Own Internet Real Estate

If you know Unix commands and can afford to rent your own servers, all of you should run their own:

You will need about 30 USD per month, to own all of this. For email and fediverse you only need to rent a 5$ per month server. But for matrix you will need a 20$ per month server.

For emails, .com emails do not go to SPAM easily if you configure it right, so you should IMO get a .com domain. For emails using mailinabox.email, you can create unlimited aliases. e.g. if your email is tada@example.com, you can also create paypal@example.com, and use it to sign up just for paypal. So all email from paypal and anyone paypal sells your email to will be sent to paypal@example.com, which you can then used filter emails.

For fediverse server and matrix server, disable registration.

Finally, do not use Google Cloud, AWS, Oracle, Digital Ocean, or Linode. I use vultr for hosting. Alibaba Cloud is also a good option.

Why fiat money created so much prosperity initially

Fiat money became so successful because it rewarded entrepreneurs with newly created money. Newly created money has yet to create inflation, so the holder of newly created money has an unfair advantage to buy everything cheaply before prices of everything goes up. If those people with unfair advantage are entrepreneurs then the economy grows, as they increase productivity, make everything cheap etc.

The commercial bankers decided if their balance sheet could accommodate the risk of newly creating money for such entrepreneurs and they took a small fee (interest) to cover the risk of default.

In case you didn’t know already bankers create new money when they issue new loans. Issuance is regulated by cash reserve ratio and other such regulations.

My solution to Newcomb’s Paradox


There is a reliable predictor, a player, and two boxes designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B, or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:

  1. Box A is clear, and always contains a visible $1,000.
  2. Box B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the predictor:
  • If the predictor has predicted the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing.
  • If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.

The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice.


If reliable predictor machines exist, then the player could buy the same reliable predictor machine on eBay, to see what the machine would predict about the player, and then just do what maximizes the reward.

If the reliable predictor machine I bought on eBay predicts I am a two boxer, I would pick two boxes, and get 1000$.

If the reliable predictor machine I bought on eBay predicts I am a one boxer, I would pick two boxes, and get 1001000$.

Either way I choose two boxes. I buy the reliable predictor machine anyway so as to create a credible threat.

Thoughts on Schrute Bucks and Stanley Nickels

Imagine if everyone could mint their own private currency. e.g. you have U-dollars and I have I-dollars. Then thanks to the internet imagine if we could barter these private dollars. e.g. to buy my labor pay me in I-dollars, which i pay to Uber to buy some burgers. Uber will sell these I-dollars to my employer which pays my salary in I-dollars.

Each individual can mint their own during emergency. The only downside is after an emergency mint, the price of burger in Uber will go up in I-dollars. But my agreement with my employer about how monthly I-dollars they pay me as salary will have to be renegotiated. Instead of my money running out in the regular sense, i will be constantly worried about the velocity of money i.e. how much i can collect back through labor to pay for burgers.

This is what governments are doing to each other. They also have a captive audience who are forced to use their G-dollars. But they have to make sure their money is circulated somewhere often enough so that they don’t have mint so much using their financial system.

Commercial banks under each govt mint their own private dollars during loan creation. A loan creates money as both an asset and a liability. It is an asset because it earns interest. It is a liability because now the bank owes the borrower loan capital which is a deposit under the borrowers account. Since assets and liabilities match up, there is no accounting problems.

But 1 Wells Fargo dollar = 1 Citibank dollar although both didnt exist until they were borrowed. (This is not the case with U-dollars and I-dollars).

Banks can only mint dollars like this in proportion to how much they have deposited in central banks. Central banks don’t create money directly it seems. They rely on commercial banks to create it either using loans or money multiplier effect.

Ideal institutions resistant to failure

The need for small teams of supreme intellectuals (Feynman, von Neumann tier) is paramount if a difficult challenge is to be overcome. Institutions predicated on extensive collaboration between large teams (like the EU/India) fail miserably due to the number of compromises that need to be made. Curtis Yarvin points to an alternative which is a top down monarchical authority capable of uniting a large team, however this doesn’t always work. Philip Tetlock puts forward a good argument as for why top down leadership isn’t always successful by alluding to the success of the Wehrmacht which possessed the mentality of decentralized decision making on the front lines to accelerate the rate of response to changes in plans, e.g. low ranked troops being able to hold top generals to scrutiny and pursue alternative methods of getting an objective done if real life circumstances deviated from pre-drawn plans – live updating if you will. The Wehrmacht was still fundamentally top down and hierarchical.

This can still be integrated into the top down approach wisely, for example tasking local jurisdictions with issuing x amount of vaccines by date y, giving them a rough outline of how it can by done, but letting them put together a small task force who can plan a response specific to the environment they are in, as a generalized approach will not be optimized perfectly.

