Progress

Member
  • Content count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Progress

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,470 profile views
  1. @Serotoninluv Yes my definitions are relative, and yes a Honduran's definition of "just" "success" and "ethical" may even be radically be different. Hondurans however live in a third world country, they haven't even fully entered stage orange. My definitions are furthermore not just conjured up for my own sake but carefully selected to provide maximum efficiency, leeway, understanding and even compassion for the current situation of American politics now and in the next 50 years. My definitions are in short relative to this era and this country. Even the vaguest orange stage definitions of "just" "success" and "ethical" would still make sense in my writing. Orange Stage definitions: Just- Legal, no slavery, corruption Success- Money, power Ethical- Not breaking laws, or causing extreme pain, at least directly Value- Providing something someone wants, largely measured by finances ------ You are right, there are more dynamics before and after jealousy occurs within the lower classes. Poverty, desire, corruption, lack of opportunity, income inequity. I am a supporter of some forms of socialism but I make a careful distinction between socialism based on jealousy or compassion.
  2. @Revolutionary Think @Revolutionary Think Agreed, Bernie supporters as a whole show a much more "radical" attitude. Besides at least half of Yang's supporters are more or less in the middle of left and right and therefore feel no need to take up pitchforks. Even in this forum, I haven't seen one Yang supporter not logically explain their position calmly.
  3. So some instances I listed earlier what aren't "justly" earned income would be corruption, unethical business practices, crime, tax dodging and bank robbery would probably be considered unjustly earned. Companies should be punished based on the severity of their unethical actions for example, Nike having shoes made by near slave labour. The government should add a specific tax to punish them for the unethical behavior (although in this case, it was the market that punished them as Nike was forced to achieve better conditions or face negative publicity). Another example would be the Investment banks during the 2008 crash, they should've been broken up and their high officials severely fined. (Of course that never happened) Success in this case= Providing economic value that is in this case, not by unethical means. Value- This is purposely vague as providing value, in this case to the market can be vastly different. The only current measurement is in income. Of course a lot of factors come into the measure of income; management, product, marketing and purpose. In general those who receive money, are providing a product/service that the market demands. Value of course, can't be truly measured but at the very least, receiving money for services is an indicator of value generation.
  4. @tenta Why yes I do think the rich should pay their fair rate of taxes(30-40% tax rate) but to me Bernie seems to suggest an almost obliteration of wealthy people in society(50-80% tax rate). If you read my response, I mentioned how the rich don't actually own that much money outright. They own stocks, land, bonds etc. The money is already flowing in the economy. If the money is being justly earned and justly taxed, who are we to steal it, it is not our right to decide what our neighbor does with his property? Success and value generation should ultimately be rewarded, not punished.
  5. I never understood this vendetta against the rich. It seems to be born out of jealousy and corrupts into a form of thievery. For billionaires to become and maintain their money, they have to provide value to society. Whether that's building Microsoft, Apple, or simply investing into the stock market; money is moving throughout the economy. When money is in the economy, one person's dollar is likely shared with five other people. This example better explains it: Billionaire->Company Stock->Employee->Employees purchases(insurance, groceries, rent etc) -> Other companies receiving money from purchases -> Stockholder of other companies -> etc. (Along every step, money is being taxed!) Contrary to popular belief, billionaires don't hoard absurd amounts of cash, in fact there literally isn't even enough cash for them to hoard. Cash is actually mostly used by the lower rungs of society for daily use. When one says billionaire, it doesn't mean they own a billionaire dollars, it means they own a billion in assets. Of course there's no true way to calculate how much a company stock is truly worth, a property, or bonds. These are always fluctuating. Even money sitting in the bank is 90% put into the economy as the bank invests and therefore stimulates the economy. What about hedonistic billionaires? They usually die out within a generation or so. The way the rich stay rich is by using maybe 5% of their wealth on themselves meanwhile 95% is used to grow their assets and therefore the economy. This is why the Vanderbilts' wealth died out so quickly and why lottery winners go broke in several years. Finance is a skill and it provides value to the world and for those that don't, they are punished for it. Unless money is unjustly earned (Corruption, unethical company tactics, society damage, crime etc), those who call for wealth to simply be seized are thieves in my eyes. Did these people not justly provide value to the world? Then it is at their discretion to use rightfully acquired funds. Why must we as a society punish those that are successful? Do you know why the government allows companies to be taxed, after expenses and not simply based on income? Its quite simply, by being taxed after expenses, the companies rather than let the profit be taxed, reinvest in themselves. This means they buy new equipment, land, new stocks, new employees etc. The point is the money is redirected into the economy and they are taxed on their purchases. Its a win-win situation, the company has less direct money on hand but increases their assets while the government gets taxes from their purchases meanwhile stimulating the economy (Reference: One persons dollar is actually five peoples). That being said, billionaires and companies who dodge and loophole around taxes should be rightfully taxed and even indirectly punished for dodging taxes. Those taxes could fund the freedom dividend and give, not to the government and its incompetence financial freedom but the people. I am a huge supporter for financial literacy , both in personal lives and overall society as I am seeing too many people without basic knowledge of economics support disastrous policies that sound nice. Finance and Economics is not what it seems when one takes a closer look.
