is called tax, and we need to pay tax for our own benefit, but it does not have to be applied to trade. The tribute of which you speak is inherent in the monetary system. In the apple exchange example, it is a slice of apple that is taken by someone in control of trade each time a trade takes place. This is a very inefficient way of raising tax, and it is very destructive for our planet. It inhibits trade, leads to hoarding and leads to irrational behaviour, like digging gold out of the ground.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 08:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Er - no. It's not called tax.

Let's say one side is a large corporation, and the other side is a group of freelance workers.

They agree a contract in which tokens are exchanged thirty days after submission of work.

The corporation has the power to decide when it wants to exchange the tokens. The freelancers do not.

So as often as not, tokens are exchanged months late.

Your playschool system does nothing to fix this.

Nothing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 08:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True with money, not so in a chiralkine system. The corporation needs to exchange its R tokens for the L of its workers, or it will not have any L tokens with which to sell its products. Secondly, if the corporation is in default of its chiralkine contracts, it will no longer be able to trade.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 08:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought you were against the circulation of L/R tokens?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 10:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that R/L exchange should be accounted for electronically, without circulation of physical tokens.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 10:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But it can get L tokens from some of its workers anyway and its other suppliers. It doesn't need to get L tokens from all of them to still function.

Whereas for workers, exchange of tokens is critical.

And a corporation can decide not to exchange contracts until it wants to, so it's never in default - it simply delays contract creation and exchange until a moment of its choosing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Sep 1st, 2013 at 07:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean Chiralkines enable unequitable trade?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 1st, 2013 at 07:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole idea of "If you don't play nice, nobody will trade with you" is a libertarian fantasy -- right up there with the absurd notion that externalities will be properly dealt with by the courts.

If it worked, Goldman Sachs would've collapsed into the Hudson long ago.

If a company has sufficient market power -- and political power is part of that -- it's not going to suffer sufficient penalties to maintain the incentives for equitable trade.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Sep 2nd, 2013 at 08:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With chiralkine accounting, the benefits of barter can be realised without the use of money.

Yeah, but all the other benefits of money - you know, the ones that actually matter to the organization of industrial production - can't.

The weakness of barter, which precludes it from being scaled up, is that it cannot address the problem of a double co-incidence of wants.

That is one weakness of barter. The other weakness of barter is that it does not enable society to mobilize resources to execute long-term planning.

The latter is the more pertinent weakness.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 08:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not so. Tax can be imposed as a chiralkine tax demand, such that "taxpayers" receive L and the government R. The "taxpayers" and government each have to exchange their tokens for the opposite kind, then the tokens are redeemed. Taxpayers can obtain the R they need to present for redemption by working for the government (exchanging L for R) or trading with others (exchanging L for R). The government trades by exchanging R for L.

This would work very nicely at a local government level. It is in effect the tried and tested split tally stick system used in Europe for hundreds of years.

by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 08:52:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, you want to strip out all the things that make your system different from plain vanilla money, except the needlessly convoluted notation.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 11:11:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The benefits of money could be realised by the L/R systematic because the government can mobilize resources by releasing R and L into the economy.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 09:07:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. Using the R/L system any group can resource a joint project. You could use the system in clubs and schools as well.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 09:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just like with money.

The only benefit of the L/R system is that it makes vendors liable for vendor finance, and net exporters liable for their own current account surplus.

Like I said earlier, if that were politically feasible it would have been implemented with ordinary money at Bretton Woods, or the G20, or the European System of central banks' TARGET2.

However, ordinary money makes it easier to argue there should be no liability for surpluses.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 09:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and the belief that running a surplus is a good thing can provoke a rise in nationalism. The dynamics that monetary systems exhibit can be misinterpreted by electorates.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 09:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As usual you're getting the causality completely ass about face.

Nationalism causes unsustainable current account surpluses, by making creditors refuse to take responsibility for their destructive surplus policies.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 11:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If trade were to be represented in chiralkine accounting, those responsible for creating trade imbalances (not closing their chiralkine contracts) would be visible to all. The practice of allowing credits and debits to cancel conceals this information. The ones left holding credit and debt are generally not those that created them.
by martinahay on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 03:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The people who hold the credits are visible to all as it is.

This does not prevent trade imbalances.

The problem is political, and what you have isn't even a technical fix.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 31st, 2013 at 07:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure you can make such a contract. Where it breaks down is enforcement
See this subthread on enforcement.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to see each chiralkine trading system operate on the minimum enforcement level appropriate to the scale on which it is being used. At the level of a community currency, it may not be necessary to impose a sanction greater than exclusion from trading. At a national level, fraud might be punishable by imprisonment.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems to me you could drop the word "Chiralkine" with no loss of meaning:

I would like to see each [] trading system operate on the minimum enforcement level appropriate to the scale on which it is being used. At the level of a community currency, it may not be necessary to impose a sanction greater than exclusion from trading. At a national level, fraud might be punishable by imprisonment.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 07:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Swiss WIR is successful. In general however, local currencies fall over quite quickly. Consider LETS schemes, for example.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 03:11:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Imagine how fast Chiralkines would fall. Just imagine.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:24:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless chiralkine accounting reveals what is causing mutual credit systems to fall over.

Chiralkine accounting can be used for mutual credit systems, because all of the double entry bookkeeping used to run mutual credit systems can be recovered from chiralkine accounts.

Mutual credit systems should work, in the sense that they provide a means for exchange for goods or services without using money, just like in barter - which does work.

The accounting used in mutual credit systems is based on the concept that you can buy with credit, but you cannot sell with debt. Chiralkine accounting is based on the concept that you buy with credit and you sell with debt.  

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you don't need to develop Chiralkine accounting in order to have a look at how mutual credit systems fall over. And if the reasons has nothing with inability to sell with debt, then there is no reason to think that introducing that ability would solve anything.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:08:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And as far as I understand selling with debt is just a vendor credit and that is a very old form of credit.
by IM on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here I have to defend the L/R system in that by providing credit the vendor not only indebts their client by 1R, but they become themselves indebted by 1L. So uncontrolled growth of vendor credit can be checked.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the LR system, you buy with credit and you sell with debt. Credit and debt both circulate, in counter-current. The creditor and debtor are treated symmetrically.

On the face of it, there is no sense behind exchanging credit for debt whenever ownership changes hands. All you are doing is swapping two pieces of paper or two discs of metal. What is the difference between the two pieces of paper or two metal discs? It seems to make more sense to use just one piece of paper or one metal disc that moves in counter-current to the ownership (credit) or with it (debt).

The sense emerges when you think about how credit and debt come into existence in the first place, what sustains their continued existence and what causes their extinction. There is an ownership state different from mine, not yours/not mine, yours in which two people both have an interest. It is a kind of neutral property right. It is a state in which one person is buying a thing and the other is selling the thing. This state is symmetric as between the two people. Neither is advantaged nor disadvantaged. It is while two people are in this state that credit and debt exist. If we only allow credits to circulate, we restrict the ability of debtors to trade. If we only allow debts to circulate, we restrict the ability of creditors to trade.

