Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss issues related to government, politics, and law.
Idk about the planet to be honest. All life on the surface of the planet would be wiped out and so would all the coral reefs, ocean currents would take the fallout all over the planet. If all or most of the oxygen producing bacteria die as well then we're going back to a level of evolutionary development of maybe how it was prior to the Cambrian Explosion at best. Back when there was hardly anything but some bacteria. The oceans would all be acidified so good luck having life survive up there, at least everywhere not deep under the sea. Some life could survive here and there but if you just assume that there could be another mass expansion of life once more to all over the planet again that seems like a real stretch.
I realize the scam of loaning with interest's been around a while, don't get your point here as i've agreed with you 100% on that being wrong this whole discussion.
I think where we are majorly differing here is our interpretation of private property, I did not say it is bad, but you think it is the cornerstone of capitalism. The reason capitalism through barter and trade and then a medium of exchange all comes about is due to scarcity, the resources needed to build everything required for a community increasingly have required larger scale organization beyond just one town which makes people more reliant on a trading system. But this also perpetuates the norm even as that norm becomes obsolete and it becomes more possible to localize all the goods and services so there is no need for a big supply chain. That doesn't mean private property is wrong but that corporations as @Ghost said use private property to collectively own giant swaths of land without any individual responsibility. I am fine with private property for individuals since it is basically meant to give them freedom and housing but I don't think there should be big corporations which are essentially owning entire countries.
Competition causes plenty of social problems. For example look at the patent laws which lead to 5+ different companies independently researching the same issue with cancer without sharing any information on their discoveries as it would be illegal to do so and undermine property rights of the company over the information. Yet if patented information became publicly known it would make it far easier for innovations improving life to occur. I already covered this in responding to your mention of the water powered car invention that would make the oil industry totally obsolete, the system of patents which is necessary for competition is the entire mechanism through which inventions like these can even be covered up, just buy the patent and once you own it leave the idea to rot. As good innovations can satisfy needs in a permanent way and prevent cyclical consumption which is mandatory for capitalism so they are bad for the system. This is all very straightforward and i am not sure why you keep just going over and over and saying that competition must be good while ignoring the systemic flaws in it.
I don't doubt the monetary system was probably far better than it is now during the period of time when the Fed had been successfully removed. Back then there was no internet and no mass communications. If a good you needed like cotton based goods could not be produced locally there would be little choice but to use a medium of exchange like money to acquire it. So there's decent evidence it would have been much harder to do without a monetary system at the time, I'm not saying that isn't true, but it seems plenty obsolete now with the current state of technology.
Alright I guess I will watch that too.
Again I believe in property rights. As I have said multiple times now. I'm not arguing against them as they are necessary for individual liberties. But property rights=/ globalization and mega corporations owning everything. It also doesn't equal capitalism as technology is starting to render capitalism obsolete.
Here is the thing that is being missed, when America was first formed corporations needed to prove they were in the interest of the community. The central banks established by the British empire here were only given a 20 year charter and both times it was revoked in the beginning.
The people had fought to get away from the corporate structure of Europe built by the money changers, corporations were monitored closely at the beginning but as usual the people fell asleep. The countries amendments after # 12 were supposed to be added by the people for the benefit of the nation but everything added after the Civil war was added by the corporation the money changers built in DC.
The missing 13th amendment was added after the first charter was up of the 1st central bank around 1811 to try and stop the money changers from taking the country over and that is why we fought the war of 1812.
All the legislative machinery is here in the American system for the people to be able to rule themselves with a compliant government but not if the sheep go too sleep and behave like irresponsible children (which is the ruling elites point), they ground the American people down with war and waited for it to forget about the central bank scam " SOCIALISM " and then slipped it through 77 years later in 1913.
The corporate takeover was made completely possible by them taking the purchasing tickets over for the world economy as well as America.
The system was designed to where the states have authority over their territory with evenly distributed power and a limited federal government so the state governments would have to compete for people to move there and bring economic activity for tax revenue. If a state was hostile to the people the citizenry would move to another state.
Competition is the key to keep an honest level playing field, why do you think JD Rockefeller said "competition is sin " because he wants to be absolute ruler and the system you are living under is their dictatorship not capitalism. It is the exact opposite of capitalism, all the corporations world wide are owned by the same people and they tell you this dictatorship is capitalism with private property.
