Of course, an even more telling example of the privatization of profit and the public sharing of risk was the savings and loan bailout…Or, more precisely, the deregulatory policies that led up to the debacle and subsequent bailout.
Wealth creation is about translating wealth – translating accessability to any property. Hording wealth is about shuffling it around – it’s not a matter of wealth creation. Gates is not translating his access to his lifestyle or his mind – he is not creating wealth. Permission to horde is contradictory to wealth creation. You don’t give someone permission to horde wealth, by stating that they have created wealth – it’s absurd.
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by pervert
Private ownership of wealth has been deemed useful because it gives people incentives to work hard, etc. And, I am all in favor of it.]
I don’t think I said the thing you attributed to me.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Translating wealth? What the heck does that mean? Have you ever defined it or provided a link to a definition? I suspect that it is some foggy zero sum notion but I’m willing to be wrong.
Bet you can’t formulate the libertarian argument against this bail out… 
[QUOTE=pervert]
This was posted by jshore. My mistake.
I suppose it was too much to bear thinking that someone making points in argument against your stance, fails to see that such a veiw is inconsistent with the purpose of such arguments.
I tried my hand at redundancy to make it more clear…
“Wealth creation is about translating wealth – translating accessability to any property.”
“Gates is not translating his access to his lifestyle or his mind – he is not creating wealth.”
I’m attempting to define the nebulous terms here with regards to the conclusions I’ve personally formulated about how to define them.
The two most nebulous terms to me were “create” and “wealth”
To you, the nebulous term is “translation of access/options”, when used to describe what “create wealth” means.
Options and access are the fundamentals of wealth. That is what wealth is.
Options and access cannot be verified without translation. One example is your own ability to replicate an access and/or option – to accurately translate, between yourself and existence, this quality. When you do complete such a correspondence between model and verification – you have created wealth.
The mere act of accepting that something is a result of your idea of it, is not an act of translation – it’s just your mind folding in on itself – there has to be an otherness, something to talk about when we consider “purpose for doing”.
Something like “I’m rich because I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps and worked 140 billable hours per week for 20 years and then invested wisely in property” doesn’t mean much. There are a LOT more external reasons why you are precisely where you are besides this type of “I willed it and it came” type mentality. Even excluding the “will” aspect of the “own bootstraps” idea — the rest still has a context. Not everyone who works 140 billable hours per week and invests wisely in property, prospers financially.
We do not live in an existence where we are required to gamble with peoples consent. There are naturalistic methods of verifying the belief that you exist, or that your purpose for being/doing/accepting/denying is always being verified. The types of systems that place this verification pressure on people will always show the same thing – namely that inequity is not tolorated by this species when the species is engaged with existence in a manner which falsifies their belief that they exist. Instead of accepting inequity, people will translate access and options to each other to gain the certainty required to verify a consented existence.
I gave it a go, and hopefully it cleared up some of your questions. In return, you happen to throw around “zero sum game” quite a bit… I’d appreciate a highlight of your intended use. “zero sum game” can mean either “unreal, doesn’t exist, pointless, circular, undirectional, vacuous etc…” OR it can mean “real” as in “not a game” – as in “inherent direction, unsynthesized”
I make more money than I need. I can see how you might have assumed otherwise, because I do not display that hallmark of American privilege: incessant whinging about taxes.
No, I’m sorry. I still cannot follow you at all. What actions or things do you mean by “translating wealth”? Are you saying that there is a fixed amount of “wealth” in the world and that comerce is merely transfering it from some people to others? I’m not accusing you of this or anything else. I’m simply groping for an understanding.
I apologize if this has been stated before, but it seems that the earlier argument re taxes missed an important point. Taxes are not about wealth redistribution. They are about funding programs that benefit society as a whole and would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish through private enterprise.
for example:
Rural electrification. It is clear that running electricity to our agricultural base benefits everybody. It is also clear that there is very little if any short term profit involved in this so it would be difficult to get private industry to shell out the investment. So the gov’t does it.
