captainamerica

Member
  • Content count

    534
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About captainamerica

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. @Tobia Are you referring to this, or something else? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgyK3yb5qic
  2. That is an unfair comparison. The damages caused by certain green ideas are much more than corresponding stage orange or blue ideas and for certain other ideas the damages caused by orange are more than the damages of green.
  3. What does "solid green" mean to you?
  4. America will. Apart from the US, India and few small countries will give a healthy competition in certain niches. But America will lead by a healthy margin.
  5. @DocWatts Thank you for your post. I appreciate it. I am not sure when can I reply to your post. Let me see. The prob. with your posts that I have is unlike some other members your posts are wrong but complex. Because of complexity, there are about 5 fundamental errors, instead of one or a couple, in one of your posts. How can I discuss 5 fundamental errors per one post of yours? Instead of reply I have to type an essay. I have outlined examples let me see when I can post them.
  6. Following news channels and generic polarized information is for normies. Why do self-actualization work if the standards are that low? Wrong implementation of Free College Education: College costs have risen exponentially (10-25 times of what it should be) because the govt. subsidizes loans incorrectly thereby increasing demand at a wrong price instead or creating an artificial demand instead of market demand which would lead to drastically lower costs. Apart from this the 1.4 trillion USD student debt reduces national saving leading to drastic reduction in innovation, job creation, wealth creation, housing etc. in the long term. The student loan crisis is because of this reason as well. Bernie's policy if added on top of this will be like lighting a cigarette at a gas pump. It will cause explosions in the economy in terms of collective wealth, housing, jobs etc. Wrong Taxation Policy with Elizabeth Warren: It taxes the same income multiple times. Once every year. So for the same income a person will pay a tax 10s of times. 6 percent per year is about 90 percent tax. This is called Confiscatory Tax and not Progressive Tax. You can read about its effects. This destroys economies. On top of that there is 20 percent capital gains tax. And so on. So the effective tax rate is about 98-99 percent tax in total. Enough to destroy job/wealth creation completely. Wrong Taxation Policy for his own constituents: He successfully increased tax rate from 11 percent to about 20 percent I believe. But the tax revenue decreased after this. The fact that this will happen was already known beforehand. But because of his ideology he won't learn. Increasing tax rate does not necessarily increase tax revenue. In fact counteractively it decreases it. (in such cases) Every thing in life is counterintuitive and requires a systems thinking perspective health, money, quantum physics, psychology, attraction theory etc. But Taxation cannot be counter-intuitive because it hurts our feelings. Right? Wrong implementation for affordable housing: The reason why the American people cannot afford to buy houses is because of the unbacked printing of dollars. This devalues the currency while pumping price of assets like houses, stocks etc. by 100s of percent. This is what has happened now. Like in the pandemic alone the Feds printed 30 percent of the money supply. In other words fed has increased the cost of houses by multiple times throughout these 2 decades. Without solving this trying to funnel tax payers dollars into a housing policy like he is doing is like adding fuel to the fire. Because this adds to the skyrocketing prizes of assets even more. Propagation of Shit-Grade understanding of Economics: The government printing money increases the on paper value of stocks, houses and other assets. But in real terms the value goes down. If I have an asset worth 10 USD and the govt. prints 30 percent of the money supply without backing it up properly(called quantitative easing) then the asset will cost about 12-14 USD but will now have the purchasing power of 7-8 USD. So it is actually a loss. About 2020 the govt. printed trillions of dollars(about 30 percent of the money supply in US) and devalued its own currency thus increasing the cost of all assets significantly. In the pandemic when billionaires, millionaires, house owners etc. 100s of billions for almost all of them it was actually a loss. If before pandemic the stock had purchasing power of 100 billion now it is about 70 or so billion. Even if on paper