Online Education: Movement for College Credits Gain Momentum

One of the main objections to online education has been in the aspect of credentials, i.e. it is not recognized by traditional universities and or colleges which makes them less appealing to prospective employers.

I’ve been saying that the deepening of information age will radically transform people’s lifestyle which should include education.

This will happen for many reasons; such as cost efficiency (more profitable), increasing network (more online graduates percolating the job markets will become future bosses, thus will likely decrease resistance; an estimated 4 million students are enrolled online in the US), better performance, greater specialization and or simply more tolerance for online graduates or a combination of all these and perhaps more unidentified factors.

In his defense essay at Cato Unbound on the online education debate, George Mason University Professor and Marginal Revolution blogger Alex Tabarrok (who along with colleague Professor Tyler Cowen has their own free online learning platform university called MR University)  notes of the other advantages:

1. Leverage of the best professors teaching more students.

2. Large time savings from less repetition in lectures (students in control of what to repeat) and from lower fixed costs (no need to drive to university). 

3. Greater flexibility in when lectures are consumed (universities open 24 hours a day) and in the lecture format (no need to limit to 50 minutes).

4. Greater scope for productivity improvements as capital substitutes for labor and greater incentive to invest in productivity when the size of the market increases.

5. Greater scope for randomized controlled trials of educational strategies thus more learning about what works in education.

Read the insightful arguments on the online education here.

Academicians can debate the merits or demerits of online education but the world has been moving forward: traditional colleges are now considering to give credit to online courses.

Notes the USA Today:

The American Council on Education, a non-profit organization that represents most of the nation's college and university presidents, is preparing to weigh in on massive open online courses — MOOCs, for short — a new way of teaching and learning that has taken higher education by storm in recent months.

A stamp of approval from the organization could enhance the value of MOOCs to universities and lead to lower tuition costs for students, who could earn credit toward a college degree for passing a particular course. At issue is whether the quality of the courses offered through MOOCs are equivalent to similar courses offered in traditional classrooms.

The popularity of MOOCs, which have been around for barely a year, has intensified quickly. Top faculty at dozens of the world's most elite colleges and universities are teaching hundreds of online courses in a variety of disciplines to millions of students around the world. The courses are free, but they don't count toward traditional degree programs

Online education will pop the government inflated education bubble and democratize ‘education’ via the competitive free markets. 

In the future I envision the proliferation of domestic graduates of Mises Academy, Coursera, Khan Academy, Academic Earth, MIT-Harvard, MR University, Stanford, University of People and more.

Traditional universities will either have to adapt or perish.

Free Online Education: 100k Signs Up for Harvard’s Offer; Minnesota’s Aborted Ban

One of the top universities of the world, Harvard University, has joined the bandwagon in offering free online education.

From Boston.com 

About 100,000 students have signed up for Harvard University’s first free online courses — computer science and an adaptation of the Harvard School of Public Health’s classes in epidemiology and biostatics. The online courses, part of a joint venture called edX, begin Monday, according to Harvard.

The university’s provost, Alan Garber, said Friday that the free courses are part of an effort to educate people worldwide and that the effort will help improve education on Harvard’s own campus.

“We really think that the first courses we offer will be great, but long term, the payoff is going to come from a better understanding about how people learn,” Garber said.

Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology established edX, a nonprofit organization, in the spring, and the University of California Berkeley joined the effort over the summer.

Courses offered through edX are branded MITx, HarvardX, and BerkeleyX. Anant Agarwal, president of edX, said interest has been equally high for the courses offered by all three schools: 155,000 students registered for a course in circuits and electronics that MIT offered through edX in the spring.

Students taking the online courses hail from around the world, but Agarwal said most of those in the spring course were in the United States, India, Britain, and Colombia.

Students can take as many courses as they wish through edX, and when they demonstrate mastery of a course they can receive a certificate of completion.

Graduates of online courses will eventually challenge those of the traditional courses on the job markets. And this will ultimately pop the current education bubble and radically alter current classroom based paradigms—which have been designed from 20^th century—as well as reduce  state indoctrination, diminish the welfare state, promote competition and lay emphasis on individualization/personalization of education (one teacher per student), expand knowledge specialization and democratize knowledge--yes, education for all willing to be educated. 

Free online education, thus, represents the diffusion and acceleration of the great F. A. Hayek’s knowledge revolution.   

The knowledge revolution will undermine justifications for government interference traditionally channeled through the politicization of the "poor" and "uneducated".

Meanwhile on a related field, politicians who pretentiously claim that they are for “education for all”, and the quack “education is a right” has shown their true colors by an attempted ban on free online education for specious reasons: legal technicalities or the enforcement of a state law that requires authorization from the state government

Notes the conservative Heritage Foundation

Lifelong learners, students wanting supplemental courses, professionals, and Americans across the country interested in enrolling in physics, history, music, and a variety of other courses can do so for free from the open-source provider Coursera. But Minnesota has just informed its residents that they are now prohibited by law from furthering their own education for free through courses offered on Coursera by the likes of Stanford, Duke, Princeton, and more than a dozen other universities.

As several reports have noted, the Chronicle of Higher Education first reported the following:

Notice for Minnesota Users:

Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota.

While students who enroll in a Coursera class cannot get college credit (although they can request that a professor send an email to a prospective employer, for instance, confirming that they took the course and reporting their success), models like Coursera are beginning to change the way Americans think about higher education and provide a huge opportunity to reduce costs and improve access.