Sanitation. If individuals simply bought sanititation services directly from private sources there would be someone on your block–probably several people–who simply wouldn’t pay for the services because they’d rather live in their own garbage than pay for trash services. So the city hires contractors and pays for them out of tax revenue and enforces anti-dumping laws out of tax revenue.
Defense. Even the most rabid anti-tax people seem to support a strong publicly funded defense. In fact the anti-tax people seem to support this more than anyone else which always seemed strange to me. In any event any defense costs are going to be paid out of tax revenue.
Education. The fact is that if “outsourcing” really is going to be better for us in the long run, as one of G.W.'s aides impolitically said, we are going to need a much more educated workforce. Even if this is accomplished through vouchers (somehow) those vouchers will still ultimately be a drain on tax revenue.
The deficit. While it is somtimes held that Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter, the fact is that Reagan was the benefit of fortune here. A strong dollar, a baby boom bump in the work force, and a post cold war peace dividend enabled the U.S. to escape the worst consequences of defecit spending. Now the dollar is weak, the baby boomers are retiring and we are at war. Running a deficit bodes ill for the long term health of our nation. Spending cuts will reduce the deficit but I doubt they’ll do enough
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that Capitalism is the best source of wealth creation known to man. And there’s a lot to be said for fiscal conservatism (a lot that the President needs to be reminded of IMO). But the fact is that in a complex modern society there are going to be things that are better left to gov’t management, the above being only a short list of items past and present. We can debate what they are but a debate on tax policiy is not served by bellowing slogans about how evil socialists are stealing the wealth of hardworking Americans or how a well intentioned but muddle headed band of liberals are enforcing a scheme of wealth redistribution. Nor, for that matter, is it served by bellowing slogans about removing the ill-gotten gains of greedy capitalists and giving them to the working people.
Carry on. 
By translating wealth, I mean…
“What allows you to have the options and accessability that you have? Ok, so how do you give those same options and accessability to others?” Which is the method of verifying that you actually have the options you believe that you have for the REASONS that you believe that you have them! The reasons are your purpose for accepting the options or accessability.
It is clear enough that the default situation is wealth limitation – a limitation of options and accessability.
When this limitation is accepted without certain checks and balances to assure an inherent purpose for accepting it – this is not wealth creation, this is just moving wealth around. Wealth creation requires a very specific environment to occur, as wealth more than anything else is certainty!
To an intentional being, these limitations are direct evidence that something is circumventing its own certainty of intent – which directly affects the ability to use intent for the purpose of maintaining the ability to have an intent – survival to an intentional being. The only thing that intentional beings have to measure these uncertainties against – are the consents available as a result of the collective pool of intentional beings. If there is a loophole in the consents within the collective pool of intentional beings, there’s a loophole in your certainty with respect to maintaining your intent, which ultimately becomes a loophole into the purpose for believing that you even have an intent; let alone the purpose for doing something under the pretense of believing that you do have an intent.
With intentional beings, the statement “might makes right” leaves an open question… namely, all intentional beings observe that they can commit suicide. The question remains, SHOULD they attempt to commit suicide just because they observe that they can? (might makes right). People who parrot linguistic tokens with lower animal cognitions bypass the suicide operator that marks the intentional being, they don’t process that they exist for a purpose, or that purpose exists as something other than a linguistic token that justifies for them, the default of existence that limits accessability and options. This is the only ‘world’ that non-intentional beings are abstracting, no different from most animal life on this earth – except that they inhabit human bodies, without intentional processing.
