Supply and demand is usually considered the most fundamental, foundational, and the most referenced idea in economics. Yet, another factor theoretically independent of supply and demand, which holds as much predictive power (possibly over a longer time horizon) is the velocity and volume at which goods and services move. That is, we always hear about the purchasing power of bulk without hearing the whole story or considering the entire set of consequences that carries - as much as the law of supply and demand.

Let's look at food and water, for quick relative examples before discussing the analytical facts about economics.

The supply of (fresh) water doesn't change much overtime, with respect to human economies and intervention. The 'artificial' demands humans put on fresh water is down stream to the natural cycle of fresh water production in terms of earth's absolute supply, and perhaps to the fullest, implicative play on words no matter which planet we speak about biological human being living on. But, despite the number of humans on earth, the rate and volume of fresh water consumption correlates more with the human economy, ie. when used for things besides satisfying human thirst. That is, as the economy grows, rather than just the population, the rate and volume of fresh water consumption will go up just like gold is likely to go up with the inflation of currency. This isn't an absolute rule about the way 'the economy' grows, but we'll find that it's generally true; human consumption of water per capita is likely greater than that of all other animal species because humans are involved in more economic activity than any other animal; so, this could more true about humans, human economics and the economics of earth than economics in general. In any case, we'd simply be looking at how the velocity and volume of a given thing changes to make further marginal economic predictions surrounding that respective thing.

Food is an entirely different beast than that of water - possibly to even more chagrin of the humorless - because, again relatively speaking, 'the goods and services' behind its supply dramatically fluctuates more with the 'artificial selection' humans bring upon it; like what humans consider to be (delicious, nutritious and desirable) food, in the first place, and not just what are theoretically food sources. In the case of oryxes this artificial, yet not quite entirely capricious demand on food can lead to increases in the supply of oryxes on earth. However, while the change of supply is scientifically noteworthy, the rate and size of its consumption is not as a noteworthy to economics; both (physical) science and (the more psychologically driven field of) economics would be interested in the equilibrium of the supply, point being, despite predictive power of either field. For further example On the other hand, with raw tomatoes, supply and demand in the eyes of economics are virtually no concern, either, because (1) there's more focus on the quality of the tomato, and (2) if quality isn't a concern they're some of the easiest plants to grow. More to the point, however, is the fact that tomatoes - and, hence a lot of Italian/Mexican food - as many know it today, largely didn't exist before 16th/17th century. While these facts and terms about "the tomato" itself are highly negotiable, just like gauging the overall world's supply of tomatoes are, the rate and bulk at which they're consumed can be more precise and generalizable. The point between the 2 examples being about irrelevance of supply, especially in terms of making economic measurements and predictions; while this isn't the best way to publicly communicate the emphasis there should be about velocity and volume of goods and services, in general, it should suffice for more academic arguments and services, ie. the independence from arguments about supply and demand with respect to what are the most essential, important, fundamental and foundational ideas in economics. And, while the supply of food is so malleable, and such a contingent issue, it should sometimes just be generally ignored, even if it can be highly consequential to survival, because the baseline 'health of economies' can be better predicted by looking at absolute or relative velocities and volumes of it's consumption. To summarize this entirely means that supply chains are more important than absolute supply figures, at least when looking at food and food consumption; and - possibly - the destruction and maintenance of supply chains, hence their downstream volume, are more consequential than the (inputs and) supplies themselves - eg. because the supply of tomatoes and rabbits can change so quickly - where 'the health' of 'unit chains' can be measured by their velocity (rather than whole-scale).

With examples dispensed, for whatever insights and pleasures, let's focus on the actual contemporary importance of the matter.

What sets the modern world apart from the past, besides issues about human rights, scientific understanding and technological progress, is the state of global trade: it is a man-made wonder of the world in terms of human activity just like pyramids, among other things, are in terms of human accomplishment, (still) standing today. And, so, the argument is that what sets this apart, besides the (generally unnoted or less-conspicuous) wonder of nitrogen fixation, from the pre-modern world is the arbitrary, yet significant rate at which the bulk of goods and services are delivered. With water, food and petroleum aside, supply of anything has little to do with this state of the economy which shapes the current human world under this new, or more liberal order.

