Europe Votes This Year

[Hojo]

@LordFall Its not human nature to be greedy. Its traumatized people that are greedy.

The system traumatizes people into survival mode then they feed it. On purpose. We have everything but always want more.

God made human beings to be defenders of the Earth. We are like ghosts in mech suits. That the earth made to protect itself. Capitalism is anti that.

Edited 21 hours ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

The idea that humans only want more because they're traumatized ignores basic biology. Every organism is biologically wired to optimize for resource collection to ensure the survival of its lineage. In a state of nature, animals exploit their environment until they hit a resource ceiling.

Capitalism didn't create the desire for 'more'; it just hyper-accelerated our capacity to get it.

If you look at human history before modern markets, resource hoarding and tribal dominance were still the norm.

You're not wrong that the trauma of society makes it worse but it's not the root cause. The root cause is scarcity in and of itself. Only through something like post scarcity brought by the singularity/AI UBI can I see a way out of this. 

 

[Hojo]

@LordFall Ego is an important part of being a human being. To be a mailman to be a woman and to be soldier is like 50 percent of being a human. It means we can be something. A human (the mech) being ( being something). It has ego that can corrupt the human because the human is scared of God. If everyone knew God communism can happen.

My problem with society is they purposefully traumatize you, purposely propel these trauma, and purposefully pretend to heal you.

If everyone knew God is real and is taking care of them then we will live in communism.

Wars will happen and fighting will happen it dosent matter its part of being a human. But there are people farming your trauma and you dont even know it. And they are lying to you about it. This keeps human in a capitalist mindset. They always want more. We dont need to do this anymore. We can heal ourselves and become what we are supposed to be. Mechs of Earth and create paradise.

If you have nothing to do you can literally watch another life in a ray of light.

But something is purposefully stopping humans from doing this.

Edited 21 hours ago by Hojo

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's a far-left conspiracy theory to believe that the money that's missing is hidden away by the rich.

I'm not against redistribution but even Elon Musk only has a few billion dollars in personal funds (in his personal bank accounts).

Even if you were to seize all the accumulated wealth of the American super-rich, for example—which is suicidal because whether we like it or not private savings is the essential of national savings, and you would squander it—you would only accumulate a few tens of billions of dollars, whereas by comparison the annual American budget is nearly 4 trillion dollars.

The majority of that money comes from the middle class.

Besides nobody except a few idiots here and there actually believes what's being said in the image; it's just another leftist tactic to treat people like fools and convince themselves they're very intelligent. If you ask people why they're against immigration most of them will talk about crime; because they see the news items, ethnic statistics etc.

The top 10% of corporations alone have 40 trillion dollars in cash sitting in vaults. For context, it alone would house and feed every person on earth currently below the poverty line for the next 50 years not factoring in simple interest on the funds.

The gripe is not about taking 10 billion in cash from Musks, the gripe is about reallocating capital through taxation away from retarded projects like colonizing Mars or beating the Chinese in data mining and moving it toward helping starving kids. This is also not a zero sum game, raising everyone out of poverty increases the population that would be active in science and invention and not just by the number in poverty but also by the number that is affected by conflict and crime that results from poverty, a peaceful world would almost certainly give rise to much greater invention and ideas, let alone peace, look at what we spend on defense which is only because there are desperate people needing to do desperate things. The u.s. defense budget alone is 2 trillion, it only costs 50 billion a year to feed everyone in poverty.

[LordFall]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

The top 10% of corporations alone have 40 trillion dollars in cash sitting in vaults. For context, it alone would house and feed every person on earth currently below the poverty line for the next 50 years not factoring in simple interest on the funds.

The gripe is not about taking 10 billion in cash from Musks, the gripe is about reallocating capital through taxation away from retarded projects like colonizing Mars or beating the Chinese in data mining and moving it toward helping starving kids. This is also not a zero sum game, raising everyone out of poverty increases the population that would be active in science and invention and not just by the number in poverty but also by the number that is affected by conflict and crime that results from poverty, a peaceful world would almost certainly give rise to much greater invention and ideas, let alone peace, look at what we spend on defense which is only because there are desperate people needing to do desperate things. The u.s. defense budget alone is 2 trillion, it only costs 50 billion a year to feed everyone in poverty.

You're not wrong but you're inflating numbers. 

The total cash and liquid marketable securities held by all public corporations globally combined sits closer to $8 trillion.

It would apparently cost $100 billion per year not 50 to feed everyone globally but that's still manageable. 

With the current political polarization we're experiencing the US can't even manage to not cut its own already working benefits program so we're not quite there yet but ultimately all the problems we have globally are not more than a few years to a couple decades to fix. We should be quite optimistic about the future! 

@Hojo Yes you're right. I'm glad Leo taught us about the spiral dynamics model because it makes a lot of sense. Most of societal problems stop existing at stage green but below it's just a clusterfuck of competition and annihilation.

It's hard to get rid of though, I've spent the last 10 years of my life self-actualizing and I still love petty competition. Let alone people that never did any that salivate at the thoughts of the death and suffering of their enemies. Which is like most of the politicians globally it seems lol. 

Edited 19 hours ago by LordFall

[Elliott]

41 minutes ago, LordFall said:

You're not wrong but you're inflating numbers. 

The total cash and liquid marketable securities held by all public corporations globally combined sits closer to $8 trillion.

$40 trillion, and that's only the top 10% of corporations. Many of the biggest corporations in the world are private.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/companies-with-the-highest-cash-on-hand/

 

Quote

It would apparently cost $100 billion per year not 50 to feed everyone globally but that's still manageable. 

I said for 50 years, at $40 trillion, that's $800 BILLION a year not $100. By your number I OVERESTIMATED how much is needed.

Quote

With the current political polarization we're experiencing the US can't even manage to not cut its own already working benefits program so we're not quite there yet but ultimately all the problems we have globally are not more than a few years to a couple decades to fix. We should be quite optimistic about the future! 

We're literally already starting another great depression. That's not just people starving, that's what caused the second world war, and this time 1.)Iran, 2.)Israel, 3.)Korea, 4.)Pakistan, 5.)India, 6.) Russia have nuclear MISSILES, ww2 we only had a bomb you drop from a plane, you saw what Iran just did to the great 'Iron Dome' in Israel right?

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Elliott

[LordFall]

32 minutes ago, Elliott said:

$40 trillion, and that's only the top 10% of corporations. Many of the biggest corporations in the world are private.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/companies-with-the-highest-cash-on-hand/

True but that site doesn't only count corporations it counts banks as well. So that cash on hand includes all the private deposits that people like you and me and people in china deposit. At this point we're talking about global liquidity and not just a few big corporations being too greedy and stocking cash in a vault.

Have you watched Mr.Robot? The plot is basically that there is a big company E corp that controls most of the banking in the world and they hack it in hopes of resetting the system and making it better. It basically devolves into chaos for a while until it becomes even more centralized and dystopian. 

Unfortunately there is no real easy solution to global inequality apart from slow gradual change IMO. Maybe UBI tech singularity can solve it but then again it's still about international trade agreements and peace treaties. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

True but that site doesn't only count corporations it counts banks as well. So that cash on hand includes all the private deposits that people like you and me and people in china deposit. At this point we're talking about global liquidity and not just a few big corporations being too greedy and stocking cash in a vault.

Have you watched Mr.Robot? The plot is basically that there is a big company E corp that controls most of the banking in the world and they hack it in hopes of resetting the system and making it better. It basically devolves into chaos for a while until it becomes even more centralized and dystopian. 

Unfortunately there is no real easy solution to global inequality apart from slow gradual change IMO. Maybe UBI tech singularity can solve it but then again it's still about international trade agreements and peace treaties. 

Those are corporate banks. I'm puting you back on ignore, bye.

Cash on hand is cash they own, not your savings. Banks loan out 9/10 dollars they receive, storing only 40-10% of your savings, they loan your money out, they don't make money by storing your money and then paying you interest! You think they're like Pokémon geeks but with benjamins?

"No, a bank does not count depositors' accounts as its own "cash on hand." [1, 2]

On a bank's balance sheet, customer deposits and cash on hand are separated into two completely different categories. [1]

Here is how they are classified:

Customer Deposits are Liabilities [1]

The Reason: The money in your account belongs to you, not the bank.

The Accounting: The bank owes this money back to you upon request. Therefore..."

 

 

 

 

Global "Broad Money (M2/M3): ≈ $100 - $130 trillion (includes all physical cash, checking/savings accounts, and easily liquidated short-term deposits)"

You geniuses think school.teachers are sitting on this or something? Like where the fuck do you think this actual money is, Mars?

 

Global population 8.3 billion, that's $15k for every individual on earth, every starving African baby, you think has 15k under their mattress, when it costs 15c a day to feed them yet they're starving. That's 266 years of food for every person on earth.

 

"The U.S. federal government holds approximately $893 billion in operating cash and other monetary assets."

"Chinese Central Bank Balance Sheet: The total size of the PBoC's balance sheet represents approx. $6.75 trillion, which includes a mix of government deposits, claims on banks, and foreign assets" (this bank is not on that list I posted, it's a government bank not corporate)

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott

[LordFall]

You have the accounting knowledge of a failing undergraduate student or a smart high schooler take your pick. You don't understand the math of what you're talking about.

A global mega-bank handles trillions in customer deposits. Even if they lend out the vast majority and keep just a 10% to 15% liquidity buffer to handle daily withdrawals, that still leaves them holding hundreds of billions in 'Cash and Cash Equivalents' at any given time. Multiplying that across the top 100 banks easily hits that $32 trillion figure.