You are looking at the communist dictatorship installed through the back door and they just blame capitalism and sit back and laugh at how stupid the sheep are.
PEOPLE NEED TO GO STUDY THE EARLY FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AND FIGURE OUT WE HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED BY THE BEST.
Under Crown rule there is no private property unless they grant it too you, were back where we started from on this. Lenin stated 90% of the way to the ultimate iron fisted dictatorship was to be done by the 5th plank and he was correct.
Ghost claims this is how America was to be and he is correct if the sheep go to sleep and let the Kings bank rule their lives......
Time to Hide!
Looks like you owes someone $200
Yeah that would certainly help and in combination with the Anti Trust laws normally the idea would be to prevent the mega corporations from emerging. But although trying to restrain this might be a good idea in the context of the current system it doesn't mean we should just keep the system as is where it is vulnerable to these takeovers. Back then there were fewer alternatives.
You are too stuck in one mindset assuming competition always keeps a level playing field, the tendency of competition is to produce monopolies as people in the market try to defeat all competitors. That's a built in goal in the system. Your idea of fair competition is where everyone doesn't try to make monopolies and gain the most profit through said monopolies or oligopolies. Which is basically a form of Cooperation not competition where everyone just holds back and plays by the rules keeping a level playing field. Some people could be expected to do this but others will not and the system here encourages those people who want to take over everything to go ahead and do so.
Of course JD Rockefeller said 'competition is sin' in the sense that he does not want to lose to competitors, he wants to control everything and be the permanent 'Winner' of the competition. So in that way he enjoyed competition, he just wanted to end the battle so to speak and be the dominant controller.
Yes I realize they use the banks to control everyone. But you seem to be stuck on this idea that all those bright inventors who tried to improve society like Ford Tesla and others were good because of 'Capitalism' and Capitalism is responsible for these improvements to society, their inventions worked because of their scientific knowledge. Capitalism was just a method of distributing these inventions in a way that everyone could acquire them but that is becoming obsolete and is way less efficient than an Open Source society that operates from the bottom up to fulfill everyone's needs. In the old days they may have needed capitalism more than they do now and they had some laws that were supposed to prevent corporate tyranny but there are way more efficient ways now to handle this than continuing on with things as they are. The elite would probably try to redirect any open source efforts to this end towards a top down Technocracy where they end up ruling things anyways but it doesn't change my point about how Capitalism isn't that great of a system.
Competition is not efficient like you think, it encourages the nonsense we have today with patents where so much information is locked down and not shared as it should be. You can have 100 different people researching the same exact invention all redundantly at the same time because it is illegal to share the knowledge if it's patented. Competition encourages different companies to only take the effort necessary to beat the other brands and make theirs sell the best. Trying to design something to just be super good in itself is against the profit motive, if Apple threw out all the stops and made an Iphone as good as they could immediately it would mean not leaving features out for the next 3-4 versions that have barely any improvements.
What you said about how in the past Corporations needed to be shown to be in the interest of the community is just evidence against pure capitalism, the interest of the people in general are important and cannot be thrown aside for Laissez Faire unrestricted market competition.
This article https://bit.ly/2PaBafy gives a good overview of the problem here
This stuff is already known to smart people
Aron the thing you are missing and do not seem to understand to what point it matters is all of our power centers have been captured ( patent office ) and how did they do this ? by taking the competition out of the financial system so they control all purchasing in the economy. THAT IS HOW THE WORLD GOT HERE, if you are going to do a bottom up society you have to have a bottom up financial system which means competition.
Look at the bailouts in the trillions where these corrupt business were not allowed to fail, if we had competition we could get fresh blood into the system and purge the losers who just loot.....
Anybody who is not for free and open markets with private property rights and competition is for a corrupt ruling body and is basically dumb down and stupid. Why do you think as I stated they are adding toxins to everything ? because they want us dumb down and stupid so they can manage us with no competition.
If you have never been in business for yourself your input is very limited on understanding this. Competition is the road to perfection. THE CURRENT SYSTEM " FINANCIAL SYSTEM " IS TOTAL SOCIALISM for the accounting class. THEY PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES AND PUSH THE LOSSES and DEBTS ON ALL OF US AND CALL IT CAPITALISM.
Time to Hide!
Last edited by Moretorque on August 15th, 2018, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Time to Hide!