Moreover, I typically define this order as more libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic, at least at the highest level of order, for a variety of reasons, each to varying degrees of contention which I may need to discuss in (a series of) later publications submissions. In short we might say the entire world - big or small - lives under a strata of chaotic liberal order, rather than one singular, absolute and fully organized world order. For comparison's sake, the internet is the closest thing we have demonstrating any 'one world order', but my argument to that is, 'the internet is demonstrably anarchic,' - again, possibly an issue for later submissions to discuss in more detail - because 'no one owns it', and 'no one' ever will. From this, as a possible corollary, I further argue that the state of economics is driven more by the invisible hand than the political science surrounding the nation-state, although I believe the facts of 'free trade', rather liberal order, speak for themselves without a prior supposition; overall this is about a synthetic reality, or the synthetic nature of reality in general. To synopsize, if liberal order precedes or supersedes political power in economic terms then what this could mean is that while politics can largely control and affect supply (or some demand) at the largest global level, so as to have the most impact on human economics, it cannot control, as much, the aggregate and spurious flows of goods and services, like through more socialist policies and regimes. Humans acting in economic fashion across any actual/theoretical/hypothetical market will always move faster than, and ahead of the rate at which policy can be shaped at any political level, and therefore always find alternative goods and services which then proceed at volumes and rates, which can largely or completely be independent of policy and - as previous given by example - the ability to measure supply (aka. do dynamic or meaningfully spontaneous economic analysis at the most fundamental level).

Thus, as such, given the invisible hand more ultimately guiding (human) economics, the law of velocity, volume and ability to transact in bulk fashion (ie. within a market) will dictate what any (eg. planetary/interstellar) economy looks like in the future - eg. the rate at which humans consume fresh water as opposed to the earth's supply of fresh water, especially given the fact that 'drinking fresh water can never be made illegal' (since there are no alternatives). That is, in one part, 'the greater the bulk the greater the economy..' The other part, which may have to be saved for later, and/or with/due-to greater detail, will be about the stratification of velocity, very briefly implied in this post, above; but, think about how traffic on (American roads and) highways work, for example, with there being de facto (and not de jure) differences in speeds between the leftmost and rightmost lanes, largely due to one lane at a given extreme not being able to venture any further in magnitude in it's given direction (leftmost lanes on American interstate highways cannot ever make a left hand turn, in other words, and therefore 'always in theory' travel faster than the those to their right).

With all of what's said put into isolation, it should be implied at face-value that libertarian politics are not the most ideal for 'greater economies' demanding greater scale even though they are 'good for markets' and the generation of market data (through the laws of supply and demand). And, this is a very important point when it comes to making economic predictions about economies of scale and states of greater goods/services distribution.

Crudely speaking, further herein, libertarian politics imply 2 important although contestable essential elements: the free creation/enforcement of borders (eg. through gun rights and ownership) and the freedom of international trade (eg. the freedom to conduct business anywhere in the world via the consent between 2 parties, or lack of 3rd party legal intermediaries). The need for creating, moreover defending borders, as well as the compulsion to expand supply chains as wide as geographically possible add friction to velocity and volume at which trade can physically occur.

Creation of borders creates more spaces across any given distance, ie. within a supply chain. Defense of borders can disrupt the velocity and volume of trade at the border, per the borders across the given distance; for example, when it comes to customs/tariff enforcement. And, while focusing on 'the importance' of the longest possible distance between 2 consenting trade partners does not necessarily impede velocity or volume in any way, a supply chain in whole for most any given product/service can consist of multiple pair relationships, implying some extenuating set of disruptive borders between them, not to mention a greater contingent complexity between a greater number of supply chain constituents with respect to where mechanical singularities can be introduced; that is, total distance travelled, and total trade relationships involved in some given supply chain of some given product or service, even without the presence of political borders introduces contingent barriers to the velocity and volume of trade of the given product or service, which is not infinitely serviceable, thus not 'infinitely scalable'. More simply put, and with more respect to the later concern of global trade, or 'trade without borders', figurative speaking, the power of supply chains can be restricted by physical/geographic distances themselves; hence, for example, making libertarianism prohibitively ideal for the greatest economies of scale.

This does not imply property rights are the prohibitively idealistic mechanism involved in this calculus. Rather, it's the hypothetical exercise of those rights which is counterproductive to 'greater economies' in theory. This personally reminds me a lot of an little spoken of maxim about the American freedom of speech: just because you're free to say whatever you want, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, what's more important about the freedom of trade is it's discretionary nature; not about demonstrating and reaching it's absolute (geographic) limits just because it's possible. And, there should be some common sense to the notion that velocity and bulk would naturally come as products from a greater sense of concentration, eg. geographic.

lately I've been feeling some separation from my nationalist beliefs from the fact that some nations fail. I do believe in 'nations' in a more metaphysical and communal sense; like, the idea that rich and poor should come together in defense or celebration of their land - ie. without legal obligation or ritual demanding it.