Coursera—and others such as EdX (a Harvard/MIT online collaboration), Udacity, and Udemy—represent a shift in higher education toward credentialing content knowledge. Such a shift lays the groundwork for a revolution in higher education, allowing students to attain various credentials by demonstrating content and knowledge mastery from a variety of course providers. But that (literally) free pursuit of knowledge for their own personal edification or skill attainment is no longer available to Minnesota residents.

Politicians have obviously been feeling the heat from the internet whom threatens their longstanding privileges.

Cato’s Andrew Coulson wry but relevant commentary on the ban,

One of the classes you can take at Coursera is “Principles of Macroeconomics.” Maybe the folks who lobbied for and enacted the state’s education regulations are afraid that free learning and economic literacy would threaten their phony-baloney jobs. 

Fortunately, the snowballing forces of decentralization which has been enabled and substantially facilitated and buttressed by the internet has forced the Minnesota government to backtrack.

More signs of the deepening of the information-digital age

The Information Age and the Philippine Cybercrime Law

Amidst fiery protest by many Philippine cyberspace users, the newly enacted Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 RA 10175 took effect today (BBC). 

So far, according to Freedom House in 2012 the Philippines ranks 6th in the world in internet freedom.

I am pretty sure that the law will diminish the current state of internet freedom, regardless of the excuses given by politicians, and regardless of the relative standings of internet freedom in the world overtime. Although I expect some of the current activities to shift to the informal cyberspace.

Just read all the clauses containing the term “misleading” as punishable by law to understand the law’s arbitrariness. This simply means legalistic vagueness could be used to harass political opposition or anyone on the whims of the politicos.

As of this writing the government website hosting RA 10175 is down. This could be because of heavy traffic or could be down due to protest activities undertaken by hacktivists (Examiner)

As a side note, I am also quite delighted to see the passionate responses even by statists against internet censorship. It’s a bizarre world though, when curtailment of freedom involves them, the statists balk, resist and join the commotion, but when curtailment is applied only to others they cheer.

Nevertheless, here are the top 10 Countries who censor the internet most.

From 24/7 Wall Street based on Freedom House's ranking of internet freedom

1. Iran

2. Cuba

3. China

4. Syria

5. Uzbekistan

6. Ethiopia

7. Myanmar

8. Vietnam

9. Bahrain

10. Saudi Arabia

The next list is from the Committee to Protect Journalists 

The growing crusade by governments against the internet or internet censorship should be expected and constitutes resistance to change as forces of decentralization (internet) and centralization (governments) have been on a head-on collision course.

This essentially represents part of the volatile and turbulent transition process towards the deepening of the information age.

The lists of the 10 countries who apply internet censorship most reveals that despite governments’ acts to suppress free expression, the freedom of internet expression still thrives, albeit underground.

To give some examples

-China’s shadow or informal social media users continue to swell despite the government’s prohibition.

-Cuba’s repressive government has repeatedly failed to stop domestic political activist blogger who became an international sensation Yoani Maria Sánchez Cordero.

-There is the ongoing harassment against Wikileaks through  founder Julian Assange and the war against eponymous group Anonymous (who ironically appears to have taken up the cudgels of domestic cyber activists) for exposing on government malfeasances.

-Also the Iranian government’s attempt to convert her cyberspace into a national intranet has dramatically backfired where Iran’s government has been forced to retreat.

From Gizmodo,

After seriously flipping out, cutting of Iranian access to Google and basically herding all its citizens into a tiny little government-approved intra-net pen, the Iranian government has softened its Internet ban just a little bit and restored access to Gmail.

Though the outcry against censoring the Internet at large was loud, the backlash against cutting users off from Google services such as Gmail was particularly strong. Many Iranians (reportedly around half) resorted to using VPNs to get outside of the the intra-net bubble, creating millions of dollars in profit for local VPN firms. Even government officials railed against the lack of Gmail, and complained that local clients just weren't up to snuff.

Given that the penetration rate of internet users in the Philippines is nearly at 30% of the population (internetworldstats.com), from which the bulk comes from the elite and the middle class, it would not be surprising if a sustained uproar would end up with a political ‘compromise’ ala Iran.

Bottom line: Global governments including the Philippines will continue to do everything to try to control and regulate the flow of information in order to preserve the status quo. However and unfortunately for them, the free market in the internet, people’s newfound fondness with connectivity and the knowledge revolution will give them quite a challenge.

Yet there is no stopping the march towards the information age.

War on Internet: Despite Ban, Social Media Users in China Booms; Philippine Hackers Protests

As I have been pointing out, the information age, which essentially represents the snowballing forces of decentralization, particularly globalization and rapid technological advances, will dramatically change every aspect of our lives.

And governments operating from the political economic constructs of the 20th century, particularly the centralized top-down industrial age era political institutions has been fighting tooth and nail against such revolutionary changes that undermines the privileges of the incumbent the political class and their cronies.

Today’s centralization’s debt and welfare crisis have been in fact symptoms of the decadent top-down political institutions. Inflationism has thus been one of the measures of financial repressions that has been applied to achieve such an end.

Yet desperate attempts to preserve the status quo in favor of the current beneficiaries through more social controls has only transformed the internet into a major battlefront

Today’s war on the internet through serial attempts at censorship has apparently seen a backlash from civil society, whom has been waging a broad front online guerilla warfare.

Proof?

In China, banned social media websites continue to blossom.

From Bloomberg,

Facebook Inc. (FB) and Twitter Inc. have millions of users in China despite bans on the social networking services in the world’s largest Internet market, according to the results of a survey released today.

Facebook grew to 63.5 million users in China in the second quarter of this year, up from 7.9 million two years earlier, London-based researcher GlobalWebIndex said in a blog post today. Twitter users tripled to 35.5 million from 2009.