There is another mechanism at work here with regards to formulating ethics of intentionality. Because the inverse uncertainty is. “Should they exersize action under the auspices of preserving themselves?”. Unless you can answer the suicide question, the purpose for accepting anything other than the intentional act of suicide cannot be clarified. Since non-intentional beings bypass the suicidal operator or the stasis operator, the proof becomes circular to them – they don’t see what types of behaviors contradict the purpose for believing that you exist. To have a stable intentional state a being needs to process survival, stasis and suicide with manual control — stasis is the operator that tells you that there is no purpose for… [insert anything]. Most human beings bypass at least one of these operators, becoming non-intentional beings – they use impulses to guage whether a linguistic token will allow them to conduct the lifecycle of inequity and uncertainty. If they determine that a linguistic token matches this reality, they will use it. They are killing themselves, they aren’t beings capable of intentional contract behavior – but they have enough processing speed to parrot enough data that simulates an intentional state to justify in a correspondence simulation that they are consenting beings. They just don’t take the extra steps that will prove the correspondence wrong – and these options are witheld by sheer numbers, most humans on this earth are not intentional beings. These beings do not act in a manner that translates (creates - brings into being) wealth – these beings do not consider work to be accessability and options, they consider work to be the withholding of these qualities. They consider work to be the defense of the existence that they observe when they bypass the operators necessary to have an intentional cognition – this existence being uncertainty, inequity, undeterminability, non-transparency, privacy. They literally are incapable of seeing that work is to collapse yourself as a resource – to translate yourself to such banality that you are incapable of being selected for the distribution of inequity – to actually add wealth to society, by destroying anything that allows you priviledge over others – which ultimately destroys the ability for “the other” to have priviledge over your intent, which secures empirically that you actually have an intent. It also secures empirically the purpose for accepting something under the pretense of having an intent – as you have destroyed all possible coersive mechanisms by making yourself wholly transparent and accessable as an option. To the degree that you are selected, you must empirically represent that which will always be selected – thus proof of survival, if one so selects such access to this translated option.
Proof of existence, proof of survival. That’s what intentional beings strive towards. Non-intentional beings interpret these aspects of existence as what results from the violation of intent.
This process of translating yourself cannot be accomplished by hording the very inequity that is to be translated, the mere act of accepting it against the intent of another existing being is proof that you have not been able to demonstrate your certainty of purpose for accepting it, while the very act violates intent, and thus forces uncertainty with respect to the existence of intent from which to accept it for and against.
I don’t mean to be insulting, but I did no follow a single sentence of this post. Seriously. I read it over a couple times, and cannot follow a single sentence. Do me a favor. Try and define what you mean by “translating wealth” without throwing in new terms that are used in non standard ways. I feel like I now need to ask you what you mean by “options and accessability”, but I don’t want to get dragged down another path.
Try, please, if you can to give me a real world example of two people “translating wealth”. If I go into a store and buy a candybar, have I translated wealth? Did the store? How much?
Please don’t launch into a rant about “intentional beings”. It is not helping.
Look up posts by justhink. You’ll get the same feeling there too.
No. This is exchanging wealth.
What causes you to want a candy bar?
What causes the candy bar to have a value or a price?
What causes some people to want a candy bar and not others?
What causes some people to have access to a candy bar and not others?
What causes some people to be able to afford a candybar through consent and not others?
Wealth translation is a matter of collapsing a resource dependancy.
Either by making a candybar always available to everyone for simply being alive and desiring one – or by causing the mechanism-that-requires-a-candybar to be patched up such that anyone can “feel whole” without ever having one, should they so choose, simply for being alive. In both instances, wealth has been translated and a resource dependancy has been collapsed. Anytime a resource dependancy has been collapsed, wealth has been created – otherwise it’s just being shifted around.
I was about to submit a post to this thread but olanv has frightened me away.
Purchases are not arbitrary; they are done because one person wants something more than they want what they give up for it. There are objective measures of wealth, so “one candy bar” objectively equals “sixty-five cents,” but if this objectivity were the only way decisions were made, whether a person factually purchased a candy bar or not would be arbitrary.
A person purchases something when what they want is, subjectively, worth more than the standard of measure (money).
Well, I might be hungry. Is that “translating wealth”?
Well, the store owner presumably paid money for them and wants to make a profit. Meanwhile I would pay as much or more than he is asking. Is that “translating wealth”?
Well, this could be any number of things. It could be that the store is out of other candy bars. It could be that this is the only one my doctor says is compatible with my diabetes and that I like the taste of. It could be that the other candy bars are priced more than I am willing to pay for them. Is any of this “translating wealth”?
Well, it seems that the same answers as the last question would apply to this one. Possibly with the addition of I am in front of this store at the moment I want the candy bar. Is that “translating wealth”?
You’re begining to lose me again. I’m talking about normal economic transactions. So, consent of the buyer and seller is assumed. What does it mean for others to afford a candybar without consent?
And now you have introduced another odd term. I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by “collapsing a resource dependancy”. Can you point me to a website which expouses the philosophy you are explaining? Perhaps another viewpoint will allow me to see what some of these phrases means.
The rest of your post, once again, I did not follow at all. Seriously, you are giving me a complex. I am not following the vast majority of the sentences you post.
I feel, however, that there may be some light at the end of this tunnel. Can you try one more time? Try and explain to me which part of buying a candybar is “translating wealth”. Thanks in advance.
But isn’t this objective measure simply an average of what sellers and buyers are willing to exchange the candybar for? That is, isn’t it merely a sum of subjective measures of worth?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we were to reverse sides on the objective reality vs subjective reality for a bit?
I agree with everything you said in that post BTW.
If you want to be hungry, then yes, that is wealth. If someone else wants you to be hungry, and you are hungry, then this is wealth to them. If you want someone else to be hungry, and they are, this is wealth to you. If you both want to be hungry, and you are, this is wealth translation. Personal wealth translation only relates to your communication with natural law such that you can replicate or produce the state very close to “at will”. Interpersonal wealth translation requires that both people can replicate or produce the state very close to “at will”.
Once the interpersonal domain comes into play, every possible consent is on the table. Everyone has to want to pay as much if not more in order for wealth translation to have occurred – or rather, everyone is required to have immediate access to the state that forces you to want to pay as much if not more. Equally, you are required to have immediate access to to the state that forces you to not want to pay as much if not more. Metaphorically, like pushing a button that’s always available to you that forces you to have the other interpretation. This is the option and access of wealth that only translation affords… given these options and access, what is actually chosen becomes what is inherently valuable.
Something like your experience, your intelligence, your appearance, talents, your patterns of thinking and interpreting, your persona, your lifestyle, your impulses and emotions all play factors in whether wealth has been translated – the things that seperate you, that mark you, need to be easily replicated – the value of these differences is obliterated, you literally are killing yourself by translating yourself - you become public domain. Only in this way, is wealth CREATED! Anything short of this, any type of hording, is a lack of translation, it is proof that translation is not occurring, that someone isn’t creating wealth – they are actively protecting it from being translated. The mere act of accepting inequity, is the intentional act of protecting wealth from being translated – it is anti-work. No creation is occurring here, no new wealth is entering the domain… and as a result, this person is hording the processing speed required to continue translating wealth; they are sealing their own doom by believing that hording is evidence of wealth creation. You can literally cause a chain reaction in the species by refusing to accept the fruits of untranslated wealth; the fruits of uncertainty – that will provide undreamed of wealth; but in order to free up not only your own cognitive space, and thus space for additional problem solving, as the cognitive space of the entire planet of consenting beings - to work on translating wealth, you are required to sacrifice your coersive mechanisms through the act of translating them. This is required in order to falsify objectively, your purpose for believing that you “deserve” what you have, and to organize your mind such that it is wired to translate wealth.
These are clear instances of inequity. Do you desire to have diabetes? Where is your option to not have it? Where is your option to give it to yourself if you don’t have it? Where is your option to determine taste of this item?
Only if everyone else has immediate access to the desire itself, and actually, in the sense of “the act of translating wealth” as you mention it, only if YOU are the person who actively works to make this option available to everyone… the option to want or not want your product – to be dependant or not dependant upon your product – immediate access to this option and accessability.
Consent is retroactive. Only capitalistic societies consider consent to not be retroactive. A person should be able to walk into a store 20 years later and recieve a refund for their eaten candy bar if they so desire, even if you don’t remember them, even if they were mistaking and didn’t actually buy it at your store, or even if they never bought one – because the fact that they desire it in this odd manner, means that the candy bar ‘purchase’ managed to circumvent their consent, or that something is managing to circumvent their consent or YOUR consent. The entire purpose of being an intentional being is to make sure that consent is never circumvented. This probably sounds astonishing to you at face value! I’ll withold for this post the details of how fairness enters such a bizarre equation.
This is what wealth translation does… instead of using your wealth to horde more wealth ad nauseum, you use it to collapse the resource that allows the product to have any economic value. Let’s say that you’re a candy bar manufacturer – you make billions in revenues; sit down and use those billions of revenues to figure out how to make as many free candy bars for as long as possible – maybe some half clever scientists can figure out how to automate candybar production for 100 years, just on that money alone – no human labor required after the automation is in place. Use your profits to hardcode a resource collapse – give the money back – give people back their cognitive space and allow them the time to invent automation that lasts even longer on even less money. The methods of automating candy bar production are too numerous to cover here. People are not paying YOU, they are paying the candy bars – YOU are taking the money, and by not giving it back, YOU are preventing people from getting a handle on their candy bar demand – from having the chain reaction that allows them to keep the resource at stable collapse. You do a job and you finish it… hording wealth is the opposite of finishing a job.
Again, with something like “food” you assume that people need to eat to survive. This is a wealth that can be translated… sometimes people don’t need to eat to survive (when they’re not hungry or when they’re nourished physically and psychologically) – use the profits from food production to extend the boudary of how long this state can last… this gives people the cognitive space to further edge away at collapsing the resource, and the chain reaction begins again – to the point where people finish the job by not requiring hunger, unless they so desire… what you are doing in this instance is inverting the economy. You don’t pay for nourishment, you pay for hunger. You pay for destroying the species rather than creating wealth.
About consent… this gets into some detail, and eventually back into the idea of intentional vs. non-intentional beings. First I want to mention that one limitation of your approach to wealth is to think of it only in terms of money – money is just the tip of this iceberg! Let’s take “smile consent” as the product in question – How do you get someone to smile at you? As a basic summary, how do you earn a smile from someone? How much does it cost you and how much does it cost others? Why does it cost anything? I’m going to leave this open ended for now, because analysis is extensive… at least with regards to my current ‘mood’.
If you truly want to understand economics, where inequity comes from, the root source of inequity, look no further then modelling a society that has mandatory suicide clauses. Each person in society has an e-mail address and tons of cyanide pills… each person must take one if anyone for any reasons requests that they do… If someone requests that you do, you turn arounbd and request that they do and you both take one. This places REAL accountability on translating inherent purpose for being, or inherent purpose for accepting something. In such an economy, where consent is considered tantamount, the society will self organize with astonishing precision to start the chain reaction of resource dependancy collapses in order to survive. People think that they have “earned” their wealth… they have no clue where that wealth is coming from, and making these suicide contracts will sharpen them up and shapen them up extremely fast; only the best will be able to occupy their designated position, politics and economics as we currently interact with it becomes a null set, demoncracy and inherent selection of value rears it’s most ferocious and forgiving hand to society. When you understand how to survive in this environment, hording wealth in our current one is literally a childs game played with incompotent and ignorant children – others horde their wealth because you don’t take it from them, not because they “earned it” – but after this point of cognitive development social stratification becomes, as you would say, a zero sum game, you would waste your time to your own detriment. Instead of protecting resource dependancies, instead of hording wealth, you stalk it to translate it, you create it, you try to obliviate yourself until nothing remains except what the conservation of energy selects for eternal and inherent consent. The playing field is not level between the two cognitions. With the cognitions that only observe success by the evidence of inequity, they do not understand where their wealth comes from – their interpretation of success is it’s own resource, and it is false, self refuting. Expose them to the real tests, the real ‘game’, and they crumble because it’s too hard for them… this is what work is.
Are inches an average of all lengths?
Wealth is defined as “property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value” in the dictionary. Can you explain how my hunger fits?
That’s it? No other action is required? Isn’t translation a verb?
Seriously, dude, sit down, take a deep breath, and try and give me a real world example of wealth translation as you understand it. Please don’t add any more phrases or terms to which you have attached non standard definitions. For sanities sake, please don’t repeat any of that mutual suicide nonsense.
I’m begining to think that the only sensible response to this is from another poster:
“poool do string!”
erislover did you understand the paragraph that you responede to?