All true, thanks for posting.
But isn’t it the practice of investment itself that should be questioned?
Why should such brilliant minds as yours be so focussed on something as mundane as money?
When we compare how we deal with money, with how we deal with energy, we might notice a distinct difference.
Building things that process energy requires that we focus mostly on the mechanisms of realtime energy conversion, the action of the “Engine” itself, rather than the various storages of energy that might need to reside in it, to allow continuous operation.
Dealing with investments, accounts, balances, and capital of all kinds, static amounts, is like dealing with only the stored energies in an engine.
The engine does not generate any value until it runs, that is what we are most interested in, so we have all kinds of physics based principles to analyse the action of the engine.
And what is stored money, if it isn’t the same as stored energy?
The two are exchanged in the markets.
It would be almost impossible to design and build any engine, never mind a good one, if we could only measure the stored energies in the system, and not the dynamics of the energy conversion.
And yet, that seems to be how we’ve tried to design economies to date.
The conceptual gap between accounting for only static values in the financial system, and the realisation of value in the physical world, is where the trickery happens, and where much energy is wasted dwelling on confusion, I would say, as a systems Engineer.
There might be a solution, bridging the two, removing all potential for confusion, and all of the ill that comes of the latter, right under our noses with Bitcoin.
More is here:
