Bring4th
Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Printable Version

+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? (/showthread.php?tid=10595)

Pages: 1 2


Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-20-2015

My question is whether anybody here on Bring 4th has an interest in macroeconomics. In other words, the global economy.

I notice that I tend to check Yahoo Finance a lot; it sort of makes me feel like a wannabe Wall Street trader (even though I have no real intention of being one). I think that the reason I'm interested in the global economy is because of 1) My interest in socialism. As many people may well know, socialism is not just a political philosophy, but it is one that is deeply tied to economic theory. I would say that that explains my interest in it from that viewpoint. And I feel that I'm also interested in it because of 2) Duh!! My interest in the Law of One material and, consequently, the Harvest. I kind of am interested in how the economic system and, as another user put it, the "zeitgeist" of this world plays out in terms of how the Harvest is going to manifest. I say the Harvest for simplicity's sake, but I really mean our transition into a full 4th density world.

So, how 'bout it? Does anybody have any interest in the global economy and, perhaps, for the reasons mentioned?

P.S. I'd be surprised if this were a wildly popular thread. Maybe I un-jinxed it with this last comment. Lol.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-20-2015

I guess that means no... Lol.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Diana - 03-20-2015

I am interested in global economy. Everything will be in the cloud soon—your movie collection, your music, your bank account. The Internet has been a huge influence on the idea of "no separation."

There is actually a movie called "Zeitgeist" which deals with the global economy and the way capitalism is flawed. The producer, a ninety-something architect, proposes a new way to live based on cooperation—very socialistic. It used to be free on the Internet. There are 2 Zeitgeist sequels, all good.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-20-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:41 PM)Diana Wrote: I am interested in global economy. Everything will be in the cloud soon—your movie collection, your music, your bank account. The Internet has been a huge influence on the idea of "no separation."

There is actually a movie called "Zeitgeist" which deals with the global economy and the way capitalism is flawed. The producer, a ninety-something architect, proposes a new way to live based on cooperation—very socialistic. It used to be free on the Internet. There are 2 Zeitgeist sequels, all good.

I saw all three of those movies when I was at my cousin's house in Las Vegas! Her husband turned me on to it. It was sort of difficult to pay attention to, as there was a lot of distraction at the time. But it was well worth the effort.

Yeah, I think that technology is a big influence on, not just the economy, but in the oncoming greater awareness.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Nicholas - 03-20-2015

The producer of that documentary was Peter Joseph. The "ninety something" (98 years to be precise and was fortunate enough to have a conversation with Einstein when he was a young lad) chap mentioned can be better identified as Jacque Fresco, the founder of "The Venus Project". Mr Joseph failed to consult Mr Fresco fully when using his work to supplement his own.

Here is a thread dedicated to Jacques work.

Inventor, engineer and futurist

I would like to interact more on this thread with Iraq and Libya as focal points to understanding the macroeconomic chessboard.

Naomi Klein speaks well on the European issues in my eyes Smile




RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-20-2015

(03-20-2015, 05:22 PM)Nicholas Wrote: The producer of that documentary was Peter Joseph. The "ninety something" (98 years to be precise and was fortunate enough to have a conversation with Einstein when he was a young lad) chap mentioned can be better identified as Jacque Fresco, the founder of "The Venus Project". Mr Joseph failed to consult Mr Fresco fully when using his work to supplement his own.

Here is a thread dedicated to Jacques work.

Inventor, engineer and futurist

I would like to interact more on this thread with Iraq and Libya as focal points to understanding the macroeconomic chessboard.

Naomi Klein speaks well on the European issues in my eyes Smile


The guy in the video was really distracting to me... until I realized that he was a translator. Tongue

Thanks for the info about Jacques Fresco (and the video). I remember I visited his website right after I saw the movies. I thought that his whole premise about a future society was really interesting. Especially the implication that we have the technology to get there right now. The only problem is that the children don't seem to want to share in their toys.

What did you want to share about Iraq and Libya? You're more than welcome to do so.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-20-2015

I'll be back in about an hour or so.

