We issue promissory obligations/or notes (which have lawful consideration of value), the banks are just re-issuing what we create, theyre publishing the evidence of our promissory obligations, monetizing our promissory obligations/notes to each other
Banks give up no consideration equal to the debts the falsify to themselves,
(they give up minimal costs associated with publication) that they get back in a fraction of the first payment they receive, from anybody
Consider your idea of a $250,000 cap on salary and what effect that would have on production. Bill Gates does not have all of his money stored in the form of paper bank notes. He invests enormous amounts of money into stocks. Companies consequently have more money for capital goods. Capital goods are instrumental in obtaining the most amount of products from the least amount of labor.
You are apparently against charging interest. Interest is a price paid to a saver to defer consumption. You would remove incentive for consumers to save money if you removed interest. Without a myriad of savers, there would be relatively few loans. Loans are very important for businesses being started and affording capital goods. Capital goods increase wage because they increase the output attained from labor.
You used Rockefeller as an example of a rich person we do not need to be productive. Rockefeller was the Einstein of efficiency. Before he came into the picture, oil prices were about 10x as expensive. He literally lit up the country with kerosene. Obviously, environmental objections about oil could be raised, but if we are talking solely about production, having random workers democratically match the productive efficiency and innovation of Rockefeller is unrealistic.
I am a physicalist, antinatalist, and agree with you on so much that I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually persuaded me on this, but I am left with a lot of questions regarding the anti-capitalist sentiment. Firstly, limiting inheritance entails limiting how much a mother can spend on her child. As I am am sure you are aware: in kin selection, mothers are powerfully hardwired to act in the interests of their children. To at least some extent, the incentive for moms to produce would decline.
Perhaps we could start by implementing a societal salary cap, kinda like in sports. You can only have 'so much' money. The extra you make will have to go to good causes, etc.
@Cookiefox I think it depends how deep into the solution you want to go. I can see the achievement of near utopia in a resource based economy, but I can't see us getting anywhere near there until the significant majority learn to value life over all other considerations.
segment #1: holly crap ! a video on youtube not only gave me a new way to look at things(which does happens rarely) but actually nudged my view my view 180deg. Segment #2 i have no informed opinion. Segment #3: interesting, although i am not sold on all of the ideas you presented. I do agree efficiency and production are the keys to quality of life (also getting need social project done). How would you address the motivation to produce?
Do you know how much it costs to keep track of where the money goes? You can't be competitive if you have to hire a shitload of accountants and spend a lot of money training them to make sure they memorize all the complicated regulations. If you want information that detailed the regulations will get so complicated that only a certain percentile of the population can understand them, that's where it gets really expensive. How is that efficient?
@fulishproductions His idea's hinge on the supposition that the people are dedicated to justice and fairness, and take an active role in their government.
@mopme2008 Yes--the average human, if treated appropriately and raised in an economically rational society, would very likely be far more active, fair and just.
Sanity breeds sanity--and currently, we are living in a mostly out of control, perhaps even insane world.
@fulishproductions I would posit that hillbilly trailer trash are no more inherently unfit to wear that suit than those who currently do. If they did find some oil money on the family homestead, they'd simply move to Beverly Hills and live off the fat while hiring managers to actually run things. Can you really believe that Jed Clampett is worse than Kim Kardashian?
@TheAzov No, I can't, and don't. That's exactly the point: FAIR economics means ALL humans have an equal starting ground. Then, the person who has the capacity to wear a suit (i.e., to work productively), can. In the same way, those more comfortable living a life involving less strenuous or productive work, can.
And the best part is, neither party would feel guilty for being who they are (in that system). We would all simply work to the best of our ability.
the only thing i really disagree wit his the 8 hours a day part lol there are other country that work way less then that and have way higher production maybe if you ment 5 days a week i agree i really think if everyone "really worked" 4 hours a day would be more then enough
i think only money should be inherted and even that should be capped at like a mill max maybe 5 now. i feel that you should be able to leave you kids enough so they don't have to work and i mean at a middle class level. and i think with a million you could leave in bank and still be making thousands off the interest a month
We issue promissory obligations/or notes (which have lawful consideration of value), the banks are just re-issuing what we create, theyre publishing the evidence of our promissory obligations, monetizing our promissory obligations/notes to each other
Banks give up no consideration equal to the debts the falsify to themselves,
(they give up minimal costs associated with publication) that they get back in a fraction of the first payment they receive, from anybody
^Thats the game
ott0Kitam 1 day ago
I agree.
Wealth should be earned not inherrited.
DonEdwardVoiceovers 2 months ago
Consider your idea of a $250,000 cap on salary and what effect that would have on production. Bill Gates does not have all of his money stored in the form of paper bank notes. He invests enormous amounts of money into stocks. Companies consequently have more money for capital goods. Capital goods are instrumental in obtaining the most amount of products from the least amount of labor.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
You are apparently against charging interest. Interest is a price paid to a saver to defer consumption. You would remove incentive for consumers to save money if you removed interest. Without a myriad of savers, there would be relatively few loans. Loans are very important for businesses being started and affording capital goods. Capital goods increase wage because they increase the output attained from labor.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
You used Rockefeller as an example of a rich person we do not need to be productive. Rockefeller was the Einstein of efficiency. Before he came into the picture, oil prices were about 10x as expensive. He literally lit up the country with kerosene. Obviously, environmental objections about oil could be raised, but if we are talking solely about production, having random workers democratically match the productive efficiency and innovation of Rockefeller is unrealistic.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
I am a physicalist, antinatalist, and agree with you on so much that I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually persuaded me on this, but I am left with a lot of questions regarding the anti-capitalist sentiment. Firstly, limiting inheritance entails limiting how much a mother can spend on her child. As I am am sure you are aware: in kin selection, mothers are powerfully hardwired to act in the interests of their children. To at least some extent, the incentive for moms to produce would decline.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
Perhaps we could start by implementing a societal salary cap, kinda like in sports. You can only have 'so much' money. The extra you make will have to go to good causes, etc.