it is worth 140 Billion. This creates system wide losses for the poor, adds to the shrinking middle class problem and in fact makes business hard for most of the rich people. But instead of real understanding Bernie polarized people even more with stupid things like the rich got richer when in fact the purchasing power is in fact decreased. The difference in purchasing power goes to the govt. and financial institutions/banks, not rich entrepreneurs/poor/middle class. Here increasing taxation creates even more problems. It leads to recessions or long term downward spirals in the economy. This is counter-intuitive. Yet it is a fundamental of economics. This is the ABCs of economics. This may not be as simple to understand as the alphabet but it is certainly as fundamental as the alphabet itself. Without it there is just mental masturbation. This wrong understanding eventually polarizes voters to vote for policy or candidates against their interests in real life but the emotional appeal makes it looks like it is a ticket to solve all their problems forever. There are only 2 cases possible from there: a. Either Bernie is doing it consciously in that case he is incompetent. b. Or these effects will manifest in policy votes to other far-left candidates like AOC and he is not aware of this/does not mean this. If he is not aware of such a level of disaster then again he is incompetent. He supports the Green New Deal which is full of blunders like above. Green New Deal is full of false promises and incorrect economical foundations like the above exaample. Apart from that consistently wrong cost estimates for bill, Undermining Innovation, supporting far-left candidates like AOC, etc. Many others infact. Basically his whole world view, in the current context, is intellectually corrupt. AOC and Bernie's economic understanding will bankrupt America. Thanks to the heavens they are unable to get much power today. But still a danger for future generations.
  7. @Opo You don't want the monies?
  8. Trump is evil. Bernie is a fool. The far-right does cruel things knowingly and is evil. (Indifference) The far-left does things that kill 10s of millions of people due to false utopian visions. (Insanity) I know that you support capping billionaires' wealth so that you can be a millionaire and hence you support Bernie(or some of his policies atleast). But that will backfire as if you put a 1 billion USD cap then the founders with the most valuable companies won't go with an IPO. There are better business models then. This will reduce wealth avail. in the market, not increase it. Like if someone invented a product worth 100 billion and owns 50 percent of the company. With 50 billion worth of a share in ones own company why would anyone go for an IPO just to decrease shares or ownership in his/her own company?
  9. @Leo Gura Yeah but people like Bernie and AOC have idiot compassion. They are fools who will destroy the economy with their shitty technical implementations. Apparently they have nice intentions but that does not matter. Some time ago AOC was criticized for her 40 trillion dollar bill requirement. Instead of learning from the criticism she started defending herself and made blunders by claiming to have found a 21 trillion dollar pie in the sky. For green new deal as well instead of learning from critics she said "I aM tHe BoSs". You can notice this pattern repeatedly. They never improve. Their followers think all the rich people are evil (apart from other negative beliefs around money and success). In truth most are good people and would not have been successful if they were not so. As leaders, it is their job to educate their followers. Not piggyback on them and end up hurting middle class, rich and poor alike.
  10. @Raptorsin7 are you from the US bro? There are legends in Hinduism about it. Kartavirya Arjuna for eg. Mahismati was his capital city. Another example is Raavana, he grew the Raskha culture(his people) exponentially by doing so. There was so much prosperity in his time that his kingdom was said to be figuratively made of gold. No one achieved this level of prosperity in/for his culture before him. Both of them had the levels of power you are talking about. Kartavirya Arjuna is still "worshiped" and given a diety status today in India due to his sense of Justice. Raavana is considered evil and egoic by the general populace but experts in these legends say he was actually a just ruler and people are misinterpreting history and the culture at that time. Fun fact, Raksha culture had women as the leader and "main-person" in the traditional family structure. They were able to marry multiple men while men generally could not do otherwise. Women had more rights in those regards.
