The Searle Room is a thought experiment where we consider the effect of putting Searle in a room, and have him communicate with an observer familiar with Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment by slipping papers under the room door. The experiment shows that Searle does not possess consciousness because it demonstrates there is nothing Searle can say to the observer to convince them he is conscious.

@GeorgeMonty89 @LP70128850 @JuliaEMcCoy I am not suggesting anything. But if you believe that US has not started military actions for economic gains previously, or that the thing stopping China from sending troops to Taiwan is not the potential military escalation by US in response, I have a bridge to sell to you.

The current real-time value is not set by a committee, it reflects the actions of sellers. Sellers don't wait to see what the current inflation indicator is and then increase their prices. Sellers increase their prices, and then the current inflation indicator reflects the average increase. Of course, some sellers will be more aggressive and move first with an increase. But in an efficient market the average seller would adjust to the average price increase, which will then be reflected as the average inflation rate. To suggest that I would sell below the average increase of everyone else, suggests I am willfully not paying attention, and lag behind the average seller. That is not lack of information, that is being incompetent at utilizing the information that is already there available to you.

Because most stock investors make money through price arbitrage, and because public shares are not also the primary means of value exchange. You can't have price arbitrage for BTC if there is no other liquid asset to exchange for. But as a very concrete example - I know many people who were receiving comp at Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook that consisted of two parts - USD currency and company shares. Those that converted their shares immediately have seen on average less growth than those that saved their shares, but both had significant increase of wealth over time due to the constant stream of new shares. Either way, they both relied on their cash comp as the liquid asset for everyday spending. Now consider a world where they receive their comp in company shares only, and had to pay for everyday spending in company shares. Either the company shares will not increase in unit value, or their comp will be diminishing regularly, both creating a pressure to save as many shares as possible and minimizing spending.

"They didn't" is a fact. There are observable results. Why they didn't does not change that fact. "White people elsewhere sabotaged them" is a speculation bordering on conspiracy theory. Without proof, it is no more than an attempted removal of culpability. Unless you have proof, of course. Do you?

This is the gist of most objections to the age of abundance utopia fantasy. Not a single proponent of that future has even remotely reasonable story around the transition from today's society to that utopia.

@SirTobi718158 @JuliaEMcCoy What makes you think I will not be selling at market average increase or higher? What am I, stupid or incompetent? :-)

@SirTobi718158 @JuliaEMcCoy Nope. Inflation of 4% means you will pay at least $104 now.

That was an extreme example. But it demonstrates the issue with the idea of wealth growth based on unit value increase vs number of units increase. People saving means less units being spent on or invested in new production. You say people will buy food. That means people will have to forgo future value of that unit. So people will minimize their spending. If I know that two pizza now will cost me BTC 10000, but in fifteen years I will be able to buy 50 000 000 pizza for the same amount, I will minimize and delay my consumption as much as possible. I will not buy two pizzas, I will buy a sack of rice and eat it bland instead. There will be no market for pizzas. More than that, starting a business now for BTC 500000 of 100 pizzas, better mean the value of that business in 15 years is equivalent to 2 500 000 000 pizzas. And unless I have the BTC 50000 now, borrowing that money at 0% nominal interest for 15 years comes to an actual deflation adjusted interest rate of about 210% annually.

Except when other people currency becomes more valuable, there is less incentive for them to spend it to produce goods. You keep talking how everyone will have more valuable currency that they will somehow be able to exchange for more products. You never address the other side - who will want to invest money in a product now that will be bring back lot less money when sold?

@BeatGreatFilter @EthosVentures @JuliaEMcCoy And plenty of people want to have a private jet now, but for some reason they can't earn enough. So what happens when they have even less opportunities to earn?

In a world that ditched fiat, BTC is the only denomination, and any BTC growth can only be measured in comparison to goods and services. The opposite side to spending money on goods is spending money to produce goods for other people to spend money on. But when your money growth is based on the diminishing of the value of products that can be bought with it, investing money to produce goods that appreciate slower than the money you invested is a bad economic move. Some people might be willing to spend, but unless people are willing to spend now more money on a product that it cost someone to produce that product a year ago, there will not be a product for them to spend on.