MassacreBlast 9 months ago
This is a superb video. You might be interested in watching this watch?v=TwmM5Nb6hiE I have quite a few videos around this subject favourited too.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
Sounds like democratic capitalism. Like what Michael Moore was preaching.
Yamikaiba123 9 months ago
What do you say to Zeitgeist argument that its money itself which is the problem?
Cookiefox 9 months ago
@Cookiefox Fiat money is not the problem, it's just a tool. It's how you use the tool that makes the difference.
You can build a house with a hamme rbut you can also take a life with it.
sanctiX 9 months ago
@Cookiefox I think it depends how deep into the solution you want to go. I can see the achievement of near utopia in a resource based economy, but I can't see us getting anywhere near there until the significant majority learn to value life over all other considerations.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
good look getting a legitimate argument against any of this. :)
XES101watchclub 9 months ago
@XES101watchclub There is no legitimate argument against it, because he's absolutely right.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
@fuckoverload i meant to say "good luck" because, yeah, there probably wont be any..
XES101watchclub 9 months ago
Mp3 link for this video is broken
Planet0fTheApes 9 months ago
@Planet0fTheApes, thanks ...fixed and such
GloomBoomDoom 9 months ago
segment #1: holly crap ! a video on youtube not only gave me a new way to look at things(which does happens rarely) but actually nudged my view my view 180deg. Segment #2 i have no informed opinion. Segment #3: interesting, although i am not sold on all of the ideas you presented. I do agree efficiency and production are the keys to quality of life (also getting need social project done). How would you address the motivation to produce?
masluxx 9 months ago
Do you know how much it costs to keep track of where the money goes? You can't be competitive if you have to hire a shitload of accountants and spend a lot of money training them to make sure they memorize all the complicated regulations. If you want information that detailed the regulations will get so complicated that only a certain percentile of the population can understand them, that's where it gets really expensive. How is that efficient?
NonPr0ph3t 9 months ago
seemingly irrefutable points, no idea how people don't just get this
fulishproductions 9 months ago
@fulishproductions people r dumb
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
I love to hear the same generalizations made about the uber-rich that most people only will make about poor people on welfare and stuff like that.
HilaciousM 9 months ago
What is with the debt notes as your background Get some real money!
GOLDSILVERDUDE 9 months ago
Have you been to peopleofwalmart dotcom? That's who you want to own the means of production and run civilization??
mopme2008 9 months ago
@mopme2008 No. Those are the exact same people who could--in the current system--be BORN rich.
Just think of the most hillbilly, idiot, trailer-trashy slob you can, and then think of him wearing a suit.
How can that image not horrify you? THAT's what this argument is about preventing.
fulishproductions 9 months ago
@fulishproductions His idea's hinge on the supposition that the people are dedicated to justice and fairness, and take an active role in their government.
mopme2008 9 months ago
@mopme2008 Yes--the average human, if treated appropriately and raised in an economically rational society, would very likely be far more active, fair and just.
Sanity breeds sanity--and currently, we are living in a mostly out of control, perhaps even insane world.
fulishproductions 9 months ago
@fulishproductions I would posit that hillbilly trailer trash are no more inherently unfit to wear that suit than those who currently do. If they did find some oil money on the family homestead, they'd simply move to Beverly Hills and live off the fat while hiring managers to actually run things. Can you really believe that Jed Clampett is worse than Kim Kardashian?
TheAzov 9 months ago
@TheAzov No, I can't, and don't. That's exactly the point: FAIR economics means ALL humans have an equal starting ground. Then, the person who has the capacity to wear a suit (i.e., to work productively), can. In the same way, those more comfortable living a life involving less strenuous or productive work, can.
And the best part is, neither party would feel guilty for being who they are (in that system). We would all simply work to the best of our ability.
fulishproductions 9 months ago
@fulishproductions I can agree with that. But at least Uncle Jed can fish and hunt. What use would Kim Kardashian be? (No nasty thoughts, please.) :D
TheAzov 9 months ago
Gary you should talk about the bar stool economics mentioned by how the world works lee doren
xMachineGhostsx 9 months ago
@xMachineGhostsx maybe if he is a retard he would talk about "bar stool economics."
AEVautomatic 9 months ago
yeah ok i want him to explain why its crap
xMachineGhostsx 9 months ago
the only thing i really disagree wit his the 8 hours a day part lol there are other country that work way less then that and have way higher production maybe if you ment 5 days a week i agree i really think if everyone "really worked" 4 hours a day would be more then enough
kainniak1 9 months ago
True!
qminusis 9 months ago
i think only money should be inherted and even that should be capped at like a mill max maybe 5 now. i feel that you should be able to leave you kids enough so they don't have to work and i mean at a middle class level. and i think with a million you could leave in bank and still be making thousands off the interest a month
kainniak1 9 months ago