Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics?

[ScottK]

If you don't have incentive, you don't have innovation.  Without innovation, we have a problem.

Scott, why do you believe this is a true statement?  All the evidence shows that most of the great discoveries and inventions happened outside the patent system and the inventors rarely got rich off of them.  Innovation seems to be something that humans do in spite of the incentive, because we're naturally creative.

What capitalism and the patent system does really well is capture or enclose innovation and rent it out to the folks who will actually use it.

Even if we didn't have innovation, I'm not sure we'd have a problem from a spiritual perspective.  Ra has stated that many STO civilizations never reach great technical heights.

Tricky nuance here..

Patent systems have been exploited by the large corporations especially, I would guess, because of seemingly unlimited money available for litigation. But a simple inventor making some fees because of a great idea he/she had - who could argue with that?

I think my mindset in posting this is more related to the concept of "regulatory capture", than anything else.

I'm in agreement that STO civilizations would not have to be technologically advanced - but then, what does that mean? I would think that it's a helper IF the technologies help create more free time and peace and abundance in the world. That doesn't seem to be the case now generally. Free energy, food synthesizers, etc, would probably really help..

[APeacefulWarrior]

All the evidence shows that most of the great discoveries and inventions happened outside the patent system and the inventors rarely got rich off of them.  Innovation seems to be something that humans do in spite of the incentive, because we're naturally creative.

Have you seen the "Connections" series of documentaries from the 80s-90s, by the historian James Burke? He presents one of the most cohesive and compelling models of how invention and innovation happens that I've seen, along with how it impacts society, based on many many examples from throughout history. The short short version is that what we consider "invention" is almost always the result of a mashup of two or more previous inventions from different subject matters or areas of interest. That, summarizing greatly, information flow is the great enabler of invention specifically because it brings together people from different disciplines and creates the catalytic environment, so to speak, for them to spot the potential for synergy in each other's ideas.

Also - like you said - that creation rarely happens because of a desire to get rich off the act of inventing. Inventions almost always came about as a result of a specific utilitarian need for the invention itself, and any riches came about later as a secondary effect. Although that changed somewhat in the late 19th/early 20th, mostly thanks to Edison and his creation of industrial-scale technology labs based around marketing their products. Invention has definitely gotten more market-focused in recent years, although one could also debate how much actual "invention" is happening despite all the many product releases.

If you can find the *original* Connections series, it's worth watching from start to finish. It actually presents a single cohesive thesis, built up over nine episodes, with the tenth serving as capstone. The other two series were a bit dumbed down, although not terrible. He also did a sort of spinoff called "The Day The Universe Changed" which is harder to find, but talks more about how society has changed as a result of technological or scientific revolutions.

[rva_jeremy]

There's no such thing as a forced capitalism.

Well, this just gets us into "no true Scotsman" territory. I get what you're saying; I just don't find it a very useful argument since, if we can't judge actual, self-described capitalist systems as capitalist, then nobody can make a verifiable positive or negative statement about it at all.

Let me put it this way: as long as you have a property title system enforced by state power, whatever economic system that is in place is by definition "forced". I'd also ask you to consider the well-documented penchant humans have for outright contradiction within their ideologies. Seems to me there's a forced version of everything.

Capitalism is about continuously building the better mousetrap, and those who can't build the better mousetrap are taken out.  It's creative destruction with competition between small companies.

As somebody who used to be a big booster of capitalism (Gary remembers) let me just suggest that you could make a better argument. Who wants to live in a world where, if you don't keep up, you get "taken out"? I get why Schumpeter's idea here is important, but the idea that the only way to innovate is through ruthless competition is just not borne out by history at all. It might be the most "efficient", but you can only make that judgment by ignoring the ways in which it is inefficient (e.g. the massive waste and fraud in the tax-advantaged R&D sector, the opportunity costs of more decentralized, small scale innovation sans patents and copyrights, etc).

Is the definition of capitalism taught with a Marxist/Leninist slant now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism <= that's what I was taught. Private property, capital accumulation, private means of production. I especially point you to the etymology section of the article. Capitalism, from its beginning uses, has been tied to the state-chartered joint stock corporation since its inception. And the term "capitalism" was popularized by Marx and other 19th century socialists. It always surprises me that defenders of free markets and private property adopt their critics' terms and then want to argue over definitions!