When a database pulls 'Cash on Hand,' it pulls that exact asset column. That money isn't corporate profit sitting in a vault that a CEO can legally spend; it's the aggregate checking and savings accounts of everyday citizens and businesses globally, held in reserve so the system doesn't collapse. Your entire 'gotcha' argument relies on looking at highly regulated depositor liquidity and confusing it with a corporate piggy bank. Confusing a bank's corporate equity with its depositor liabilities is a day-one accounting error.

You remind me of the average Redditor and are even less fun to have a conversation with. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

8 hours ago, Hojo said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock Communism is a concept that can work. Your ideas of communism are all written by people who didnt do it. Humans can produce more than they consume. If humans can produce more than they can consume then it can work. If humans produce more than they consume then poverty is nulled. dictatorship isnt communism.

Everytime a human has something against communism they point to something that isnt communism and says that communism dosent or cant exist. This is saying humans are incapable of evolution or changing their ways.

Billionarie put their dirty feet into politics and make up these ideologies and you beleive it .

It's not enough to just being able to produce more than we consume in order to have actual communism, production needs to be unlimited in it's capacity, and automated. Production also needs to match the level of demand, and all these factors combined have the highest chance by far to establish classless, stateless society. Socialists like you would like to put an artificial caps at human consumption and arrogantly think they can dictate people's demand - which is what you're indirectly doing, you are not more developed and superior human being to those who consume more and are ambitious, just because you're choosing to live a life of a poor wookie. You might be more spuritually oriented than them, but that's about it. Humans in general do not want to be a poor wooks as evidenced in their choices and the way economy keeps growing, people want to consume and want to consume more, not less. We will eventually find ways for us to consume without harming nature or humans in any way via technological innovation - but this is what socialism stuns because it leads to dictatorship, poverty and low flexibility of thought. Look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea, or even North Korea and China (what China actually has is a form of capitalism, it's just highly state controlled). Night and day

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

The top 10% of corporations alone have 40 trillion dollars in cash sitting in vaults.

For context, it alone would house and feed every person on earth currently below the poverty line for the next 50 years not factoring in simple interest on the funds.

I don't know your source, but assuming it's true:

1) Once again you want to squander private savings—even destroy these companies' ability to borrow money—and by extension potentially destroy a huge number of often skilled jobs, their R&D, and most of their productive capacity in general.

2)Money is capital it's not linked to the means of production or available social time. Just because there's more liquidity available doesn't magically mean there's more labor and raw materials available; so the moment you start spending that liquidity you'll generate proportional inflation. It's logical even if you add $10 to your wallet it doesn't mean that the equivalent in goods has appeared somewhere in the world, therefore since the quantity of goods is the same but there is more money the goods in question will now cost more.

This works to some extent, in the long run, which is why central banks create money to maintain a slightly positive inflation rate. Countries can also implement stimulus plans, but this often creates enormous amounts of debt (it's better to borrow than to print money or, worse, squander savings for the reasons I listed earlier) ans inflation still; the New Deal for example, created so much inflation that it actually reversed a deflationary trend.

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

The gripe is not about taking 10 billion in cash from Musks, the gripe is about reallocating capital through taxation away from retarded projects like colonizing Mars or beating the Chinese in data mining 

That's just your opinion.

If you're so humanitarian you can delete your Actualized account, sell your computer, and give all the money to poor starving children, lol.

Meanwhile even from a humanitarian perspective, thanks to AI as @LordFall said we'll certainly be able to create more abundance of all kinds (consumption, health, etc.) in the long run, for everybody.

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

and moving it toward helping starving kids.

It's not our prerogative, and intervening could also create problems; like local production collapsing because people prefer to consume foreign aid or things like that.

Investments are already a better solution but well to invest you need capital, and to have capital you have to accumulate it, not squander it.

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

This is also not a zero sum game, raising everyone out of poverty increases the population that would be active in science and invention 

and not just by the number in poverty but also by the number that is affected by conflict and crime that results from poverty, a peaceful world would almost certainly give rise to much greater invention and ideas, let alone peace, look at what we spend on defense which is only because there are desperate people needing to do desperate things.

Already responded

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

The u.s. defense budget alone is 2 trillion, it only costs 50 billion a year to feed everyone in poverty.

It's true, you could say it's exaggerate, certainly because of lobbying.

But unfortunately there are also geostrategic interests at play.
The biggest ally and customer of the United States in printed circuit boards for example, is Taiwan, and what maintains Taiwan's independence, and by extension the value of the dollar since the United States buys in dollars, is largely American military deterrence.
The same goes for Saudi Arabia with the pretrolium; then Israel, South Korea...
Even Europe benefits from the American military, and this pushes Europeans to trade more with the United States and to pay in dollars.
At one point, in exchange for the United States' participation in the defense of Ukraine, the United States even tried to negotiate resources in exchange for a treaty between the two countries.

