Sorry for erasing my previous comment, wanna make it shorter. People need to realize that all life solutions came from somewhere and whoever use it need to give back something to maintain them. Now, besides receipts, providers gave buyers logos or stickers as prove that they've paid something. Society would work to put on the spot those who use many solutions but has so little stickers... what do you think? Then programmers would dare to target individuals as their true market and charge less.
Again I nod to you. We really need easier more user friendly way of charging intellectual products. People's memory are their essential life elements, and making copies using tools imo is essential life support tools... how is it that they are not licensed to copy by mainstream licenses? Its kinda invasive to humanity or the public domain right?
hmm businesses are made up of consumers. businesses themselves consume, i think this distinction is not necessary. I can accept that there is software made especially for business as in what would a consumer need xyz features for. The pitting of business vs consumer just does not sit well with me in that context it should be IMO business & consumer instead.
@mrbit10 The reason I separated them is because businesses or corporations, and people are different. Most Businesses are in it to make money and don't really care about anything else nor have emotions. A corporation naturally hates capitalism and would like to have a monopoly. How can a corporation make maximum profit if it has competition? Consumers or people are interested in different, not related to money, but either for personal development, or a home made project, etc.
@FearedBliss hmmm i am not sure i agree with that. businesses exist to organize consumption, the trade of such is where money comes in, thus the finite point is consumption of which we consumers do ourselves, thus do we not all have surplus in that we want & need & consume on both levels just as business. A consumer would by your statement fall in the same category, to consume is to compete and thus "want" to consume.
@mrbit10 I agree with everything you are saying, what I am also saying is that businesses consume, but they consume not for the product, but for the money. Once the business has the money (at least what a lot of businesses do here in the US) is that they sit on it and don't do anything with it, or take it out of the country and don't contribute back. Avoid to pay taxes like the rest of us consumers. A business cannot be a consumer, and avoid the same sacrifices that all of us do.
@FearedBliss we do the same we need money to consume so does a business does a business not need material to make or labor or fixed structure? why is product consumption better? we all barter with money, profit does not have to be in $ that is false concept. My wife does taxes for a living countless individuals try to avoid paying taxes just as business try to. Business sits on cash?? So do consumers, the mattress saying comes from consumer hoarding, not business.
@mrbit10 LMFAO That's funny because it's true. Alright, but that would also mean that trickle down doesn't work. Economics works simply by supply and demand. A company can be given money, tax cuts, whatever, and if there is no demand, there will be no new jobs. Nothing will trickle down. If taxes are to be avoided by businesses, then they need to be avoided just like regular people, and lobbying cannot be possible.
@FearedBliss what is trickle down? Supply & Demand are a definite component of econ. But if i read you correctly, you just demonstrated how capitalism helps its fellow man. Productivity needs consumption and vice-versa
@mrbit10 I guess I did :), but since Supply & Demand are the fundamental prime-movers, once the economy stops moving, demand slows down, tax cuts won't get the economy back on track.
@mrbit10 Trickle down would be giving money to the rich, and "hope" that it goes down to the poor. Which doesn't even make it to the poor because since their is no demand, the businesses just take the money and sit on it.
@mrbit10 Even If I would have no problem with lobbying, a business cannot go to the congress, and ask them to spare them from taxes. No normal person can go to congress, ask them to let them avoid paying taxes, or to lower their percentages to almost nothing, and actually be allowed to do that.
@FearedBliss no but groups of people will ask congress about regulation that does not make sense or tax rates, IE we as individuals do indeed go straight to congress and ask for tax cuts, I could introduce you to my local congressmen that get letters all the time asking for that very thing, and i think the extension of tax cut rates under this administration is a demonstration of that individual power collectively
@mrbit10 I seriously don't understand why people don't just pay taxes. It helps all of us. The government needs to revenue to build roads, etc. I don't believe businesses should get any benefits when it comes to taxes. Just because a business is a group of people trying to make something efficient, doesn't mean that in that sense, they aren't considered people, but are given lower rates than a person would. A business can't be a person in one situation, and not in another.
@FearedBliss Taxation is one of the most inefficient forms of expenditure, many argue for better efficiency, it is many times not always about building roads.
@mrbit10 I totally agree with you that businesses are made up of consumers, but the problem that is happening in this country and all around the world is that instead of businesses saying "Look, we are a business, but we are humans first, and we need to think about the people first, and apply good morals, and think about the money a little later" they completely forget they are humans, and just do whatever needs to be done whether it hurts someone or not. That's where my frustration lies.