That said, we need capitalism now because we need fast innovation.  The structure of our economy is currently aligned with 4th Density NEGATIVE principles, and to break out of this, we will need technologies that remove us from centralized systems quickly (the centralized systems will fall apart quickly when things start breaking).

I totally don't get this. With the way that the patent, trademark, and copyright system is set up, the returns on innovation seem to always accrue disproportionately to capital, not to the human innovators. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what we'd want if our goal were to disrupt and break up concentrated control of the economy.

Thanks for your replies, Scott.

[Infinite]

Capitalism is about continuously building the better mousetrap, and those who can't build the better mousetrap are taken out.  It's creative destruction with competition between small companies.

I'm sorry but this is a STS ideology. Capitalism is a STS system. He is based in the "law of jungle" and this is a STS philosophy.

[rva_jeremy]

Patent systems have been exploited by the large corporations especially, I would guess, because of seemingly unlimited money available for litigation.  But a simple inventor making some fees because of a great idea he/she had - who could argue with that?

I consider the latter example simply a legitimizing narrative to shore up the prevalence of the former example.  What I don't get it why we wouldn't expect a system of state-subsidized private property to accumulate property to those better at navigating the system?  It just seems like the rules are set up to favor capital -- almost like it is a "capital"-centric or capital-ist system.

I think my mindset in posting this is more related to the concept of "regulatory capture", than anything else.

Fair enough.  As an anarchist, I typically point out in scenarios like this that corporations are chartered by the state.  They are literally tiny privatized departments of the state, especially to the extent they enjoy limited liability protection.  If you're interested in this critique, I wrote an essay called Let the Free Market Eat the Rich a few years back that lays out these ideas.

I'm in agreement that STO civilizations would not have to be technologically advanced - but then, what does that mean?  

Perhaps it means that, sometimes, doing things the inconvenient, labor-intensive, hard way has upsides that we don't recognize in terms of human connection, cooperation, and selfhood.  Technology these days tends to have a very distracting quality to it.  Freeing us from toil just to sit in front of a screen doesn't seem like a big win.  

[rva_jeremy]

Capitalism is about continuously building the better mousetrap, and those who can't build the better mousetrap are taken out.  It's creative destruction with competition between small companies.

I'm sorry but this is a STS ideology. Capitalism is a STS system. He is based in the "law of jungle" and this is a STS philosophy.

I don't think it's fair to say Scott is STS just because he sees advantages to capitalism.  Hate the game, not the playa.  

[rva_jeremy]

Hey, check it out -- somebody created a video out of my essay!  This is super cool.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Personally, I think there are advantages to capitalism in the big picture - particularly global capitalism - which aren't discussed too often. (And problems in the small scale can often be mitigated through regulation, consumer protection, and social safety nets.) The more closely tied-together countries' economies are, the less likely they are to go to war because it would simply be too unprofitable.

I mean, as a simple example, look at the US and China. Fearmongers love to push the idea of the two going to war, but realistically, that's incredibly unlikely to happen. Why? Because each is the other's best trade partner. (Unless you count the EU as a single entity, in which they're both each other's second-bestie.) The economic devastation which would come from an actual shooting war would be almost unimaginable, since that would mean a near-overnight cessation of trade and supply lines. It would be so bad that it's hard to imagine ANY scenario where going to war would actually be seen as worthwhile.

And speaking of the EU, it's the same basic thing. The history of Europe up until 1945 was roughly two thousand years of war, with occasional outbreaks of peace when everyone was too poor or too depopulated to fight. Then, virtually overnight, major wars in Europe STOPPED. And in the meantime, they've knitted together trade agreements which bind them together far more closely than any medieval arranged marriage ever could. The idea of Germany or France or England or Spain actually going to war against each other again is practically unimaginable, even if Brexit does happen. You'd need a full-on economic collapse first for it to even be a possibility, and there are a lot of safeguards in place against that.

For all its problems at a philosophical level, mixed-market capitalism with a dash of socialism is turning into a pretty good global stabilizer and peacemaker. That's worth something, given how violent humanity has been in the past. It creates the possibility of having a foundation upon which a true global society can be built in a way that didn't exist even fifty years ago.

[rva_jeremy]

The more closely tied-together countries' economies are, the less likely they are to go to war because it would simply be too unprofitable.