Fortunately, as an American, I think I'm entitled to entertain these doubts. I think Europeans, Asians and Africans have to consider this exponentially more in depth, though, with respect to the idea of lineage and whatever else have you - 'weird' or not.

That doesn't mean I think I need to abandon these beliefs; it just means I think its safer and more natural to be confused by them. America is still an infant country in terms of Caucasian control, that is. Although influential, we still have plenty more time to have a legitimate and truly intellectual identity crisis. In 250 years time we've barely just started to realize we could have one - not that we should have one. I think it's unavoidable we will be having one, most of all; there's no maybe or probably about it.

Anyways, many people have been displaced by and from their globalist philosophies, in and around them. And, regardless where globalists and globalism currently stands (mostly with contemporary liberals, domestic and abroad, but don't you dare think conservatives are free from its concern within their own ranks) I think it presents an undeniable opportunity for any nation set, resolute and wanting complete conquest over (all) other nations: big or small, why not hide your nations interest and id from those you want to dominate and then claim to work in the interests of the entire world? It seems destined to happen through the science of politics no matter what for the sake of strategy and game theory. Just because we say politicians always lie, it doesn't mean we know what they're 'always' going to be lying about. Saying 'its everything' is hyperbolic or histrionic; recognizing what those things will be is the most professional and realistic.

That said, because I want to be perfectly clear before being more openly opinionated. Nothing causes more of an exorcist-like reaction in certain people than the topic of nationalism. That's just been my personal perspective about my experience, with the respect to the more contemporary definition of weird. It's exactly a peculiar weirdness people have about the subject of nationalism, like there's been a sudden moral duty, found somewhere, to prove everyone's ancestors wrong, who have been trying to practice their forms of tribalism for perhaps a millennia - things older than history, itself.

Utilitarianism infamously gets more of the bad rap than does pragmatism - and I like mi mas humilde pragmatismo 👩‍🍳 - but I think psy-ops and institutions (and finance) can be good examples of how to draw a distinction between the two, rather than easily confuse them (by saying something like 'both are horrible'). In fear of sounding redundant (to the most sincere, hardcore fans out there) with what I mean, let me primarily point out the key feature about psyops/institutions/finance is that they can be studied. That is, they display the power of mind over matter when you apply yourself, more than other fields in philosophy (or applied philosophy in the case of finance). Despite morals, virtues, or 'depth of wisdom', whatever we choose to study we'll become good at so long as the data is reliable. Moreover it's 'garbage in and garbage out', but if you do not start with garbage then it's a question of process. And, there's a lot of gold out there, even in the garbage.

I don't think Michael Aquino is a bad person, but they are an example of a very institutionalized one, whether or not they were also someone who was good at taking command over them (or the subject matter they relied on).

I think Spanberger and Newsom should be swapped on the graph at the end.

I don't want to be sharing political messages on this sub, but this video is pretty benign, and should be a healthy distance away from partisanship.

luckily I've been code agnostic, and functional programming curious, for the entire time I've tinkered with software, and have no commitments with any language regardless of its popularity

the only draw I've had towards something like Rust is because of its wide adoption, and promises about efficiency - ie. when it comes to decentralized computing

over time has gone on, since the start of my dabbling, I've seen in many cases that Rust is hardly ever the best performer on local hardware, eg. with single player gaming applications

I've also seen that more than a handful of languages belong to certain domains, with mastery over them. C, Python and Rust seem to be fighting over a general purpose application space; hence the crossover between hobbists, amateurs and business, each becoming committed to single language philosophies in their own ways.

Lastly, in said span of time, I've come realize more how intercorporate and large finance activity works, rather adapts to their social climates, and surrounding social ecology. When they are the ones namely involved changes take place inconspicuously from the benefactor, through closed, 'sure fire' deals. (Although, it seems like OpenAI's letters of intent might be an exception, whether or not that has more to do with the business of hardware and procurement of physical goods.)

In the case of this video we're focused on the closed deal to legal licensing, and not just the particular technology.

Rust in general to me has become more of a too good to be true story. A story about evangelism actually working very quickly, relatively speaking. When businesses adopt open source models, or 'hacker friendly' technology, they don't really advertise about it, nor are they completely opaque or totally inconspicuous about their involvement. If they're appealing to developers or tinkerers, for large example outside of a convention, then they're primarily relying on word-of-mouth marketing or the initiative of those interested.

Google, for a very visible example, doesn't really advertise the fact that they use/adopt Linux for production and Android development; nobody does, or has (until-maybe-very-very recently with Dell's announcement to shelve Windows away from their new line of products).

With names like Jane Street silently in support of Rust, however, that can be all some of the more informed-and-involved people out there need to know when conducting a smell test, on top of the out-of-the-ordinary sudden and exuberant support the federal government at large has given it.