@FearedBliss Part 1 what does it mean to put people first? If the component of business is alien to people then I could accept the premise, but business is not alien to people and thus people are first, business is people, organized you could say for a productive purpose. "hurts someone or not" while i appreciate the good intention, that is also a false premise. you know some of my politics but quite frankly let us take "equal outcome" as to which i attribute socialism/communism to...
@mrbit10 You are correct again, business is made up of people but the business itself is not a person and does not deserve or get rights like normal people (Including corporate personhood free-speech), remember that if the business is made up of people, and they are ultimately the end consumer, then is it about the money, or is it about getting the consumption that they want? I'm not for communism as I believe it's too restrictive, but it does have some good ideas.
@FearedBliss the context is consumption & humanity, now you are including law, another aspect but how does that make business consumption bad? You set up a false premise of consumption and money, they are the same, saving money in a bank is dynamic consumption, saving money under a mattress is as well. You need to stop trying to separate money & consumption. a means of barter to consume does not change the end point of consumption in any aspect
@mrbit10 I don't understand. Businesses consuming because they want to provide a service for the end consumer is definitely not a bad thing. The bad thing comes when the businesses get into law and start consuming the politicians. That is definitely not good. The businesses can consume whatever they want whether it's equal or not as long as they are not in our law system.
@mrbit10 Consumption & Humanity is the clear context indeed, and that's the problem, how do we fix this problem? How do we fix that we have people that are living great happy stable lives with no necessities problems whatsoever, and then we have people dying because they need all the necessities?
@FearedBliss remove that which inhibits in their microcosm trade, barter and individual rights. Its ironic that DeSoto points out a massive flaw with despotism but non-ownership of property from a shirt to a business or home to a car is that which communism does as well, public property of the most essential items needed to make humanity go.
@mrbit10 Would it be a problem if people got basic necessities as a requirement of life, and the rest of the people who make it big can enjoy themselves?
@FearedBliss as you state that no, but that is a simple statement, the logistics to get there is another and is why we have the quasi-science of economics. But to be fair it is far better for those nations to be afforded the opportunity to use their own autonomy to grow vs transfer of capital which almost never changes the result.
@mrbit10 Not even a comfortable basic necessities, but enough to survive bare minimum. I don't want to encourage people to become lazy and not do anything and just feed off the government, I don't want to give them enough to be comfortable so that can act as a catalyst for their own self improvement.
@FearedBliss comfortable is subjective, we have people starving here and yet my mother-in-law who is from Guatemala asks me to take her to the poorest section of houston. Then when we get there she asks why do they electricity, nice cars and how can they afford nintendos. Or when she was here for Hurricane Katrina victims as i was a volunteer helper, she could not understand why people horded government 2k cards that are free but take to be sold with in the convention center itself
@mrbit10 I'm definitely not speaking about "those" poor people, which seem to me like they are in my range.. which would be upper lower class. Honestly, if the government wasn't helping out my family with housing, we wouldn't be upper lower class. My father has been working all his life trying to provide, and it hasn't been enough. My mother worked ever since she was 5 and became disabled about 11 years ago. Without government aid, we would be screwed, I wouldn't be going to college right now.
@mrbit10 The poor people I'm speaking about are those that don't have electricity, or nintendos. I'm talking about people I see homeless in the streets. I see it all the time here in NY. Today I was walking in the train station, and I see a homeless person digging in the trash, I try to give him a dollar, and he just looks at me and rejects it. Walking away with pride. It made me feel horrible.
@FearedBliss I think communism was based on an emotional outcry of one facet of humanity but do not grant it in any form having good ideas. I find it to be counter productive and for a lack of a better term inhumane. It ignores facts of what is & maliciously tries to change it by "hurting" that which it wants to help.
@mrbit10 Here are some of the good that communism ideas have brought: Unions, collective bargaining, equal rights for man and woman. The bad things about communism are: Totalitarian government that enforces everything. One universal religion. Patriot Act equivalent wire-tapping. A communist government can see all communications and it controls all communications.
@FearedBliss Unions come from communism? hmm I am not a big fan of unions, most of the time that which they fight for exponentially then escapes their grasp by making the price higher. thus a bad cycle ensues. equal rights, is not from communism? Communism does not have rights in the context we know, it is all public property collectively, rights as what you compare to which are the founding of this country are for individuals, the antithesis of communism.
