> Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> > Ah, so you are referring to a central banking
> > system as the point of central 'control'. This
> > is an accurate assessment.
>
> That would be one central point, but I was including other components
> of free-market systems.
True, but few others have such measurable, direct influence.
>
>
> > However, it is not apparent that this is a 'bad'
> > thing, at least not currently.
>
> It's what we've got, so it can't be that bad.
No its not. Possibly the most stable major system in the world. However, I
still curdle when I hear Mr Greenspan make some off the cuff remark and
the market reels in one direction or another in response. That is a bit
much authority, no matter how well he has demonstrated his competence to
weild it. Of course, most of this authority is merely intangible
psychological power, sort of a cult of personality that has developed as a
result of his good stewardship.
>
>
> > As the 1920's demonstrated, failing to impose
> > any form of negative feedback on a system
> > will cause that system to quickly cycleout
> > of control as any competent engineer can tell
> > you (like oversteer on a truck steering system).
>
> 'Out of control' isn't always such a 'bad' thing. BTW, roads are also
> centralist.
Currently, for the most part. In many states there are currently
privatization proposals for the major highways. I recall that one was
afoot a few years ago in Washington State. Recall that the original roads
in America were, in fact, private concerns.
>
>
> The system I was 'proposing' (yet another open network) doesn't really
> have "negative feedback" only positive feedback. I don't see how this
> can go 'out of control', since it has no specific place to go in the
> first place.
Thats my point. Any system with only positive feedback will tend to cycle
out of control. "out of control" being economic cycles that, over time,
occilate into things like huge Boom and Bust cycles. Contrary to the
statements of Mr. Tal'se'hedrin, the boom of the 1920's and the Great
Depression were not caused by the Reserve system, as that system was not
in place until the Depression was well underway, though it is
understandable that with the pathetic economic knowledge of the time that
the Reserve systems initial steps to fix things only served to make things
worse. Since up to that point, economists were only familiar with measures
that induced positive feedback, it is natural that their first steps to
fix things made them worse, much like primitive western medicine. The
1920-1940 boom/bust cycle was the culmination of economic policies that
had been feeding on one another since the end of the civil war. Also
contrary to a previous poster's claims, the booms and busts of pre Reserve
decades, while shorter, were much more severe. The busts of the 1880's and
90's frequently put the majority of banks in existence out of business
permanently. With the non-existence of requirements for corporate
reporting, the stock market was frequently nothing but a great con game.
One of the scandals that fed the nervousness that caused the 1929 Crash
was the discovery of a large number of corporations which were nothing but
paper shells, in the style of the recent BRE-X scandal that hit the
Vancouver Exchange.
>
>
> [snip]
> > This sort of technology will also apply to your
> > proposals for "One True Open Network", in that
> > you will not need to keep constant surveillance of
> > everyone.
>
> I wouldn't call it "surveillance" because the information is recorded
> by the people for their own benefit.
Ah, like Mr. Halperin's devices from _The First Immortal_?
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?