I think Chris Cook opened this thread, because he can see that we have each, independently come to a notion of a neutral property right and we both think it is something that merits further work.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How would you explain magnetism without "obfuscating"?
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 03:15:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's leave your inability to understand the theory of magnetism out of this thread.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed. So how would you convey your understanding of magnetism without obfuscation?
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Go to the Open Thread and ask a concrete question about one thing you don't understand about magnetism.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:26:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
The point is that attempts to articulate some concepts can easily be spun by critics as obfuscation.
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 04:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, so you are being intellectually dishonest again.

There are critics and there are clueless people.

You, my friend, are clueless, both as a critic (of physics) and as an expositor (of your own drivel).

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:16:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and there are clueless critics
by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would tread lightly if I were you, considering that you are demonstrably debating in bad faith.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 05:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ~ Carl Sagan.

So that doesn't proves much either way.

by IM on Thu Aug 29th, 2013 at 04:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is comment #500... Having exceeded the thread on the election of the US' first black president, will Martin Haywire BS (Oxen) manage to beat Pussy Riot for the title of most commented thread ever?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:33:04 PM EST
First, I think they need to drop the characterizations they are using and start using a polar characterizations because A) each 1/0 datum point is polar (One can be north pole or south pole but not both at once.), B) and each exchange represented by two of these data points is itself polar (north pole, south pole, together making a single "magnet").  They need to give a more than passing like at Hohfeldian analysis and the literature thereon.

Second, this is not quantum mechanics or any other type of quantum theory.  It is a form of symbolic logic that still needs bugs worked out of its syntax and values, but it isn't quantum.

by rifek on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:40:40 PM EST
This is an important observation and new to me.

Here is a link to Hohfeldian analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld
The system works like complex numbers in words.

In a chiralkine system we have six states made up of three oppositional pairs (dipoles). Thus there are six permutations of two 1's and two 0's. You can completely control the system (convert any state into any other state) using just eight of 24 possible 4x4 matrices having one 1 and one 0 in each row and column.

It is not a quantum system at the level of unitary states, but in an exchange, the representation of a person's trading position (account balance) can develop into a superposition of several states. The way in which these superpositions break depends upon the order in which contracts are closed.

by martinahay on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 01:30:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The system, from what I gather, is basically a needlessly-complicated yet (strangely) intellectually dumbed-down, localized version of Keynes's surplus recycling mechanism.  It seeks to prevent hoarding and keep up the flow of trade.

Great.  Noble enough.  Now how is it any more likely to succeed than the idea of having an activist central government beating down the incentive to hoard through the use of taxation, inflation and fiscal policy?

The answer isn't to come up with convoluted schemes.  It's to create enough income and jobs so that those who hoard cash are made irrelevant.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Sep 1st, 2013 at 11:49:34 AM EST
I think that if trade were to be accounted for using R and L units rather than credit and debt, then there would be no need for a surplus recycling mechanism. The RL accounting method forces trade in real goods and services to be balanced, like in barter. The R and L units have no value in themselves, being merely accounting information, so there is no reason to hoard them.

We will not know for sure whether the RL accounting method is safe and effective to use until we have tested it. Human behaviour is highly unpredictable, and it can take some time for new habits to take hold.

by martinahay on Mon Sep 2nd, 2013 at 01:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The R and L units have no value in themselves, being merely accounting information, so there is no reason to hoard them.
Of course R and L units have value, since a permit to trade has a value, whether it is a permit to sell (L) or a purchase voucher (R). Just like fiat money has a value even though it has no intrinsic value (in that case, the value derives from being redeemable i payment of taxes).

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 2nd, 2013 at 08:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the rules of membership of an exchange permit traders to exchange fiat money for R and L tokens, then indeed each of the R and L tokens will have a positive value in fiat money. The values will fluctuate, depending on the balance of trade between the chiralkine and fiat money economies.

However, there is no purpose in "hoarding" R and L units. They do not provide a vehicle for storing wealth.

by martinahay on Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 03:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Solo el necio confunde valor y precio

I did not say "of course the R and L units have prices in fiat money". I said they have a value, derived from the rights they confer within the Chiralkine economy.

And of course it is possible to hoard R units in order to be able to buy valuable goods and services from Chiralkine participants.

Also, I'm not sure why you insist in assuming that the Chiralkine economy coexists with a regular money economy. What would be the point of that?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 03:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
R and L units are created under contracts between two people. The contracts have two aspects, one as between the two people each to the other and the other as between the two people as a pair and everyone else (the exchange).

As a pair contracting with the exchange, all that matters is that the R and L units are redeemed. Trade between the pair and everyone else is then in balance.

As two people contracting with each other, ownership of the subject of the contract remains in a transition state until the contract is closed. The subject does not belong to either of them while the contract is incomplete. The subject is not a store of value for either one of them.

The R and L units are accounting entries. They cannot be given away, or lent out. The different kinds of number in a chiralkine system represent the different trading positions that traders can be in relative to one another. A person's wealth is measured by the real things that they own and the services that they can perform for others: in other words what real things they have to exchange.

by martinahay on Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 04:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As two people contracting with each other, ownership of the subject of the contract remains in a transition state until the contract is closed. The subject does not belong to either of them while the contract is incomplete.

Ah, that explains why it has to operate in parallel with a real monetary system. You're deliberately making it useless.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 01:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See this subthread.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 02:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all.

We all have a sense of what does and does not belong to us. Possession is tied to identity. It is as if our possessions are part of us: share our identity. We put our name on them.

When we exchange things, we exchange their identities.

As Chris Cook noted in his introduction to this thread, we can identify the two states of ownership: mine, not yours (1,0) and yours, not mine (0,1).

Ownership is a relative, not an absolute concept.

When ownership in something changes hands, it goes from (1,0) to (0,1) from one trader's perspective, and from (0,1) to (1,0) from the other's.

In a monetary system, this inversion is effected by handing over one token representing credit. In a chiralkine system, it is effected by exchanging an R token for an L token.

Now an interesting thing to think about is why handing over credit in a monetary system, or exchanging R for L in a chiralkine system, causes the inversion of a property right. Why, for example, does it not result in the property right belonging to everybody (1,1), or to nobody (0,0)? How do you change a property right of the kind mine, not yours (1,0) to everybody's (1,1) or nobody's (0,0)? How are property rights created in the first place?

You cannot use money to change the state of a property right into everybody's or nobody's, nor can you use it to create a property right.

So, where does money come from. What gives it the power to invert a property right, but not create or destroy one?

The answer is that the creation of money is tied to a change in state of a property right from mine, not yours to a neutral property right like everybody's and nobody's. This neutral property right is like a transition state between (1,0) and (0,1). Money exists until it reverts to a normal property right.

So money is created and continues to exist while one trader is buying, but has not yet bought a subject, and another is selling, but has not yet sold that subject. The two traders are tied together until the ownership of the subject reverts to one of them (the buyer). The property right in the subject is suspended in a neutral state.

So, to summarise, when an R token is exchanged for an L token, a property right in a traded subject goes directly from (1,0) to (0,1). When R and L tokens are created, a property right in a traded subject goes from (1,0)(0,1) to a neutral transition state (1,1)(0,0), where it is held until the R and L tokens are redeemed, whereupon the property right reverts to (0,1)/(1,0).

There is no need to use money alongside R and L, but the two systems could co-exist.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 02:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I understand how an escrow works. Really, I do.

But with the exception of intercontinental shipping (which, granted, is a large share of world trade, albeit not one that your crackpot idea is going to take by storm), a delay of weeks or months while waiting for the contract to clear would be insufferable for any ordinary commerce.

