No trickle...
-
I have, I mean you kinda HAVE to budget what little you bring in to ensure you don't end up on the streets. and it's not even about saving. saving was just a pipe dream. budgeting was just to ensure rent got paid, bills were paid, and I was able to eat sometimes.
I know people who make 6 figures and can't/won't budget and most live paycheque to paycheque or are absolutely broke just before their next direct deposit. I worked with a guy that made 6 figures and all the time just before payday he'd bum me for cigarettes or ask if I could buy him a coffee or a sandwich cause he had NOTHING. And this was a guy that would always have the latest tech shit, videogames on day one of release - like all of them, nice clothes, etc. just spend, spend, spend.
I've known more people who SHOULD be well off that don't budget and are constantly broke than people who make minimum wage and are surviving.
THIS. It's not only about income; it's income minus expenses.
Budgeting was probably the most important financial tool/skill when I was living in poverty. And now that I'm in a more comfortable financial position, I still value budgeting quite a lot. It's great for preventing more money from creating more problems.
-
"Slowly"
Slowly as in, the Niagara falls slowly trickle water.
-
There is literally no way you will build a decent modern house without thousands of man-hours, only in the construction itself. That's before you count the hours needed for getting the materials you need.
It's unreasonable to posit that we should design our society such that you need to save up enough money to finance something like that up-front in order to build a house. Why not go for the (current) solution, where I can loan money to finance the house, then pay that back once I have stable living conditions (because I now have a house)?
Because it's inherently unstable.
The modern mortgage is only 100 years old, and it's caused crisis after crisis. They happen faster and faster too, with larger and larger bailouts to keep the system afloat
The debt system only works if you have infinite, ever accelerating, the rate of acceleration ever accelerating, growth. There's no new markets to expand into, we're running up against physics
You can't build a modern house without thousands of man hours, making a savings approach impractical? Then don't.
Build differently. It's that simple. Our ancestors figured it out for 100k years, then for a century we went crazy with it, and now it's all falling apart
You can't tell me there's no better way.
I love watching YouTube videos of 5 people building a house in a year just on weekends using Earth bags. A team of Amish people can build a house in days. I watch ones where one person builds a house. There's a guy who built a castle by himself, stone by stone
The man hours are so expensive because everyone has to pay interest on the debt, and the practice of borrowing from the future means every step of the process money is being siphoned off
-
It is debt, even if you fail to see that
You could frame it as debt, sure
I'm saying this is a bad framing and you shouldn't frame it that way, because it's more pro social not to think of it that way
-
Most important, because that's how most people start and grow their business, they don't have multimillion inheritance.
Also buying house.
And I'm saying no one should do that, things should grow slowly and organically. It's like trees, you can turbo charge their growth and get a board in a decade instead of a century, but the wood is incomparably worse in every way
If you let anyone do it, everyone will be forced to, despite the risk, to be competitive
So no one should do it. It's immoral
-
That's just totally incorrect. Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt.
You need to read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber. Debt goes back a lot longer than money, and has been part of human existence for as long as that existence has been recorded.
There is no human civilization without debt.
I said that, money was created from debt, of course debt came first
What about the Incas? I'm sure there's others, but we know a lot about them and their economic system, and they only fell because of outside interference
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh it trickles down. Just not money, but at least it's warm and golden
-
I said that, money was created from debt, of course debt came first
What about the Incas? I'm sure there's others, but we know a lot about them and their economic system, and they only fell because of outside interference
You also said:
Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt
So, why not just admit you're not well informed on this subject and leave it there?
-
Daily reminder that "higher GDP is good for the economy" is now a wildly disproven myth from the days before economics was a science, by a guy who said we'd get a 15 hour work week.
Monetary inflation is bad. The nitwits who jump in saying "ackchually velocity" are suckers who paid to learn the lie, whose jobs may depend on the lie, and would be very embarrassed to be wrong. Bailouts weren't the exception - they're the rule.
We've been robbed by the 0.1% and don't need to take it anymore.
before economics was a science
So... When is that gonna happen?
-
Robin Socks
Robin facial recognition algorithm and randomly spraying your head with water.
