How does it feel to be poor?

Capitalism- adding value to one's ideas and devaluing another's. It is the reason why another countries currency is akin to toilet paper and repaying debt in 10 folds, 50 folds, and sometimes 100 folds. This propagates corruption and relative poverty further. Since currency equals goods and services, what this basically says is that all good and services produced in a developing country are of less value. Then we go ahead and hand them loans, only for us to be amazed at their misappropriate allocation. Monetary currency is just plain questionable at times. It’s like having a class room of 40 students, of which there are 4 really bright students. And in what seems like out-and-out insanity the teacher decides that every correct answer a bright student gets equals to 2 points. Talk about giving aid right?! Talk about plummeting the other student’s self esteem. It’s safe to remember that international boundaries are imaginary lines that aren't visible from space stations. There needs to be more equity in the world. Why is it that the British pound is more valuable than the American dollar? There is no definitive answer to this, much less a logical definitive answer. To me this is short of a joke, but such is capitalism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't agree that the primary factor is trust. I think instead it is primarily about power. Those higher in the organization want to maintain control. Because not only does empowering the "front desk" alleviate many of the problems caused by mindless regulations but it makes much of middle management obsolete.

I don't think that bureaucratic red-tape is as much a function of the size of the nation as it is the size and organization of the bureaucracy. The U.S. government goes about this horribly creating new laws, committees, and departments to address every new issue.

Well maybe not every new issue, but it seems like it:

Congress has about 250 committees
There are 1175 Federal Agencies
No one knows how many laws there are, but the U.S. Code alone is 250,000 pages long.

Or international forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But there's no need to worry about it. CS is going to solve everything in one easy to read book, no more than 300 pages long complete with illustation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me try to get what you are saying straight.

You are saying that individuals are obligated to be productive members of society.
This is imposing an obligation on people, and It is ok to do so.

Let me try to get what you are saying straight.

You are saying that individuals are obligated to be productive members of society.
It is ok to impose this obligation on people.

http://www.coolskill.com/kma.html


You seem to be under some impression that imposing an obligation on somebody to work is freedom.
You seem to think that Slavery is Freedom.
Double speak.

What makes you think that imposing an obligation on somebody to work is not slavery?
This is illogical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOGIC:
Humans should not have to work other than if they choose to.

Witness:
*Hey, you are giving me a great offer in return for my work. I'll do it.
*Hmm, I think I'll do it just for the hell of it.
*It sounds like fun. I'll do it.

The above are various forms of choice.
Freedom. What a concept.


Witness:
*Gaddam it I am a bloddy slave.
*If I don't do it, I'll starve to death.
*They pay me scrap. If I were in a true First World city, I throw this crap pay right in their face, kick them in the nuts, and tell them to kiss my ass. But I am not, so I have to take this little pay because if I do not, I cannot pay rent for my rat infested hole in the wall.

The above are various forms of obligation.
Not freedom. Crapitalist American standards.

 

If you want to be a member of a society, then yes.

Break it down into a simple scenario. You and I stuck on an island alone. (A horrific thought I know but bear with me.) There's food available but it requires labor (fish to be caught, corn to be ground, etc). I labor since that is my proclivity and you sit on your ass since that is yours. Now by what right do you claim a portion of the food? Is it unethical for me to require that contribute in some way to our survival as a condition of my sharing with you? What if there's not enough for the both of us, who should get it? What if I decide to work less hard so there's just enough for me? Or what if I decide not to work at all? After all, I want to be a truly free man too, with no obligations.

You're not under any obligation. You're free to go live off on your side of the island by yourself and do as you please.

~Raithere

 

Your scenario is not the same as society. I have been repeatedly explaining the concpet of technology over and over and over and over. Technology technology technology. I have been stressing the importance of technology over and over.


This means that if we are on an island. And there is a machine. Say a super robot. I can press a button to make it build us a house and pile up lots of fish and coconuts. Then cook them for us. I do all the work (pressing the button.). You do nothing.

Thanks technology.




In case you missed the concept.
Here is X. X is everything an individual needs to take care of himself.
Steady food, water. Personal facilities for self, clothes, the list goes on and on and on. The person is living a First World life which is not an extravagant life, but the person has access to the best quality necessities in a clean and high quality environment suited for human cultivation. All of this is X.

A long time ago, it might have 100% of a polulation working full time to provide for 100% of the population. Not even at First World standards.

With the advent of technology, it might have taken 90% of the population working full time to provide for 100% of the population.
This means we have 100% jobs filled, and 10% people left over to pursue better technology and design cities all day.

With the advent of even greater technology, it might take 50% of the population working full time or 100% of the population working half time to provide for 100% of the populatioon. Now we have 50% of the population to pursue better even better technology and come up with better plans for better social political structures and improved technology in an effort to protect humans and environment.

With even better technology, it might take 10% of the population working full time to provide 100% of the population with a true first world lifesyle.

Point:
Thanks to technology, it does not require 100% of the able bodied population to fulfill all the tasks to provide X to 100% of the population.

Once X is satisfied, all the necessary positions are fulfilled.

It is completely asinine and impractical to use up more resources for the sake of paying more people to do work that is not necessary. It is completely and utterly asinine to create jobs. Creating jobs is the stupidest, most ignorant minded, primitively moronic, utterly wasteful hole in the brain thing we do in this country.