I read through that Manosphere article you linked and I think it's in many ways a valid assessment of what is going on with some types like the Alt Right and others. But are you sure you did not intend to quote that "The perils of Capitalism in America" article instead? Which from my initial analysis seems like much of it was literally copy pasted from my posts here. Quite literally as a massive portion of it matches the exact same sentences I used, starting at the 3rd sentence of their post, with a few new bits added in. I guess it's nice that people see my posts as worth copying but it would be nice if they credited the source you know.
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/peri ... sm-america
Also to not leave anything out I will say that the main chunks of Cornfed's initial post were copied too.
I disagree a lot with this line she added in paragraph 2:
This person may be uninformed about research on intrinsic motivation and education. Yes if their point is taken technically in respect to the traditional socialist ideology it may be true as for example even if education is free motivation will be discouraged when it is made compulsory as extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation. But they may still be making a different conclusion, that meeting the needs of people makes them complacent automatically and people must be maneuvered around by external incentive/punishment manipulatory systems to function. It's the general idea of B.F Skinner who saw all humans as nothing other than machines to be manipulated with no intrinsic motivation.To see important research on the subject explained in an easy to understand way please view some of Alfie Kohn's work in the education field. These motivation discoveries are applicable in other areas like work and society in general too, the undeniable finding by the psychologists has been that intrinsic motivation is damaged by external manipulation through incentives and punishments. Showing that people function best when their needs are met unconditionally and they operate primarily on intrinsic motivation and self direction, most probably people would have the highest motivation if they were fully self directed and also self sufficient in not depending on an external large societal framework to sustain them, as is the case now with most people depending on the giant agricultural corporations that are creating all the food along with depending on oil companies for gas and many people simply having to pay rent and mortgage cyclically. So i agree with what is said in some places on that site you mentioned in that aspect as they also said self direction and self sufficiency are important.
Here is an article to start from if you want to look at any of Alfie Kohn's research:
As for the proof of it being a copy pasted post here is a screen shot just in case she tries to edit it later or something. Lol.
https://i.gyazo.com/eb73d6452d361b8e142 ... b53337.png
It's not like I don't like being copied but what annoys me is I think she copied it without fully understanding, which is what led to the one line part of her comment rejecting 'socialism' as not providing motivation without providing any evidence and probably without understanding the details of how rewards and punishments undermine internal motivation. Yes Communism as practiced certainly did not encourage motivation for anybody, many forms of Socialism also do not, but this is not a detailed analysis. It's not analyzing the underlying principles AKA intrinsic motivation vs extrinsic.
To reference what is basically my main source here on where I got many of these ideas about capitalism it's these 2 documentaries, Zeitgeist:Addendum and Zeitgeist:Moving Forward. They discuss issues in capitalism and how a more rational society would be an Open Source one based on bottom up cooperation where the goal is to use technology to meet human needs unconditionally in a way that is not in conflict with the stability of the ecosystem.
Stay on topic bro, that's just a bot program designed to repost content from HA to random bigger sites and then report to Google. Obviously the objective is having HA delisted from Google and blacklisted for stolen content. Which is working out great
The rest of your argument about intrinsic motivation is rather old and out of date.
The default state of a healthy human is kinda like a cow.
Aron the GENEPAX water generator is not here, Why ? I believe it is real and if so why isn't it here. As I stated before that would make a bottom up society easy to make but our rulers want a top down society period.
The company who created it was going to market it for a measly 5000 $ US. Who owns and controls Reuters ? ? there is your answer to all. All Japans power centers have been captured like everywhere else! Remember they lost WW 2.......
If Tesla or Ford tried to market their products today through the patent office would we see them ? Probably not. Tesla had over 700 patents, just try and attempt that today.. These peoples power has gained immensely in the last 100 years or so as James Corbett pointed out.
Stan Myers the same thing, these inventors are dreamers with an idea. Most of the time money is an after thought. It is the money junkies who look at the world as their personal balance sheet and even offered supposedly 1 billion to Stan to put the raps on the hydrogen powered car but he wanted to help mans condition so they more than likely killed him.
