I’m not responding because I don’t understand what your thesis is.
jshore:
Well, whatever it sounds like to you, it’s not what I’m saying.
Sweden, is the strongest and most successful company with such strong Socialistic tendencies. It holds a special place as basically the one Socialist economy that hasn’t pretty much immediately collapsed.
There is an exception to every rule, and Sweden is the exception to the Social support rule.
If you consider a vaccine and it kills every but one person you give it to, and it just makes the one survivor sick (and that guy only got a weak form,) than you really can’t call that vaccine a success, can you?
If one takes even a cursory look at Sweden’s place and role in it’s larger economy and asks why it hasn’t done as terribly as we might expect, we find several good reasons that enabled it to trudge on.
The issue is that wealth horders don’t understand where that currency comes from, and what the existence of that currency in a small pocket suggests. When currency accumulates in small pockets, it is a red flag to any rational human being that a system of corrupt resource needs to be collapsed.
Tesla went broke from his Westinghouse money trying to build a free self-sustaining permanent global communications system. It wasn’t an issue of whether he could do it or not, he just had to deal with individuals who saw dollar signs in his failure.
If America had not been a fundamentally retarded country to this degree, we would not only have more peace, but also the capacity to achieve more unillateral informed consent and desire fulfillment. America chose a path, and has done so repeatedly.
It strives to block self-sustaining technology which grants unillateral consent – once brought into being, it stays.
America decided a long time ago that it was better to have the opulence right now, rather than understanding that in solving for consent issues with regards to what it is to be human and have a desire, that they would be better off.
Existential workers do incredible things for human beings. They recieve the least capital access in this society. It is safe to say without question that Tesla could have easily been the wealthiest person to ever live were he so inclined. That he chose the other route, made him an outcast to these cognitively demented plutocrats. “How dare someone who can aquire so much wealth actually seek to collapse the mechanism which allows it to concentrate by solving for human consent issues? That disproves my point for being. This person must be stopped, they offend my sensibilities and my perception of value and self-intelligence.”
Wel, of course, you will recognize that such special pleading works equally well in the opposite context. Perhaps it is not the special circumstances of Sweden that cause it to suceed, but the special circumstances of Russia that caused it to fail. If one were to put a finger on it, I would say it was the concept of a centrally planned economy. P.J. O’Rourke says its simply because no one wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes. Tomato, tomato, shlemiel, schlmozzle.
But I am sensitive to the suggestion that it is the Swedes themselves who are the core of the question. Hence, if we can but convince the American people that such an endeavor is a worthy goal of a great nation, it can be done. I believe it can, and should. You believe either it can’t, or it shouldn’t (I’m still not entirely clear on that).
Be that as it may, Merry Christmas to you and yours, and Peace on You.
(You don’t know anybody named Marley, by chance? He’s been asking for you.)
Did you consent to being born?
Did you consent to working to live?
Did you consent to suffering?
Did you consent to inefficiency?
Humans abstract technology by resolving consent issues. The purpose of this abstraction is to collapse the resources which make them dependant upon something they didn’t consent to in an informed manner.
Wealth accumulation in small pockets can only exist through the violation of consent and the necessity of not abstracting or solving a consent issue. It can actually be proven that wealth horders provide no human value, simply by virtue of the fact that they seek to maintain the system which allows it to accumulate rather than taking the cue that a devotion of this resource to a collapse of the mechanism which allows it to accumulate will make their dreams come true in an actual sense.
Have you ever heard of a vast food conglomerate devoting resource to automating the process of eating so that it’s permanent and free once the process has been abstracted?
No. They instead seek to corrupt this consent issue and force dependance by assurng that their resource conquers people devoted to the collapse of this resource which violates consent.
It’s not just physical manifestations so blatant as the one outlined here about food; wealthy individuals must corrupt their logic at it’s very fabric so as to be entirely counter-intelligent beings contradicting their purpose day-in and day-out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elucidator * Wel, of course, you will recognize that such special pleading works equally well in the opposite context. Perhaps it is not the special circumstances of Sweden that cause it to suceed, but the special circumstances of Russia that caused it to fail. If one were to put a finger on it, I would say it was the concept of a centrally planned economy. P.J. O’Rourke says its simply because no one wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes. Tomato, tomato, shlemiel, schlmozzle.
[/quote
Excellent point. It does of course work both ways. There is reason to beleive that the USSR was highly resource rich, but failed to satisfactorily develop them, and was plagued by such peccadillos as corruption and the murder of a large portion of it’s citizenry.
But perhaps that’s just because they’re Russians and have always had such problems.
This however fails to account for the pretty clear graduated curve of dismalness which a country seems to climb in direct proportion to its level of socialism.
One might also argue the Japancese example of captialism as a success, but I suppose that’s just the Japanese (and indeed it might be.)
Why then do the Japanese succeed where the Chinese fail, and Taiwan do so well?
**
I beleive if we try it will not work the way Sweden works. In this country social programs expand and grow. Realize that each expansion and growth takes both workers and capital out of the economy. There is a limit as to how much dead weight an economy can carry. So, I think we probably can’t and we probably shouldn’t.
You too. I’m rather upset though that you have focussed only on half of my thesis, the half you don’t like.
Given the problem of a large number of hungry bears looking and recieving food from campsites rather than foraging for themselves, you have focussed on the fact that the bears are hungry to the exclusion of all else.
My goal is the same as yours. In fact, I believe you will agree that my goal is a better goal.
We both don’t want hungry bears. You simply wish to feed them. I wish to teach them to feed themselves, and motivate them to do so, and ensure they have the opportunity to do so.
I have no illusions that my course would be both extremely unpopular with those in poverty, and also more costly in the short run.
However, I think that people productively working and providing for themselves and bettering themselves as a valuable part of a strong economy is a worthy goal. Giving the poverty bound upward mobility is a worthier goal than simply feeding them.
Do these things, have this kind of economy, and then caring for those who are unable to care for themselves becomes a de minimis kind of thing. It’s easily and painlessly done.
Then we have the kind of country where everybody is guarranteed a decent life. Not because the government is writing a check but because there is opportunity for all, and ample resources from an unburdened population to care for the fraction that cannot care for itself.
No. They instead seek to corrupt this consent issue and force dependance by assurng that their resource conquers people devoted to the collapse of this resource which violates consent.
And on that note, I am off to the fridge for a bowl of Blue Bell Cookies and Cream.
I haven’t a clue what “abstracting technology by resolving consent issues” means. Not being a smart ass, but I haven’t a clue. Nor do I get the part about collapsing resources.
I think that’s not true, or else I don’t understand it. If I go out and pick Lemons off a lemon tree, and make lemonade and sell it for a quarter a glass, while sleeping in a tent and eating grubs until I’ve collected $1,000,000, whose consent have I violated? We’ll assume the lemons are free for the taking and the value I accumulated was a direct function of the value I added by doing the work to prepare my product.
I was with you up to the first comma, and I disagree. You haven’t defined “human value” and I doubt you could disprove that a wealth horder isn’t providing it, but provided we can get some meaning into these terms, I’m all ears as to the possibility.
**
What process? Abstracted how? I’m not following you. If you are suggesting that a company that derives its revenues from a given process is going to be unwilling to provide an innovation that will render that process obsolete, than I would tend, and only tend to agree with you.
Some buggy companies got into the horseless carriage business, you know?
Additionally, American Buggywhip had a big interest against automobiles but that didn’t stop nimbler and more innovative corporations from putting them out of business.
If there’s an innovation to be had, it generally favors the corporation to make that innovation. At the same time companies protect their markets. These are two opposite but competing forces that many companies must face. How they handle these things usually determines their success.
However, when there is an innovation to be had, it is practically a certainty. An old axiom of economics is “When it’s time for railroads they’re gonna get built.” The only question is by whom.
**
I’ve kinda covered this. There are rewards to had both by the preservation of obsolescence as well as by innovation. Usually the latter are short-term as the will to railroad is an unstoppable force. That is when the time for an innovation has come, it’s going to come.
If Mcdonald’s is going to suppress the free eating pill, some other corporation or individual will pursue the process for profit. There are a lot of very good examples of this, American Buggywhip being the most famous.
Seeing as you’re flat out wrong on your food example I’m pretty sure your worng on the analysis of wealthy individuals which seems to follow from it.
I say “pretty sure,” because I still don’t know what you’re saying.
If you’re simply saying that a succesful person has an interest in protecting the system that made him successful, I have two responses
Not necessarily. If the system that made him sucessful fosters competition for his position, he won’t. The original Mr. Rockefeller, case in point, was a classic example of the entrepreneur. As soon as he achieved sufficient economic power, he did his level best to stifle such entrepreneurship whereever it might threaten his preeminence. No principle involved there but plain old rock ribbed Yankee greed.
This is where your mind just isn’t getting it. Collapsing the resource of food is not about making it into little pills which can be sold individually! That is capitalistic.
I’m talking about actually implimenting a permanent global process from a one-shot deal.
In the food analogy:
Some biochemist builds a micro-organism which invades our body and ‘craps’ out our food into our stomachs. If it detects that a certain level of nutrition or food is already present it reduces its population in a given host.
BY doing this, humans have abstracted a resource collapse.
How? The process of eating requires no more work than the process of beating your own heart. It becomes automated. By doing this automation, we give ourselves more cognitive space by condencing time, space and energy required to fulfill a particular desire. It also makes the ability to violate consent impossible, by collapsing the resource being used to create scarcity and slave populations.
Capitalism seeks to destroy these abstractions which collapse resources. First they patent the process within the defence department and then they seek to corrupt the process to make addiction more severe to a ‘pill’ like response to this resource.
The population feels like they’re progressing, but the system is always the same… their informed consent is being violated with regards to how that capital is spent. In America, this capital is solely devoted to watching resource collapsers like a hawk and de-funding them when they show progress. Then the abstracts of their work are stolen and encrypted so as to create a dependancy rather than a freedom which solves for consent on a broad system.
How could there possibly be such a process? Your positing perpetual motion. Your insane idea for a micro-organism cannot possibly work!
What do you fee these microorganisms that in turn feed us? The mass and energy have to come from somewhere. Why would feeding a microrganism that feeds us be better than just feeding us?
If we still have to feed something, how does this “collapse the resource” for the food industry?
I’m rereading your post, and you’ve left the realm of reality and are dealing with assertions based on fantasy.
What a resource collapse does is create a situation where people are no longer required to work to recieve a single benefit. It’s a one shot deal which doesn’t discriminate from person to person.
The laziest person in the world still doesn’t have to eat anymore to survive… why? because the resource was collapsed.
If you really want to charge somebody for something, you should charge them for taking medication which destroys these micro-organisms so that they can starve to death if they want to. People should not be charged for the resource itself; that is just absurd.
They use us for shelter and convert our waste into nutrition.
Perpetual motion of one single process is going to take a lot of abstraction… we can however allow ourselves efficient motion for a very long time.
With regards to the Tesla radio wave over the surface of the earth; it would last as long as natural elements destroyed it, unless a human being bombed the facility. The facility itself was a perpetual motion facility. However, when the sun engulfs the earth, CLEARLY the machine will be destroyed.
By taking steps in this direction, we have more time, and more cognitive space with which to abstract consent issues beyond our planet. Capitalism assures that none of these steps are taken.
You know where that mass of energy comes from? It primarily comes from billions of rational human beings having had lived on this planet figuring this stuff out peice by peice. When push comes to shove, capitalism requires that this work be discarded in favor of a corruption of the desire to validate ones consent for being here - the mass of human work along this line is considered irrelevant to capitalism.
It takes a lot of work (energy) to collapse a resource. You don’t think that billions of lives is a lot of energy? I don’t think that you have a fundamental grasp of what technology is Scylla.
Technology reduces energy required for unillateral desire fulfillment. The sheer amount of energy that went into creating a gun, from a human standpoint is phenomenal… yet all of that time saving technology is misused with regards to the process which allowed it to come into being.
These types of technology abstractions come from listening to nature, translating nature, solving for human desire consent.
The very act of killing another human being with a gun contradicts the process which even allowed the gun into being. If people back then knew that all of their work would amount to this, they probably would have deselected the human population back then when they had the chance. What’s the point of allowing additional generations only that they suffer and that all work is ultimately corrupted by lazy human beings?
It’s not a pill Scylla! That’s what you don’t get. It is a permanent organism released into the wild which automates this process for us.
We have plenty of examples of automation processes resulting from technology. Capitalism only uses the ones that create the conditions for capital and class divisions to exist.
With regards to a real perpetual system, it is considered that we would not be required to ever have had to pay for a phone call for the last some odd 100- years if Tesla had been allowed to activate his technology. He abstracted a field of radio waves over the entire surface of the earth in a perpetual means (it would still be working to this day since that was only 100- years ago). The telecomunications industry would never have emerged… the radio waves would be everywhere. He was planning on having people communicate in ‘telephones’ the size of wrist-watches all over the globe within a decade, not needing to ever pay for the service.
How could this happen? Because of work! Humans have been working for millions of years on communication problems… 'Tesla’s ’ are going to be the product of this labor, people who are encoded with all of that work and effort and in one swoop, seek to completely automate a process to this regard.
People who collapse resources are our most valuable resources… they are the result of millions of years of human labor to solve a problem by interacting with nature. We can do this collectively at any-time; however, capitalism discourages this.
Once tesla had that machine up and running… HE WAS NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIME OFF OF IT. That was actually human being collective work to collapse a resource. Capitalists are people who hover over these processes and corrupt the occasional innovator who represents these millions of years of work. Capitalists themselves don’t innovate… the system discourages innovation… when innovators emerge, they have their technology stolen with force, and then the technology is encrypted so as to create class division. These people are retarded. There’s not much else one can say about them.
This is my last post to you here unless you come off the eight-ball.
That’s not true. It’s a ridiculous falsehood. I’m not speaking allegorically about the march of progress. I’m telling you that you can’t get something from nothing. Thermodynamics, conservation of energy. That’s what the march of progress has taught us at great cost.
You can’t collapse the food resource with a magical bug that creates food and energy from nothing. And, I don’t mean “can’t” int terms of its’s very difficult, or we don’t yet havfe the technology. I mean can’t as in it’s impossible. I mean can’t as in it’s a really stupid idea.
Do you or do you not have a real life example of a collapsed resource?
Give me one. Just one.
Without a real life example intead of make believe this is all total bullshit.
Oh and the guys that invented guns 'prolly had a pretty good idea of what they might be used for.
It is work used to collapse the necessity of work. It allows one human being to do the work of many. Guess what? It takes MANY human beings to abstract technology. Technology is only possible by adhering to a social contract… a single uneducated human being out in the forest by themselves who cannot speak or write (these also being technologies btw) is not going to be able to abstract all of this work done through mutliple generations of human labor.
It is not a rediculous falsehood that humans collapse resources into automation, to alow them more cognitive space with which to fillfill their collective desires. That is what people DO.
You’re saying that this comes from nothing.
That is a falsehood.
The amount of human work which even allowed the science of biology to exist with which to map the DNA process is incredible.
Human beings can additionally work to develop a bilogical organism which does the work of eating for them, by simply carrying out it’s reproductive program. We human beings can accomplish this. Capitalists don’t have a desire to end world hunger, they have a desire to perpetuate it, because these types of dependancies allow resources to become horded in small pockets. If we truly wanted to end world hunger, we could have it solved within 5 years.
‘Saviors’ are nice, but they are only one person and their abstractions get abused by the capitalistic framework. We can colectively solve the problems that one of these genuises brings every now and again… and by collectively striving in this direction, we can be assured that the technology doesn’t become corrupted.
Scylla: The short point is that with a distribution of manual self-operated public painless suicidce machines (tested for effectiveness); wealth hording would not occur.
Wealth hording is a property of unecessary slavery which results from disassociation with actual pressure to be a rational human being with regards to other things which exist on this planet.
Wealth hording only exists because of calculated set points against suicidal tension and slavery taxation for lives which would otherwise exit this earth if they weren’t being walked just beyond the line of doing painful and uncertain result suicide.
That’s the only thing which allows wealth to accumulate in small pockets.