 

You keep using the same idiot circular argument.
We are not talking about those that are living outside of society you fucking retard.
STOP CIRLING AROUND.

You know perfectly well what I mean when I say we are under obligation.
I am not talking about those living outside of society. Try rereading the post, and stop changing definitions.


You are saying that individuals are obligated to be productive members of society.
It is ok to impose this obligation on people.

You seem to be under some impression that imposing an obligation on somebody to work is freedom.
You seem to think that Slavery is Freedom.
Double speak.

What makes you think that imposing an obligation on somebody to work is not slavery?
This is illogical.

STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE ARE FREE TO GO LIVE OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY. YOU ARE GOING IN COMPLETE CIRCILES. THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THOSE LIVING WITHIN SOCIETY. ANSWER THE QUESTION STRAIGHT.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION ON SOMEBODY TO WORK IS NOT SLAVERY?

 

Sounds good. Let me know when you've built the robots and I'll join your city.

Then until technology can provide 100% who gets to decide who has to work and who doesn't? Or do we just play suckers and free men until then?
Wouldn't we get there quicker if we all worked real hard for now?

I think you're being a bit optimistic about just how close we are to having a completely automated workforce.

Don't get me wrong. I think you're right as far as this goes, just a bit naive and premature.

~Raithere

 

You give me something, I give you something else in return. I do something for you, you do something for me in return.

That's not slavery. That's equity.

~Raithere

P.S. Could you please calm the fuck down?

 

The point is that you island scenario is flawed because you continue over and over to refuse to notice that technology plays a factor in society.

Do you even know how to read?
I went over this 200 million times.

You are asking these questions now. What is the point of EVERYTHING you have been talking about? You keep talking and talking in circles, and over looking all of the points. What makes you think you are arguing the point when you so conveniently refuse to even acknowledge any of them.

Get where?
"There" is freedom. Freedom from obligation that nazi idiots like yourself and your precious crappytalistic system exist to impose.
All you are saying is that if 1 person "has" to work, than so should all the billions of others. The problem is that there is no obligation, so nobody "has" to work. Your logic is so twisted, and completely nonsensical.
1. You are obligated to work.
2. No reason provided. You just are.
That makes no sense.

Stop putting words into people's mouth.
The only naive utter idiot premature moron is you.

PS could you please stop running around in circles and overlooking the point.

WTF!!!!!!!! are you talking about? This is not even the subject.

You still continue on overlooking points that have already been addressed.
Nobody is telling you to give anybody anything.
Nobody is obligating you to give anybody anything.
That is what freedom is about.
You keep contradicting yourself.
I already stated that you are under no obligation to do anything. You continue with asinine comments based on some dead brained assumption that you are. WTF is your problem?

You are not obligated to do anything.
You are not obligated to do anything.
You are not obligated to do anything.
You are not obligated to do anything.

Stop imposing obligations on people in the First World.
Why the hell should anybody give you anything when nobody is obligating you to do anything?
You still have not made the slightest bit of sense.

If you want to do something, and feel THE incentive is inadequate:
DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!

 

Tuition Refund Alert!!!

Capitalism is about increasing the value of one's capital.

Most ideas aren't worth sh#t in a free market, and thus have no equivalence in capital.

Which is why you need to demand a refund: Your education wasn't worth what you paid.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay, everyone listen up!

We can all stop working and being slaves now.

cool skill's robots are going to take care of all the work from now on.

Whew. That's a relief. I think I'll to Disneyworld now.

~Raithere

 

Wow, that's great news!

...I wonder who cool skill will obligate to build all the robots?

Not me...I have freedom...the incentive won't be good enough so I won't do it.

 

Nobody said anything about robots retard.

This reminds me of my scale of freedom that I had long forgotten about.
Level of freedrom is determined by level of access.
The obligation access scale is like a gray scale.

SCALE OF FREEDOM
Obigation<-------------------------------->Access

Full freedom means full access to such First Wold lifestyle as listed in some of my previous examples.
The more freedom you have, the less obligated you are to do anything in return for access.
This is what free choice is about. You are not obligated to do anything in return.
Slavery is imposed obligation. It is when you are imposed not by the sky, but by the system to be obligated to do things in return.

Imposed obligation is the obligation created by the system out of thin air.
It is not a natural phenomenon, but a brainwashed completely impractical dullard burden that man poses on himself and others.
It is completely destructive asinine delusion more than anything else.

 

There is social obligation which is the amount of HMR required to achieve X.
As technology increases, HMR decreases.

 

You just failed. Under your rule of choices, technology would never progress.

 

I love that phrase and am going to use it all the time from now on.

 

It would seem to level off under his system to a point when no more technology is required. A typical inverse relationship.

 

Would would would.
And the sky would fall as well. Circular.
Do you have anything actually meaningful to aside from mindless speculation?
Try to respond clearly and rationally avoiding references to speculation.
Facts please.

I outlined some examples of a functional methods of resource management (economics). All for the sake not for some, not for many, but for all.
The purpose is more freedom, higher standard of human development, cleaner environment, leading to improved technology. All leading to even higher standards and improved human/environment development. Not steady progress, but accelerated progress.

You are asserting that this does not lead to improved technology?
Please explain.

 

(c) cool sklill