@mrbit10 If it wasn't for unions, we would still be working 7 days a week. You are right that communism's equality is different then how we define it, but the concept of an equal people does come from communism. If the communistic society was equal population on a massive scale, it would be equal population within the scope of the union, within a capitalistic society. Just like GPL is pretty much communistic with source code, but it's great within a capitalistic society. I also support MIT.
@FearedBliss not true, who told you that about 7 days a week? we do work 7 days a week, do we not now expect 24/7 service in many aspects of the economy? I know people that hate weekends lol. The concept of equality in people is NOT communist. Communism is not liberty it is a philosophical wannabe economic model to suppress consumption adversities it perceives. Please do not ascribe equality in the sense of liberty to communism vs an equality of consumption, two very different things
@mrbit10 I suppose I misplaced my words, I apologize. I will reestablish my point haha. Equality of wages, and basic necessities. Some resources should be allocated to the homeless. Not the poor with nintendos and electricity :).
@mrbit10 and even their you can see capitalistic and communistic ideals. MIT = Capitalistic, free, do w/e you want. GPL = Communistic, free, must contribute back to the source pool.
@FearedBliss no, opensource is not a wannabe economic model the argument there is that code is like scientific fact that is common knowledge. Like the word & definition of ant cannot be taken from common knowledge and only known to a few while that does happen by lazyness sometimes of ones drive to learn i cannot agree with your analogy.
@mrbit10 I also do believe that GPL is exactly like scientific progress where we all share our knowledge about something and try to create a better world. So if a pharmaceutical company finds the cure for AIDS or Cancer, they should definitely release that information as it should be common knowledge for the entire human race, or should they keep that information and try to make a it a service that only people with enough money can receive?
@mrbit10 Maybe it has been my interpretation of Communism that has given me the illusion that equality of human rights, resources, sharing and everything comes from Communism. Wouldn't sharing in itself be a "communist" trait?
@mrbit10 I'm not for capitalism alone either since it has bad things as well in that it's so freaking free and brutal that it doesn't encourage helping out your fellow man, but encourages stomping and taking over the place. Social Darwinism essentially, there is no compassion in this system. I encourage a hybrid that takes the best of Capitalism, and the best of Communism, and merges it. Not socialism, but something completely new.
@FearedBliss i disagree capitalism absolutely encourages helping out your fellow man, it needs consumers to function to have absolutes in such a system is antagonistic to that. It could not function if it did not help its fellow man. Communism on the other hand does not, its goal is an end result, sharing is not a concern, to have or have not that basically means following its logic if everyone equal "have not" that all is well. I want no part of that thought.
@mrbit10 I haven't seem capitalism encouraging all the successful people that are out in the world to do something to help our humanity. Bill Gates has done some good, Steve Jobs has done some good, Rockefeller, Carnegie. They have also done bad things, but I believe there are a lot more rich people, and definitely a lot more poor.
@FearedBliss ok you need to define help humanity? we here are humans and are benifiting from our own creation, are you saying because other nations may not be equally that we must transfer consumption over somehow? in our own model we feed of each other, but other nations which have nepotism & no property can only be helped by removing that which allows individuals to own. Peruvian Economist DeSoto wisely said, the poor stay poor in other countries because they cannot own property
@mrbit10 I define helping humanity as in that we are all world citizens and we need to take care of each other, I'm not saying that we all need to be on an equal field. But since that might not work, I'm going to take the ron paul direction and go towards isolationism, let's say we only help the US to benefit, how can we help the poor not be as poor? Government. Basic fundamental access to health care, food, shelter.
@FearedBliss this is going to get long because now you are getting into healthcare one of my most favorite topics, we need to discuss more on different medium and its getting late.
@mrbit10 Hahaha yea I know, you got into it Marsel (Did I spell it right this time? It's either with a c or s). Private Message me your Skype or something, I would love to get more into this conversation.
@mrbit10 Unfortunately businesses in our modern times are being used as a shield to block humanity, when a business should be used to profit to help humanity.
@FearedBliss Part 2, to have "equal outcome" is a result based theory, meaning the end point is the focus & not the means. But yet, when communism/socialism are used as economics, it breaks down. The premise & main existence of economics is that resources, logistics, services and consumption are limited/scarce. Thus "equal outcome is in contradiction, for it it could be achieved economics would not need to exist....
@mrbit10 I definitely wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is completely divided and everything is equal. Not only would it be a boring world without motivation for anything, but as you said, it's a limited resource. I am definitely for not letting people die in the streets, or suffer of hunger. Not saying to give them a mansion, but the minimum necessities of life should be provided.