  6. @Revolutionary Think I agree, who is to say mankind has to "work" to survive. Can we not rule the world on the backs of automation? "Work" would simply turn into well a form of self actualization. The arts would be pursued, music, film, comedy and painting. Traveling would be rapidly grown. Parents would have time to spend with family. People could focus on mental health issues. They could even pursue the sciences simply due to having the time and financial stability to do so. "Work" for humans at least would become more conscious. It would turn into a passion economy and from this era's perspective, a paradise on earth. Isn't this the society that Actualized.org dreams of?
  7. The United States of America was founded on the principles of empowering the everyday person to truly take control of their destiny. The founders believed the people, not the government should ultimately steer the course of affairs. This general attitude has bought great wealth, freedom and prosperity. Yes, it does have its excesses which where government steps in, in times of need. It is better to teach a man to fish than to be responsible for feeding him fish everyday. Nonetheless, there are hard times, and during that hard time; someone (the government) should step in to share their store of fish for the man's time of need. In normal times, the government's function should be to train and equip fisherman. In a philosophical sense; it is best the people themselves solve the current issues (climate change, education, standard of living, pollution, poverty etc.), it is second best for the government to facilitate the people to solve the current issues through tax incentives, subsidies, training program, funded education etc. and it finally least desirable for the government to personally take control and make decisions fully on behalf of the people via welfare, higher taxes, federally created jobs and generally a centralized government. I will concede that this however is necessary but should be the exception not the rule. From a practical and efficiency perspective, it is unrealistic to expect the "best option" of the free market to solve most or all our problem. It however is highly probably and even the most efficient for the "second best" option to happen. The free market is too unorganized and generally selfish to effectively solve society's problems (although more green stage companies are appearing). In fact, the free market sometimes creates society's problems from pollution, global warming and general hedonism. When the government directly interferes however, resources can't be as micromanaged and used effectively as if they would be in the hands of free market, nor specific issues as properly handled. The issues of this is reflected in welfare exploiters, unnecessary employees and even a simple visit to the dmv will showcase the incompetence. So what is the perfect medium? It is best that the government facilitates and sponsors companies and persons whose work seeks to solve society's current problems. America needs to facilitate green stage entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in general if we are so worried about automation. As someone who works in an entrepreneurial incubator, I have firsthand witness of ventures and technologies there currently being developed to fight hunger, deforestation and mental illness. These companies could be the future. The reality is they lack sufficient funds to properly accelerate growth, these startups need to eat as well, so they have to work usual jobs and in general are financially insecure. I do not see how these new ventures could not solve America's issue if the government just had a proper program funding entrepreneurship focused on key issues. These ventures as they are a smaller entity would be able to not only more effectively allocate resource, but focus resources on issues that an otherwise bureaucratic government would not realize. Furthermore, ventures are a lot more flexible than government and are able to fail and move forward from their mistakes extremely fast compared to the government. These ventures create jobs that are needed not mass bureaucracy that hires tons of unnecessary employees simply because they are not bound by market competition and yet can hyper focus and solve current issues. If a venture underperforms in solving an issue(after a selected period), simply divert funds to the thousands of startups who may perform better. If we are to progress as a society, we must relinquish the old order of jobs which are mind dumbing and not in tune with self-actualization. Automation/Innovation is a friend! not an enemy if we just treat her the way she was meant to be viewed. Automation and innovation is how society will free up time to pursue passions, study the universe, explore the universe, create, live and love life. In the constant breakthroughs in innovation, society must provide first a cushion and tend a way for the individual to not only rebound but be rebirthed in society. In this case, the freedom dividend is a perfect way to do both. If one loses say an assembly line job, the dividend is able to provide some income for a transitioning phase in life. If one is smart enough, they would've even saved the dividends from the past years. Using the dividend funds, the individual now can use those funds to be rebirthed, they can become an artist, start a business, retire, travel the world, work in a charity etc. This is because even having a simple part time job would create a semi-comfortable standard of living. In this sense, the dividend is both the emergency fund and the seed funding for a new life. It is further easier and rightfully to rally support for the freedom dividend as if we are to think of a large part of American Government as a company, the stockholders should be paid; especially in the wealthiest government in the history of the world. Yes, I'm aware that the government is not a company, however the reality is business comprises a huge part of it and the people should act accordingly. Furthermore, instead of welfare where the government seizes one's