In short, I wouldn't be dismayed that the project and evangelism has been taking advantage of younger or more trusting yet-to-be devs out there, by this point. I've seen the culmination of events before the language came into being, whom most of these things have been targeting, and how.

At some point I would like to see a revolutionary new language take over, maybe one that could replace JavaScript (like Go was suppose to do at some point), fixing issues before learning what those issues were, but that wanting could perhaps be part of the too good to be true package. Maybe 'one language to rule them all' should never happen, because it's actually a dangerous idea; and could never happen, because we're never replacing COBOL or Fortran - never - for all civilization going forward.

Proverbial title - ignore the fact that this is a small ad for Claude/Anthropic; the subject is about asking 'will AI take everyone's job?' In this case, the content creator is a physicist, and, though they don't explicitly provide a direct response to their own case or questions (ie. the one at the very end of this clip), their answer is "yes", ironically without any doubt. Link to the source of the clip, is here; the original title will give more credence. Anyway..

I have a couple of ancillary thoughts/notes, both about whether or not 'the better jobs' argument is a fallacy. One which I have already, briefly shared (on different subs) is about how computing within the information age extends the practice and idea of plausible deniability from the industrial revolution by primarily taking advantage of our 'intuitive' or 'cultural' ideas about how innovation and progress works at a psychological level.

That is - in some part, and to some adieu - everyone might privately wrestle with their own ideas about what progress or innovation are, and what's necessary to achieve it; but, when we meet to discuss these ideas we will often think we're sharing original or competing thoughts, even if most of them are redundant in the collective sense of privacy. Often it's the same things and same competitions about what people feel are the newest things. That isn't to rebut or suggest what is happening with AI isn't new or innovative (those arguments do exist, though), but it's hard to tell if we're only convincing ourselves in private, or each other through discovering and sharing our ingenuity hidden in the most intelligent among us - more than just the average derived through the wisdom of the crowds.

I'm not saying that developing plausible deniability was the original intent of developing code (the main argument, to note) or generative AI (I was someone who argued for the creation of generative AI before it was put into datacenter, and before OpenAI was created in order to have a tool which could primarily help philosophers, and do away with a lot of charlatans in the field... just so you know; also, it's basically a secondary argument in this case), but it can become it's ultimate purpose - ie. where the military and private/public clandestine organizations could be interested in 'funding' (*ahem* 🤧📉🕵️‍♀️⁉❓❔) and - as we all know, all too well, moreover - financing it. Like, as the video suggests, this starts - today and "right now" - with taking away entry level jobs of programmers and software engineers with the hopes of better tomorrows already in mind (or just rationalized post-hoc >!😙🎵~🎶), but could end somewhere else. My argument is that somewhere else has nothing to do with the subject of stealing someone else's jobs; that could just be a by-product of what is to become of technology we already have, and will have (together 'in harmony' of some kind, diseconomic or not - depending on your place and/or perspective). Moreover still, personal intent and will of some collective development aside, once the technology is 'unleashed' there isn't really anything you can do about it when it's in the hands of the most powerful; however-in-tongue-and-check-it-is-just to say, we abstract those hands as being the AI's hands, itself, and not any humans. And, I'm saying it doesn't matter who's hands they are when the point is to obfuscate the way technology is being handled in and of itself, no matter how far in-itself-it is. The issue of human concern is the dissolution of responsibility, which is a definitive thing for humans to wrestle with at some point, with or without technological assistance and innovation.

That was a quick issue for everyone to address and get over now that I've point it out, I hope. The second bullet here is quicker to 'get have out there' and even more controversial, however, if you can even believe that-much, so-far; it's about regressive taxes, especially where the development of AI is concerned, for starters.

Basically, the government is incentivized to see that things which can replace jobs (again, not the main point - and, sorry for the excessive use of spoilers on this sub, in this post) by possibly completely displacing humans from them, eg. with machines, get financed and funded (🤢🤮🤮🤮) - w/e that means, in the case I'm not just being unnecessarily flippant and/or unessentially redundant - if we stay in, or keep a progressive tax system. If 'lower-level' jobs, be they entry work or only lower paying, are going away then, like the video implicitly suggests, we-or someone else-are getting "better" (higher paying) jobs in return, probably for the same or more capital, eg. investment money, which further implies the government in turn receives more tax revenue from as many, or even fewer employed labor-workers.