@mrbit10 I'm also not saying that the rich should maintain the poor, but what I am saying is that the rich aren't going to do it willingly. The rich aren't going to suffer from 1% of their income being distributed for the benefit of the entire population. Compassion is very important, as is helping your fellow man (same thing? lol). I'm definitely upper lower-class, and I would have no problem sharing my already low income to help someone with 1 dollar.
@FearedBliss Part 3 i meant to say "if it" could be achieved. Even in a radical hypothesis if resources of material were not scarce, the logistics of distribution to consumption are, in either case no variable will reconcile "hurt someone or not" we as people pool together to build cities, business, nations & etc but then in some emotional outburst want to alienate ourselves from our own creation. how is that possible or logical?
@mrbit10 It's not, but what is logical is that if people gather together to create businesses to help expedite the building process, and then all of a sudden the business tries to take the benefits that they provided. Look at the current Verizon strike. Verizon makes $12 trillion I believe in profits, but since their land line business isn't as profitable, they ask low and middle class employees to sacrifice $20k of their income? How is that logical?
@FearedBliss Verizon does not make anywhere near 12 trillion in profits and profits are dynamic they evaporate as fast as they come in. There will always be the struggle of people to find ways of production for fair compensation. Profits do not mean $ but arguments based on point of view worker to compensation can skew & emotion of greed takes over which that emotion exists in every model bit greed is also not always a bad thing.
@FearedBliss I think it is around 2 billion but why is that a bad thing, what if the money is needed to stay alive to bring about svdo or update towers, of which that money goes poof, but yet labor states hey we want more of that pie going against future expansion, who is right?
@mrbit10 It's 12.8 billion, just checked and sent you the report via twitter. The problem isn't about the profits, the problem is the ordasity of Verizon to ask/demand it's employees to _give up_ 20k of their income. In this situation, the employee isn't asking for more, but are trying to protect what they already have,
@FearedBliss 12.8 is not profit, but revenue, expenditures was 89 billion, you see how that can go poof quickly? Telecoms are like airlines, such heavy debt or high structure costs. Airlines have done the same, lower wages, it has happened to me as well. For the company to stay alive which is better, fire many or lower wages? Interesting dilemma. I know the telecoms are gearing up for 4G true networks, very expensive.
@mrbit10 Maybe I got the wrong information, when I research for information, everywhere I look on Google articles, posts etc, they always state that Verizon made 12 billion in profits last year alone, but lobbied 35 million. They don't use the word revenue.. what do you think of this? Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, but the fact that everyone is using the word profit, and not revenue has to mean something. If Verizon was losing money $12.9 billion < $89 billion expenditures, ppl would understa
@FearedBliss Part 4 so again a business can consume in a manner to which you subscribe "hurt" as well as a consumer. A business does not need to be or strive to be a monopoly because many times that does not mean surplus or profit, take many natural monopolies such as utilities or even take Microsoft which is not the most profitable nor was it. The goal of a consumer is to profit meaning you want something or need something vs another's
@FearedBliss Part 5 Apple is a great example, it does not make moves to make it self the marketshare leader but yet it profits greatly. A business as people profit as do consumers the entire circle of consumption goes round. I respectfully cannot accept your premise of business or alienation of one from the other. So when you state profit humanity business already does so, greatly, it is our greatest creation for productivity...
@FearedBliss Part6 forgive my spam of this video but i love this type of discussion & should do a webcast on this to discuss further. There are many great things we can do for humanity but alienating some of the most successful aspects of it to somehow make a "moral" argument against for another aspect of humanity does not make sense to me. I would love to discuss this further.
@mrbit10 Haha no you aren't spamming, I'm actually you are discussing this. I can bounce some of my ideas at you. One idea that I really hate and it's one of my fundamental points in politics is corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and cannot/must not have free-speech rights. They basically buy politicians to do their bidding. Yes the business is profiting by lobbying and passing deregulatory or abusive laws, but the politician who was bought made money as well.
@mrbit10 But the rest of the US population suffers from this. One thing is for a group of people to gather up and make a business to provide a service. Another thing is for the group of people to try and steal or corrupt the politicians for their own selfish gain. I would say that money has to be separate from politics. We live in a democracy, in order for the people to be represented, we cannot let corporations buy politicians so that they automatically represent the corporation instead
@FearedBliss wait, so say an environmental group that is a group of people cannot lobby or corrupt just as a business. what about super rich or not rich but powerful individuals not in groups giving money to politicians? We as people form groups for many reasons, to say one group cannot lobby that you must be an individual is nonsense to me. Environmental groups profit for their services by lobbying if a corporation profits by cutting regulation, i see no difference in the act itself
Sorry for erasing my previous comment, wanna make it shorter. People need to realize that all life solutions came from somewhere and whoever use it need to give back something to maintain them. Now, besides receipts, providers gave buyers logos or stickers as prove that they've paid something. Society would work to put on the spot those who use many solutions but has so little stickers... what do you think? Then programmers would dare to target individuals as their true market and charge less.