Sites blocked in China can be accessed via so-called proxy services, which connect users to servers outside the country so they can visit sites that are filtered. The workarounds have helped Facebook and Twitter compete with local sites including microblogging service Sina Weibo, said Tom Smith, founder of GlobalWebIndex.

“It only takes a little bit of desk research to discover that what is called the Great Firewall is actually much more porous than the Chinese government would like to admit,” Smith said in the blog post.

Despite their rapid growth, the two social networks are smaller than Qzone, a website operated by Tencent Holdings Ltd. (700), with 286.3 million users. Local rival Sina Weibo had 264.1 million users. Google+, the social network created by Google Inc. (GOOG) last year, had 106.9 million users. China has 513 million Internet users, according to the government-backed China Internet Network Information Center.

GlobalWebIndex asked 2,000 Chinese Internet users earlier this year which social sites they have created an account for, and which ones they used in the past month.

The quest for free market connectivity and the Hayekian knowledge revolution has been no different in the Philippines where attempts to censor social media has led to a concerted hacker attack on Philippine government offices

From another Bloomberg article, 

Hackers attacked websites of the Philippine central bank and at least two other government agencies last night to protest a law against cyber crime set to take effect next week.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 “effectively ends the freedom of expression in the Philippines,” according to a statement posted on the central bank website by a group that called itself Anonymous Philippines. Websites of Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System, the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team and the American Chamber of Commerce were also defaced, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported today.

President Benigno Aquino signed the law on Sept. 12, which identifies, prevents and punishes Internet-based crimes such as hacking, identity theft and spamming. Provisions on online libel and the authority of the Department of Justice to block websites without a court order have been opposed in several petitions filed with the Supreme Court.

The law will “infringe on the Constitutional-guaranteed freedom of speech and expression,” Senator Teofisto Guingona, a member of Aquino’s party, said in a statement today. Guingona asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional several provisions of the law to take effect Oct. 3.

As I previously wrote, 

The internet essentially provides the platform for the unceasing struggle to attain civil and economic liberties, through the effective neutralization of political manipulations of the people’s minds.

The chief proponent and inspiration of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, the great philosopher anarchist Étienne de La Boétie once wrote,

“Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself,  cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom

Thus enslavement and freedom is a matter of people’s choice. And the state of knowledge or ignorance by every individual in a society determines that choice.

The more the diffusion of knowledge in a society, the balance of power shifts towards individual sovereignty at the expense of political entities.

And that’s why welfare warfare based governments have been averse to the internet, and that’s why political authorities will continue to wage an all out war of control of the internet.

It seems that my predictions are on a volatile path to realization.

Quote of the Day: The Supremacy of Public Opinion

This timely quote from yesterday’s article at the Mises Institute is dedicated to my libertarian and Casey Phyle friends, as well as my, passive freedom loving readers…

Here the best theories are useless if not supported by public opinion. They cannot work if not accepted by a majority of the people. Whatever the system of government may be, there cannot be any question of ruling a nation lastingly on the ground of doctrines at variance with public opinion. In the end the philosophy of the majority prevails. In the long run there cannot be any such thing as an unpopular system of government. The difference between democracy and despotism does not affect the final outcome. It refers only to the method by which the adjustment of the system of government to the ideology held by public opinion is brought about. Unpopular autocrats can only be dethroned by revolutionary upheavals, while unpopular democratic rulers are peacefully ousted in the next election.

The supremacy of public opinion determines not only the singular role that economics occupies in the complex of thought and knowledge. It determines the whole process of human history.

The customary discussions concerning the role the individual plays in history miss the point. Everything that is thought, done and accomplished is a performance of individuals. New ideas and innovations are always an achievement of uncommon men. But these great men cannot succeed in adjusting social conditions to their plans if they do not convince public opinion.

The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.

That’s an excerpt from the magnum opus of the great Professor Ludwig von Mises.

The bottom line is that the battle for freedom fundamentally hinges on the arena of education, where ideas of liberty must be made “palatable to the majority”.

In short, communicate to educate. And we can speak or write or do both. Aside from traditional mediums, the internet has facilitated horizontal flow of communications through blogs (such as this), podcasts, social media, youtube, or etc…, which essentially bypasses the top-down flow communication monopolized and controlled by statists and their cronies. Debates can be held on neutral grounds which runs to our favor.

Remember the more the sources of ideas of freedom, the greater the chances that these may become public talking points.

Localizing freedom or merging freedom with domestic applications should increase the topical relevance that should connect with the local audience and thus attract wider participants.

In other words, communicate freedom under the framework of your specialty.

Consequently, a widening reach to the public implies higher chances for social acceptability or a change in public opinion. It’s no easy task as Professor von Mises and our free market champions have shown.

But the deepening of the information age and the law of depreciating returns for vertical organizations has been and will continue to provide us with useful examples of why individual liberty is the only option to the economically unsustainable alternative of statism. There is no middle of the road compromise.

Freedom and the basic law economics are inherently compatible. And that's why I am optimistic that the knowledge revolution will provide the ideological justification for political reforms that should lead to social decentralization.

Doug Casey: End of the Nation State

Investing guru, and anarchist philosopher Doug Casey believes that today’s nation states is on path to the dinosaur age

Mr. Casey writes at the Casey Research, (bold highlights mine)

Mankind has, so far, gone through three main stages of political organization since Day One, say 200,000 years ago, when anatomically modern men started appearing. We can call them Tribes, Kingdoms, and Nation-States.

Karl Marx had a lot of things wrong, especially his moral philosophy. But one of the acute observations he made was that the means of production are perhaps the most important determinant of how a society is structured. Based on that, so far in history, only two really important things have happened: the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Everything else is just a footnote.