And, as Zwackus has perspicaciously remarked elsewhere, it would render your tokens illiquid, which reintroduces the double coincidence of wants problem.

So, useless. Fake tits on a zombie useless.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 03:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People typically take a mortgage loan of 25 or more years to buy a house. They do not own the house until they have paid the loan off, but nor does the bank. The money used to buy the house is created by the bank. It is new money.

So it is not true that you cannot change the state of a property right for a long period during which ownership transitions from one person to another. On the contrary, it is an essential feature of a modern economy.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 04:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, the ownership changes the moment you buy the house. The bank has a lien on the house and a credit to you with an option to terminate the credit an require payment in full if you sell the house.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 08:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, the ownership state is not the same when a lien is attached.

Consider this example. Person A owns a house. Person B wishes to buy it, but has no money. The bank creates money (and debt) so that Person B can buy the house. Now Person A has money (credit), and Person B anti-money (debt). Person A still has an asset (the money), but Person B has none. No wealth has been created.

The creation of money is tied to a change in state of a property right from valuable to neutral.

If Person A elects to hoard the proceeds of the house sale, then Person B cannot repay the debt, because there is no pathway for the created money to be reunited with the created anti-money (debt).

Chiralkine contracts work like mortgage contracts, but there is no intermediary bank, and they are symmetric as between the buyer and seller. If the seller hoards the sales proceeds, breaching the contract, then the ownership of the house can flip from the neutral state to the buyer.

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 09:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So person A has to 'spend' instead of hoarding.

But what if person A doesn't want to spend? What if they already have a house, or are happy with the house they have, and can't actually think of what to do with (say) the equivalent of £250,000 that a house costs.

And what if person B wants to move somewhere more desirable, but can't find someone who wants to swap a house for a contract?

You're basically forcing people to trade at gun-point or trade exclusively with their peers, removing the element of choice of when to trade from them.

You seem to be pathologically unable to understand any of the implications of these exchanges beyond the immediate one-transaction apples-for-oranges effect of one person 'buying' and the other person 'selling.'

Everything beyond that remains a complete mystery to you - one you don't appear to have any interest in thinking about.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 10:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Symmetry imposes constraints on a system, whether these constraints are liked or not.

When Person B is buying a house from Person A using a mortgage loan, the only things that change are the frames of reference of the observers. The system still consists of two people and one house.

The libertarian "freedoms" that you identify as desirable can arise only when money is being created faster than it is being redeemed, which is unsustainable.

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 10:26:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
TBG as libertarian? I never thought I'd live to see the day.

<head, desk>

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 11:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've just been hiding it really, really well.

Sorry.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 11:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<duck, grouse>

But, seriously the arguments against chiralkine are libertarian. The maths is closed.

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 11:43:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When Person B is buying a house from Person A using a mortgage loan, the only things that change are the frames of reference of the observers.

Also, one person moves somewhere else - often to another house, as it happens - and someone else moves in.

But I expect that's just a libertarian detail, so you feel justified in dismissing it with an airy brainwave and never thinking about it again, eh?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 11:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The symmetry constraints apply however big the system is. You libertarians want it all to be however you want. It cannot be!!!
by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 11:45:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So suggesting that it might not be a good idea to force people to immediately 'spend' proceeds from a house sale makes someone a libertarian.

OK. Whatever.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 12:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes it does make you a libertarian, actually. The ownership of the house cannot be transferred to the purchaser until credit and debt equal in amount to that created have been redeemed. Only a libertarian would dream that it could be handled otherwise.
by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So - I buy a house. But I can't move until I've redeemed etc.

Meanwhile, I'm also trying to sell a house. But I can't move out - and let someone else move in - until redeemed etc.

So everyone has to 'spend' all proceeds immediately, or the entire chain collapses - for whatever value of 'immediately' works here. (Is everyone supposed to complete at the same second? Really? And if not - haven't you just created a different kind of credit/debt?)

Now - explain to everyone, using the dictionary definition of libertarian, and not some personal made up definition of the word that you have invented and only you know the meaning of, how you plan to solve this problem.

I mean in practice, not using some vague hand-wavey meaningless bullshit like 'the maths is closed.'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are describing a system of your own invention and then criticising it. Your system is nonsensical, but what is the point of you going through this exercise other than to place on public record your closet libertarian tendencies?

The maths in a chiralkine system is closed. The R and L units have to be redeemed according to the contract under which they are created, not left hanging while some libertarian makes up his mind about what would be nice to do on Tuesday afternoon if its not raining too hard. A system based on ever rising property prices and hoarded credits is unsustainable. It crashes, over and over again, and then people lose their homes and their jobs!

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about or what anyone else is saying. Please stop now.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At least someone is honest enough to say they don't understand!
by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 02:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have you ever tried to move house?

You realise that people can't just decide 'Right, today's the day' for all kinds of practical reasons that have nothing to do with politics?

But no - Martin Hay declares that all contracts must be redeemed immediately, and in full.

And if people can't move at a time of his system's choosing and immediately redeem all their credits, while also finding time to redecorate and move the furniture around, they're just... libertarians.

You know what? You're absolutely barking.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 02:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you have declared that, not me. Contracts having immediate redemption dates are your invention, not mine. Redemption dates are agreed by all parties when they enter into chiralkine contracts to create R and L units.

If there are no contracts binding pairs of issuers of currency (credit and debt) to redeem it, then trade in real things becomes imbalanced. This is the situation we have today, and it is creating terrible tension.

Exchange needs to be based on mutual credit/debt. The accounting system used needs to track the creation and redemption of currency. When currency is redeemed, trade has been circular, as in A>B>C>D>E>A.  

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 02:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope.

The ownership of the house cannot be transferred to the purchaser until credit and debt equal in amount to that created have been redeemed.

So, in your own words, you don't get to move until everything balances, or the existing owner generously decides to move out so you can move in - which is obviously not risky at all.

And if you have a surplus, you have to find someone to trade with before you can close out all contracts to an equivalent value, no matter how inconvenient or impossible that is.

This is your system. You invented it. Don't blame anyone else if it doesn't make sense.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 04:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where in my "own words" does it say anything about people moving? Once again you try to dress up your words as mine.

Lax editorial control of this thread greatly diminishes its value. People can make misleading and abusive statements without any accountability.

Peer review is extremely important in getting ideas sharpened and tested. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that this is not the place to get that.

by martinahay on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 02:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lax editorial control of this thread greatly diminishes its value.
Now you're asking for censorship?
Peer review is extremely important in getting ideas sharpened and tested.
You are being subjected to stringent peer review, and failing miserably
Any reasonable person would have to conclude that this is not the place to get that.
I Bwa-hahahaha in your general direction. This blog is an excellent place for peer review.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 03:19:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm using your replies to my questions.

The fact that you haven't thought through the ways in which your scheme fails to deal with real everyday situations is your issue, not anyone else's.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 06:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Be careful what you wish for: tighter editorial control would not be likely to go well for you.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 06:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some ET commentators present ideas of their own as if they are those of the person who started a thread, then identify flaws in those ideas and conclude with a personal attack on the originator of the thread. There needs to be some discipline imposed, so that people who try to play this game are held accountable for what they say. It is all too easy to hide behind an alias and emit abuse.