Melki 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FearedBliss
Comment removed
Melki 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FearedBliss
Comment removed
Melki 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FearedBliss
Again I nod to you. We really need easier more user friendly way of charging intellectual products. People's memory are their essential life elements, and making copies using tools imo is essential life support tools... how is it that they are not licensed to copy by mainstream licenses? Its kinda invasive to humanity or the public domain right?
Melki 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FearedBliss
hmm businesses are made up of consumers. businesses themselves consume, i think this distinction is not necessary. I can accept that there is software made especially for business as in what would a consumer need xyz features for. The pitting of business vs consumer just does not sit well with me in that context it should be IMO business & consumer instead.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 The reason I separated them is because businesses or corporations, and people are different. Most Businesses are in it to make money and don't really care about anything else nor have emotions. A corporation naturally hates capitalism and would like to have a monopoly. How can a corporation make maximum profit if it has competition? Consumers or people are interested in different, not related to money, but either for personal development, or a home made project, etc.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss hmmm i am not sure i agree with that. businesses exist to organize consumption, the trade of such is where money comes in, thus the finite point is consumption of which we consumers do ourselves, thus do we not all have surplus in that we want & need & consume on both levels just as business. A consumer would by your statement fall in the same category, to consume is to compete and thus "want" to consume.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I agree with everything you are saying, what I am also saying is that businesses consume, but they consume not for the product, but for the money. Once the business has the money (at least what a lot of businesses do here in the US) is that they sit on it and don't do anything with it, or take it out of the country and don't contribute back. Avoid to pay taxes like the rest of us consumers. A business cannot be a consumer, and avoid the same sacrifices that all of us do.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss we do the same we need money to consume so does a business does a business not need material to make or labor or fixed structure? why is product consumption better? we all barter with money, profit does not have to be in $ that is false concept. My wife does taxes for a living countless individuals try to avoid paying taxes just as business try to. Business sits on cash?? So do consumers, the mattress saying comes from consumer hoarding, not business.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 LMFAO That's funny because it's true. Alright, but that would also mean that trickle down doesn't work. Economics works simply by supply and demand. A company can be given money, tax cuts, whatever, and if there is no demand, there will be no new jobs. Nothing will trickle down. If taxes are to be avoided by businesses, then they need to be avoided just like regular people, and lobbying cannot be possible.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss what is trickle down? Supply & Demand are a definite component of econ. But if i read you correctly, you just demonstrated how capitalism helps its fellow man. Productivity needs consumption and vice-versa
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I guess I did :), but since Supply & Demand are the fundamental prime-movers, once the economy stops moving, demand slows down, tax cuts won't get the economy back on track.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Basically how are we going to stimulate the economy again? For the last 10 years, trickle-down hasn't worked.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Trickle down would be giving money to the rich, and "hope" that it goes down to the poor. Which doesn't even make it to the poor because since their is no demand, the businesses just take the money and sit on it.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Even If I would have no problem with lobbying, a business cannot go to the congress, and ask them to spare them from taxes. No normal person can go to congress, ask them to let them avoid paying taxes, or to lower their percentages to almost nothing, and actually be allowed to do that.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss no but groups of people will ask congress about regulation that does not make sense or tax rates, IE we as individuals do indeed go straight to congress and ask for tax cuts, I could introduce you to my local congressmen that get letters all the time asking for that very thing, and i think the extension of tax cut rates under this administration is a demonstration of that individual power collectively
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I seriously don't understand why people don't just pay taxes. It helps all of us. The government needs to revenue to build roads, etc. I don't believe businesses should get any benefits when it comes to taxes. Just because a business is a group of people trying to make something efficient, doesn't mean that in that sense, they aren't considered people, but are given lower rates than a person would. A business can't be a person in one situation, and not in another.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Taxation is one of the most inefficient forms of expenditure, many argue for better efficiency, it is many times not always about building roads.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 We need to get the money from somewhere.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I totally agree with you that businesses are made up of consumers, but the problem that is happening in this country and all around the world is that instead of businesses saying "Look, we are a business, but we are humans first, and we need to think about the people first, and apply good morals, and think about the money a little later" they completely forget they are humans, and just do whatever needs to be done whether it hurts someone or not. That's where my frustration lies.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part 1 what does it mean to put people first? If the component of business is alien to people then I could accept the premise, but business is not alien to people and thus people are first, business is people, organized you could say for a productive purpose. "hurts someone or not" while i appreciate the good intention, that is also a false premise. you know some of my politics but quite frankly let us take "equal outcome" as to which i attribute socialism/communism to...