The companies who offered him a billion $'s owners are the same people who own the banks so they would get his patent for free by legalized counterfeiting " YOU KNOW COMMUNISM SOCIALISM ", as I have stated we have all been duped good. Oh but we just need another brand of socialism. Nooooo what the world needs to do is get it's head out of it's rear and read and understand what the makers of America left us to keep the state in check and update the documents as needed to serve the community needs and enforce it on the state at gunpoint if need be.
Why do you think the anti federalist demanded the 2nd amendment ? because they more than likely new 80 to 90 % of the deaths in war were unarmed civilians killed by what legalized counterfeiting conjoured up......
Is this possible, nooooo the herd be way to stupid to figure out what has taken place under it's nose. You have got to tie your money to something real, the reason I talk about this over and over is because there is nothing else to talk about if you want a chance at a honest society.....
By the way do you understand competiton ? more choices, go into business in something with choices for the consumer it will teach you a lot......
Time to Hide!
By the way I scanned over the Perils of Capitalism in America, just more bull shit with seemingly some shit that looks like I wrote in this thread ? Oh well, Why isn't congress coining our money ? who is coining our money ? give you a hint it ain't the capitalist.
As stated the colonist were using interest free notes to run their society and as stated Benjamin Franklin said that was the primary reason for the American revolution as Zeitgeist said. Also as stated the same goes for Germany in WW 2, it is a carefully guarded secret what really happened on both of these occasions and you can go on line and see the news paper article where Judea declared war on Germany in 1933 first for doing it.
What you are saying is all BS for the most part.. " allow me to issue the currency and I care who not makes the laws " that's it and they figured it over 250 years ago...all the rest is bull chit.
Time to Hide!
So whoever runs the bot doesn't give a shit about their unethical behavior with making nobody able to see the site. A lot of this site isn't that great anyways but that's awfully rude you know. If the site doesn't show up on google search engines anymore then nobody new will join and it'll be the same diminishing crowd forever. Which would be pretty lame for me as it is already hard to convince many people here of relatively reasonable things.
I read both articles. The only direct tie to my points is if you're going to ignore all the research I brought up with a wave of your hand due to a freewill argument. Even if free will does not exist that does not make the research go away. The findings are solid and the same observations emerge over and over again in different independent studies. You can conclude that everything found so far about intrinsic motivation being undermined by extrinsic motivation is just an example of the illusion of freewill created by the brain but either way whether it's freewill or the illusion of freewill we find the same results in sociological research on motivation. Making your viewpoint irrelevant if it doesn't address and debunk the findings themselves and show proposed solutions like Alfie Kohn's and those of others to not be in accordance with the evidence.
One article you link says extreme intelligence is useless and possibly related to autism in the modern competitive system which does not say much directly about my post at all. The other only indirectly addresses it but only with a 1 paragraph handwave on freewill, with the post overall having no relation to sociology and the research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Blah, studies on motivation started over a century ago can be dismissed with new research in System Biology, Cell Biology and Neuroscience connecting the brain to the immune system. Immune molecules are actually defining how the brain is functioning. So, what is the overall impact of the immune system on our brain development and function? That's the question you should be asking. If we're talking about systems, what works better for pushing humanity forward, socialism or capitalism? https://bit.ly/2KWn4v9
The handwaving resumes. Yes I have heard of Systems Biology but it does not give you an excuse to ignore everything I say and simply refuse to respond in detail to the link i provided on the education subject. The immune system's interaction with the brain isn't anything i've gotten around to researching yet. But simply making vague mentions of it is no grounds to dismiss all research on motivation much of which is more than recent enough.
If you want to ask me what my opinion is on socialism and capitalism it is all there already in my earlier posts. I think capitalism is a very inefficient system that drives conflict. While some ideas of socialism have good merit like universal healthcare it's obvious that many examples in the past of 'Socialism' were quite bad. I agree with the cooperation based principles in socialism but not the top down approach that many historical examples of socialism or communism have implemented. I read the article on Europe you referenced which basically says Europe's geographic setup drove conflict which forced people to develop civilization. Do you think capitalism is necessary because conflict could in some cases necessitate making an innovation to survive? What's your conclusion?
Something you should know though about competition is that it actually in many cases encourages failure to innovate. For example if you want to maintain continuous consumption making a superior product is not a good idea, if your product is too effective it will last long enough that consumers don't need to buy it again. And aside from that, if all you need to do is just beat your competitors prices then the standard is based on them alone not making products and innovations that are made as maximally effective as possible.