click for complete infographic
topology of money
Source: Climateer Investing


click for ginormous infographic

Category: Currency, Digital Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

2 Responses to “Past, Present, and Future Money (Topologies, Powers, Trends)”

  1. RW says:

    Suitably futuristic but there are some significant gaps and a definition or two I would quarrel with; e.g., money is not confined to financial asset exchanges and saying a network is composed of interactions betweens technologies and individuals glosses the reality that some technologies possess agency and some individuals (depending on circumstance) don’t.

    Gaps and glosses are to be expected in a conceptual graphic naturally but when it comes to money the devil is in the details; e.g., how would counterparty risk be evaluated and priced in a “distributed” monetary system.

  2. Richard W. Kline says:

    While I find the graphic quite fascinating, I lean toward some of the same concerns raised by RW. More narrowly, the ‘Distributed’ modality as represented in the graph simply is not functionally accurate. You see, distributed systems don’t _stay_ distributed. This has been extensively modeled in work on self-organizing systems. Nodal primary values will accure from even slight differences in efficiency or location, to say nothing of individuals looking to maximize their own local toadstool. Nodal systems will acquire a ‘grain,’ and have primary values, even lock into de facto ‘centralized’ states. The only way to keep a distributed system distributed is to effectively buffer, i.e. penalize, nodes that are driving the system toward their own values. That takes a kind of agency external to the system—like regulation, say.

    And then too, de-centralized ‘systems’ aren’t often really functional as systems. That is, they don’t integrate results from across their nodes. They are local basins of effect with a limited spillover. They are highly inefficient from the standpoint of their global field of nodes. Although that may be a feature more than a bug, a de facto buffereing potential which limits ‘destabilization’ in said ‘system,’ i.e. change. What is most interesting about decentralized systems is often the buffering or noncommutability which _keeps_ them FROM centralizing.

    Still, the thinking behnd the chart is a nice starting point. There is nonetheless STILL no significant systemic thinking in economic analysis. Or historical analysis. Or political analysis. So far as I’ve been able to come across. It’s hard to do. And no one is really interested, because to think systemically one has to throw out almost everything one has ever been taught and told about how things work, and even what things _are_ and start from Observation One. And most folks are frankly far too lazy, and, yes, scared, to ever get near anything like that. That would get in the way of their inclinaton to put the pile on Red 00 on the big wheel and watch the thing spin for the win. Sez I.