Socialism of 4D, Capitalism, Is Money STS?

[Monica]

the valuation of goods and services is a different factor here. but there is no need to incorporate it.

Why not? Why leave it out? Why focus on just the physical substance?

The knowledge of how to use the herbal formula, + the healing it produced, are valuable to the person with the disease. Not just valuable, but priceless. That is an energy exchange. Why leave it out of the equation? Why focus only on mechanics?

I invite you to consider that the exchange is not just physical, and that there are many more factors in the equation. What may appear to be a negative energy flow might not be, once you take all the factors into consideration.

we are assuming that it is measurable, to make an analysis. the concept is taking more than you give. it may be much cheaper in china, much more expensive in america. but, in the subset you are, if you are taking more than you give, that is a negative flow in the end, regardless of the intent.

it would still make no difference as to Mr Y making pennies' worth more than he gave away as an effort.

But it does make a difference. The people Mr. Y sold his herbal formula to, lived instead of died. That is an energetic difference.

none of these change the fact that, taking more than you give, will be negative.

True. I agree on this point. My point is that the giving of knowledge, or healing, or joy, is still giving and thus should be added in to the equation.

Mr. Y might take more money than the actual cost of his herbal formulas, but the actual value of his formulas might be much greater than the cost of the ingredients. How do we put a value on life? We can't. It is considered priceless. Thus, it could be argued that Mr. Y gave far more than he took, because he gave the gift of healing and life, in exchange for mere pennies.

the results of the
profit, is, a negative concept. doesnt matter it is hard to determine the value of services and goods, or it being complicated and that. if, at the end of day, one is receiving more, its negative.

Ah, that is exactly my point! What if you did your analysis at the end of the week, or the end of the month or year or lifetime, instead of the end of the day?

The point at which you do your measuring can make the difference. Flow implies the passage of time. Time may be the missing factor in the equation!

billions of kids' smiles may be offsetting its results. or, may not. that is a separate concept.

Those kids' smiles constitute energy. Energy flows. What is offsetting but an energy flow? If something is offset, that means it is counterbalanced.

this may seem unemotional. it actually IS unemotional. there is no emotion relevant to a mechanic :

Why is it just mechanic?

light travels in a straight line, and heats up, energizes the surface it falls on.

But with more time, it can travel farther.

as said before, in any given timeframe, in any given period, in any given measurement, if one takes more than one gives, it becomes a negative flow.

Takes what? Gives what? Why are there rules about what is counted? Why may only physical material objects and money be counted?

If I spend an hour on the phone counseling my best friend, and at the end of the conversation she feels better, isn't that an energy flow? Knowledge and feelings were shared. Ideas were offered. Emotions expressed and healed. That's energy.

profit, therefore, becomes as such. it doesnt matter if you divide it into years, to decades. profit means, at the end of measurement period, you took more than you gave, from the other parties.

I don't dispute that. I am disputing only what you are counting. I suggest to you that intangibles such as feelings, emotions, knowledge, healing, etc. be counted. They are energy. They are exchanged. They have value. We are spiritual beings. We don't dwell only in 3D physical reality, so why wouldn't we count those intangibles when determining the flow?

so far, in comparison, nothing changed. just, people work even more, and worn, torn out even more, and we have much more diseases and conditions stemming from these. compared to the problems we have today, the days of 18th century, in regard to health-wise, seems even more sane.

There is truth in this. People's lives are much more complex. Rather than having more time, in some ways they have less time, are more stressed, and have many more worries about illnesses, etc.

you are trying to exonerate an entire SYSTEM, over a single entity's deeds and opinions.

with your approach, i can take any enlightened despot from 18th century, and make a treatise for absolute monarchy over them.

Hmmmm....interesting point.

no kind of argumentation, opinion, life stories, deeds, approaches will change the nature of something. things, are what they are, mechanically. and, REGARDLESS of what you build on top of them, with what sentiments you approach them, they keep their character.

This is the crux of the matter. I am curious why you believe their character cannot be changed. Can you share with us why you believe that? Is this based on a philosophy, book, your own experience, your own logical conclusions, or what?

the entities were supposed to have time to think about Law of One consciously, yet, not only they dont even have any time fighting for their survival now, but they also have a lot of issues, conditions, diseases, situations to fight against.

This is true. I know many people whose lives are dominated by their physical illnesses and/or financial woes.

if you dont have the money and time to do anything, you basically cant do it anything. there being a 'freedom' to do things, in THEORY, does not make it a reality.

our system is ideologically positive, but, practically, economically, negative. a travesty.

Why did the Wanderers incarnate? Why did they (we) try to change the system if it can't be changed?

and same goes with each and every one of us. as long as we dont change the inherent mechanic of this system, regardless of what we do, it will keep acting as it is, and will eventually turn EVERYthing we do, will be shaped by the underlying mechanic of the system, to fit itself.

How do we do that? How do we change the inherent mechanics of the system?

---

if, in a given environment, if some exchange is done, and some amount goes out, but, in the end if there is more than there was before, it means that that environment has taken in more than it had given. for it to have more than it had before, something, outside, must have decreased. that, constitutes a negative flow.

this doesnt need proving.

The key here is in the end. At what point is it the end?

I agree with your concept but, respectfully, I believe there is missing piece in your equation, because the factor of time is not taken into account.

If more time is allowed, the balance of energy might change or even reverse. What started out negative might end up positive.