But the more integrated global markets are, the easier it is to inflict low-intensity, hidden misery and death on people. Look at the third world. This idea that "when goods don't cross borders, troops will" just means that as long as the troops are pointing their guns inside the borders, everything is "peaceful". I mean, in the age of nuclear weapons your point is well taken, APW, but I wonder how far it goes if what we're after is not reducing a specific category of violence, or the visibility of violence, but instead the net violence.

[APeacefulWarrior]

I'm an incrementalist. I'm certainly not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows, just that we've found a new equilibrium which is *better* than the old status quo. And that, all things being equal, things are likely to keep slowly getting better for the forseeable future. Also, net violence (per capita) is way down as well, by most estimates. Overall, there has probably never been a safer and more prosperous time to be alive on planet Earth.

That's what I meant about creating a foundation. For a true global society to happen, there will need to be a near-cessation of violence between countres. We're on track for that to happen. If/when it does, it will become far easier for the children of the future to start really focusing on the lower-level problems and the hidden violence you talk about. But since so many of those problems are driven by very ingrained challenges like lack of resources, it's most likely going to take a global effort (along with ever-improving logistics and communication) to fix them.

[Infinite]

I don't think it's fair to say Scott is STS just because he sees advantages to capitalism.  Hate the game, not the playa.  

I never said this. I just said that the vision "law of the jungle" is clearly STS.

[rva_jeremy]

I never said this.

Please accept my apologies for getting your statement wrong, you certainly did not say that.

I just said that the vision "law of the jungle" is clearly STS.

I agree, though it is strange to think about how the "law of the jungle" works pretty well and non-negatively in the context of second density. It's a weird balance we've to achieve in third density, isn't it, between the "all is well" mentality that allows us to reflect and ground experience and the stress, problems, and difficulties that we seem to need in order to progress. I'm not saying we should have a law of the jungle, but at the same time, I do wonder whether we don't benefit from a certain amount of pushing.

Of course I say that, and at the same time right now my work is so stressful that I fantasize of just walking out into the woods and living there. The challenge has been to figure out how to balance that, and the edginess of the feeling is what drives me to balance until such time as I bail on civilization.

[Spooner]

Neither capitalism nor socialism as exists on Earth is STO. Every system on Earth requires coercion to function. People in socialist countries cannot opt out and simply live peacefully on their own. In the same way people in capitalist societies may find themselves in a position where everything is owned and there is literally no where to go to live peacefully on their own.

The ability to live peacefully on your own is the bedrock foundation of any STO society. Without this, participation is coercive and a form of enslavement. Period.

Socialist systems that force the hard working and competent to pay a huge portion of their labor in support of the lazy or inept are coercive. They are enacting slavery. The is what conservatives are trying to point out.

Capitalist systems that force the working class to work long hours or starve to death because monopolies control all the resources and land are coercive. They are enacting slavery. This is what the liberals are trying to point out.

There are valid observations on both sides. Even though liberals think of themselves as being more compassionate they are not. Objectively conservatives give more of their money to charity. Liberals want to spend other peoples money to solve the worlds problems. They want to use law/government/violence to force this. This is not loving kindness. Loving kindness comes from a human individual. In the same way conservatives like to think of themselves are more just than liberals. They are objectively not. The free market only exists in theory. In reality we have lying, distortion, monopoly, coercion and more all under the umbrella of the "free market." Defending this is not justice.

Please stop being simplistic about this. A true STO society would look nothing like what we have on earth. The closest thing would be primitive tribalism where people are free to come or go as they please, except theoretically you could also have technology. It's just that humans have never been able to maintain complex societies including technology without adopting some force of coercion to keep things orderly. Part of this is just the nature of living on earth with limited ability to communicate and a huge population of psychopathic/STS people mixed among the STO.

[rva_jeremy]

Please stop being simplistic about this. A true STO society would look nothing like what we have on earth. The closest thing would be primitive tribalism where people are free to come or go as they please, except theoretically you could also have technology. It's just that humans have never been able to maintain complex societies including technology without adopting some force of coercion to keep things orderly. Part of this is just the nature of living on earth with limited ability to communicate and a huge population of psychopathic/STS people mixed among the STO.

Spooner, thank you for pulling us out of our third density chauvinism! I'm pumping my fist in the air. This is exactly the kind of thinking we need to be doing more of. For what it's worth, this is the kind of thinking I was striving towards in my essay on fourth density politics.