AI/AGI productivity gains will come to the companies that own AI/AGI. UBI will come out of the government budget. So either the companies have to voluntarily give up their gains to the government for redistribution or the government has to seize those gains either through taxes or through force. Which one is more likely?

Deflation is actually really bad for economy. When money is guaranteed to become more valuable over time, people tend to keep it under their mattress (because putting it in the bank allows the bank to capture the majority of the increase value instead). Aside from the fact we don't have nearly enough physical money or mattresses for this to be feasible, it also means that the money available for value exchange in the economy is significantly decreased. And that decrease leads to inability for business to operate due to lack of liquid capital or willingness to invest the little capital they have into producing goods that will appreciate slower than money itself.

UBI is alleged path forward for societies that want to pretend they are based on free exchange of value, but with no way for individuals to have income to be able to exchange. The alternative is society where there exchange of value between individuals is barter-based, and everything else is directly handed by the government on a quota base. Not saying that alternative is necessarily better. But not saying UBI is better either.

The growth of your savings depends on two things: the value of a single unit you saved and the number of units you can save. Your savings come out of your salary. When your salary diminishes, your rate of saving diminishes accordingly. So you rely more on the increased value of the initial units you saved. But relying primarily on unit value increase is discouraging spending, as every unit spent represents substantial loss of future value. You know, like buying two pizzas for BTC 10000 fifteen years ago. Separately, in a world with fixed supply of units, saving one unit means one unit is taken out of the economy. Combining the these two factors begs the question - what happens when the cumulative savings around the world reach BTC 21 Mln. And the last factor - what makes you think that goods prices will also diminish over time? If I pay you BTC 1 to produce 1 unit of product, that unit cost me BTC 1 to produce, and selling it a year from now for less than that literally makes me poorer. But people don't buy my product with the money they saved from a year ago (because they need to keep their savings for increased value as per above), and they are not paid BTC 1 now (because their pay rate diminished as per above). So either there is inflation of products prices compared to labor cost, or there is significant decrease in production because it becomes a losing proposition.

@SirTobi718158 @JuliaEMcCoy Are you sure your hockey stick graph is due to the new money printing and not due to one or both of thirst hockey sticks? (I assume we can outright dismiss suggestions that Feds printing money is responsible for these as well)

@GeorgeMonty89 @LP70128850 @JuliaEMcCoy Huh. Too bad nobody told people back in the 20th century they could've just taxed stuff instead of having to wars... Of course, then you have situations like Ukraine when you want to increase your tax base so you can tax more, but the tax base is uncooperative.

@BeatGreatFilter @EthosVentures @JuliaEMcCoy Elon will care about UBI in short term as a way to stabilize the political and social situation for as long as he needs to establish the new sovereign nation of Mars he envisions.

@ChristianB32772 @JuliaEMcCoy Magic through the powers of friendship on blockchain.

The claim that Feds purposefully devalue money by "printing" (including virtual increase) more of it is somewhat misleading. The true inflationary force is humans. Humans need to eat, which represents constant destruction of economy value. In order to eat they have to exchange something else of value, and most humans can only offer labor. In an ideally balanced economy, humans will produce just as much labor value to exchange for the food and services value they need to destroy. In such ideal economy there is no inflation, and yet the economy grows because of the population growth. And if there is a population decline, there will be surplus of value produced for consumption, which will be offset by the reducing the supply of labor value until the surplus of food is destroyed. But in reality, businesses don't employ people only when people are hungry. Businesses want predictable and constant input of labor, at a rate higher than the current consumption so they can have surplus to meet growing demand for future value destruction. Because it takes time to produce the value that will be destroyed by consumption. So humans produce more and more labor value constantly. They are literally "printing" money. It is the one source of new value that you cannot stop or control easily (without violence). The Feds "printing" money is mostly catching up the supply of value representation with the supply of value. Which is why a fixed amount value representation like BTC cannot be ever the main means of value exchange. Because the only way a fixed supply of BTC can be exchanged for a growing supply of human labor is by constantly changing the exchange rate so that one unit of BTC keeps buying you more and more labor over time. In other words, BTC can be the main currency, only in a world where you salary is steadily decreasing year over year.