Insightful criticism is welcome, as it exposes flaws much earlier than would otherwise happen. If a project is going to fail, it is best for it to fail as soon as possible. I have seen some very good examples of that kind of criticism in this thread, and I have greatly appreciated it.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some[Weasel Words] ET commentators present ideas of their own as if they are those of the person who started a thread,[Citation Needed] then identify flaws in those ideas and conclude with a personal attack[Doggerel #44] on the originator[Majestic Third Person] of the thread. There needs to be some discipline imposed, so that people who try to play this game are held accountable for what they say.[RTFM Failure] It is all too easy to hide behind an alias and emit abuse.

Insightful criticism is welcome

But apparently not welcomed.

as it exposes flaws much earlier than would otherwise happen. If a project is going to fail, it is best for it to fail as soon as possible.

Indeed.

I have seen some[Weasel Words] very good examples of that kind of criticism in this thread, and I have greatly appreciated it.[Citation Needed]

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 07:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes it does make you a libertarian, actually. The ownership of the house cannot be transferred to the purchaser until credit and debt equal in amount to that created have been redeemed. Only a libertarian would dream that it could be handled otherwise.
by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Go and sin no more, libertarian!
by IM on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When Person B is buying a house from Person A using a mortgage loan, the only things that change are the frames of reference of the observers.

We need a [(User's) Abuse of Jargon TechnologyTM] macro...

The libertarian "freedoms" that you identify as desirable

... a [Dinnae Think It Means What You Think It Means Alert]...

can arise only when money is being created faster than it is being redeemed, which is unsustainable.

... and a [Loanable Funds Fallacy Alert] macro.

May I suggest Sokal, PrincessBride and Hayek as macro codes?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We actually practise the daisy-chain exchange in rentals up here.

Since rentals are price controlled and not nearly enough has been built in the bigger cities to handle the slow but ongoing relocation from the countryside, a rental contract in Stockholm is valuable. But from time to time people need to move. In smaller cities that has a surplus of (mostly public owned) rentals, the surplus and a queue system to settle access is enough. In the bigger cities that the queues are not moving much.

However, while a rental contract may not be sold, it may be traded for another rental contract. So in Stockholm these 3-4 step long daisy-chain is set up. For example 2-3 steps of people wanting to move to an apartment with one more room then they have plus one pensioner wanting to move from a big apartment to a small one. It is complicated, frustrating and often falls to pieces. Not recommended.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 03:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Houses sales in England also take place in chains, and this is highly stressful when you have to take part, because the chains are always breaking.

With chiralkine R and L units, the trades do not all have to be set up together. The accounting ensures that the end result is A>B>C>D>E>A, but the trades could be A>B, E>A, D>E, etc.

It would be interesting to test whether Stockholm renters might be better served using a chiralkine system in place of their daisy chain. I think the system could also be applied to house swaps, trading football players, etc. The point is, you do not need money to swap things, just an accounting system that keeps the trade circular.

by martinahay on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 03:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
Houses sales in England also take place in chains, and this is highly stressful when you have to take part, because the chains are always breaking.

With chiralkine R and L units, the trades do not all have to be set up together. The accounting ensures that the end result is A>B>C>D>E>A, but the trades could be A>B, E>A, D>E, etc.

But the daisy chain is a result of the lack of surplus capacity.

To put it in your terms, each person involved needs to at all times have a place to live, which means a home that is (mine, not yours). There is also a rule that you can not have more then one that is (mine, not yours). That is why daisy-chains in Stockholm are put up, not because of a desire to have it even out in teh end, put in order for everybody involved to have a roof over their head and somewhere to put their stuff every single day.

Keeping houses in a middle state makes the lack of surplus worse.

martinahay:

It would be interesting to test whether Stockholm renters might be better served using a chiralkine system in place of their daisy chain. I think the system could also be applied to house swaps, trading football players, etc. The point is, you do not need money to swap things, just an accounting system that keeps the trade circular.

If you are swapping things, you don't need an accounting system that keeps trade circular. The fact that you are swapping makes the trade circular.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 02:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When you say "swapping", do you mean exchange as in barter? Exchange under a chiralkine system is different from barter.

I have in mind that A contracts to give his rental contract to B, B to C and C to A, or an arrangement involving more people, as for example in A>B>C>D>E>A. Each person buys and sells a rental contract. I do not see the need for a surplus of properties.

People could trade A>B>C>D>E>A if they had access to appropriate accounting and contracts.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:14:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Swapping as in exchanging one apartmetn for another, yes.

If there is no surplus they can not execute any exchanges until the whole chain is complete (if there is a surplus, each can exchange with the surplus keeper, in a small Swedish town that would be the public housing company. Then no daisy chain is necessary).

martinahay:

I have in mind that A contracts to give his rental contract to B, B to C and C to A, or an arrangement involving more people, as for example in A>B>C>D>E>A. Each person buys and sells a rental contract. I do not see the need for a surplus of properties.

People could trade A>B>C>D>E>A if they had access to appropriate accounting and contracts.

Sure, this is what is happening in Stockholm. Though I have not seen any need for accounting or contracts to set up the chains, people simlpy get together and conclude that A wants B's apartment and will be willing to assist B in finding an appropriate C (or D or E) to finish the swaps. There are websites to facilitate this.

But back to my point, this is frustrating because of the double coincidence of wants problem, which still exists when you bring in more people. And if finding the last piece of the chains becomes complicated then for a number of reasons one or more participants can withdraw. And if the idea of Chiralkine accounting is to force the whole chain of exchanges to be complete before physical exchanges takes place, then that will be as frustrating.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you have is a state where what people want to trade out and what people want to trade in are different. As best you can, you want to get to the state where the two are the same.

It is extremely difficult to solve this problem through barter, because of the double co-incidence of wants problem.

It can be possible to solve this problem using money.

Another way is to break the symmetry, so that you can have neutral rights created under contract. This enables people to buy and sell real things with real things. You have to give up the idea of credit as a standalone right in order to do this, and see credit and debt as circulating in counter-current, like two pairs of legs walking one body.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 05:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant to say like one pair of (two) legs walking one body.
by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 05:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The optimal system would be supported by a quantum computer that could test all possible exchange sequences at the same time, and pick out the most stable.

I have not tested the following idea yet, but I imagine that using chiralkine numbers, you could set up multiple potential trades and then select one. This could all be done online.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 05:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you can't test which apartments people are willing to trade for without actual people looking at them. So there is no point in a computer matching - quantum or otherwise - other then to create a rough first selection. But that already exists.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 06:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, simple either-or question: does your proposed trading system exchange the real goods (in this case apartments) (A) once all contracts has been entered into or (B) as each contract is entered into?

martinahay:

It can be possible to solve this problem using money.

Of course it can, but that is not allowed because it would allocate money based on land value. Which is what the rent control system is trying to avoid.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 07:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When R tokens are exchanged for L tokens, a property right moves from the hand of A to the hand of B. When R and L tokens are created, a property right is held by the hands of A and B, and it remains there until the R and L tokens are redeemed.

When a property right changes hands, so can possession.

When a property right is held in two hands, possession can change hands only provisionally. If there is a default, the property right can end up with A or B, depending on the facts. With a mortgage, possession changes hands provisionally.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 03:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
When R and L tokens are created, a property right is held by the hands of A and B, and it remains there until the R and L tokens are redeemed.