  11. Season 4 :-D
  12. Yup Have not read the book. Would you mind summarizing which part of it you like and are referring to here? Agree 100 percent. The usual difference that I have with people on this is sustainable technical implementation. For eg. some want a wealth cap. That will not work in the current society and will reduce innovation overall thereby reducing total wealth itself. Not the approach I want to reduce inequality, where everyone become equally poorer instead of equally richer. Or progressive taxation without cutting spending (including quantitative easing). This will create downward spirals in the economy, even a death spiral in the long term. Blaming everything on lack of taxation and not war spending, inflation, etc. It creates very poor policies. Good points. I agree. On top of that, I would like to add that the government is inherently incapable of innovation at the level that we are talking about. As much as water is inherently wet or fire is hot. This is a very counterintuitive problem requiring great innovation. We cannot have another Harvard by just funding. It is decades of innovation in creating the right culture that creates such output. The solution created by Harvard will not scale to a significant percent of the population as it is very niche-specific if we look at it closely. Harvard just takes the top 0.1 percent. The dynamics change significantly in the rest of the population. For eg., the dynamics for the top 5 percent of students in terms of productivity and habits create a vastly different scenario. The govt. can certainly scale to them. But to get to the rest 95 percent requires great innovation dealing with constraints similar to that of the Google search engine(100s of parameters). If we pull a string from one side then it gets entangled from some other side. Creating great course content requires iterations like creating an IPhone in 2007 with immeasurable iterations. If we create great course content, then the course completion rate falls to about 20 percent or so. There are various possibilities from thereon. Like Mindvalley implemented a 20 min. per day innovative idea for courses seeing as high as 80 percent course completion rates. But that will fail in the school system as well as the constraints change yet again. and on and on like any classic innovation problem. Nothing new but you can see the pattern and the dynamic it creates If we think about a negative compound effect that an avg. college student has to pay for thus creating the above reality the same innovation problem comes in high school education so we are back to square one. I literally thought of 50 or so possibilities and all of them at the end of the day were either not scalable at all or required great innovation from companies or startups to work. This is true for at least how we like to define a high-quality education. What are your thoughts on this? I would be interested to know.
  13. @DocWatts You are assuming that I am Framing the problem exclusively on Entrepreneurship. There is a deeper point that was made. It has life-changing implications if understood well, both at an individual and a collective level. The constraints of Business are inherited by the Employees, as well as the population at large, in many counterintuitive ways. It requires a deeper look at it to understand this. A child's possibilities(looks, height, disease, raw brainpower, etc.) are limited by the parent's genes. He will not suddenly appear as some wild, or beautiful, creature from imagination. There are inherited constraints. This can be seen in various industries or Business as a whole. Some industries are inherently more competitive, due to the very product or service it creates (Management Consultancy for e.g.). Both the employees and the executives in such companies have to work 80 hour weeks. Whereas other businesses are inherently more creative so employees have much greater leeway. It is not possible for the employees in the two industries to switch places. They have an inherent constraint due to the field itself, which they inherit. It cannot be not inherited, as long as money and products are created for the people. Business as a whole has a very high failure rate as stated in the last post. This leads to high costs to run the whole economy effectively. It is not possible to skip those costs or inequalities. These constraints are inherited by the population. If 1 in 10 businesses succeeds there needs to be enough energy and resources for 10 businesses in the system. Energy and resources for just 1 business will not do. It seems obvious but these principles are largely ignored by the far-left. An avg. American person does not even recognize that innovation creates wealth. Which is to say they don't recognize that wealth creation creates wealth. See the below picture for polarization in 1970 vs now. A main reason for this is because people have not been taught the fundamentals of Economics and Innovation. This leads to fantasies of socialism, extremism, violence(both-sides), etc. Literally, 99 percent of people in America do not understand the basics of the Economy. This leaves them vulnerable to being exploited by politicians and media. Having this knowledge and contemplation of the harshness of business environments (along with technicalities) creates a good foundation. Rather than being exclusive(to entrepreneurship or to whatever else), this is more like building a bridge between the two extremes. It would be nice to have such a bridge in today's polarized spectrum. Contemplation on Survival and harsh Business realities is a good practice. Employees, workers, and population don’t skip it. But it can and should be minimized. Although that is far from the unfounded fantasies of the far-left. (I really like the Left's initiatives though) We have an agreement on Health care, public education, etc. There are some nuances regarding high-quality public education though that I would like to discuss. Let me see if we can do that tomorrow. Would you like to define when you consider public education as high-quality?