132
Everything we know, including me and you who are reading, are made of particles. But when the universe was born, the particles had no mass and were wandering aimlessly at the speed of light. Stars, planets, and what we call "life" were able to appear purely and exclusively because the particles acquired their own mass from a fundamental field associated with the "Higgs boson". The existence of this "mass donor" field was confirmed in 2012 when the particle called the "Higgs boson" was discovered at CERN
Standard Model of physics, developed in the early 1970s, has satisfactorily explained all experimental results and accurately predicted a large number of phenomena. The essence of the Standard Model states that the fundamental structure of matter, that is, everything that exists in the universe, is made up of a small number of building blocks called fundamental particles that are governed by four fundamental forces.
But the Standard Model was insufficient.
While the Standard Model provides a very good description of phenomena observed by experiments, it is still an incomplete theory. The problem is that the Standard Model cannot explain why some particles exist as they do.
Does this mean that the Standard Model is wrong?
No, but we need to go beyond the Standard Model in the same way that Einstein's Theory of Relativity extended Newton's laws of mechanics. Isaac Newton's laws of mechanics are not wrong, per se, but his theory only works as long as the velocity is much smaller than the speed of light. Einstein expanded Newtonian physics with his Theory of Relativity, which allows for the possibility of very high velocities. We will need to extend the Standard Model with something totally new in order to thoroughly explain mass, gravity, and other phenomena.
When do Newton's laws not apply?
Newton's laws do not work well for small particles, for example, the motions and forces between atoms, molecules, or electrons in an electric current cannot be explained by Newton's laws or they can not be examined accurately. Quantum mechanics is used instead of Newtonian mechanics to justify small-scale motion. Quantum mechanics predicts the motion of small particles much better than Newton's laws. Consequently, it can be said that Newton's laws have no application in quantum physics.
Physical scientists, accustomed to testing thousands of hypotheses before formulating a theory, have understood this process of the evolution of ideas, and for this reason, they continue to advance, getting a little closer to the truth -which still remains hidden- about where we come from and how we were created.
Interestingly, however, in these times, economists (I dare not call them scientists) continue to propose their dubious solutions with tools developed by Jean Baptiste SayAdam Smith, and other wise men more than 200 years ago. Since global education is also controlled by centralized corporations, I would not be surprised to think that there is not the slightest desire to change these ideas, and that is why they continue to be taught.
But the disruption caused by the sudden and unexpected appearance of blockchain technology is showing that what served to explain the functioning of markets controlled by corporations, no longer serves to explain the behavior of small particles (all of us) with precision, and the doubts are turning into nightmares for the international organizations that intend to continue manipulating the "freedom of the markets".
Jean Baptiste Say's “Law of Markets” establishes that the supply of a product or service creates the demand for that product or service. This philosopher wrote his book "Treatise on Political Economy" in 1803 and defended the idea that supply creates its own demand, and that economic agents must start with production before demanding products and services in the market. A memorable contribution of this philosopher was his ardent defense of the entrepreneur.
For his part, the egregious Adam Smith told us about an “invisible hand”. Adam Smith is a great author who not only devoted himself to economics but also dealt with many philosophical and humanistic issues, referring to morality. However, in economics, which is the subject in which he is recognized, he allowed himself to be guided by occult science, creating this myth of the invisible hand.
Smith obviously had no contact with the practice of market manipulation by monopolies and corporations, because otherwise, having such a highly developed mentality, he would not have believed in the invisible hands that manage free market economies.
Smith says with his metaphor, that there are "hidden forces" that move the free market economy. Individual interest and freedom of production and consumption promote the "best interest" of society as a whole. The constant interplay of individual pressures on supply and demand in the markets produces the "natural movement" of prices and trade flows.
The term "invisible hand" first appeared in Adam Smith's famous work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), to describe how free markets can incentivize individuals, acting in their own self-interest, to produce what is societally necessary.
Recently, the CEO of the world's largest food corporation made it clear that the global water supply will soon be under the control of corporations like the one he is an employee. He added that water "is not a human right" and that it has to be managed by business people and agencies that depend on governments. In other words, according to the criteria of this great man, water must be controlled and privatized.
Here is a clear example of what the capitalist system can do. I would especially like to hear Adam Smith's take on the invisible hand that guided this food industry employee, fulfilling his sacred mandate to grow shareholder returns. I think that instead of referring to the invisible hand, he would rather refer to the "black hand".
I would not want to be misunderstood. I am not denying Newton, Say, or Smith. I simply want to make it clear that their models are insufficient, and that they are intended for totally different contexts. Say would be especially sorry because he was a great defender of the entrepreneur. What is incredible to me is that still today many defend the fallacies of the free market based on Say and Smith, because simple observation in practice clearly shows that it is only free for large corporations.
I have only read excerpts from the books of these two sages, but I dare to say without fear of being wrong that no page mentions the concept of decentralization.
Our ancient sages never imagined a global economy dominated by 10 mega-corporations-country-states that manage the world agreeing on how to divide it up into monstrosities called G8, Davos, IMF, World Bank, and the like.
Our ancient wise men never imagined that the markets would operate 24/7. This quantitative change becomes a qualitative change that invalidates the invisible hands and the laws of the market.