So if A and B are part of a chain of swaps of homes, then the deal isn't final until the tokens are redeemed.

martinahay:

When a property right is held in two hands, possession can change hands only provisionally.

Since moving isn't something you want to do provisionally, most will want to wait for the exchange to be settled before moving.

So far, this does look in different from what happens today with swapping apartments in Stockholm. Probably not that different from buying houses either if the market is tight enough that each person can only move as part of such a chain.

martinahay:

If there is a default, the property right can end up with A or B, depending on the facts.

Now here is a difference. In the other examples if the chain falls through everybody keeps what they have, they stay put. Frustration over lost work, but that is it. But if the Chiralkine units are not redeemed, and the chain is not closed, then the property rights in it are held by both parties to each contract, which can get ugly. In addition to the frustration of course.

So I fail to see any advantage. Best case it is just like today, worst case you get messy legal proceedings to sort out who owns what in collapsed chains.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 04:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let us step back a bit, to remind ourselves what we are trying to achieve with the logic.

In exchange, everyone has a gift they can give to another, but will only do this if they trust that they will receive a gift in return. I wish it were different, but thousands of years of trading for money tokens has marginalised the gift economy. It seems as if the more monetised society becomes, the less willing people are to give gifts.

People exchange gifts until what they have to give as gifts is the same as what they want to receive as gifts.  

There is a paradox about exchange, which money appears to solve.

In a monetary system, one person has to initiate gift exchange. They exchange a gift for money (nothing).

In a chiralkine system, two people initiate a cycle of gift exchange by agreeing as a pair to trade in balance with everyone else. They start out not by one giving a gift to the other in return for a token, but by undertaking that they will each give and receive gifts in balance, one of which will be from one of them to the other right at the end of the cycle of exchange. If one of them is in default, then the other must make good on that default. These two people need to trust one another: moving everyone through the cycle of exchange depends upon this trust.

In the case of trades in rental contracts, two people have to commit to one another that each will ensure that the other will have one rental contract, not zero or two. This commitment breaks the symmetry, and allows everyone to exchange.

by martinahay on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 06:08:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a monetary system, one person has to initiate gift exchange. They exchange a gift for money (nothing).

No, that's not what happens at all.

When I exchange money for bread, I get a loaf of bread, and the storekeeper gets to not have the local group of armed men beat him over the head and take his bread. I end up with bread, he ends up with not being beaten up by the local group of armed men. That latter is not nothing, it is a very real benefit.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 08:14:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the several occasions that I have been held up at gunpoint, the gunman has wanted money, not bread.

Theft is redistribution without mutual consent. Tax is legalised theft, but you should at least have a vote on its collection and use. The important question is, does the voting system empower you to reject all the alternatives that you are being offered.

Taxes are unavoidable, but a moneyless bakery is likely to be a safer place to work in than one with a cash register.  

You cannot steal R and L units in a chiralkine system. The records contain a complete history of how they are exchanged.

The six state logic of a chiralkine system could address your fundamental concern about the misuse of power. It does integrate means of exchange, property rights, taxation and voting in one logical system.

by martinahay on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 09:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the several occasions that I have been held up at gunpoint, the gunman has wanted money, not bread.

Actually, what they probably wanted was to not be beaten over the head by some other chap for not paying their debts.

Which is what makes money valuable: You can use it to settle debts without getting your legs broken.

The six state logic of a chiralkine system could address your fundamental concern about the misuse of power.

Then why haven't you done so?

(Spoiler for the peanut gallery: He hasn't done so because the causality flows from power to accounting, not the other way around.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 01:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When you move in a co-ordinated manner, not falling over, is your brain asserting power or control over your skeletal musculature? What is the nature of the signal that passes through the network between your brain and musculature? Is it binary (1 or 0), ternary (+1, -1 or 0) or something else? Is it the same as or different from the signal that passes through a network connecting one person with another?

I think you are too quick to assume that human behaviour can be explained in terms of cause and effect, and that the choice of signal type used by people to exchange information about economic relationships (accounting/voting system) is irrelevant.

by martinahay on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 04:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Everything you just wrote is obfuscatory, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, worthy of a deconstructionist post-modern literature critic.

As it happens, I do know how both the central and limbic nervous systems transmit signals. But since that has no bearing whatever on the question at hand, I'll not derail the discussion further by attempting to remedy the deficiencies of your education in vertebrate biology.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This article, published in plosone on Aug 30, teaches away from your position and is consistent with interpreting the tool, money in terms of the co-ordination of movement.

"Shared Brain Lateralization Patterns in Language and Acheulean Stone Tool Production: A Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound Study"

by martinahay on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 09:51:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No it doesn't.

Actually, make that "no it doesn't, dumbass."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See also: Crackpot Index.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
In the case of trades in rental contracts, two people have to commit to one another that each will ensure that the other will have one rental contract, not zero or two. This commitment breaks the symmetry, and allows everyone to exchange.

But they can already exchange. As I described it earlier:

A swedish kind of death:

Though I have not seen any need for accounting or contracts to set up the chains, people simply get together and conclude that A wants B's apartment and will be willing to assist B in finding an appropriate C (or D or E) to finish the swaps. There are websites to facilitate this.

So there is no need for a Chiralkine contracts. It adds nothing positive that is not there already.

On the other hand, in the many cases where the chain is broken, because they failed to find the persons that would have closed the chain, having a mutual commitment that everyone should have one apartment is not very helpful. If you don't specify which apartment, maybe A and B would rather settle for the one B brought. Of course if you specify that if the deal can not go through, everyone keeps their original apartment then that problem is solved. But that just means that there is no difference between how the chain breaks currently and with Chiralkine contract.

So Chiralkine contracts in the best case adds nothing, and in the worst case adds problems. There is no advantage to using them here.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 03:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Chiralkine contracts reach out in two directions. A must sell to a third party and B must buy from a third party in order for A to buy and B to sell B's rental contract. A and B are bound to complete the transactions they make with third parties (who themselves must also be in chiralkine contracts). If only one of A and B makes a transaction, A and B must make one another whole. There will be another defaulting pair in a mirror situation.
by martinahay on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 04:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And by assuming away the coordination problem we have now shown that the coordination problem does not exist.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 04:48:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
martinahay:
There will be another defaulting pair in a mirror situation.

Fine, I'll correct. But it doesn't help your case.

On the other hand, in the many cases where the chain is broken, because they failed to find the persons that would have closed the chain, having a mutual commitment that everyone should have one apartment is not very helpful. If you don't specify which apartment, maybe A and B would rather settle for the one B brought. And C and D would rather settle for the one D brought. Of course if you specify that if the deal can not go through, everyone keeps their original apartment then that problem is solved. But that just means that there is no difference between how the chain breaks currently and with Chiralkine contract.

So Chiralkine contracts in the best case adds nothing, and in the worst case adds problems. There is no advantage to using them here.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 04:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are talking about effecting a rearrangement in the distribution of rental contracts amongst members of a group by performing a rotation. We have to identify the members of the group and the rearrangement that yields a more stable outcome, then drive the rotation. With a quantum computer, you could simultaneously test all possible rearrangements, and identify that which yields the most stable state.

I have in mind that pairs of people in a group of rental contract owners would enter into chiralkine contracts, enabling each pair member in one contract to irreversibly transfer to or receive from a pair member in another contract a rental contract. Once the transfers have all taken place, the chiralkine contracts can be closed.

I imagine that there would be some sort of exchange organisation, with rules of membership, that would oversee the setting up and performance of the chiralkine contracts and transfers.

A key difference from barter and from money is that renters neither swap contracts nor exchange contracts for money (and hence have to risk completely letting go of a contract).

by martinahay on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 09:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are talking about effecting a rearrangement in the distribution of rental contracts amongst members of a group by performing a rotation. We have to identify the members of the group and the rearrangement that yields a more stable outcome, then drive the rotation. With a quantum computer, you could simultaneously test all possible rearrangements, and identify that which yields the most stable state.

Only in the fairie tale where the quantum computer has complete and truthful information about the preferences of the members.

Since humans don't have well-defined preferences, nevermind perfectly complete and truthful information on the preferences of other humans, no amount of computing power will help you.

(Also, any practical rental-swapping circle is simple enough that you can just brute-force the problem, without needing a quantum computer. Which is bleedingly obvious to anybody who isn't a case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have stated:

"Only in the fairie tale where the quantum computer has complete and truthful information about the preferences of the members."

This sentence reveals how you think, which is in single numbers/words and paradox (absolutes). If you think in this way, in terms of true (1) and false (0), you encounter paradox. You have to deal with the paradox by invoking "fairie tales".

If instead you choose to think in terms of word pairs, or number pairs (relatives), then you can extend your thinking power. When thinking in word pairs or number pairs, you can entertain superpositions, for example (true, false).

Chiralkine systems are based on pairs of word or number pairs, giving rise to six logical states. For example, (1,0) paired with (0,1) is (1,0,0,1), which can be mapped to unspent credit held by a person in an exchange. Somewhere in the exchange, there will be another person in state (0,1,1,0), which is unspent debt.

While it can be reassuring to believe in absolutes, the human brain cannot be working that way. The brain codes everything relative to everything else. The brain co-ordinates the relative positions of the skeletal muscle antagonist pairs in their contraction/relaxation cycles.

I see on the BBC today an article on a demonstration of a human brain-brain interface. One person imagines moving a finger, and another does it.

One of the next big innovations coming will be in economic exchange signalled between people through a network using a signal like that which passes between the brain and the musculature (or now directly from one person's brain to another's musculature1). It will be a chiral signal, not a simple true/false binary signal.

by martinahay on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 06:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 07:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 07:18:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am quite intimately familiar with wave optics, thank you very much.

Now please explain, in your own words, what a Fresnel spot is and why it is interesting, or shut the fuck up and spare us your ignorant blather.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 02:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If a state could only respond to itself (self reference), then no distinction could be drawn between two states different from itself. For example, a positive state could respond to a positive state, but not to a negative state or a neutral state. The concept "anti-positive" cannot be used to distinguish between the negative and neutral states. You can think about a negative state in the same way. The concept "anti-negative" cannot be used to distinguish between a positive and a neutral state.

If both a positive state and a negative state were observing together, then a distinction could be drawn between charged and neutral states. The positive charge state and the negative charge state would respond differently (1) to a charged state, but the same (0) to a neutral state.

The point I am making here, in my own words as you expressly requested, is that there is a benefit to thinking in word pairs rather than single words. The three single words: positive, negative and neutral can be replaced with the four word pairs: positive, not negative; not positive, negative; not positive, not negative; and positive, negative.

 

by martinahay on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 03:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why only pairs? Why not triplets? Arbitrary vectors?  
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 04:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a very important question.

Mathematical equations are structured as pairs separated by an equals sign. We think in pairs.
Our account of the world about us is built up from distinctions drawn between two alternatives (is and not).

With a mathematical equation, take f = ma for an example, it is as if each of the symbols f (force), mass (m) and acceleration (a) contains a hidden (imaginary) quality of each of the others. If we change one side of the equation, say f, then the other side (ma) must transform to keep the balance. The m part of the ma cannot transform independently of the a part, in the sense that the product of m and a must always be f.

I would like to invite you now to take a look at the specification for my first patent application. You can find it on the chiralkine website, or go to this site and open the original document.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012069776

You will see that the specification describes a game in which players make moves made up of two opposite parts, as if they are each changing both sides of a mathematical equation. The specification relates these moves to changes in rights and obligations.

The game is very easy to play. You could make up the tokens and board using scissors, a couple of marker pens and some cardboard.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 03:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The point I am making here, in my own words as you expressly requested,

Are you an idiot, are you arrogant or do you just have a crippling reading comprehension problem?

I told you to demonstrate basic knowledge of wave optics before you attempt to invoke it in support of your crackpot idea. Not to go off on a repetitive tangent where you demonstrate the utter lack of substance, usefulness or originality of your crackpot idea.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 05:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Phew, now I know the problem was not me having a short fuse...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 06:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Throughout this thread, I have stayed on point, repeatedly bringing the discussion back to the observations made by Chris Cook about the representation of economic states as word and number pairs, and about contracts. I have had to navigate through holy grail hunts, oxen with curly horns, antichrist symbolism, Swedish rental contracts, controlling against Ponzi schemes, matrix representation of positive and negative numbers, . . . . .

If you are serious about wanting to understand what I am working on, please try the two-player game described on our website and also described in the patent application I have linked to in response to Coleman's latest post. You will see how each player uses two tokens to change the states in two token spaces. You will discover how complex patterns build up from simple pairwise changes. There are six states in the game, and they correspond with exchanging 1's and 0's (pairwise exchange) in a four number (w, x, y, z) where two of w, x, y and z are 1 and two are 0.

I can see that there is an aufbau (periodic table) for rights and obligations, and it is the same as for the co-ordination of movement. I am trying to figure it out.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 03:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clue: we do understand it.

We understand it better than you understand it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 04:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You believe you do, but you are too lazy to prove it.
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 04:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I should just repeat myself over and over.

Because I'm sure that would help.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 05:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is what you have been doing all the time, like a broken record!
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 05:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In conventional board games, for example chess, MONOPOLY, draughts, etc, each player has one kind of token that they play for themselves. For example in chess, one player uses white tokens and the other black tokens. In each move, a player uses one kind of token to play for "me".

In the chiralkine game, a player uses one token to play for "me" and another token to play for "you". The effects of the two tokens add to zero: they have mirror opposite functions. Nevertheless, a game develops having both competitive and collaborative aspects.

The economy is a game. It is played with one token (money/credit). It could be played with two (credit and debt).  

by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 06:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And which token are you?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 07:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is the point! Two tokens function as one, like two legs walk one body. It is an error to attribute functionality to credit as if it is an independent token. Let go of the idea that there are absolutes that can be walled up in silos, and accept that things that appear independent from one perspective transform together (as one) from another.
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 07:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, I'm done.

Whether you know it or not you're just trolling for negative attention, and I refuse to waste my time giving you any more.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was very thoughtful of you to try to give me this gift that you call negative attention, but what exactly was this negative thing that you were trying to give me? What is the difference between giving a person a negative thing and giving yourself a positive thing?
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 01:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The economy is a game. It is played with one token (money/credit). It could be played with two (credit and debt).

You poor, dumb fool. You still don't get it.

The economy is indeed a game. But it's not played with tokens.

It's played with bullets.