[Infinite Unity]

There is actually a movie called "Zeitgeist" which deals with the global economy and the way capitalism is flawed. The producer, a ninety-something architect, proposes a new way to live based on cooperation—very socialistic. It used to be free on the Internet. There are 2 Zeitgeist sequels, all good.

The real question is where does capitalism actually exist on earth?

The United States is a weird combination of corporatism and socialism that has the net effect of stifling all innovation which is not in the interest of large corporations.  And the regulators are captured by the corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The problem with socialism is that it's confiscation of the fruits of one's labor (denial of free will) where an elite class controls the allocation of the confiscated resources.  Of course, said elite class tends to spend the money in the interest of the elite class, but they throw a few bones to the people to make it look like they are doing something good.

Generally speaking, an elite class is interested in controlling money since that control gives them power over people.  The good people of the world who typically would do the right thing aren't interested in controlling money..  Guess who ends up controlling money in all cases..  So I would argue that no economic model will get us out of the mess we are in without major change.

The way to resolve the economic issues of the world is to have the release of suppressed technologies for free energy and a multitude of other areas, and in that period of innovation, pure capitalism would be the best model where companies compete against each other to produce the best mousetrap at the lowest cost.  These new technologies would reduce a person's daily costs quite significantly and usher in a new era of economic sovereignty.

I agree, but I believe your off on one point. I dont believe corporations, government, or any entity of that order, will he the one to release or use that type or level of technology for the masses.

However in my opinion these technologies, and concepts will be developed and introduced from individuals. I believe revelations, insights, and just the general level of development or consciousness will soon make it impossible to suppress these technologies and concepts. I've had undeveloped thoughts and concepts since I was a child, that recently have started to really develop and will soon begin to come into fruitation. I know it is apart of the coming on change, and an aspect of how we will change the world. Not my plans or concepts or anything specifically do to with me. However the point is that I know I am not the only one, there are many.

[smiLie]

The problem with socialism is that it's confiscation of the fruits of one's labor (denial of free will) where an elite class controls the allocation of the confiscated resources. Of course, said elite class tends to spend the money in the interest of the elite class, but they throw a few bones to the people to make it look like they are doing something good.

Generally speaking, an elite class is interested in controlling money since that control gives them power over people.

Correct, I agree.

The way to resolve the economic issues of the world is to have the release of suppressed technologies for free energy and a multitude of other areas, and in that period of innovation, pure capitalism would be the best model where companies compete against each other to produce the best mousetrap at the lowest cost.

All of this is impossible. Capitalism is not "for better mousetraps" . It is to make monopolies and control them via trick or force. Hence, during Capitalism, you ALWAYS will have cronies, you will have dirtiest possible ways to make money - killing people, drugs, weapons, stealing natural resources, etc. etc. If the only incentive is "more money" , the dirtiest possible people will always float to the top.

Socialism and communism and their epic failures are solely about the corruption of "who controls the money".

This is misguided. There was never a COMMUNIST COUNTRY. Ever. It's a Utopian, STO idea that never materialized.

There's a massive, anti-Socialism propaganda that is everywhere in totalitarian, capitalist-owned media. While only getting all "capitalist" countries together and massively attacking Soviet Union "capitalists" were able to defeat socialism. No true research of this phenomenon is ever put out or discussed. Question is this: WHY?

Capitalism = "more money for the monopolies". That's it. There's no possible way to make it "proper" , "honest" or for it NOT to end up in monopolies.

The final result of capitalism is always an oligarchy and monopolies, and resulting corporate fascism. This is THE GOAL of Capitalism, by definition.

What we really need is honest money and an honest legal system.

This is BY DEFINITION impossible.

As soon as you have money - it is the most corrupt element on the planet. Money+capitalism (idea of "getting more money") created the most corrupt system possible.

Capitalism by definition "want more money" , by definition most corrupt float to the top. And as soon as they are at the top , they are going to twick the legal system into their favor.

SO, no "honest money and legal system" is possible.

And you have no basis , as you have no groups of honest people to begin with. Who is going to issue and control both? You would expect there would be Hosety and Honor systems in the military. But if dishonest control the government (capitalists and lawyers), they will circumvent the military too (look at how many Trillions Pentagon has stolen and pillaged).