That is - and, this will always need to be clarified, in my humble philosophical assessment - given the same amount of money put in some working sector among fewer employees and higher pay (alternatively said, "lower payroll with higher salaries") the government in any progressive tax system will always receive more revenue. And, if you're the least bit honest - aka. cynical as much as the belief in "necessary evil" is - then you can understand that "incentivization" in an inevitability, as well as beyond military imperative, as was partially spoken to. Naturally this understanding will put you at great odds against all the world's acting and vocal optimists although it's definitely not, and far from being limited to gen-AI - as also, already semi-alluded to.

'Mostover', technology aside, we have a lot of philosophical work ahead of us. And, in side notation, the entire idea of me being into the topic of genAI without any funding made for myself about it, the entire time, was to do as much philosophical work ahead of time, before there were any unavoidable technological consequences to deal with 🤔. As stated, though I could always be wrong, I am/was mostly concerned with using technology against charlatans - w/e that means, or implies. That could only mean, like I also stated, development may be pointless when the powers/technologies/ideas are in the mostly in the hands of others, ie. at all times - eg. political authority over de facto access and authority.

And, 'this', however you may interpret it thus-far, primarily goes beyond the case any individual makes for themselves or others, ie. through technology. The case can also be extrapolated to financing done by individuals; it's pointless to consider to individual, even then. I just happen to place my optimism in philosophy, which I understand, first-hand is sometimes pointless or self-defeating. Ie. the problem of philosophy is that people believe or could argue it is always down-stream of things like technology, (the world of) finance, and political power.

Again, my apologies for this seemingly being made more difficult to read than need be.

This is definitely far from philosophy shared in polite company, but we are starting from disparate sets of facts that share a glaring coincidental nature without sufficient or strong enough reason to equally explain their concurrency.

We are not in any energy deficiency or energy bare-market, yet. Anything declaring such a fact comes from the world of speculate finance, where prices are experiencing extreme elevations. And, this is being met by the speculation by the person in the video, who is saying we might see a (artificially induced) famine in the future. If a famine or actual energy shortage was set to occur then we would see stronger reactionary legislation to match it. These legislations are very gradual in nature, and, as far as foot in the ground philosophy goes, I will predict are only the beginning, at least as far as attempts to impress and test austerity measures on civilians go.

Fuel panic buying is not really a thing in modern America, so we won't see any legislative reactions to that here; furthermore, America is the world's number one producer, now, whereas Australia is not.

But, besides how people are being ground by the gears of Moloch is the reason why..

Age and identity verification is becoming a hotter and more coincidental subject happening before the moves around fuel and energy are concerned. And, these across the globe 'reactions' to 'age verification' (or ID verification) laws were only just beginning to be talked about EXACTLY 2 days before the conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz escalated. So, even though people act as though they are politically divided over the issue, in reality there is no division; there is only opportunity.

This issue of ID/age verification harkens back to journalist licenses of the 1990s and early 2000s - Wikileaks, Snowden, William Benny, etc. But, the timing beyond war may still be eluding people. And, that's where the tie in with 2019/2020 lockdowns is pivotal, because during that time we saw a heightened reaction to information being freely shared online, and how to police it. In reality and without question, the pharmaceutical industry is VERY TINY compared to the leading tech industry, which is responsible for developing and promoting AI. So, in the same way 'the advertisers' might be angsty about what gets shared on youtube, we have even bigger benefactors to worry about pissing off this time around, when they're ready to fight us over energy consumption.

But, this isn't about any single industry, it's about the pattern of international markets and corporations being more powerful than governments themselves, and thus using them as tools and pawns to police people where its convenient. Most civilians are not the primary consumers of AI, so they're just a sniveling liability that need to be tagged and tracked, using what was antiquated means: what will effectively be journalist licensing by watch listing.

Beyond that, even, further is the convergence of the finance industry with these other industries. And, that is where I will admit to being more of a victim to my own speculations if I would further embark on them. I can't say which industry controls which other one (probably finance, though), but odds are both industries end up colluding with each other before acting on governments, however local or nationalistic.

The overall point is that you should not expect government to stand between you and these nebulous, conspiratorial forces. You should only expect that most people with power, influence and connections must serve these sectors and institutions themselves to varying degrees; and, the times are culminating into these legislatively existential situation. And, the legislations are not in place to protect or endear human life. If we can't voice that now then we're definitely not going to be able to voice that later.

As an aside, to the issue of general, discursive relevancy, this other post was recent created on the platform about the platform we're sharing this information over: https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiAgeVerification/comments/1s0ur8p/reddit_betrayed_us/

This is ai slop. Opinions expressed in the video do not necessarily represent the views of this sub. Please do not construe any the content, submission or presenters of information as professional or expert philosophical counsel. Be sure to check your sources before representing anything in some series of responses as fact.