 

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

That's just your opinion.

If you're so humanitarian you can delete your Actualized account, sell your computer, and give all the money to poor starving children, lol.

You're changing the subject. Your argumentation is like saying we shouldn't have public fire departments or border security, 'you should just carry a bucket of water yourself and just patrol the border around your yard', tHaT's yOuR oPiNiOn. We're talking about the reasons for taxing and you're trying to change the subject because you see that you were being stupid. You yourself, everyone globally, society, would benefit from helping the destitute, as I already laid out how, yet you think you should get a free ride on it and gain all the benefit, but only us wokies pay for it. You're asleep.

Quote

Meanwhile even from a humanitarian perspective, thanks to AI as @LordFall said we'll certainly be able to create more abundance of all kinds (consumption, health, etc.) in the long run, for everybody.

 

We already have the resources and we don't do it, nor will ai help in a meaningful way especially when you consider the net effects that will derive from conflict it is already causing through energy and mineral greed to create it. Technological advancement has almost always come with an imperialistic like exploitation and plundering, with AI this is looking like armed conflict in Africa for minerals and obviously the usual foreign meddling and corruption that brings destruction and war.

 

"Conflicts in Africa over critical minerals—including rare earths and essential metals like coltan, cobalt, and lithium—are driven by the global demand for electronics and green energy. The crisis centers on the illicit extraction, smuggling, and weaponization of these resources to finance armed groups, warlords, and regional geopolitical disputes."

This drives terrorism, emigration, and the spread of armed conflict. You can't only look at the fairytale positive effects of AI, you have to look at reality.

Edited 9 hours ago by Elliott

[Schizophonia]

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You're changing the subject.

No: you tacitly suggested an ethical principle and I said in return that you would do well to apply it to yourself to begin with if you find it good that much.

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Your argumentation is like saying we shouldn't have public fire departments or border security, 'you should just carry a bucket of water yourself and just patrol the border around your yard', tHaT's yOuR oPiNiOn. You yourself, everyone globally, society, would benefit from helping the destitute, as I already laid out how, yet you think you should get a free ride on it by only a few paying for it.

It's not a question of either becoming libertarians or taking all the money available without any logical considerations.

There are stupid things and relevant things to do that don't fall under a manichean dichotomy.
Taking a little money from everyone for public services can be relevant, but destroying national savings and giving them to others because they are poor lol makes no sense.

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

We already have the resources and we don't do it, nor will ai help in a meaningful way especially when you consider the net effects that will derive from conflict it is already causing through energy and mineral greed to create it. Technological advancement has almost always come with an imperialistic like exploitation and plundering, with AI this is looking like armed conflict in Africa for minerals and obviously the usual foreign meddling and corruption that brings destruction and war.

It's another problem. 

What I was responding to was your statement that we have "40 trillion at our disposal"

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

No: you tacitly suggested an ethical principle 

No I didn't, I believe I laid out a very clear, practical, common sense reason: it helps everyone even Musk.

Quote

It's not a question of either becoming libertarians or taking all the money available without any logical considerations.

I only gave logical considerations, perhaps you didn't read. 

Quote

 

It's another problem. 

What I was responding to was your statement that we have "40 trillion at our disposal"

I didn't say that nor insinuate that, I explicitly said "reallocate means through taxes away from retarded ideas like colonizing Mars and racing China on data mining, reallocatong means through taxes toward feeding starving babies" then I went on to show how relatively little it would cost, then I went on to tell about the knock-on effects that would bring about more prosperity to ALL the people of the world.

Apparently you're just here for attention. Goodbye. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Schizophonia]

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

No I didn't, I believe I laid out a very clear, practical, common sense reason: it helps everyone even Musk.

You said we should take money from multinational corporations and give it to the poor who are starving.
That's an ethical idea.

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

I only gave logical considerations, perhaps you didn't read. 

I didn't say that nor insinuate that, I explicitly said "reallocate means through taxes away from retarded ideas like colonizing Mars and racing China on data mining, reallocatong means through taxes toward feeding starving babies" then I went on to show how relatively little it would cost, then I went on to tell about the knock-on effects that would bring about more prosperity to ALL the people of the world.

And i say it's wrong for different reasons

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

Apparently you're just here for attention. Goodbye. 

You are regularly aggressive and have a big ego.

[Elliott]

58 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You said we should take money from multinational corporations and give it to the poor who are starving.
That's an ethical idea.

And i say it's wrong for different reasons

You are regularly aggressive and have a big ego.

I would be interested in any insights you have toward 'my big ego' if you ever want to interject anywhere, I do actually like your psych comments.

Not that I care that I have a big ego or am aggressive....

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Lo and behold, forum is getting polluted with peasantry once again