Wink


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 03-27-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:41 PM)Diana Wrote: There is actually a movie called "Zeitgeist" which deals with the global economy and the way capitalism is flawed. The producer, a ninety-something architect, proposes a new way to live based on cooperation—very socialistic. It used to be free on the Internet. There are 2 Zeitgeist sequels, all good.

The real question is where does capitalism actually exist on earth?

The United States is a weird combination of corporatism and socialism that has the net effect of stifling all innovation which is not in the interest of large corporations.  And the regulators are captured by the corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The problem with socialism is that it's confiscation of the fruits of one's labor (denial of free will) where an elite class controls the allocation of the confiscated resources.  Of course, said elite class tends to spend the money in the interest of the elite class, but they throw a few bones to the people to make it look like they are doing something good.

Generally speaking, an elite class is interested in controlling money since that control gives them power over people.  The good people of the world who typically would do the right thing aren't interested in controlling money..  Guess who ends up controlling money in all cases..  So I would argue that no economic model will get us out of the mess we are in without major change.

The way to resolve the economic issues of the world is to have the release of suppressed technologies for free energy and a multitude of other areas, and in that period of innovation, pure capitalism would be the best model where companies compete against each other to produce the best mousetrap at the lowest cost.  These new technologies would reduce a person's daily costs quite significantly and usher in a new era of economic sovereignty. Smile


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Shemaya - 03-27-2015

Makes sense, Scott.  The video above  is about energy and taking back control from the corporations.  she talks of the lack of investment in renewable resources, the deficit in ecological protection , and the environmental degradation caused by the current energy system.

She differs in saying that Capitalism in the energy market is not helpful.  And she doesn't mention free energy at all, that has been so suppressed that people don't even think about it.  

People need the information.  Maybe crowd funding a campaign to get the word out?  Wade Frazier is a scientist who is really knowledgeable about the energy field.  He has written a ton on it, how we got to where we are today and what it takes to move into a sustainable system.  His website is A Healed Planet


A Healed Planet



RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-27-2015

(03-27-2015, 04:27 AM)ScottK Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 03:41 PM)Diana Wrote: There is actually a movie called "Zeitgeist" which deals with the global economy and the way capitalism is flawed. The producer, a ninety-something architect, proposes a new way to live based on cooperation—very socialistic. It used to be free on the Internet. There are 2 Zeitgeist sequels, all good.

The real question is where does capitalism actually exist on earth?

The United States is a weird combination of corporatism and socialism that has the net effect of stifling all innovation which is not in the interest of large corporations.  And the regulators are captured by the corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The problem with socialism is that it's confiscation of the fruits of one's labor (denial of free will) where an elite class controls the allocation of the confiscated resources.  Of course, said elite class tends to spend the money in the interest of the elite class, but they throw a few bones to the people to make it look like they are doing something good.

Generally speaking, an elite class is interested in controlling money since that control gives them power over people.  The good people of the world who typically would do the right thing aren't interested in controlling money..  Guess who ends up controlling money in all cases..  So I would argue that no economic model will get us out of the mess we are in without major change.

The way to resolve the economic issues of the world is to have the release of suppressed technologies for free energy and a multitude of other areas, and in that period of innovation, pure capitalism would be the best model where companies compete against each other to produce the best mousetrap at the lowest cost.  These new technologies would reduce a person's daily costs quite significantly and usher in a new era of economic sovereignty. Smile

I think that you're getting confused with true socialism and the failed, so-called communist states that, for example Russia and China have been, and are. China for example is not socialism at all. China is actually an economic system, deemed by many experts as, State capitalism. Soviet Russia was closer to what Marx intended in the first couple of decades, but it then devolved to a complicated system of bureacracy.

As far as what you were saying about the US, any system where there is an elite that has control of most of the money is nowhere near any type of socialism. Socialism is, in a way, an eradication of the current economic system that we have.


Edit: Our current economic system is outdated. As the gap between the haves and the nots increases (in other words, as the middle class declines in numbers), and as the robots continue to displace workers, we will increasingly need a system that is beyond capitalism. And perhaps beyond any theoretical model of socialism.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 03-28-2015

(03-27-2015, 03:11 PM)Lighthead Wrote: As far as what you were saying about the US, any system where there is an elite that has control of most of the money is nowhere near any type of socialism. Socialism is, in a way, an eradication of the current economic system that we have.


Edit: Our current economic system is outdated. As the gap between the haves and the nots increases (in other words, as the middle class declines in numbers), and as the robots continue to displace workers, we will increasingly need a system that is beyond capitalism. And perhaps beyond any theoretical model of socialism.

Okay, I'll bite.  What is this socialism that you talk about?  So if you don't have an elite controlling the money, would it then be a democracy of the people controlling the money?  So 55% could control the money, but what if you are in the other 45%?  Or is there another way to do your idea of socialism?  As I see it, socialism could work on a very limited basis where everyone in a smaller group agrees with the vision.  A forced, coerced socialism is anti-free will - just a different form of tyranny for at least a minority of the population of a country..  Of course, I would be delighted to change my mind if you have a better idea.  Smile

Further, as I said in my earlier post, there is very little capitalism going on in the world now - all you really have now is large corporations acting as predators against the little guys who have good ideas.  And we also have a debt based monetary system and tax structure that completely favors large corporations, and a legal system that favors those with money, in other words, large corporations.

What we really need is honest money and an honest legal system.  That will act as a poison to much of the elite and large corporations, who have been playing fast and loose with the rules for so long. 

BTW, this guy really knows what is going on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVr1xIqsiDo


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-28-2015

(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: Okay, I'll bite.  What is this socialism that you talk about?  So if you don't have an elite controlling the money, would it then be a democracy of the people controlling the money?  So 55% could control the money, but what if you are in the other 45%?  Or is there another way to do your idea of socialism?  As I see it, socialism could work on a very limited basis where everyone in a smaller group agrees with the vision.  A forced, coerced socialism is anti-free will - just a different form of tyranny for at least a minority of the population of a country..  Of course, I would be delighted to change my mind if you have a better idea.  Smile

That system that you describe is actually not really socialism. It's a bureaucratic economic/political system that is best termed, Statism. Soviet Russia and modern-day China have made people think that their version of "communism" is a true version of socialism, but it's actually way different. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges. They would have liked you to believe that it is close to socialism, but it is actually not even. China is probably one of the most capitalistic countries you can find. They have absolutely no regulation as to how much their workers can be paid and how they are to be treated. My next post will go into describing Socialism (I have to run an errand pretty soon).

(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: Further, as I said in my earlier post, there is very little capitalism going on in the world now - all you really have now is large corporations acting as predators against the little guys who have good ideas.  And we also have a debt based monetary system and tax structure that completely favors large corporations, and a legal system that favors those with money, in other words, large corporations.

What we really need is honest money and an honest legal system.  That will act as a poison to much of the elite and large corporations, who have been playing fast and loose with the rules for so long.

BTW, this guy really knows what is going on:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVr1xIqsiDo

What you describe is actually true capitalism and its effects. I will check out that video when I come back.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-28-2015

(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: Okay, I'll bite.  What is this socialism that you talk about?

There's a lot of confusion as to what socialism is. What I've been able to gather about what the essence of socialism is that it is, basically, creating a good or service without expecting anything in return, and consuming a good or service without simply expecting a handout. I'm pretty sure that there's someone out there who's going to disagree, but that is what I've been able to distill from all that I've read. I mentioned that this capitalistic system of expecting something in return is outdated, but, to be honest, I don't think that this world is ready for full-on socialism. I think that we have to do a little at a time. However, it is very obvious to most serious economists that this current economic system that we have, by definition, has to produce a group of people who are disadvantaged. For the rich to be rich (and to continue to be rich), there has to be a poor that are poor. It is also destined to collapse eventually. That's why I think that policy makers should start proactively work on instituting a replacement. One of the signs that this current economic system is destined to collapse is a decline in the middle class. The wealthy have refined their methods to the point that, eventually, everyone is going to be poor. And that is unsustainable, even for them. After they've fleeced the world's population, they have to start acquiring from within themselves.

I actually think that the Ra material fits in nicely in describing this current economic system, with how they describe STS and STO. And make no mistake, there is no way that an STS person on this planet can be a true socialist. That is like the exact opposite of what an STS person would invest their time in. They might make it seem like it's socialism, but they would be most allied with a system that is similar to, or that is, capitalism.

It's also a mistake to think that welfare is socialism. welfare is not a long-term solution the way socialism is. There are some people who have become way too dependent on welfare, in my opinion. I personally believe that welfare is good for someone who is in transition, and is facing a difficult time, for the moment being.

There are many more things that socialism is and isn't, but in my estimation, they are sort of beyond the point.

I haven't seen your video because I've been thinking about what to write all this time. Wink Tongue

I also want to say that, for someone to see the value in creating without expecting anything in return is a value system that doesn't happen overnight. It's basically a set of values that whole generations have to be raised in. Those are values that you have to instill within people.

When I say consuming without simply expecting a handout, this is what I mean: A lot of capitalists consume (and even steal) from those who share freely (technology, for example) and don't give back to them. That's why those who share freely have to have another job to fall back on.

I hope this answers your question. BigSmile


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-28-2015

(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: BTW, this guy really knows what is going on:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVr1xIqsiDo

I'll try to watch the rest of this video later, but it seems like the same old fear-mongering that the patriot movement, the religious right, and the libertarians have been doing for a while now. It reminds me of the stuff I used to see on Above Top Secret.

By the way, I would have to wonder if he's really monitoring the current economic system; the dollar has actually increased in value lately.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - native - 03-29-2015

Hell no Smile  <--edited for lightheartedness.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 03-29-2015

(03-28-2015, 07:31 PM)Lighthead Wrote:
(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: BTW, this guy really knows what is going on:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVr1xIqsiDo

I'll try to watch the rest of this video later, but it seems like the same old fear-mongering that the patriot movement, the religious right, and the libertarians have been doing for a while now. It reminds me of the stuff I used to see on Above Top Secret.

By the way, I would have to wonder if he's really monitoring the current economic system; the dollar has actually increased in value lately.

If you haven't watched the video, why are you commenting on it?


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 03-29-2015

I like your vision of socialism, and it's what needs to be worked towards.  Smile

We are probably talking past each other since we are really talking about two separate things.  I'm looking really closely at the transition from what we have now to something considerably better.  My timeframe is from 2 to 10 years out, as that is where the great challenge lies.  It's also where we still have a mix of STS and STO, where many things need to be built in to keep things fair.  So this is where the energies of the good guys are going to now.  The dark side is very deeply entrenched in the existing system, and very drastic things will have to happen to remove them.  No one has a magic wand to make that happen.

When people are virtually all thinking in an STO manner, the world will simply become a paradise and the economic system itself will reflect that - I doubt we would need money at some point - or at least, the need for money will be dramatically reduced.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 03-29-2015

(03-28-2015, 05:05 PM)Lighthead Wrote: What you describe is actually true capitalism and its effects. I will check out that video when I come back.

What true capitalism is is creative destruction.  When someone builds a better mousetrap, the old mousetrap company innovates or it goes out of business.  The role of government is to be the referee to make sure that process operates fairly - what if the old mousetrap company was allowed to steal the idea and shoot the owner of the new company?  That's precisely what is being allowed to happen today which is not capitalism.

If you don't have incentive, you don't have innovation.  Without innovation, we have a problem.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-29-2015

(03-29-2015, 05:18 AM)ScottK Wrote: If you haven't watched the video, why are you commenting on it?

I saw the first part. I didn't really like what I was watching, and so I lost interest. Smile


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-29-2015

(03-29-2015, 05:42 AM)ScottK Wrote: When people are virtually all thinking in an STO manner, the world will simply become a paradise and the economic system itself will reflect that - I doubt we would need money at some point - or at least, the need for money will be dramatically reduced.

I think that when a planet transitions to 4D, things happen in stages. I think that money will be slowly phased out, and a transaction of any kind will be much more telepathic. I can't wait to see (if I'm still alive by then) how technology will play a role in everything.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 03-29-2015

(03-29-2015, 05:54 AM)ScottK Wrote:
(03-28-2015, 05:05 PM)Lighthead Wrote: What you describe is actually true capitalism and its effects. I will check out that video when I come back.

What true capitalism is is creative destruction.  When someone builds a better mousetrap, the old mousetrap company innovates or it goes out of business.  The role of government is to be the referee to make sure that process operates fairly - what if the old mousetrap company was allowed to steal the idea and shoot the owner of the new company?  That's precisely what is being allowed to happen today which is not capitalism.

If you don't have incentive, you don't have innovation.  Without innovation, we have a problem.

I very much agree with what you're saying. The only thing is that that's the way things play out in theory. Innovation happens much faster when an idea builds on top of other, older ones. The problem with so much regulation is that if a new idea looks even slightly like that of an older model, that person gets sued because of so-called copyright infringement. It all goes back to money. If someone were to build on top of the older model, then that person would have to dole out a percentage to the older company. That costs too much money to the newer person, and makes him/her decide to give up on the innovative product or service. That's why we have Creative Commons licenses. I believe that as this planet goes more and more into 4D positive, you'll see an explosion in the use of these licenses.

From a spiritual perspective, I believe that this STS system (the one that I've described just now) is one that has been mapped out by higher density STS entities. It flows too smoothly the negative way to have just happened that way.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Infinite - 08-28-2017

(03-28-2015, 07:16 PM)Lighthead Wrote: There's a lot of confusion as to what socialism is. What I've been able to gather about what the essence of socialism is that it is, basically, creating a good or service without expecting anything in return, and consuming a good or service without simply expecting a handout. I'm pretty sure that there's someone out there who's going to disagree, but that is what I've been able to distill from all that I've read. I mentioned that this capitalistic system of expecting something in return is outdated, but, to be honest, I don't think that this world is ready for full-on socialism. I think that we have to do a little at a time. However, it is very obvious to most serious economists that this current economic system that we have, by definition, has to produce a group of people who are disadvantaged. For the rich to be rich (and to continue to be rich), there has to be a poor that are poor. It is also destined to collapse eventually. That's why I think that policy makers should start proactively work on instituting a replacement. One of the signs that this current economic system is destined to collapse is a decline in the middle class. The wealthy have refined their methods to the point that, eventually, everyone is going to be poor. And that is unsustainable, even for them. After they've fleeced the world's population, they have to start acquiring from within themselves.

I actually think that the Ra material fits in nicely in describing this current economic system, with how they describe STS and STO. And make no mistake, there is no way that an STS person on this planet can be a true socialist. That is like the exact opposite of what an STS person would invest their time in. They might make it seem like it's socialism, but they would be most allied with a system that is similar to, or that is, capitalism.

It's also a mistake to think that welfare is socialism. welfare is not a long-term solution the way socialism is. There are some people who have become way too dependent on welfare, in my opinion. I personally believe that welfare is good for someone who is in transition, and is facing a difficult time, for the moment being.

There are many more things that socialism is and isn't, but in my estimation, they are sort of beyond the point.

I haven't seen your video because I've been thinking about what to write all this time. Wink Tongue

I also want to say that, for someone to see the value in creating without expecting anything in return is a value system that doesn't happen overnight. It's basically a set of values that whole generations have to be raised in. Those are values that you have to instill within people.

When I say consuming without simply expecting a handout, this is what I mean: A lot of capitalists consume (and even steal) from those who share freely (technology, for example) and don't give back to them. That's why those who share freely have to have another job to fall back on.

I hope this answers your question. BigSmile

I agree totally with your post. The socialism (the ideal, not the implemented systems) is the spiritual or STO vision of the society. The capitalism is the filosophy of the "law of the jungle". This philosophy is the base of thoughts of the lower astral planes's societies (umbral), the black magicians, the Orion Empire and all STS philosophies. This is one of the reasions the Earth is not a STO planet now.

The Left Wing is the STO or spiritual vision of the politics. Because the Right Wing also is based of "law of the jungle", the philosophy that is STS's philosophy.

****************************

I recommend this documentary to understanding the conspiracy behind the capitalism and your arms:




RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 02:54 PM)Infinite Wrote: I agree totally with your post. The socialism (the ideal, not the implemented systems) is the spiritual or STO vision of the society. The capitalism is the filosophy of the "law of the jungle". This philosophy is the base of thoughts of the lower astral planes's societies (umbral), the black magicians, the Orion Empire and all STS philosophies. This is one of the reasions the Earth is not a STO planet now.

The Left Wing is the STO or spiritual vision of the politics. Because the Right Wing also is based of "law of the jungle", the philosophy that is STS's philosophy.

****************************

I recommend this documentary to understanding the conspiracy behind the capitalism and your arms:


Do you really think that this planet is not STO? Ra mentions that the planet is "actually positive" in this quote. That said, he seems to contradict himself in other parts. I can't remember the exact parts. I was doing some heavy research on the Ra material and found those contradictions along with others recently. Actually, I just remembered... This is where he says it. I also tend to see that this planet is negative. But to be honest, the main problem that I see on this planet is the widespread ignorance. This planet is bound to be 4th density eventually, but I think that it might veer towards the negative in all honesty.

Let me know what you think.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Infinite - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 03:21 PM)Lighthead Wrote: Do you really think that this planet is not STO? Ra mentions that the planet is "actually positive" in this quote. That said, he seems to contradict himself in other parts.

There are differences between orientation and polarity. Ra said that we are a social complex with seeks in many directions. This is, we can't said that the Earth is a STO planet but that the positive polarity is more present.

(08-28-2017, 03:21 PM)Lighthead Wrote: I was doing some heavy research on the Ra material and found those contradictions along with others recently. Actually, I just remembered... This is where he says it.

There aren't contractions in this passage. He was talking about the Guardians work and in the need of an equilibrium between positive and negative opportunities.

(08-28-2017, 03:21 PM)Lighthead Wrote: I also tend to see that this planet is negative. But to be honest, the main problem that I see on this planet is the widespread ignorance. This planet is bound to be 4th density eventually, but I think that it might veer towards the negative in all honesty.

There are some informations, already very known in another spiritualist sources, that Ra don't did spoke about. One of there is the Earth condition, this is, the Earth is a planet of expiations. This is your function, to serve as a hard catalyser to entities yet in evolution. This is the 3D's paradigm and there are entities from many places here now and for this reason there are much confusion. I believe that the Earth will become a 4D STO planet because I read this in many esoteric and spiritual works.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 08:09 PM)Infinite Wrote: There are differences between orientation and polarity. Ra said that we are a social complex with seeks in many directions. This is, we can't said that the Earth is a STO planet but that the positive polarity is more present.

I didn't get what you said here in bold. Could you please explain? I'm not sure if there is a language difficulty.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - rva_jeremy - 08-28-2017

(03-29-2015, 05:54 AM)ScottK Wrote: If you don't have incentive, you don't have innovation.  Without innovation, we have a problem.

Scott, why do you believe this is a true statement? All the evidence shows that most of the great discoveries and inventions happened outside the patent system and the inventors rarely got rich off of them. Innovation seems to be something that humans do in spite of the incentive, because we're naturally creative.

What capitalism and the patent system does really well is capture or enclose innovation and rent it out to the folks who will actually use it.

Even if we didn't have innovation, I'm not sure we'd have a problem from a spiritual perspective. Ra has stated that many STO civilizations never reach great technical heights.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - rva_jeremy - 08-28-2017

(03-28-2015, 02:50 PM)ScottK Wrote: A forced, coerced socialism is anti-free will - just a different form of tyranny for at least a minority of the population of a country..  Of course, I would be delighted to change my mind if you have a better idea.  Smile

Yes, but that's all we've had -- just like we've only had a forced, coerced capitalism. Lenin admitted as much back at the beginning of the USSR -- the whole "socialism in one country" idea was an admission that socialism couldn't work the way it was supposed to, that is, across national boundaries. The entire body of global capital conspired against the USSR, forcing it into autarky. This is where Stalin's nationalist chauvinist militarist version of communism, which anybody who has studied socialism's 100 year history up to that point knows is the exact opposite of what almost all socialists, at least those since the second international, stood for. Internationalism and labor struggle across national borders has ALWAYS been the larger program.

What you had in the USSR was essentially a capitalist system with a single capitalist, based on a very unrevolutionary attempt to simply build a socialist version of the Western economies. The Soviet Union was supposed to be a union of independent soviets or worker councils loyal to their own workers. It was the need to mobilize against the resistance of the world and eventually Germany that created the Stalinist nightmare.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that we've never had a real capitalist system, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a vision of ideal capitalism I find appealing. Since capitalism is based upon inequality and power differentials by definition, I have a hard time understanding the appeal. I'm an ex-hard-right-libertarian, I'm reasonably versed in Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, etc. and I understand the planning problems that socialism has, but that always seemed to me to be beside the point.

I'm looking forward to a new century where we can toss out outmoded 19th century Marxist old ideas about what's possible and start thinking freshly. Unionizing factory workers is the past. Look at how the coordination of the internet would make certain types of planning and economic cooperation much more likely. I mean, crowdfunding is essentially socialist finance, using the network effect to raise capital instead of promising a return on investment.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Infinite - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 08:56 PM)Lighthead Wrote: I didn't get what you said here in bold. Could you please explain? I'm not sure if there is a language difficulty.

My primary language is not english. I'm learning yet. I missed the verbal time, but I understand that your doubt is conceptual.

What I want say is that a STO planet is a planetary experience where everybody seek in the direction of the service to others. This is not true to the Earth. There are many directions of seek in our current point of the space-time. Thus, we are a social complex of mixed orientation, though the positive polarity be majority.


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - Lighthead - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 10:21 PM)Infinite Wrote: My primary language is not english. I'm learning yet. I missed the verbal time, but I understand that your doubt is conceptual.

What I want say is that a STO planet is a planetary experience where everybody seek in the direction of the service to others. This is not true to the Earth. There are many directions of seek in our current point of the space-time. Thus, we are a social complex of mixed orientation, though the positive polarity be majority.

Thanks for the clarification!


RE: Does anybody here have an interest in macroeconomics? - ScottK - 08-29-2017

(08-28-2017, 09:45 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote: Yes, but that's all we've had -- just like we've only had a forced, coerced capitalism.  

There's no such thing as a forced capitalism.  Our system is in no way capitalism, and we've never really seen capitalism.  Our system of government is completely captured ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture ) by large corporations.

Capitalism is about continuously building the better mousetrap, and those who can't build the better mousetrap are taken out.  It's creative destruction with competition between small companies.

The elephant in the room so to speak is free energy.  The large energy interests have taken out everything that could have eliminated the need for fossil fuels as an energy source, and protected their monopolies as a result.  Monopolies are not capitalism.  (Try powering your house with solar energy, and you'll realize they allowed that because it's not a replacement)

Is the definition of capitalism taught with a Marxist/Leninist slant now?


(08-28-2017, 09:45 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote: I'm sympathetic to arguments that we've never had a real capitalist system, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a vision of ideal capitalism I find appealing.  Since capitalism is based upon inequality and power differentials by definition, I have a hard time understanding the appeal.  I'm an ex-hard-right-libertarian, I'm reasonably versed in Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, etc. and I understand the planning problems that socialism has, but that always seemed to me to be beside the point.

I'm looking forward to a new century where we can toss out outmoded 19th century Marxist old ideas about what's possible and start thinking freshly.  Unionizing factory workers is the past.  Look at how the coordination of the internet would make certain types of planning and economic cooperation much more likely.  I mean, crowdfunding is essentially socialist finance, using the network effect to raise capital instead of promising a return on investment.

Socialism and communism and their epic failures are solely about the corruption of "who controls the money".

Same with Capitalism and its morphing into being captured.

I would argue that any system would work decently if you had honest people at the top.  Of course, we now have highly dishonest people at the top, so we shouldn't be surprised when the systems fail.

I would considering crowdfunding to be a flattening of the capital raising process - cutting out the middlemen, and removing layers of corruption.  It's the people determining what ventures should be financed, rather than a fund manager managing other people's money.  Effective capitalism is all about honesty..

That said, we need capitalism now because we need fast innovation.  The structure of our economy is currently aligned with 4th Density NEGATIVE principles, and to break out of this, we will need technologies that remove us from centralized systems quickly (the centralized systems will fall apart quickly when things start breaking).