Socialism of 4D, Capitalism, Is Money STS?

[Monica]

but, taking more than you give, will always be a negative energy flow.

Agreed. However, I don't think it is so easily categorized as to whether it is a negative flow.

Scenario A

Mr. X develops an herbal cure for cancer. It costs him pennies to make, but he sells it for millions. From Mr. X's perspective, this is greed. He doesn't care about healing other people. He just wants to exploit their illness. Many people cannot afford his expensive treatment so they die.

Scenario B

Mr. Y develops an herbal cure for cancer. It costs him pennies to make, but he quickly runs out of herbs and needs to purchase more of the plants, in order to make more of the healing formulas. He meets Mr. Z, who has terminal cancer. Mr. Z is willing to pay $1million for a cure. Mr. Y tells Mr. Z that he doesn't have to pay that much, since the formula only cost $5 and a few hours of his time to make. Mr. Y decides to make a little profit, but not anything unreasonable. He charges Mr. Z $1000 for the formula. Mr. Z is healed and very, very happy. Mr. Z only paid $1000 but got his life and health back. He thinks he got a bargain! Meanwhile, Mr. Y invests that $1000 into more plants, and now has enough herbs to make thousands of the formulas. He makes them and sells them for $20 each, saving thousands of lives while being allowed to earn an honest living. Everyone is happy.

Are both of these scenarios negative flow?

In Scenario B, since Mr. Z would gladly have paid much, much more than the $1000, he actually got MORE value than what he paid! Same with the later customers who got healed for only $20. Is negative flow based only on the cost of the physical materials? Or is it based on the value the person puts on the exchange? How does one measure something like life and health?

henry ford's intent in serving others, does not change the fact that he took more than he gave. moreover, it doesnt change the fact that his workers didnt get equal share from what they worked on.

moreover, it doesnt change the fact that, after henry ford is gone, that big company he created, stood as just another big company for minority shareholder benefit, and acted accordingly.

This is true. But it's equally true that the invention of cars is a double-edged sword. What is the overall net value of the car? On a positive note, it has made life easier. We can visit friends and relatives who live far away, very quickly. How do we measure the value of that? This is a positive benefit and should be factored into the equation. On a negative note, cars have contributed to people getting more lazy, experiencing more stress, more accidents and fatalities, and of course pollution of the planet. These too must be factored into the equation.

Let's replace the car with the refrigerator. Surely, there are more poitive benefits (food lasting longer, less waste) and fewer negative effects than a car, since refrigerators don't cause accidents or pollute the Earth (or at least not nearly as much as cars do). But the model is the same. Whoever invented the refrigerator surely created an empire and made profit.

My point is that the value of something isn't so easily measured. And a value must be determined, in order to figure out whether the energy flow is negative or positive.

The flow also doesn't happen in an instant. It is set in motion and keeps flowing, for years or even centuries. The big picture must be taken into account. In the end, what is the result? Is the world a better or worse place because of it? This question is not so easily answered. It varies with the item being discussed, even though the mechanism might be the same.

in addition, at no point i am receptive to being enslaved to any minority, regardless of who that minority happens to be.

Well I agree with that.

a negative flow, is a negative flow. intentions, do not matter, in regard to negative flow. even if one is the purest of all entities that have come and passed from this universe, a negative flow, is still going to remain a negative flow.

What makes it a negative flow? In the example you gave, what I understood was that it was negative because it was out of balance. The person received more than they gave. But are you taking into consideration the factor of time? At what point is the equation measured? Perhaps the balance might be skewed in one direction initially, but over a period of time, the scale might tip in the other direction.