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 You are correct again, business is made up of people but the business itself is not a person and does not deserve or get rights like normal people (Including corporate personhood free-speech), remember that if the business is made up of people, and they are ultimately the end consumer, then is it about the money, or is it about getting the consumption that they want? I'm not for communism as I believe it's too restrictive, but it does have some good ideas.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss the context is consumption & humanity, now you are including law, another aspect but how does that make business consumption bad? You set up a false premise of consumption and money, they are the same, saving money in a bank is dynamic consumption, saving money under a mattress is as well. You need to stop trying to separate money & consumption. a means of barter to consume does not change the end point of consumption in any aspect
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I don't understand. Businesses consuming because they want to provide a service for the end consumer is definitely not a bad thing. The bad thing comes when the businesses get into law and start consuming the politicians. That is definitely not good. The businesses can consume whatever they want whether it's equal or not as long as they are not in our law system.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Consumption & Humanity is the clear context indeed, and that's the problem, how do we fix this problem? How do we fix that we have people that are living great happy stable lives with no necessities problems whatsoever, and then we have people dying because they need all the necessities?
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss remove that which inhibits in their microcosm trade, barter and individual rights. Its ironic that DeSoto points out a massive flaw with despotism but non-ownership of property from a shirt to a business or home to a car is that which communism does as well, public property of the most essential items needed to make humanity go.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Would it be a problem if people got basic necessities as a requirement of life, and the rest of the people who make it big can enjoy themselves?
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss as you state that no, but that is a simple statement, the logistics to get there is another and is why we have the quasi-science of economics. But to be fair it is far better for those nations to be afforded the opportunity to use their own autonomy to grow vs transfer of capital which almost never changes the result.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Not even a comfortable basic necessities, but enough to survive bare minimum. I don't want to encourage people to become lazy and not do anything and just feed off the government, I don't want to give them enough to be comfortable so that can act as a catalyst for their own self improvement.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss comfortable is subjective, we have people starving here and yet my mother-in-law who is from Guatemala asks me to take her to the poorest section of houston. Then when we get there she asks why do they electricity, nice cars and how can they afford nintendos. Or when she was here for Hurricane Katrina victims as i was a volunteer helper, she could not understand why people horded government 2k cards that are free but take to be sold with in the convention center itself
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I'm definitely not speaking about "those" poor people, which seem to me like they are in my range.. which would be upper lower class. Honestly, if the government wasn't helping out my family with housing, we wouldn't be upper lower class. My father has been working all his life trying to provide, and it hasn't been enough. My mother worked ever since she was 5 and became disabled about 11 years ago. Without government aid, we would be screwed, I wouldn't be going to college right now.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 The poor people I'm speaking about are those that don't have electricity, or nintendos. I'm talking about people I see homeless in the streets. I see it all the time here in NY. Today I was walking in the train station, and I see a homeless person digging in the trash, I try to give him a dollar, and he just looks at me and rejects it. Walking away with pride. It made me feel horrible.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss I think communism was based on an emotional outcry of one facet of humanity but do not grant it in any form having good ideas. I find it to be counter productive and for a lack of a better term inhumane. It ignores facts of what is & maliciously tries to change it by "hurting" that which it wants to help.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Here are some of the good that communism ideas have brought: Unions, collective bargaining, equal rights for man and woman. The bad things about communism are: Totalitarian government that enforces everything. One universal religion. Patriot Act equivalent wire-tapping. A communist government can see all communications and it controls all communications.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Unions come from communism? hmm I am not a big fan of unions, most of the time that which they fight for exponentially then escapes their grasp by making the price higher. thus a bad cycle ensues. equal rights, is not from communism? Communism does not have rights in the context we know, it is all public property collectively, rights as what you compare to which are the founding of this country are for individuals, the antithesis of communism.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 If it wasn't for unions, we would still be working 7 days a week. You are right that communism's equality is different then how we define it, but the concept of an equal people does come from communism. If the communistic society was equal population on a massive scale, it would be equal population within the scope of the union, within a capitalistic society. Just like GPL is pretty much communistic with source code, but it's great within a capitalistic society. I also support MIT.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss not true, who told you that about 7 days a week? we do work 7 days a week, do we not now expect 24/7 service in many aspects of the economy? I know people that hate weekends lol. The concept of equality in people is NOT communist. Communism is not liberty it is a philosophical wannabe economic model to suppress consumption adversities it perceives. Please do not ascribe equality in the sense of liberty to communism vs an equality of consumption, two very different things
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I suppose I misplaced my words, I apologize. I will reestablish my point haha. Equality of wages, and basic necessities. Some resources should be allocated to the homeless. Not the poor with nintendos and electricity :).