Science has deeper problems. It is a prestige system, but now that there are fewer groundbreaking discoveries and far more scientists, there isn’t enough prestige to go around. You can’t just phone up Niels Bohr anymore, you’re left with his intern’s intern or whatever. Any old iq >140 person can learn all of these scientific facts, but they just don’t have the same disposition as Feynman, etc. There is a military paper talking about this problem of peacetime vs wartime generals. Basically, in peacetime you get a bunch of agreeable people who know how to please their superiors. These skills have no bearing on what a real general needs which is making calculated risks. Real generals will have lowly ranks (because they’re disagreeable people), and you need to spend the first part of any war finding them. I am interested to know if this helps explain why Israel produces high quality of science/tech.

A Nation is a group of people who have agreed to forget something in common

The identity of the nation exists as a belief about our shared history.

Americans believe that they won their independence from the British through conflict but the truth is that a certain political party among the British called the Whigs were pro-American because Americans were attempting to implement a Whig nation. This is similar to how the socialists in USA were against Vietnam war because Vietnam was trying to implement socialism. So some british generals like General Howe who was a Whig, let the Americans win their independence.

By 1890s the British empire, already knew it wouldn’t last. People like milners kindergarten planned to create the commonwealth and give independence to nations like India as early as 1911. But they had to train Indians in governance and then the world wars happened so indian independence was delayed until 1947.

It suffices to say most nations have a history like this. They tell themselves a myth of how they had to win fights that never happened with the same intensity as the myth.

3 theories of banking and 3 ways the right theory is implemented

There are 3 schools of thought on how banks work:

  1. Banks loan out deposits theory: Banks loan out deposits.
  2. Money multiplier fractional reserve banking theory: Initial money creation from say government spending gets reloaned, and redeposited until everyone owes each other more money than there was initially created. Cash reserve ratios set by central banks control how much reloaning happens.
  3. Credit creation theory: Means banks create money when loans are created. They record a loan as both an asset and liability. Bank ability to create loans is limited by how much risk they can carry in their balance sheets. Money multiplication also happens but initial money is created by banks when loans are created.

Data shows [1][2], Credit creation theory is the most dominant form of money creation. Credit creation can be done in 3 ways:

  • A. Banks create money (loans) to buy up assets (buy up land, real estate, stocks, bonds, crypto).
  • B. Banks create money (loans) to finance productive human activities (businesses that simplify human life)
  • C. Banks create money (loans) to increase consumption. (e.g. eating burger, going to movie)

C creates inflation. A creates asset bubbles. B creates economic growth (nominal GDP).

Many small banks are better than a few big banks because small banks do more B than A or C

Germany has the largest number small banks, which only loan to a small geographical area, and for B style purposes. Deng Xiao Peng went to Japan and imitated the pre-lost-decade small banks idea, by creating lots of small banks for productive human activities e.g. agriculture.

Central banks are wrong for making it harder for small banks to operate through Basel III, bailouts for bigger banks etc.

The original idea for Quantitative Easing (QE) works like this: It removes bad debt from bank balance sheets, and creates a “bank reserve” in an account at the central bank under the name of the member bank which cannot be used like currency in the real world to create inflation. Banks only use it to settle interbank liabilities.

Another part of QE that is not often implemented, stop issuing govt bonds (govt bond prices skyrocket), and then directly borrow from commercial banks so as to kick start credit creation. The direct debts owed by the govt to small banks cannot be bought and sold like the bonds.

Anything than be corrupted

Psychics are a fraud. And scientific method is definitely better at inching closer to truth and reality. However anything can be subverted. Lookup Lysenkoism or Nazi Eugenics. Can you be sure there is no equivalent in the current post-90s world order?

By definition, DPRK is democratic. By definition you can make anything be good. However even if your movement or method or ideology is called Do Gooders, you can still do evil, and still claim By definition, you are a Do Gooder. Anything can be corrupted including scientific method.

Sure, by definition, as a platonic ideal only present in your imagination, scientific method will forever inch closer to reality. But a practitioner of scientific method could tell you how research grants are given to hypothesis such that the resulting Publication Bias will favor confirming said hypotheses 3x more than the null hypothesis, or how that data mining bias for patterns not stated in the hypothesis, will create spurious p-values which can never be replicated a.k.a Reproducibility Crisis.

The next wave of charlatans and public deception could come from Scientists, creating a consensus which is wrong, but no one will be able to secure any research grants to investigate the contrarian view.

Examples: String Theory and Super-symmetry have failed to produce any experimental evidence. Higgs Boson is a prediction from the Standard model from the 1960s to 1970s. For the last ~50 years no new prediction in particle physics has been confirmed. Should we then write off String Theorists like Michio Kaku and Brian Greene as a fraud? Perhaps we should cut their funding. But we won’t because we will surely get evidence in the next multi-billion dollar particle accelerator.

The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.