assets and redistributes at its discretion; the reverse happens; the people are given a boast in their personal freedom. As an economist knows, resources are more efficiently allocated the smaller the entity. After all how would the government know if you needed a new art studio? paying your grandmother's medical bills? groceries? etc. etc. Let us not forget the indirect sponsorships for the arts, the gradual dissolving of the student debt crisis, the rise of entrepreneurship, the rise of spirituality, financial stability, freedom and yes, self-actualization. Will the freedom dividend be costly to us? Not as costly as not having it. There are already people drowning in medical and especially student debt. By simply "cancelling" debt, it may cause a massive economic crisis. Money is not standing water and by just obliterating over 1 trillion in funds will cause ripples across several industries. The debt crisis alone is enough reason have the freedom dividend. Furthermore, as the money is sent directly to the people, the economy will grow from all that spending but more importantly, the standard of living will dramatically improve. This is because, although the current economy is growing, much of the funds moved around are from large corporations will have much less effects on the standard of living. The freedom dividend also provides a discount on its own price tag due to the rise in the economy and the taxes collected from the use of the dividend. The freedom dividend would also dramatically cut current welfare spending by the government. The money can also largely be obtained by forcing companies dodging taxes by a VAT tax. In summary I believe the government needs to solve current issues through the people and not above them. In funding innovative and eco-friendly startups, the government would not only encourage innovation in general but allow other-wised weak organizations to be able to compete with the established companies. There could further be company taxes for harmful actives such as carbon emission. This trend would force even established companies to innovate not for profit but for people. This method could be used for any market from mental health, healthcare, education etc. The pharmaceuticals monopolies could be severely damaged by simply funding new pharmaceuticals startups. Furthermore, in the philosophy of equipping and training people; government should not freely allow students to take as many loans as possible but further fund the already highly effective state school models (which are up to 60% cheaper than private colleges). The entrepreneurship and education programs would cause massive dominos of solutions to fall across the nation alone. This in combination with the freedom dividend would open up a truly financially stable, innovative, healthy and actualizing society. This is why I endorse Andrew Yang who understands that entrepreneurship and a freedom dividend would cause massive ripples across the nation. Furthermore, he is one of few candidates who can truly rally the right and the left. It can be observed that Andrew Yang is potentially a yellow stage person due to his wholistic view of society compared to Bernie who seems to lack more of an understanding of stage orange with its own set of benefits and costs.
  8. @Galyna Agreed, seems like a very general overview. Extroverts simply have more choices and from that perspective, are more in a position for quality people. They also have the energy to sustain maximun numbers of quality people. Introverts are a natural filter for people but not a tourist trap. Extroverts have to learn to filter while Introverts have to learn to attract.
  9. Do you think 500 years ago, people thought that materialism could defeat piety? Progress grows slowly but exponentially,
  10. @Leo Gura Elder Scrolls are a higher level of consciousness
  11. You'd be suprise the amount of people interested in spirituality, but just like you they hide. There are also alot of non spiritual people that have a natural interest in it that is untapped. Learn how to get people to talk about real conversations. Most people actually have an inherent love for it, that is also untapped. The process and methods of getting people to talk are complicated and really a recipe per person. It generally consists of charm, body language, authenticity, socially aware, a bit of arrogance, and some fun.
  12. hahahah, You're going to have to eventually realize the thoughts holding you back are bullshit, just a story. It doesn't matter if its "real" or not, You are the writer of the next page. Sometimes, you need to step back to see the whole picture. Do whatever it is you fear, no matter the cost.
  13. This guy is a psycopath or was it sociopath? Either way, one or the other. Maybe you can relate, he had me thinking I was a narcassist for a month. Hahahah enjoy
  14. Don't get rid of them, hide them. Make them only known to that particular user.
  15. @AleksM Money isn't exactly created out of thin air in actuality. Yes they can print as much as they like, but it has devastating consequences globally. Money is essentially an accounting system of real product. The central banks have a hard enough time maintaining this illusion of money, that is where most economically problems occur, when something cracks the illusion. The first world sustains such excess by essentially being indebted to their future self. Since the future self can't force payments or really exist, They are free to borrow as much as they want to produce as much as they can. "Can" is the key word, what happens when you have all this artificially induced money yet there isn't enough production to actually fill the demand created by taking debt from the "future". Also giving everyone a monthly allowance doesn't nessecarily mean they'll use it wisely, It is largely based on culture what happens to it. We could however, easily feed everyone on earth. First world countries' food prices as relatively low as they are, are artificially high. This much can be easily done. Raw capitalism would've destroyed food insecurity if not for government interference.