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 and even their you can see capitalistic and communistic ideals. MIT = Capitalistic, free, do w/e you want. GPL = Communistic, free, must contribute back to the source pool.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss no, opensource is not a wannabe economic model the argument there is that code is like scientific fact that is common knowledge. Like the word & definition of ant cannot be taken from common knowledge and only known to a few while that does happen by lazyness sometimes of ones drive to learn i cannot agree with your analogy.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I also do believe that GPL is exactly like scientific progress where we all share our knowledge about something and try to create a better world. So if a pharmaceutical company finds the cure for AIDS or Cancer, they should definitely release that information as it should be common knowledge for the entire human race, or should they keep that information and try to make a it a service that only people with enough money can receive?
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Maybe it has been my interpretation of Communism that has given me the illusion that equality of human rights, resources, sharing and everything comes from Communism. Wouldn't sharing in itself be a "communist" trait?
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I'm not for capitalism alone either since it has bad things as well in that it's so freaking free and brutal that it doesn't encourage helping out your fellow man, but encourages stomping and taking over the place. Social Darwinism essentially, there is no compassion in this system. I encourage a hybrid that takes the best of Capitalism, and the best of Communism, and merges it. Not socialism, but something completely new.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss i disagree capitalism absolutely encourages helping out your fellow man, it needs consumers to function to have absolutes in such a system is antagonistic to that. It could not function if it did not help its fellow man. Communism on the other hand does not, its goal is an end result, sharing is not a concern, to have or have not that basically means following its logic if everyone equal "have not" that all is well. I want no part of that thought.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I haven't seem capitalism encouraging all the successful people that are out in the world to do something to help our humanity. Bill Gates has done some good, Steve Jobs has done some good, Rockefeller, Carnegie. They have also done bad things, but I believe there are a lot more rich people, and definitely a lot more poor.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss ok you need to define help humanity? we here are humans and are benifiting from our own creation, are you saying because other nations may not be equally that we must transfer consumption over somehow? in our own model we feed of each other, but other nations which have nepotism & no property can only be helped by removing that which allows individuals to own. Peruvian Economist DeSoto wisely said, the poor stay poor in other countries because they cannot own property
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I define helping humanity as in that we are all world citizens and we need to take care of each other, I'm not saying that we all need to be on an equal field. But since that might not work, I'm going to take the ron paul direction and go towards isolationism, let's say we only help the US to benefit, how can we help the poor not be as poor? Government. Basic fundamental access to health care, food, shelter.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss this is going to get long because now you are getting into healthcare one of my most favorite topics, we need to discuss more on different medium and its getting late.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Hahaha yea I know, you got into it Marsel (Did I spell it right this time? It's either with a c or s). Private Message me your Skype or something, I would love to get more into this conversation.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 There could be all the rich people in the world, but health care, food, shelter, are fundamental for anyone's survival.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Unfortunately businesses in our modern times are being used as a shield to block humanity, when a business should be used to profit to help humanity.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part 2, to have "equal outcome" is a result based theory, meaning the end point is the focus & not the means. But yet, when communism/socialism are used as economics, it breaks down. The premise & main existence of economics is that resources, logistics, services and consumption are limited/scarce. Thus "equal outcome is in contradiction, for it it could be achieved economics would not need to exist....
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I definitely wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is completely divided and everything is equal. Not only would it be a boring world without motivation for anything, but as you said, it's a limited resource. I am definitely for not letting people die in the streets, or suffer of hunger. Not saying to give them a mansion, but the minimum necessities of life should be provided.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 I'm also not saying that the rich should maintain the poor, but what I am saying is that the rich aren't going to do it willingly. The rich aren't going to suffer from 1% of their income being distributed for the benefit of the entire population. Compassion is very important, as is helping your fellow man (same thing? lol). I'm definitely upper lower-class, and I would have no problem sharing my already low income to help someone with 1 dollar.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part 3 i meant to say "if it" could be achieved. Even in a radical hypothesis if resources of material were not scarce, the logistics of distribution to consumption are, in either case no variable will reconcile "hurt someone or not" we as people pool together to build cities, business, nations & etc but then in some emotional outburst want to alienate ourselves from our own creation. how is that possible or logical?