Let's see how these things relate.

The Agricultural Revolution and the End of Tribes

In prehistoric times, the largest political/economic group was the tribe. In that man is a social creature, it was natural enough to be loyal to the tribe. It made sense. Almost everyone in the tribe was genetically related, and the group was essential for mutual survival in the wilderness. That made them the totality of people that counted in a person's life – except for "others" from alien tribes, who were in competition for scarce resources and might want to kill you for good measure.

Tribes tend to be natural meritocracies, with the smartest and the strongest assuming leadership. But they're also natural democracies, small enough that everyone can have a say on important issues. Tribes are small enough that everybody knows everyone else, and knows what their weak and strong points are. Everyone falls into a niche of marginal advantage, doing what they do best, simply because that's necessary to survive. Bad actors are ostracized or fail to wake up, in a pool of their own blood, some morning. Tribes are socially constraining but, considering the many faults of human nature, a natural and useful form of organization in a society with primitive technology.

As people built their pool of capital and technology over many generations, however, populations grew. At the end of the last Ice Age, around 12,000 years ago, all over the world, there was a population explosion. People started living in towns and relying on agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering. Large groups of people living together formed hierarchies, with a king of some description on top of the heap.

Those who adapted to the new agricultural technology and the new political structure accumulated the excess resources necessary for waging extended warfare against tribes still living at a subsistence level. The more evolved societies had the numbers and the weapons to completely triumph over the laggards. If you wanted to stay tribal, you'd better live in the middle of nowhere, someplace devoid of the resources others might want. Otherwise it was a sure thing that a nearby kingdom would enslave you and steal your property.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of Kingdoms

From around 12,000 B.C. to roughly the mid-1600s, the world's cultures were organized under strong men, ranging from petty lords to kings, pharaohs, or emperors.

It's odd, to me at least, how much the human animal seems to like the idea of monarchy. It's mythologized, especially in a medieval context, as a system with noble kings, fair princesses, and brave knights riding out of castles on a hill to right injustices. As my friend Rick Maybury likes to point out, quite accurately, the reality differs quite a bit from the myth. The king is rarely more than a successful thug, a Tony Soprano at best, or perhaps a little Stalin. The princess was an unbathed hag in a chastity belt, the knight a hired killer, and the shining castle on the hill the headquarters of a concentration camp, with plenty of dungeons for the politically incorrect.

With kingdoms, loyalties weren't so much to the "country" – a nebulous and arbitrary concept – but to the ruler. You were the subject of a king, first and foremost. Your linguistic, ethnic, religious, and other affiliations were secondary. It's strange how, when people think of the kingdom period of history, they think only in terms of what the ruling classes did and had. Even though, if you were born then, the chances were 98% you'd be a simple peasant who owned nothing, knew nothing beyond what his betters told him, and sent most of his surplus production to his rulers. But, again, the gradual accumulation of capital and knowledge made the next step possible: the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of the Nation-State

As the means of production changed, with the substitution of machines for muscle, the amount of wealth took a huge leap forward. The average man still might not have had much, but the possibility to do something other than beat the earth with a stick for his whole life opened up, largely as a result of the Renaissance.

Then the game changed totally with the American and French Revolutions. People no longer felt they were owned by some ruler; instead they now gave their loyalty to a new institution, the nation-state. Some innate atavism, probably dating back to before humans branched from the chimpanzees about 3 million years ago, seems to dictate the Naked Ape to give his loyalty to something bigger than himself. Which has delivered us to today's prevailing norm, the nation-state, a group of people who tend to share language, religion, and ethnicity. The idea of the nation-state is especially effective when it's organized as a "democracy," where the average person is given the illusion he has some measure of control over where the leviathan is headed.

On the plus side, by the end of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution had provided the common man with the personal freedom, as well as the capital and technology, to improve things at a rapidly accelerating pace.

What caused the sea change?

I'll speculate it was largely due to an intellectual factor, the invention of the printing press; and a physical factor, the widespread use of gunpowder. The printing press destroyed the monopoly the elites had on knowledge; the average man could now see that they were no smarter or "better" than he was. If he was going to fight them (conflict is, after all, what politics is all about), it didn't have to be just because he was told to, but because he was motivated by an idea. And now, with gunpowder, he was on an equal footing with the ruler's knights and professional soldiers.

Right now I believe we're at the cusp of another change, at least as important as the ones that took place around 12,000 years ago and several hundred years ago. Even though things are starting to look truly grim for the individual, with collapsing economic structures and increasingly virulent governments, I suspect help is on the way from historical evolution. Just as the agricultural revolution put an end to tribalism and the industrial revolution killed the kingdom, I think we're heading for another multipronged revolution that's going to make the nation-state an anachronism. It won't happen next month, or next year. But I'll bet the pattern will start becoming clear within the lifetime of many now reading this.

What pattern am I talking about? Once again, a reference to the evil (I hate to use that word too, in that it's been so corrupted by Bush and religionists) genius Karl Marx, with his concept of the "withering away of the State." By the end of this century, I suspect the U.S. and most other nation-states will have, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

The Problem with the State – and Your Nation-State

Of course, while I suspect that many of you are sympathetic to that sentiment, you also think the concept is too far out, and that I'm guilty of wishful thinking. People believe the state is necessary and – generally – good. They never even question whether the institution is permanent.

My view is that the institution of the state itself is a bad thing. It's not a question of getting the right people into the government; the institution itself is hopelessly flawed and necessarily corrupts the people that compose it, as well as the people it rules. This statement invariably shocks people, who believe that government is both a necessary and permanent part of the cosmic firmament.