As the Greek collaboration government may find out to its considerable discomfort within the foreseeable future.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The economy predates the invention of bullets? Are you using the word bullet as a token to represent technology? If so, money is technology that predates bullets.
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which part of the present tense is it that you find confusing?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 01:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Throughout this thread, I have stayed on point,

No, you have been repeatedly going off on irrelevant tangents which did nothing but expose your ignorance of number theory, quantum mechanics, wave optics, vector algebra, and sundry other subjects.

repeatedly bringing the discussion back to the observations

Translation: Backpedaling from irrelevant tangents when it became clear that there are people on this site who understand the fields you were butchering for ill-begotten analogies, and who were unimpressed with your command of those fields.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Question 1: What do you think of yourself?
Question 2: Was that a fair assessment?
Question 3: Which of you was right?
by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A1: I think I'm entitled to clear, simple, straightforward, honest answers from you, rather than obfuscatory bullshit.
A2: Yes.
A3: There's only one of me. If there's more than one of you, well that might explain a thing or two about this thread. If so, I feel obliged to point out that going off your medication can be bad for you.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 12:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The three questions were crafted to keep the discussion on point.

There is only one of you, and yet you can have an opinion about yourself. There is a paradox here.

I have no problem with paradox. It disappears when you change your frame of reference. I can measure the circumference of a circle in steps, and I can measure the radius of a circle in steps, but I cannot do both. I can divide (n + 1) by n and raise this fraction to any power of n, but I cannot make an even number odd.

You can continue to believe that the elements from which you construct your account of your world are independent, and pretend that paradox is not real, or you can accept that the elements are interrelated, and integrate paradox into your account.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 01:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find it more probable that you have no problem with paradox because you fail to grasp elementary formal logic.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 11th, 2013 at 01:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The three questions were crafted to keep the discussion on point.

There is only one of you, and yet you can have an opinion about yourself. There is a paradox here.

Not for the first time in this discussion you resort to sophistry in place of bona-fide argumentation.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 13th, 2013 at 06:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What lies on the boundary between "sophistry" and "bona-fide argumentation"?

In a system based on a neuron firing (1) or not (0), how would you distinguish between "sophistry", "bona-fide argumentation" and the boundary between them?

Lactic acid is chiral. It comes in two optically active forms, commonly known as (R) and (S). The two forms rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions. Water containing a 1:1 mixture of the two forms has the same effect on plane polarised light as water that contains neither of them (0:0).

by martinahay on Sat Sep 14th, 2013 at 04:07:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what lies on the boundary, but you're well off to one side of it.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 14th, 2013 at 04:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Houses sales in England also take place in chains, and this is highly stressful when you have to take part, because the chains are always breaking.
So adopt teh Scottish system and be done with it.

For those fortunate enough not to have any idea what Martin Haywire BS (Oxen) is going on about "chains", see Gazumping.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 06:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, the ownership state is not the same when a lien is attached.

I understand the implications of a lien. In fact, I understand them well enough that I can tell that you don't understand them well enough that you have any business peddling a contract framework.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 5th, 2013 at 01:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, I'm not sure why you insist in assuming that the Chiralkine economy coexists with a regular money economy. What would be the point of that?

The point would be that people have real money readily available when they decide this whole nutbag system is useless.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 03:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Drawing a distinction between "real" and imaginary" money is like drawing a distinction between true and false gods. It is also off point, because there is no token in a chiralkine system that functions as real or imaginary money.

Sometimes the gods the majority of people believe in appear to turn nasty. They do not respond to the appropriate rituals performed by the high priests. Elves become trolls, even when given the "right" tributes. Under these circumstances, it can prove advantageous that some people have taken a risk to try to develop a diversity of alternative belief systems that might be usable as back-ups.

When someone is trying to develop a new idea, it can be very helpful to receive critical review, because this can reveal design flaws, certain of which might turn out to be fatal. However, high priests who can see things only in terms of real and false gods are not likely to be of much help, because they are too heavily invested in the system from which their power is derived.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:00:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drawing a distinction between "real" and imaginary" money is like drawing a distinction between true and false gods.

Setting aside the fact that I'm an atheist and think all gods are false, your "god" sucks.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 07:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True and false are the only possible logical states if you are thinking in a single number system (1 or 0). You are constrained to think of yourself as either an atheist (1) or not (0) if you restrict your thinking in this way.

If you are thinking in number pairs, there are four logical states: true, not false (1,0); not true, false (0,1); true, false (1,1) and not true, not false (0,0).

Money is conceived thinking in a single number system, like religion.

by martinahay on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 02:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you are thinking in number pairs, there are four logical states: true, not false (1,0); not true, false (0,1); true, false (1,1) and not true, not false (0,0).

Wow, so you've discovered combinatorial composition. I'm impressed.

You're still operating in a completely Boolean system, though.

I'll give you a free tip: Don't yammer about number systems if you haven't mastered basic continuous probability theory. It makes you look like a crank.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 08:13:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chiralkine is a six state logic system. It is based on four numbers, two of which are 1 and two of which are 0. These numbers behave as pairs of number pairs. There are no negative numbers in a chiralkine system, nor a singular zero that lies on a boundary between the positive and negative numbers. The states form pairs, each pair together being a boundary between other states.
by martinahay on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 09:59:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drawing a distinction between "real" and imaginary" money is like drawing a distinction between true and false gods. [Doggerel #25] It is also off point, because there is no token in a chiralkine [Crackpot Index #14] system that functions as real or imaginary money. [Crackpot Index #3,5]

Sometimes the gods the majority of people believe in [Doggerel #25,88,123] appear to turn nasty. They do not respond to the appropriate rituals performed by the high priests. Elves become trolls, even when given the "right" tributes. Under these circumstances, it can prove advantageous that some people have taken a risk to try to develop a diversity of alternative belief systems that might be usable as back-ups. [Doggerel #201,203]

When someone is trying to develop a new idea, it can be very helpful to receive critical review, because this can reveal design flaws, certain of which might turn out to be fatal. However, high priests [Doggerel #22,28a, Crackpot #33,35] who can see things only in terms of real and false gods [Doggerel #4,5,25] are not likely to be of much help, because they are too heavily invested in the system from which their power is derived.[Doggerel #24,43, Crackpot #34]

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 07:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If every R and L unit has, encoded into it, it's origin and transactions story, then would you not need to check that history before giving or receiving such a token?   Each token being unique, and entangled in its own set of obligations and counter obligations, it thus must be traded as a unique item.  It seems to me as if this would make every single transaction incredibly time consuming, as both parties would either need to open a new contract and create new tokens, or carefully scrutinize the tokens they have and their history to agree upon their value in terms of the goods and/or services on offer.

So, just thinking about it, lets imagine that I enter into new contracts for my daily purchases. And these are all digital, so the information is properly tracked and coded.

In the morning I go to Starbucks, and get a cup of coffee.  So I'd get a token from Starbucks. L tokens, right?

Then I go to work, where I teach for 8 hours.  I get 8 tokens, one for each hour. I guess these would be R tokens. Or would they be broken down by the minute?  How exactly would at work.