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 It's not, but what is logical is that if people gather together to create businesses to help expedite the building process, and then all of a sudden the business tries to take the benefits that they provided. Look at the current Verizon strike. Verizon makes $12 trillion I believe in profits, but since their land line business isn't as profitable, they ask low and middle class employees to sacrifice $20k of their income? How is that logical?
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Verizon does not make anywhere near 12 trillion in profits and profits are dynamic they evaporate as fast as they come in. There will always be the struggle of people to find ways of production for fair compensation. Profits do not mean $ but arguments based on point of view worker to compensation can skew & emotion of greed takes over which that emotion exists in every model bit greed is also not always a bad thing.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 correction, I should have said 12 billion. They declared this IIRC from last years income statement.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss I think it is around 2 billion but why is that a bad thing, what if the money is needed to stay alive to bring about svdo or update towers, of which that money goes poof, but yet labor states hey we want more of that pie going against future expansion, who is right?
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 It's 12.8 billion, just checked and sent you the report via twitter. The problem isn't about the profits, the problem is the ordasity of Verizon to ask/demand it's employees to _give up_ 20k of their income. In this situation, the employee isn't asking for more, but are trying to protect what they already have,
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss 12.8 is not profit, but revenue, expenditures was 89 billion, you see how that can go poof quickly? Telecoms are like airlines, such heavy debt or high structure costs. Airlines have done the same, lower wages, it has happened to me as well. For the company to stay alive which is better, fire many or lower wages? Interesting dilemma. I know the telecoms are gearing up for 4G true networks, very expensive.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Maybe I got the wrong information, when I research for information, everywhere I look on Google articles, posts etc, they always state that Verizon made 12 billion in profits last year alone, but lobbied 35 million. They don't use the word revenue.. what do you think of this? Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, but the fact that everyone is using the word profit, and not revenue has to mean something. If Verizon was losing money $12.9 billion < $89 billion expenditures, ppl would understa
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part 4 so again a business can consume in a manner to which you subscribe "hurt" as well as a consumer. A business does not need to be or strive to be a monopoly because many times that does not mean surplus or profit, take many natural monopolies such as utilities or even take Microsoft which is not the most profitable nor was it. The goal of a consumer is to profit meaning you want something or need something vs another's
mrbit10 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part 5 Apple is a great example, it does not make moves to make it self the marketshare leader but yet it profits greatly. A business as people profit as do consumers the entire circle of consumption goes round. I respectfully cannot accept your premise of business or alienation of one from the other. So when you state profit humanity business already does so, greatly, it is our greatest creation for productivity...
mrbit10 6 months ago
@FearedBliss Part6 forgive my spam of this video but i love this type of discussion & should do a webcast on this to discuss further. There are many great things we can do for humanity but alienating some of the most successful aspects of it to somehow make a "moral" argument against for another aspect of humanity does not make sense to me. I would love to discuss this further.
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 Haha no you aren't spamming, I'm actually you are discussing this. I can bounce some of my ideas at you. One idea that I really hate and it's one of my fundamental points in politics is corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and cannot/must not have free-speech rights. They basically buy politicians to do their bidding. Yes the business is profiting by lobbying and passing deregulatory or abusive laws, but the politician who was bought made money as well.
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@mrbit10 But the rest of the US population suffers from this. One thing is for a group of people to gather up and make a business to provide a service. Another thing is for the group of people to try and steal or corrupt the politicians for their own selfish gain. I would say that money has to be separate from politics. We live in a democracy, in order for the people to be represented, we cannot let corporations buy politicians so that they automatically represent the corporation instead
FearedBliss 6 months ago
@FearedBliss wait, so say an environmental group that is a group of people cannot lobby or corrupt just as a business. what about super rich or not rich but powerful individuals not in groups giving money to politicians? We as people form groups for many reasons, to say one group cannot lobby that you must be an individual is nonsense to me. Environmental groups profit for their services by lobbying if a corporation profits by cutting regulation, i see no difference in the act itself
mrbit10 6 months ago
@mrbit10 of the people.
FearedBliss 6 months ago