The problem is that government is based on coercion, and it is, at a minimum, suboptimal to base a social structure on institutionalized coercion. I'm not going to go into the details here; I've covered this ground from a number of directions in previous editions of this letter, as well as in Crisis Investing (Chap.16), Strategic Investing (Chap. 32), and, most particularly Crisis Investing for the Rest of the '90s (Chap. 34). Again, let me urge you to read the Tannehills' superb The Market for Liberty, which is available for download free here.

One of the huge changes brought by the printing press and advanced exponentially by the Internet is that people are able to readily pursue different interests and points of view. As a result, they have less and less in common: living within the same political borders is no longer enough to make them countrymen. That's a big change from pre-agricultural times when members of the same tribe had quite a bit – almost everything – in common. But this has been increasingly diluted in the times of the kingdom and the nation-state. If you're honest, you may find you have very little in common with most of your countrymen besides superficialities and trivialities.

Ponder that point for a minute. What do you have in common with your fellow countrymen? A mode of living, (perhaps) a common language, possibly some shared experiences and myths, and a common ruler. But very little of any real meaning or importance. To start with, they're more likely to be an active danger to you than the citizens of a presumed "enemy" country, say, like Iran. If you earn a good living, certainly if you own a business and have assets, your fellow Americans are the ones who actually present the clear and present danger. The average American (about 50% of them now) pays no income tax. Even if he's not actually a direct or indirect employee of the government, he's a net recipient of its largesse, which is to say your wealth, through Social Security and other welfare programs.

Over the years, I've found I have much more in common with people of my own social or economic station or occupation in France, Argentina, or Hong Kong, than with an American union worker in Detroit or a resident of the LA barrios. I suspect many of you would agree with that observation. What's actually important in relationships is shared values, principles, interests, and philosophy. Geographical proximity, and a common nationality, is meaningless – no more than an accident of birth. I have much more loyalty to a friend in the Congo – although we're different colors, have different cultures, different native languages, and different life experiences – than I do to the Americans who live down the highway in the trailer park. I see the world the same way my Congolese friend does; he's an asset to my life. I'm necessarily at odds with many of "my fellow Americans"; they're an active and growing liability.

Read the rest here.

When we follow the money, we will come to realize that the evolution of political economic dynamics have already been indicative of the impending degeneracy and forthcoming obsolescence of the incumbent nation (welfare-warfare) states.

The foundations of the industrial age political system, which operates on a modern day industrial age (top-down) platform based on modified parasitical relationship via “democracy”, is apparently being gnawed by internal structural incoherence, systemic flaws and its rigidity or failure to adjust or adopt with changes of technology, market trends, environment and time.

The manifestations of which has been today’s self perpetuating financial crisis. Eventually self-fulfilling debt based collapse will likely culminate the end of the nation (welfare-warfare) state.

The deterioration of nation state will be compounded by rapid advances in technology where the information age will continue to usher in dramatic and radical changes in commerce and social lifestyles.

Where the printing press destroyed the “monopoly” of knowledge held by the elite, the advent of the internet connectivity, which has paved way for the emergence of geographically noncontiguous communication (information not limited by space or vicinity of one’s physical reach), has been neutralizing the top-down flow of communications emanating from the current construct of political institutions. That’s why centralized government have frantically been waging war with the web, desperately trying to censor and regulate the flow of information

Horizontally flow of communications has been democratizing information which should lead to the Hayekean knowledge revolution. And consequently, the knowledge revolution will provide the ideological underpinning for the transition towards decentralized societies.

The transformation may not be smooth nor peaceful, as there are multitudes of entrenched interest groups living off or benefiting from the current system. But again, unsustainable systems simply won’t last.

Along with visionary author Alvin Toffler, Professor Gary North, Professor Butler Shaffer and guru Doug Casey, I do share the view that decentralization’s ball has began rolling.

How Empires Die and the End of Centralization

Professor Gary North has a splendid article on the coming end of the empire states and of the centralized form of governments…

Death of the Empire

Empires disintegrate. This is a social law. There are no exceptions.

The first well-known social theorist to articulate this law was the prophet Daniel. He announced it to King Nebuchadnezzar. You can read his analysis in Daniel 2. Verses 44 and 45 are the key to understanding the law of empires.

The Roman Empire is the model. But there is a serious problem here. There are at least 210 theories of why it fell. There are so many that even my 1976 Ron Paul office colleague Bruce Bartlett gets credit for one of them – on Wikipedia, no less. He has made the big time!

In any case, Rome did not collapse. It wasted away over several centuries, wasting the treasure of its citizens along with it.

I suppose there were highly educated people who came to the voters in the late Roman republic and said something like this: "Unless decisive action is taken now, Rome will go bankrupt." If so, they were right. But it took a lot longer than they thought.

These days, it does not take nearly so long.

An empire grows at first almost unconsciously. No one goes to the powers that be and says, "Hey! Why don't we create an empire?" It is more like the person who says this: "I'm not greedy. All I want is to control the land contiguous to mine."

In military affairs, there are economies of scale. An army of warriors makes conquest cost-effective. There are also taxation advantages. An army of tax collectors makes tax collection cost-effective. "Hand over your money" is more effective. Pretty soon, you've got an empire.

But there is a law of bureaucracy that applies to empire. At some point, it costs more to administer the bureaucracy than the bureaucracy can generate through coercion. Then the empire begins to crack. It cannot enforce its claims.

So, the growth of empire has economics at its center: economies of scale. The fall of empire also has economics at its center: economies of scale.

I think this process is an application of the law of increasing returns. In the initial phase of the process, adding more of one factor increases total output. But, as more of it is added, another law takes over: the law of decreasing returns.