So, lets say I go to the conscience store and get some snacks and a drink. More L tokens. Would I want to use one of my labor R tokens to pay?  Well, they know Im a teacher, as they can read the origin in my token.  So, is my teacher labor token worth as much as a CFO labor token?  Would the employee at the market have to make that decision? Would one minute of my time be worth two snickers bars, or only one?  How on earth would such assessments be made?

by Zwackus on Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 09:39:46 PM EST
An economy based upon chiralkine (four number) accounting could look very different from a modern money-based economy. It might not be dominated by large corporations like Starbucks and Mars.

When you and millions of others each spend a dollar buying a coffee or chocolate snack, the dollars tend to aggregate into blocks and move about as such. There is nothing to make Starbucks or Mars buy teaching services from you, or anything from any of their other customers. There is no pathway for the dollars that Starbucks and Mars received to find their way back to each of their customers, so that the trade between the corporations and their customers is in balance. New dollars have to be created all the time (and counterpart debt) in order to sustain the flow of dollars into Mars and Starbucks. This is unsustainable.  

If you and millions of others were to trade with Mars and Starbucks using chiralkine accounting, then these giant corporations would have to start to view you as trading partners. Either they would buy teaching services from you, or they would have to give you the coffees and snacks for free. In a chiralkine economy, you would buy real things with real things, and you sell real things for real things. You would buy coffees with teaching, and Mars would buy teaching with coffees.

Chiralkine (four number) accounting is more complex than double entry bookkeeping, but only the people running it need to understand how to do it. Users simply need to know how much unspent R or L is in their account, which tells them what they need to do on their side to set their contracts up for closure. Thus, if you have unspent R, you buy something and now have spent L. if you have unspent L, you sell something and then you have spent R. The bookkeepers track the spent L and spent R until the contracts are closed. It is this behind the scenes activity that ensures that trade is balanced.

by martinahay on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 03:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see how this would work in even a complicated local economy unless tokens were somehow quantifiable in an abstract sense, so that they could be used as a measure of value.  Which would make them money

You have repeatedly said that there is no abstract unit of value in your Chiralkine system, only the direct exchange of goods for goods.  And, you have said that the origination and transaction information of every token would be recorded in the token.  So, ever token is effectively unique, as it represents part of the value of the particular exchange in which it was created.

As every token is unique, and not denominated according to an abstract set of value, I simply can't imagine how ordinary commerce in a complex economy can take place.  Yeah, you can make it work in ridiculous examples of abstract individuals exchanging fruit, but simply running through the transactions I make every day as a service worker in a suburban environment, I don't see how it can work unless L and R tokens are of a standardized value and are effectively generic, but we've already worked out in the rest of the thread that they do not represent value but goods, and are unique in nature.  So, simply keeping track of my supply of R and L tokens is not enough, as each one of them would represent a different amount of value in a particular good or service which may or may not be acceptable in any particular transaction with any particular vendor, local or not.

by Zwackus on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 06:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The R and L tokens are not a store of value, in the sense that they do not represent a property right in something imaginary that can be exchanged for a property right in something real. However, they are units of account, so in this sense they have a measurable value. Trading partners decide on the value to be assigned to each transaction.

In a monetary system, a single token is given as real goods or services are received. The act of handing over the token flips the property right in the real thing being traded from mine, not yours to not mine, yours. In a chiralkine system, an R token is given as real goods or services AND an L token are received. Thus neither the R token nor the L token is a store of value. The act of exchanging the tokens flips the property right in the real thing being traded from mine, not yours to not mine, yours.

In a monetary system, a (credit) token can be handed over to a person irrespective of whether or not they are in debt. It remains a credit token as it hops from person to person until it reaches a person in debt, when it is cancelled. In a chiralkine system, an R token can only be handed over to a person with an L token. When the R and L tokens are exchanged, they both become spent - used up. However, they are not cancelled until the pair of traders that created them redeem them.  

by martinahay on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 10:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So everyone can create tokens, in any transaction, worth any amount.

So, I think my teaching is worth a lot.  When he pays me, my boss doesn't have to worry about his cash on hand, but rather can simply create new tokens to pay me.  I demand a salary of $1,000,000 a year, and my boss agrees without hesitation, because the newly created tokens don't have any effect on his cash flow.

How would this lead to anything other than immediate hyperinflation?

by Zwackus on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 02:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See this subthread on unlimited credit creation, and this subthread on enforcement.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 03:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, I thought I might be pointing out the same problem, but I wasn't sure.
by Zwackus on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 04:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you'll have greater luck getting an answer to the question...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 6th, 2013 at 09:07:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Institute for New Economic Thinking: Understanding Money: Free Course Produced by the Institute for New Economic Thinking! (September 2, 2013)
This course introduces students to what I call the "money view" of the modern global economy, which builds on the intellectual traditions of British central banking and American institutionalism. The last three or four decades have seen a remarkable evolution in the institutions that comprise the modern monetary system. As a result, we need a similar evolution in the analytical apparatus and theories that we use to understand that system. But economics has failed to adapt. 

This became evident during the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, a watershed event for economists all over the world because most didn't see it coming, didn't know what to do about it when it came, and didn't know how to change economics afterward. For me, by contrast, it was the beginning of a new career because the "money view" that I had been developing seemed to be precisely the approach needed to make sense of the crisis.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 02:00:32 AM EST
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 07:35:54 AM EST
What lies on the boundary between good (+1) and evil (-1): nothing (0).

666 and 999 (-1) and (+1)
696 and 969 Nothing (0)

111 and 000
010 and 101

1100 and 0011
1010 and 0101
1001 and 0110

by martinahay on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 08:18:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My apologies. I should have left comment N° 666 to you, you're much better at it.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 08:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Modern belief systems are based on three numbers, like 666. The three numbers map to an oppositional pair such as +1 and -1 or right and left and an (absent) boundary between them [(0)]. The boundary (0) can be viewed as a superposition of the two members of the oppositional pair (+1, -1) and (not +1, not -1). It is easier to picture this in terms of the left and right sides of the face, and the middle.

Thus, picture right is (right, not left) (1,0); left is (not right, left) (0,1); the middle is equivalently (right, left) (1,1) and (not right, not left) (0,0). If you now stop thinking in terms of the oppositional pair right, left, a second oppositional pair emerges from the middle (front and back) and the first oppositional pair collapses into a boundary between them.

Our current exchange and tax systems are based on three numbers (credit, debt and balance). Our current voting system is based on three numbers (for, against, abstain). We always privilege one member of an oppositional pair over the other, and treat nothing (0) as a singularity. Our current voting system does not permit us to signal that we reject the left/right oppositional pair and want to replace it, e.g. with front/back.

I do not think that the human body works in three numbers like +, - and 0. The three number signalling system that we have adopted for exchanging information between us does not work properly, because it is not how the brain and musculature exchange information to enable co-ordinated movement.

by martinahay on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 09:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Modern belief systems are based on three numbers, like 666. The three numbers map to an oppositional pair such as +1 and -1 or right and left and an (absent) boundary between them [(0)]. The boundary (0) can be viewed as a superposition of the two members of the oppositional pair (+1, -1) and (not +1, not -1). It is easier to picture this in terms of the left and right sides of the face, and the middle.
Oh deary me...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 06:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by martinahay on Mon Sep 16th, 2013 at 04:25:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

This diary has gone way over the top (and out at the side) in number of comments. It is no longer offering constructive discussion.

Comments closed.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Sep 16th, 2013 at 05:53:49 AM EST


Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries