Don (1) and Jill seem to be in opposite corners. I propose to meet in the middle by noting that excess wealth generally results in waste, which is never a good thing. Taking/using more than you need is called "Greed," and it's presence denotes psychological illness (personal inadequacy or fear of deficiency) or philosophical immaturity. When greed harms others or damages the environment, it needs to be called out and stopped.
Incentives are good, but rigged systems and inherited wealth distort the picture, as do unchecked sociopathic personalities like Gates and Soros. You don't need to make everyone equal in order to level the playing field (nor should you, according to Don 1), but it isn't difficult to provide basic needs by eliminating gross abuses of wealth. Even with a truly fair economy, though, we must learn to recognize and disempower uncompassionate megalomaniacs like Klaus Schwab, et al.
I agree and I'm not arguing for greed. The wealthy have an obligation to be charitable, but Jill is correct that it is mainly a shell game these days. Not time for a longer comment, but good to hear from you again. Is it just you and me, or do Dons tend to be sensible? 😁
We can do even better than remove centralized control over peer review: we can make sure everyone gets enough cash to live comfortably on, automatically, no matter how unpopular their views on certain profit-centers may be w/ those who get to profit.
As long as we allow the corruption to exist in our systems, we cannot evolve as a human civilization, and we will certainly never reach our potential. It is the single biggest problem we have. The corruption is fixable and it starts with fixing science. That starts with better systems. Transparent systems. Decentralized systems. Systems resilient and checkable against corruption by all of the other nodes in the system.
It seems to me that everyone having enough cash to live a comfy standard of living, no matter what, is about as de-centralized a system as there can be. As long as the ppl who run the gov't get to live much more comfortably than most ppl--AND keep large swathes of the population IN POVERTY-- how can there NOT be major corruption?
This will not work. Where is my incentive to bust my butt every day if some fentanyl junkie is getting the same amount of money as me? Who decides what's "comfy" and gets to dole out the money? What if some people refuse to give up their possessions for equality; will you march out the troops to enforce it? Face it, some people have more talent, more drive, more skills, more work ethic, more connections, better looks, better physique. They deserve anything they are able to honestly acquire. Equality is a heinous lie and is a cover to steal private property. I'm not saying the poor should be left to suffer, but we should practice voluntary charity, not state enforced equality.
Men are very competitive by nature. And yes, some come out on top. It ensures the survival of the fittest. The key is to guide and channel that competitive spirit into productive and useful endeavors.
No, they're really not. You can always point to the exception. But on whole men are more competitive. It's a function of testosterone levels and not sexist. I didn't imply men were superior because of that. But maybe you're being tongue in cheek.
I don't know what you're getting at with this comment, but either nature or God designed males to be competitive. You can't change it, only harness it.
So Bill "vaccines offer the greatest return on investment" Gates and other a--holes who happen to have been born w/ way more money than they could possibly spend just necessarily win, eh?
I know how I took it. Part of most competitors playbook is seeking any edge they can find. The more rigged things are in their favor,, the better they like it.
I like your stance as far as something to try to propagate, but it isn't reflective of hyper competitive males.
"Voluntary" charity, at least in the U.S., is a tax-dodge, and mostly only useful to the wealthy, to lower their tax obligations and support their tax-free foundations for supporting their other, profitable businesses. More corruption, of which the non-rich are not allowed to avail themselves.
That’s nonsense. Many people give to charities, along with giving to their church’s targeted mission of community help (food pantries, scholarships). Most do not qualify for claiming as a deductible especially if using standard deduction. USA is the most charitable country in the world, especially when a disaster hits. Basic income from government is a myth; this is taxpayer’s money. Gov doles out enough welfare to undeserved with plenty of fraud. No one deserves an income for doing nothing.
Better get busy then--3/4 of Americans are living either IN poverty or right on the brink. And that was back in 2014--they're probably a lot worse off now.
Yes, it is, but people use it. Do you personally have more than anyone else? Surely you're not the poorest person on the planet. Why do you keep it and not give it away? Why are you allowed to have more than someone else?
My questions were not meant as an attack and yes, you could ask me the same questions. I'm asking to show you that some will always have more and some less, and I believe you have the right to have everything you've lawfully earned.
"Comfy" should be defined as "at least as much cash as politicians get". Why should THEY get to be any comfier than the public they supposedly serve? Basic income has nothing to do w/ theft or giving up possessions: it can be created out of thin air, just as banks currently generate most of "their" income. This basic income would not prevent ANYONE (except politicians) from getting income from other (legal) methods; but don't pretend that it doesn't cost a certain amount to live, & that everything above that amount isn't just fun & games. IMHO, allowing bankers a monopoly for creating money and charging the public interest on it is the very basis of corruption.
Wealth cannot be created out of thin air. The formula for all of humanity's wealth is this MMW=(HE +NR)x T. Man's Material Welfare equals Human Energy (both mental and physical) multiplied by tools. Those who do what you say are thieves. They are stealing from all of us what it looks like they are creating out of thin air.
Wealth can be & IS created out of thin air; banks do it every time they loan out "money" (which then gets paid back to them in actual money, plus interest).
There is no such thing as actual money. Your dollar bill says right on it, "backed by the full faith and credit..." Money is just a marker. You can't eat a dollar bill. You have faith that the grocer will accept it in exchange for food. Printing endless dollars does not create endless wealth and is a form of theft by making everyone's marker worth less at trading time.
1: "so such thing as actual money": Yeah, sure; tell your county tax collector that when the property taxes come due.
2: "printing endless dollars": very true in SOME cases, such as QE, in which the money is handed to central banks so they can buy up everything in sight. That would not be the case if the money got handed to ordinary people to spend into the real economy. See Ellen Brown's Public Banking Solution.
I like the idea but..........this is all happening because we are all stupid about psychology. They have always manipulated us with it. Watch how they answer questions without giving a straight answer. We should know and be able to call out anyone that uses it.
Gender ideology isn't science to begin with. It's a religion. Psychology and sociology aren't sciences either. They do not apply universally to all people. They involve a lot of individual "judgment" and generally cannot be replicated. Biology has been corrupted by a myth called the "theory of evolution". Even quantum mechanics and physics might be questioned based on the ASSUMPTION that the universe is very old.
The Webb Telescope is intended to learn more about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang happen? If it did, two things must also be true:
1. matter moved at several times the speed of light. The universe is said to be 93 billion light years in diameter (if "diameter" even makes sense here). But it is held to be only 14 billion years old.
2. the most distant galaxies would just be beginning to form, or not even forming yet at all. Yet the Webb Telescope shows that the most distant galaxies are fully formed.
With assumptions like these...as my husband once put it, cosmology is a house of cards. This, after attending a seminar conducted by a cosmologist who was a guest speaker for a summer class conducted by Robert Jastrow, you know, the famous atheist (?) astrophysicist who wrote that once the astronomers reach the top of the mountain, they will discover that religious believers have been there all along. In a book entitled God and the Astronomers.
Great essay, containing important ideas... Thanks for sharing!
(-- The other "Don")
Thanks for reading and commenting. Let’s find a way out of this mess.
Don (1) and Jill seem to be in opposite corners. I propose to meet in the middle by noting that excess wealth generally results in waste, which is never a good thing. Taking/using more than you need is called "Greed," and it's presence denotes psychological illness (personal inadequacy or fear of deficiency) or philosophical immaturity. When greed harms others or damages the environment, it needs to be called out and stopped.
Incentives are good, but rigged systems and inherited wealth distort the picture, as do unchecked sociopathic personalities like Gates and Soros. You don't need to make everyone equal in order to level the playing field (nor should you, according to Don 1), but it isn't difficult to provide basic needs by eliminating gross abuses of wealth. Even with a truly fair economy, though, we must learn to recognize and disempower uncompassionate megalomaniacs like Klaus Schwab, et al.
-- Don 2 (green?)
Hey Don, long time no see.
I agree and I'm not arguing for greed. The wealthy have an obligation to be charitable, but Jill is correct that it is mainly a shell game these days. Not time for a longer comment, but good to hear from you again. Is it just you and me, or do Dons tend to be sensible? 😁
We try! I see occasional posts from you on other stacks; all the best to you!
We can do even better than remove centralized control over peer review: we can make sure everyone gets enough cash to live comfortably on, automatically, no matter how unpopular their views on certain profit-centers may be w/ those who get to profit.
As long as we allow the corruption to exist in our systems, we cannot evolve as a human civilization, and we will certainly never reach our potential. It is the single biggest problem we have. The corruption is fixable and it starts with fixing science. That starts with better systems. Transparent systems. Decentralized systems. Systems resilient and checkable against corruption by all of the other nodes in the system.
It seems to me that everyone having enough cash to live a comfy standard of living, no matter what, is about as de-centralized a system as there can be. As long as the ppl who run the gov't get to live much more comfortably than most ppl--AND keep large swathes of the population IN POVERTY-- how can there NOT be major corruption?
with decentralization and transparent systems.
This will not work. Where is my incentive to bust my butt every day if some fentanyl junkie is getting the same amount of money as me? Who decides what's "comfy" and gets to dole out the money? What if some people refuse to give up their possessions for equality; will you march out the troops to enforce it? Face it, some people have more talent, more drive, more skills, more work ethic, more connections, better looks, better physique. They deserve anything they are able to honestly acquire. Equality is a heinous lie and is a cover to steal private property. I'm not saying the poor should be left to suffer, but we should practice voluntary charity, not state enforced equality.
Equality is neither evil nor a lie.
It's Equity you are thinking of, and you are spot on when it comes to that...
It is equal opportunity.
Maybe. Define both terms and we'll see what agreements and disagreements we have. We're probably pretty close to same page.
Why is it important to you to have more money than anyone else? Is it a contest?
It's not important to me personally to have more, but private property is the foundation of civilization.
Yes, for many people.
Men are very competitive by nature. And yes, some come out on top. It ensures the survival of the fittest. The key is to guide and channel that competitive spirit into productive and useful endeavors.
Women are as competitive as men. Don't be sexist.
No, they're really not. You can always point to the exception. But on whole men are more competitive. It's a function of testosterone levels and not sexist. I didn't imply men were superior because of that. But maybe you're being tongue in cheek.
...and massive corruption.
I don't know what you're getting at with this comment, but either nature or God designed males to be competitive. You can't change it, only harness it.
So Bill "vaccines offer the greatest return on investment" Gates and other a--holes who happen to have been born w/ way more money than they could possibly spend just necessarily win, eh?
I know how I took it. Part of most competitors playbook is seeking any edge they can find. The more rigged things are in their favor,, the better they like it.
I like your stance as far as something to try to propagate, but it isn't reflective of hyper competitive males.
"Voluntary" charity, at least in the U.S., is a tax-dodge, and mostly only useful to the wealthy, to lower their tax obligations and support their tax-free foundations for supporting their other, profitable businesses. More corruption, of which the non-rich are not allowed to avail themselves.
That’s nonsense. Many people give to charities, along with giving to their church’s targeted mission of community help (food pantries, scholarships). Most do not qualify for claiming as a deductible especially if using standard deduction. USA is the most charitable country in the world, especially when a disaster hits. Basic income from government is a myth; this is taxpayer’s money. Gov doles out enough welfare to undeserved with plenty of fraud. No one deserves an income for doing nothing.
But the "undeserving" wouldn't be doing NOTHING--they'd be getting out of poverty. Which would cost us less than allowing poverty to remain: https://daviddegraw.org/peak-inequality-the-01-and-the-impoverishment-of-society/
That literally makes no sense.
Then we are not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about charity, not games.
Well, that game IS "charity" in the U.S.
Not for me. I am personally charitable. No tax dodges involved, but real, one on one help.
Better get busy then--3/4 of Americans are living either IN poverty or right on the brink. And that was back in 2014--they're probably a lot worse off now.
And, last I heard, fentanyl is highly fatal.
Yes, it is, but people use it. Do you personally have more than anyone else? Surely you're not the poorest person on the planet. Why do you keep it and not give it away? Why are you allowed to have more than someone else?
1) How many druggies use fentanyl & survive? None that I've heard of.
2) I could ask you the same Q's; but they only distract from the corruption/political/fractional-reserve-banking problems.
My questions were not meant as an attack and yes, you could ask me the same questions. I'm asking to show you that some will always have more and some less, and I believe you have the right to have everything you've lawfully earned.
"Comfy" should be defined as "at least as much cash as politicians get". Why should THEY get to be any comfier than the public they supposedly serve? Basic income has nothing to do w/ theft or giving up possessions: it can be created out of thin air, just as banks currently generate most of "their" income. This basic income would not prevent ANYONE (except politicians) from getting income from other (legal) methods; but don't pretend that it doesn't cost a certain amount to live, & that everything above that amount isn't just fun & games. IMHO, allowing bankers a monopoly for creating money and charging the public interest on it is the very basis of corruption.
Wealth cannot be created out of thin air. The formula for all of humanity's wealth is this MMW=(HE +NR)x T. Man's Material Welfare equals Human Energy (both mental and physical) multiplied by tools. Those who do what you say are thieves. They are stealing from all of us what it looks like they are creating out of thin air.
Wealth can be & IS created out of thin air; banks do it every time they loan out "money" (which then gets paid back to them in actual money, plus interest).
“Wealth” and “money” are not synonymous.
In fact, the word currency is what you meant by “money”. Those two are not synonymous either.
There is no such thing as actual money. Your dollar bill says right on it, "backed by the full faith and credit..." Money is just a marker. You can't eat a dollar bill. You have faith that the grocer will accept it in exchange for food. Printing endless dollars does not create endless wealth and is a form of theft by making everyone's marker worth less at trading time.
The word is “currency”, not money. There is a difference.
1: "so such thing as actual money": Yeah, sure; tell your county tax collector that when the property taxes come due.
2: "printing endless dollars": very true in SOME cases, such as QE, in which the money is handed to central banks so they can buy up everything in sight. That would not be the case if the money got handed to ordinary people to spend into the real economy. See Ellen Brown's Public Banking Solution.
I like the idea but..........this is all happening because we are all stupid about psychology. They have always manipulated us with it. Watch how they answer questions without giving a straight answer. We should know and be able to call out anyone that uses it.
Gender ideology isn't science to begin with. It's a religion. Psychology and sociology aren't sciences either. They do not apply universally to all people. They involve a lot of individual "judgment" and generally cannot be replicated. Biology has been corrupted by a myth called the "theory of evolution". Even quantum mechanics and physics might be questioned based on the ASSUMPTION that the universe is very old.
The Webb Telescope is intended to learn more about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang happen? If it did, two things must also be true:
1. matter moved at several times the speed of light. The universe is said to be 93 billion light years in diameter (if "diameter" even makes sense here). But it is held to be only 14 billion years old.
2. the most distant galaxies would just be beginning to form, or not even forming yet at all. Yet the Webb Telescope shows that the most distant galaxies are fully formed.
With assumptions like these...as my husband once put it, cosmology is a house of cards. This, after attending a seminar conducted by a cosmologist who was a guest speaker for a summer class conducted by Robert Jastrow, you know, the famous atheist (?) astrophysicist who wrote that once the astronomers reach the top of the mountain, they will discover that religious believers have been there all along. In a book entitled God and the Astronomers.