Example: water and land. Add some water to a desert, and you can grow more food. Add more water, and you can grow a lot more food. There is an accelerating rate of returns. The joint output is of greater value than the cost of adding water. But if you keep adding water, you will get a swamp. The law of decelerating returns takes over. Add more water, and the land is underwater. You might as well have a desert.

This law applies to power. Add power, and you generate more income. But if you keep adding power, expenses of the bureaucracy will begin to eat up revenues. Resistance will also increase: internal and external. The system either implodes or withers away.

With only one exception in history – the Soviet Union in 1991 – empires have not gone out of business without bloodshed.

In the case of the Soviet Union, the senior politicians privatized the whole system in December 1991. They handed over the assets to what immediately became the ultimate system of crony capitalism. They divvied up the Communist Party's money and deposited it in individual Swiss bank accounts. The suicide of the USSR was "Vladimir Lenin meets David Copperfield." Now you see it; now you don't. In the history of Marxism, no event better illustrates Marx's principle of the cash nexus. It seduced Lenin's vanguard of the proletariat.

Notice the pattern of empire. It begins slowly, building over centuries: the Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire. Then the empire either erodes or else it is captured by revolutionaries, as was the case in France (1789-94) and Russia (1917). But this only delays the reversal. It does not overcome it.

Death of the Modern Centralized States

Economies of scale shaped the development of the modern nation-state. In 1450, the governments of Western Europe were small. They controlled little territory. They were remnants of the medieval world, which had been far more decentralized.

By 1550, this had begun to change. The beginnings of the modern nation-state were visible.

Tax revenues flowed into the centralizing kingships. Trade was growing. Revenues were increasing. Weaponry was advancing. All of this had been going on for half a millennium. But, like an exponential curve, the line began to move upward visibly around 1500.

Maritime empires grew: Spain, Portugal, England. They challenged each other on the seas. Then came the Netherlands and France. The fusion of naval power and trade monopolies lured nations into competition for trade zones. The idea of free trade was centuries away, except in the academic enclave of the school of Salamanca.

The law of increasing returns was evident in this process. It paid rulers to tax more and extend the jurisdiction of the nation-state at the expense of local governments internally and foreign governments externally. The benefits accrued mostly to the political hierarchy and its system of connected families.

Economies of scale drove the process. The division of labor favored centralization. Local units of civil government could not compete.

Let me give an example from the field of historiography. The historian of colonial America can write about lots of topics: immigration, technology, family structure, town planting, economic development, intellectual trends, and so forth. He writes about the issues of life that affected people's daily lives. He cannot write about national politics until after May of 1754: the "battle" of Jumonville Glen.

The Battle of Jumonville Glen is unknown to all historians except specialists in colonial America. This is a pity, because that battle was the most important military event in the history of the modern world. It literally launched the modern world. It led to (1) the French & Indian War (Seven Years' War), (2) the Stamp Act crisis, (3) the American Revolution, (4) the French Revolution, (5) Napoleon, (6) nationalism, (7) modern revolutionism, (8) Communism, (9) Fascism, and (10) the American Empire. It was started by Virginia militia Major George Washington, age 22.

Before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, it is both possible and wise to write about America without tying the narrative to politics. After 1788, every textbook writer is drawn like a moth to the flame: Presidential elections. He cannot narrate the text without hinging everything on the outcome in the four-year system of national covenant renewal-ratification.

We are fast approaching a day of judgment. It has to do with economies of scale. It has to do with the law of decreasing returns.

The best account of this process is a book by Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld: The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999). He traces the history of the Western nation-state from the late Renaissance until the late twentieth century. He argues that there will be a break-up of nation states and a return of decentralization.

Read the rest here.

The transition from the decaying centralized social structures out of the law of decreasing returns is presently being compounded by the widespread adaption of massive advances from technology.

People will need ideological justifications for such transition. Remember, the world does not operate on a vacuum.

And with the democratization of knowledge through the web or the cyberspace, people’s perception, mentality and attitudes will likely adapt to favor decentralized social orders.

Futurist Alvin Toffler calls this the Third Wave. From his 1980 book,

The Third Wave thus begins a truly new era--the age of the de-massified media. A new info-sphere is emerging along-side the new techno-sphere. And this will have a far-reaching impact on the most important sphere of all, the one inside our skulls. For taken together, these changes revolutionize our images of the world and our ability to make sense of it

The Arab Spring revolts of 2011 has partly been manifestations of the combination of the law of decreasing returns on centralized social orders and of technology facilitated knowledge revolution in process.

Several welfare states in the Eurozone are in the process of a monumental collapse from a debt trap.

This will deepen overtime.

Capital Markets in the Information Age: More Financial Innovations

The world does not operate in a vacuum. Given the trend of rapid increases in the imposition of strangulating bank and financial regulations, entrepreneurs have been exploring ways to sidestep or bypass the system, by harnessing advances in technology, where they can profit from serving the consumers.

I have earlier pointed out that the internet has spawned innovative ways of borrowing and lending, of payment systems, and of the financing of commercial projects via P2P Lending and Crowd Funding.

Jeffrey Tucker at the Laissez Faire Books shows us more

Squareup. This is an innovation by Jack Dorsey (Twitter fame) and his friends, and came about only in 2010. The first problem they were trying to overcome was there has to be an easier way for merchants to accept credit cards. They decided to give the hardware away for use on simple mobile phones, and then charge per transaction. Win!

In the course of developing the business, which is valued already at $1 billion, they solved an even stranger problem that all of us have but never really noticed that we have: If we don’t have our wallets with us, we can’t buy anything.