[smiLie]

Personally, I think there are advantages to capitalism in the big picture - particularly global capitalism - which aren't discussed too often.  (And problems in the small scale can often be mitigated through regulation, consumer protection, and social safety nets.)  The more closely tied-together countries' economies are, the less likely they are to go to war because it would simply be too unprofitable.  
I mean, as a simple example, look at the US and China

I'll just leave it here.

This quick, 2.5 min cartoon, explains what monopolistic capitalists are REALLY doing , while they are BS-ing everyone into believing they are "for better mouse traps".
It is based on the book "Confessions of Economic Hitmen" (there's videos of this: here's the youtube video short version, or long version)
After hundreds of millions of people dead and starving , there should be laws against such capitalism.

Economic Hitmen Cartoon [HD]

[smiLie]

Here's a question that nobody discussed.

While being "badly socialist" ) The SOVIET UNION from the 1940-ies to the 1980-ies,
1) was first in space and had a space program 20 years ahead of the USA (let's assume that Moon landing was a movie, shall we? USA still uses russian rocket engines, even Elon Mask, how can this be?)
2) had the best education system
3) had basically, developed government-financed strategic niches that could dominate and develop faster than capitalist financed
4) given everyone free education and free housing (while currently 1.2 million homes are CONFISCATED per year in the USA)
5) had 1 Rouble basically being equal to $1, while as soon as "capitalists" took charge, they massively inflated rouble ("capitalists" massively inflate other country currencies to make other countries poorer than themselves. Why any country , including USA, is tying it's TRUE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, PEOPLE'S PRODUCTIVITY to some fake casino paper printing bankster enterprise such as "stock market"? Rouble in USSR was not tied to it, and economic breakaways happened immediately that benefited people and not bankers )
6) had the most advanced military at a budget of 1/10 to 1/100 of the all world capitalist countries combined.
7) had the best Science on the planet , as when you have the most advanced rockets, both space, intercontinental and military, one would need to understand surrounding environment and have the best scientific models of it , not fake ones (Einstein?).

And only when all capitalists got together and invoked a WAR (cold war = war) against one country, basically, for 40 years, only then Capitalists were able to win.

How can anyone not discuss this? Other than because the resulting conclusions are obvious - it was Capitalism that failed and all of its concepts, not Socialist Soviet Union.

++
Another massive problem with Capitalism , besides massive pillaging of the tax money via military that never goes anywhere - is once monopolies set up and cover themselves (including Patent Laws), they are interested in DUMBING DOWN everyone around. So they can sell they widgets and maintain their monopolies (smart people create break through that may affect monopolies and are not needed). Then they massively vote for dumbing down the education - and this process is everywhere. Monopolists are not interested in neither education for the masses, nor scientific advancements, as they are basically for better monopolistic mouse traps (re-doing and re-selling over and over cheap and easy crap). And scientific advancements are only happening in a few key areas where there's massive money inflow. No money inflow - no advancements. They are also interested in non-true, fake scientific concepts that help them sell more widgets. And in the countries where TRUE science is developed, like in Soviet Union, in a few decades one can see huge break through in areas where capitalists are just incapable due to no funding.

[Cyan]

I play a lot of macroeconomic games and I have a few posted on the forum here.

I'm very interested and would currently categorize myself as socialist state capitalist. Not a communist as that would indicate no right to own property which i believe is a huge component of wellbeing.

I'm sure all the secret technologies of the day will one day seem quaint compared to the publicly accesible technologies.

[smiLie]

Communism, with no printed money, unfortunately, is not possible when absolute majority of the people are STS. You'd need large percentage to be STO for communism to work.

I would think that a large number of religious communities can be considered "communist", including monasteries. There's food and shelter for everyone, no money inside the community etc. ..some don't even make you work to have it. I'd guess you'd have to be on a pretty advanced path to STO for this system to work. At that point, one could care less if (s)he owned a property or not.

You only worried about owning a house/property when everyone around you is a greedy STS , and you'd have no guarantees that you won't end up on the street. Even your kids might end up throwing you out - pathetic system. In the Soviet Union, this (ending up on the street) was near an impossibility. As I said, Capitalism is a poor step back from what is possible, that makes everyone paranoid and in need of bankster credit, via paper printing "money". And then you work as a slave for 30 years for that printed paper (free housing and education? no wonder "evil" Soviet Union had to be destroyed by Capitalists). I don't see how this is good for the physche of the people.