Our ancient sages never imagined that suddenly a new technology would appear out of nowhere that allows (unfortunately at the moment in theory) anyone on the planet to operate from a device with an insignificant sum of money to operate in financial markets and change the rules of trading definitively. This thing that is humbly called Defi, for now in the hands of those same corporations that are affectionately called whales, also means a quantitative leap that has become a qualitative change. Neither Smith nor Say considered in their models that all the inhabitants of the planet could intervene in the markets and that each and every one of them would be able to mint coins by playing, walking, and watching videos, with which they would later be able to manage their own economies without asking anyone's permission, and without having to trust anyone to mediate in the process.
Nor did they imagine that there would be the possibility of trading with a currency that did not depend on governments or central banks. Does this alone no longer invalidate their models?
Hanseatic League, the forerunner of today's European Union, only had effect and monopoly power in a relatively small environment. The current “leagues” dominate the planet. The Hanseatic League surely prepared the intellectual ground for Say and Smith to propose their models. But the scale model is not valid for current times. The leagues are now made up not of nation-states, but of food, energy, pharmaceutical, arms, mass media, entertainment, textile, political, and union corporations, who don't want to hear or talk about free markets, even though their speeches seem like the champions of human rights.
We are in what physics calls the “n-body problem”. Newton's gravitational law works well when only two bodies are considered to interact with each other, being attracted by their gravitational forces. But it turns out that there is a lot more to the universe than just two bodies interacting with each other. Newton's model no longer works as soon as a third body is added, let alone if "n-bodies" are added to it.
That is why a quantitative change produces a qualitative change and it is no longer possible to continue thinking with the simple models of yesterday.
The models defended by capitalism, whether on the side of neoliberalism or on the side of socialism, have become totally obsolete, and only serve to be taught in universities to produce new gears that sustain them until they fall definitively under their own weight. The curious thing is that both systems claim to be antagonistic, when both exist thanks to the existence of a welfare state that distributes privileges, without which neither of the two systems could exist.
It should be quickly understood that we are facing a new class of assets that humanity had not known until now and that our economist ancestors did not even remotely dream of. Not even the closest ones like those belonging to the suddenly famous Austrian School, who base their models on a priori knowledge and not on experimentation. These assumptions should be reversed because the practice today shows a completely different scenario than what could be thought from the immaculate university senate, with the consequent conclusions that could only serve the corporations that love freedom so much. They love freedom so much that they come together and absorb each other so that no one can take it away from them.
For example, can we think with traditional economic models of the distributed energy production and consumption system proposed by platforms such as POWR and EWT? I don't think that Say and Smith could have conceived of a system like this, in which each person can self-supply a much-needed item simply by using the sun, the wind, and the tides.
Current economic relations are very similar to the Polkadot ecosystem created in 2020. Gavin Wood thought in economic terms to build his Layer 0, his parachains, and his relaychain. The economy is no longer a model that corporations use to monopolize power, but rather a bicycle wheel with spokes that work separately, coming together in a center that validates operations with a certain consensus protocol. All blockchains can be joined by Layer 0, and everyone can grow their respective activities, without depending on belonging to a single blockchain ecosystem and being able to interconnect with each other. It is on this model that we must think about the new economies. The freedom of the market is an anecdote that served a stage of humanity, but that is over. The quantitative became a qualitative problem. Civilization is experiencing a quantum leap since 2009.
If we don't weigh it this way, we're going to keep trying to apply Newton's laws to a system made up of more than three bodies, and we already know that doesn't work.
Conclusion
Many people still think that Bitcoin is not an asset, or, at any rate, that it is an asset not unlike a ticket to a rock band concert. Well, if they don't understand, I don't have time to explain. But I do warn them that if they continue to think with the economic models of the 19th century they will have serious problems in ending inequality (I assume this worries them), simply because those models were designed for a totally different civilization.
Thinking that the crypto sphere is not a space made up of new assets not known to humanity so far, is like thinking that Newton's gravitational model works very well for three or more bodies and that the mathematical solution will soon be found to prove it.
No school at the moment is rethinking the model from the roots, for the simple reason that the universities are backed by corporations that have not the slightest interest in changing the status quo. As long as independent entities do not emerge that propose the management of the economy from a perspective of the transfer of digital value and the interaction of all the inhabitants of the planet, we are going to continue studying the "immutable laws of the economy" that the masters of the past left us, and we are going to continue thinking that the market is the best way to organize production and consumption, with its disturbing invisible hand.
And sadly, we will be left without a Higgs boson in economics.
Thank you for reading! Decentralize yourselves as much as you can, and much more! Work for yourselves, not for others. When you work for someone else, they pay you what YOUR POSITION is worth, when you work for yourself, they pay you what YOU are worth. No one achieves financial independence by working as an employee. Live long and prosper!
As usual, none of the things written in this post are financial advice and are not intended to replace personal research. My sole intention in writing this post is informative. Several of the things discussed here could be wrong, so in no way can this post be construed as financial advice, and in no way should it replace your own research.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave them down below
You can also contact me at [email protected]
https://twitter.com/SirGerardThe1st
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerardosaporosi/
Follow my blog Anarchy: the Final Solution: https://gerardosaporosi.substack.com/