Now this is genius: Square allows you to pay by saying your name. The merchant matches a picture of your on the square system with your physical face. You look each other in the eye and the deal is done. Anyone can sign up. Yes, it is incredible. Simple and wonderful.

The Lending Club. Again, this is mind-blowing. The Lending Club matches up lenders and borrowers while bypassing the banking system altogether. The idea emerged in October 2008, just as the existing credit system seemed to be blowing up. Today, the company originates $1 million in loans per day.

Anyone can become a lender with a minimum investment of $25 per note. Lenders can choose specific borrowers or choose among many baskets and combinations of borrowers to reduce risk.

Any potential borrower can apply, but of course the company wants to keep default rates at the lowest possible level, and these are published daily (right now, they are running 3%). As a result, most applications to borrow are declined (this is good!).

The average rate of interest on the loans is 11%, cheaper than credit cards but more realistic than the Fed’s crazy push for zero. As a result, the average net annualized return is 9.6%.

The focus if of course on small loans for weddings, moving expenses, business startups, debt consolidation and the like. If you are an indebted country with large unfunded liabilities, you probably can’t get a loan. But if you are student with a job who needs upfront money to put down on an apartment, you might qualify.

Dwolla. This is a super-easy, super-slick online payment system that specializes in linking payments through social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Like most of these companies, the idea was hatched in 2008 in response to the crisis. The system was breaking down and needed new services that worked. Dwolla got off the ground in 2009, and today, it processes more than $1 million per week.

An easy way to understand Dwolla is to view it as the next generation of PayPal, but with a special focus on reducing the problem that vexed PayPal in its early years: getting rid of credit card fraud. Dwolla is focussing its product development on ways to pay that do not require sending credit card information over networks.

Dwolla has also taken a strong interest in the Internet payment system called Bitcoin, a digital unit of account that hopes to become an alternative to national monetary systems. It is a long way from becoming that, but it is hardly surprising that a young and innovative company would be interested in competition to failed paper money.

These are a few of the services, but there are hundreds more. None were created by the money masters in Washington. They are results of private innovation, individual entrepreneurs thinking their way through social and economic problems and coming up with solutions. They accept the risk of failure and enjoy the profit from success.

Indeed, as forces of decentralization deepens, we should expect more innovative technology based solutions to emerge and flourish in every industry; finance and money notwithstanding.

China’s Road to Capitalism Lacks the Knowledge Revolution

A narrative of China’s path to progress according to Nobel laureate Professor Ronald Coase and Professor Ning Wang at the Wall Street Journal,

China's road to capitalism was forged by two movements. One was orchestrated by Beijing; its self-proclaimed goal being to turn China into a "modern, powerful socialist country." The other, more important, one was the gross product of what we like to call "marginal revolutions." It involved a concatenation of grass-roots movements and local initiatives.

While the state-led reform focused on enhancing the incentives of state-owned enterprises, the marginal revolutions brought private entrepreneurship and market forces back to China. Private farming, for example, was secretly engaged in by starving peasants when it was still banned by Beijing. Rural industrialization was spearheaded by township and village enterprises that operated outside state control. Private sectors emerged in cities when self-employment was allowed to cope with rising unemployment. Foreign direct investment and labor markets were first confined to Special Economic Zones.

Well, China’s road to capitalism has been half baked as it requires a very important factor that has been amiss: allowing ideas to have sex as Matt Ridley would call it.

Professors Coase and Wang adds,

In the years to come, China will continue to forge its own path, but it needs to address its lack of a marketplace for ideas if it hopes to continue to prosper. An unrestricted flow of ideas is a precondition for the growth of knowledge, the most critical factor in any innovative and sustainable economy. "Made in China" is now found everywhere in the world. But few Western consumers remember any Chinese brand names. The British Industrial Revolution two centuries ago introduced many new products and created new industries. China's industrial revolution is far less innovative.

The active exchange of thoughts and information also offers an indispensable foundation for social harmony. It is not a panacea; nothing can free us once and for all from ignorance and falsehood. But the free flow of ideas engenders repeated criticism and continuous improvement. It also cultivates respect and tolerance, which are effective antidotes to the bigotry and false doctrines that can threaten the foundation of any society.

When China started reforming itself more than three decades ago, Deng rightly stressed the "emancipation of the mind" as a prerequisite. But that has yet to happen. It's time for China to embrace not just the market, but the marketplace of ideas. This will help not just China reach its full potential, but the world as well.

China’s fundamental problems emanates from the still top-down command and control political system which has been running a head on collision course with the snowballing forces of ‘marginal revolutions’ or grassroots economic movement via entrepreneurs.

A knowledge revolution would be incompatible with the incumbent centralized structure of governance, which has underpinned the continued restrictive policies on “free flow of ideas”.

A communist society depends on the conformity of behavior, ideas and actions with those of the political authorities, mainly enforced through coercion and indoctrination, whereas a knowledge revolution will democratize and produce diversity of ideas, opinions and actions channeled through a market economy.

And a society founded on a knowledge revolution would, thus, undermine the privileges of those currently in power.

Yet having to unleash the forces of capitalism would mean substantial changes to China’s political system.

Yet the jury is out on how China’s politicians will deal with such monumental adjustment process, which I expect to be turbulent, along with the response of the average Chinese. And such transition will be accompanied by a national financial and economic crisis as ramification to the recent marco (top-down) economic policies, the impact of which would also diffuse into politics.

Current events have already been manifesting signs of such tempestuous adjustment process.

Interesting times indeed.

Why Socialists Hate the Internet

Writes Mary O’Grady at the Wall Street Journal, (bold emphasis mine) [hat tip Mark Perry]

'There's a reason the people in Cuba don't have access to the Internet. It is because the government [couldn't] survive it."