[rva_jeremy]

Communism, with no printed money, unfortunately, is not possible when absolute majority of the people are STS. You'd need large percentage to be STO for communism to work.

That's only true if there's not enough to go around. But our economy produces more than enough to meet everybody's basic needs, easily. It's not as big of a deal that people have too much if nobody has too little. A system that put a floor on accumulation -- that made sure nobody could fall below a certain means -- could still function even if there were STS folks trying to grab as much stuff as possible. We have lots of government-directed redistribution in our current system chock full of STS people, so we're not talking about flipping to a completely different dynamic so much as shifting it 45 degrees.

The issue for me isn't how communism could work with STS people but how we'd get to communism or something like it with STS people. And I'm using communism loosely -- roughly speaking, this is just socialism, sans all the Marxist-Leninist dogma.

[smiLie]

Jeremy, interesting observation that economy produces more than enough. But a group of fat STS will get majority of the fruits of their labor.

I have a question on this.
There's massive propaganda/brainwash in schools by STS , "individualism", they break kids to not have real friends via moving them around every grade, new rooms, new unknown faces etc. This is socially destructive , if you want people who have friends, friendly , social (=for the socialism) . Not just fake smileys. So, when people grow up into adults they don't like other people that much anymore, as their possible REAL friends were rooted out by the system. They have acquaintances, not friends (true friends would stand up for you, anywhere, and at all cost). They are now a lot easier to manipulate and send to work for corporations. This is at least, my opinion on the system.
Am I loosely correct in my assumption?

I don't think you can have a possibility of actual socialism with the people growing up like that. You'd need to fix schools first.

While you have lots of small groups of people who dislike each other? And System has put "everyone competes with everybody" STS terminology into their subconscious?

How would you do "community" with this material, I am not entirely sure.


Same with colledges, everyone takes their own classes with all the different people, no true friends develop like that. While where I went to college, you took 3 years of the same basis subjects with all the same small group of people. I still have several of my best friends from college, even though we are separated by countries.
This is how you develop roots if your family is not large , your old friends become your .... "second family".
This is ... I think this is a basis for the community, which can later on become basis for "socialist" system. You are more liketly to help and do STO work with a small circle of close friends.

[smiLie]

Example of how with STS educational system no socialist-type country is possible.

I knew a guy who graduated in USA from West Point military academy. Very bright guy. Knew him in his 40-ies, he was a nice guy, worked for a great company , well paid, wrote poems etc. Maybe was on a little overweight side, but who isn't these days with sugar in 80% of all "foods". Somehow, could not get himself a wife. Just could not. Even tried dating foreign bride types etc. I think... when he was 48 or so, his father died, this was his only direct relative.

Now. In a normal country .... Military West Point graduate equivalent, would have 5-10 real , LIFETIME, friends, who are at the level of his, basically , combat / platoon guys. Basically who went through death with him. These guys would forever help each other out , in a normal country.

But he's in compartmentalized, individualized , STS type of system, so no real friends.

At his 50-ieth birthday, nobody showed up in the morning. I am sure people called etc.

The guy killed himself.
-
This is very ubnormal.

[smiLie]

The STS system is destructive for the people. While it benefits only few who own big corporations.

Example.

Non-STS country, "socialism".
Your friend asked you to help him build something on his property on the weekend. You went, you talked , hanged out, while building this yourselves. Then you ate home-made food made by your wife who sat at home with kids , while educating kids, and providing high quality, home-made food as well. You may have taken a bus or a rail ...or a cab. You are happy, your friends are happy, your wife is happy, kids are happy. Your GDP contribution is $10.

STS, "Capitalist" country such as USA.
Your buddy (no real friends here) asked you to help him build something. But since your boss told you to work overtime on this day, you could not. You went to work in your own car. Since your wife also has to work to pay bills, she also was at work. You had to hire a babysitter. Your buddy had to hire carpenters to finish his project. You ate crap fast food, as nobody had time to prepare real food. Since you have no real friend, you also went to a shrink that is substituting friends for you.
Your GDP contribution - several $1000 dollars.

Now the real question.

Who is HAPPIER?

--
Moral of the story. Until your country's real human productivity (and HAPPINESS) is tied directly to the fraudulent casino paper printing bankster enterprise called "stock market" - you'll be all unhappy but "produce great GPD growth". All the way to the grave.