That was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio last week at a Washington conference titled "Cuba Needs a (Technological) Revolution: How the Internet Can Thaw an Island Frozen in Time." The event was sponsored by Google Ideas, a for-profit venture of the giant Internet search enterprise, and the nonprofit Heritage Foundation. I was asked to kick off things with a Rubio interview. So I began by asking him what he makes of the Cuban military's reference last year to technology that allows young people to exchange thoughts digitally as "the permanent battlefield."

Mr. Rubio responded that it isn't communication with the outside world that the regime fears the most, but Cuban-to-Cuban chatter. "I think Raúl Castro clearly understands that his regime cannot survive a Cuban reality where individual Cubans can communicate [with] each other in an unfettered manner." He called "unfiltered access to the Internet and social media" Cuba's "best hope" of avoiding "a stagnated dictatorship" for "the next 50 years that would survive even the death of Raul and Fidel."

The internet or the information age isn’t just about connectivity though. Rather the age of the internet is about the knowledge revolution or democratization of knowledge through “geographically noncontiguous communication” as author Jeffrey Tucker recently described.

The information age brings about unfettered opportunities to learn or to expand one’s horizon of wisdom. Say for instance anyone who wants to access literatures from libraries around the world may try openlibrary.org.

How about basic materials for self learning or home schooling? You may also try the revolutionary Khan Academy.

The political power of despots and their socialists supporters principally derives from ignorance. This is why the public has been vulnerable to fear and to mind manipulation—via indoctrination and propaganda.

People hardly realize that conventional education, for instance, has been surreptitiously designed for the worship of the state. The internet brought me to this reality and made me an apostate to the religion of the state.

The internet essentially provides the platform for the unceasing struggle to attain civil and economic liberties, through the effective neutralization of political manipulations of the people’s minds.

The chief proponent and inspiration of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, the great philosopher anarchist Étienne de La Boétie once wrote,

Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself,
cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom

Thus enslavement and freedom is a matter of people’s choice. And the state of knowledge or ignorance by every individual in a society determines that choice.

The more the diffusion of knowledge in a society, the balance of power shifts towards individual sovereignty at the expense of political entities.

And that’s why welfare warfare based governments have been averse to the internet, and that’s why political authorities will continue to wage an all out war of control of the internet.

Quote of the Day: How the Information Age has been Enriching People’s Lives

This is a rather long but substantially insightful excerpt from Jeffrey A. Tucker of Laissez Faire books on the unquantifiable benefits of the information age. [bold emphasis mine]

The most difficult-to-quantity aspect of digital media has been its contribution to the sharing of ideas and communication throughout the world. This has permitted sharing and learning as never before, and this might be the single most productive activity in which a person can participate. The acquisition of information is the precondition for all investing, entrepreneurship, rational consumption, division of labor and trade.

Step back and consider what a revolution this truly is. From the beginning of history until the 19th century, information could travel only as fast as we could run, walk or sail. There were also smoke signals, carrier pigeons, putting notes in bottles, waving lanterns in windows and the like. Finally, in the 1830s -- extremely late in a vast and grueling history in which humanity languished in poverty and sickness without knowledge broader than the immediate surroundings -- we saw the beginnings of modern communication with the glorious invention of the telegraph.

Here we had, for the first time, the emergence of geographically noncontiguous communication. People could find out more about what was going on in the world beyond their immediate vicinity, and that has had amazing implications for everyone engaged in the grand project of uplifting humanity. What could people then share? Cures, technologies, resource availability, experiences and information of all sorts.

This is also the period when we saw the first signs of the modern world as we know it, with a rising global population, extended lives, lower infant mortality and the creation and rapid increase of the middle class. Communication is what signaled people about new possibilities. From there, we saw huge advances in metallurgy, medicine, sanitation and industry. Then followed expansions of income; the division of labor; transportation via railroads; and, eventually, more of the thing that really matters: ever-better ways to share information and learn from others through telephones, radios and televisions.

But then 1995 represented the gigantic turning point in history. This was the year when the Web browser became widely available and the Internet opened for commercial purposes. It's remarkable to think that this was only 17 years ago. Unimaginable progress has taken place since then, with whole worlds being created by the day, all through the wondrous, spontaneous order of global human interaction in an atmosphere of relative laissez-faire. This was the beginning of what is called the digital age, the period of global enlightenment in which we find ourselves today.

And what gave it to us? What made it possible? This much we know for sure: The government did not make this possible. The forces of the marketplace caused it to come into being. It was the creation of human hands through the forces of cooperation, competition and emulation.

This alone refutes the common lie that the free market is all about private gain, the enrichment of the few. All these technologies and changes have liberated billions of people around the world. We are all being showered with blessings every hour of the day. Yes, some people have gotten rich -- and good for them! -- but all the private gain in the world pales in comparison with what digital commerce has done for the common good.

Yes, of course, we take it all for granted. In one sense, it has all happened too fast for us to truly come to terms with this new world. There is also this strange penchant human beings have for absorbing and processing the new and wonderful and then asking just as quickly, "What's next?"

No amount of empirical work can possibly encapsulate the contribution of the Internet to our lives today. No supercomputer could add it all up, account for every benefit, every increase in efficiency, every new thing learned that has been turned to a force for good. Still, people will try. You will know about their claims thanks only to the glorious technology that has finally achieved that hope for which humankind has struggled mightily since the dawn of time.

In short, the information age has been democratizing and fueling the knowledge revolution—a revolution that is bound to empower entrepreneurs and would topple 20th century vertically top-down structured (public and private) organizations and institutions.