[Cyan]

GPD needs to be tied to HDI when observing actions in economy, how highly developed is your human developeemnt index of economic activity, not just economic activity itself due to the dig a hole fill a hole GDP boost.

[smiLie]

Cyan , I looked up HDI, it looks made up by United Nations (a globalist run enterprise).

"The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators"

There's a better index, it's called HAPPINESS index. But not the official one, The Happy Planet Index, https://happyplanetindex.org/.

"Official" is heavily manipulated. Finalnd #1 , people run from there , also suicide rate is one of the largest in Europe. Norway sits on huge oil reserves, got lucky. Denmark, Netherlands - bankster slave countries with taxes at over 55% and 80% of people dying in debt to bankers. Etc.

"Per capita income" is tied directly to currency and stock market. It is heavily manipulated indicator. I traveled to 30+ countries and lived in several. A lot of stuff is very similar - for instance in USA you get paid $5K a month and spend $2K in taxes and $3K on living. In another country (where banksters artificially keep the currency exchange rate low), you may earn $2K but spend a lot less on taxes and living expenses.

Per capita income is relative. Also, you spend extra on chinese trinkets, shopping, fancy cars etc. all of this really doesn't make you HAPPIER, but it boosts GDP and numbers for the bankers.

Also, there's such term as "money rich and time poor" - this is very typical for UK and USA. To produce a good index, TIME AS MOST VALUABLE COMMODITY of a human being has to be taken into account in any decent "economic" indicator that's not a fraud.

Things and materialism don't make people happier. Quite opposite, often they make people jealous, envious , tired from overwork and even more unhappy.

It is much better to completely UNTIE your economy from the banksters. Then your people will be much happier, which will boost their STO level. While people are running around in a rat race , they are in a survival (or semi-survival) mode and will only care for themselves (STS).

[unity100]

Socialism and communism and their epic failures are solely about the corruption of "who controls the money".

Socialism and communism were spectacularly successful wherever they were applied. They brought entire countries from mud huts to apartments, illiteracy to space age, pariah to superpower within the same generation.

They are only epic failures in incessant propaganda that capitalist system's conditioning/brainwashing vehicles must administer to its populace. And if the populace doesnt buy it for whatsoever reason, the last resort of 'evil' accusation must be raised. Just like a religion, and just like how the church once used to do for anything that could have upset the control of the established elite (then aristocracy) over the populace.

I would considering crowdfunding to be a flattening of the capital raising process - cutting out the middlemen, and removing layers of corruption

In capitalism, the right of the capital holder to hold however much capital he can hold and to use it however he may want are sacred. You cannot 'cut the middlemen' or flatten the capital raising process. Flattening the capital raising process means distributing and equalizing the ownership, which is more egalitarian, which is more socialist. It may easily end up in cooperatives.

Your desire contradicts with what religion you subscribe to. For capitalism has become a religion.

It's the people determining what ventures should be financed, rather than a fund manager managing other people's money.

You are going to curb the rightful power of the big capital holder which he rightfully owns per capitalism, and distribute decision-making power to the people? That's socialism.

No, really, that's socialism.

Effective capitalism is all about honesty..

Capitalism is about the capital holders doing whatever free action they may want to do to raise their capital and its control to whatever level they desire. Its about freedom.

That said, we need capitalism now because we need fast innovation.

Then we should shut down this forum, privatize open source software repositories, privatize entire internet infrastructure, sell them to the highest bidder.

For, the egalitarian environment which you are enjoying by communist open source methodology cutting software development costs to zero, letting people just take software from the common resource and install a forum like this here, while socialist egalitarian distributed internet gives you easy connectivity without paying an arm and a leg to any potential private feudal overlord of your internet backbone, are all totally contradictory with the principles of capitalism.

Your desires and preferences, again, contradict with what religion you advocate.

The structure of our economy is currently aligned with 4th Density NEGATIVE principles, and to break out of this, we will need technologies that remove us from centralized systems quickly (the centralized systems will fall apart quickly when things start breaking).

Another contradiction - your current system has been as capitalist as possible after the social-democratization of post ww2 period were undone. And you call it aligned with negative principles.


What's more, in capitalism the bigger players naturally and rightfully concentrate ownership. Its their freedom to do so. Preventing from doing that is intervening in their property rights, and their freedom of ownership.

You are advocating socialization of the economy by advocating flattening the ownership structures and distributing decision-making while at the same time calling it capitalism.

Contradiction.