-
Canadian here, what's "AfterPay"? and PLEASE don't tell me it's like layaway or a payday loan or something.
Okay.
It's an app. Can't tell you any more than that.
-
That's by design, the money flows from the average American to the companies. Then slowly trickles into the pockets of the ceo's.
Money is just abstracted fungiblized value.
It's stealing more of the value you produce. Me@ning you get less
Until chains of debt guilt and terror make you effectively a slave.
-
You also said:
Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt
So, why not just admit you're not well informed on this subject and leave it there?
Ok, now you're just splitting hairs. But I will concede the word debt means more than what I'm using it for
But there's a difference between "I did this for you, and it's expected you'll reciprocate later" and a formalized version of this
I don't know how to put it into words yet, but the merchant of Venice is about the idea I'm circling around. Reciprocity is one thing, selling the future, which is always uncertain, is another
One of these things is the fabric of community, the other is evil
-
You could frame it as debt, sure
I'm saying this is a bad framing and you shouldn't frame it that way, because it's more pro social not to think of it that way
It's not framing. It's a textbook example of debt.
It's ok to say you didn't quite knew what the word meant. No need to try to give it a new definition, just because you didn't know.
-
This comment on the post indicates that it's a CitizenWatch article, but that article's own listed sources don't support the 60% number either (as I call out in my response to that comment).
I swear there's barely anywhere online anymore where people practice basic skepticism. If it aligns with their existing biases they just slurp it up, no matter how absurd.
This comment section is a particularly bad example. -
It's not framing. It's a textbook example of debt.
It's ok to say you didn't quite knew what the word meant. No need to try to give it a new definition, just because you didn't know.
Words shape the interpretation of reality. They're also fluid
I know what it means. There's a difference between a moral imperative and debt in the sense I'm trying to draw boundaries around
You can actually just shape language because you feel like it. it doesn't always catch on, but I've had pretty good results personally
-
Adding to this: GDP only measures the amount of money spent on stuff, not the actual value of the things. That's one of the reasons that makes economists think untouched nature is bad, it doesn't contribute to the GDP
wrote last edited by [email protected]Two economists are walking in the woods when they see a pile of bear shit.
One says to the other "I'll pay you $500 to pick up that shit."
The other agrees, but immediately regrets it. He says he'll pay the other $500 to take it from him. The other agrees.
The first thinks for a moment and says to the second "I think we're both worse off than before we started this walk."
The second, hands full of bear shit, is shocked and yells "What do you mean, we just increased the GDP by $1000!"
-
And I'm saying no one should do that, things should grow slowly and organically. It's like trees, you can turbo charge their growth and get a board in a decade instead of a century, but the wood is incomparably worse in every way
If you let anyone do it, everyone will be forced to, despite the risk, to be competitive
So no one should do it. It's immoral
I mean even in nature, like tree, everything is a competition. In a forest if you are a tree and can't outgrow or even catch up with everyone then you're fallen behind and risking being covered by everyone else, eventually you'll become weak and susceptible to termite and disease. Your example kinda fall apart, yeah?
Same in business. It's really about sustainable growth and able to catch up, and also secure your own stability in the market. What if your machine broke down and it's very expensive to repair or replace? What if your current equipment can't catching up with the demand? What if your landlord wanted to sell the shop and you wanted to secure your location instead of moving, which also cost time and money? All these require a huge investment up front if you don't take loan, and in business, these might take up a large chunk of available fund that can otherwise used for something else, or even as emergency fund if there's market downturn.
To say it's immoral is to say the forest is sinful.
-
Words shape the interpretation of reality. They're also fluid
I know what it means. There's a difference between a moral imperative and debt in the sense I'm trying to draw boundaries around
You can actually just shape language because you feel like it. it doesn't always catch on, but I've had pretty good results personally
That's so peregrine lasagna
-
I mean even in nature, like tree, everything is a competition. In a forest if you are a tree and can't outgrow or even catch up with everyone then you're fallen behind and risking being covered by everyone else, eventually you'll become weak and susceptible to termite and disease. Your example kinda fall apart, yeah?
Same in business. It's really about sustainable growth and able to catch up, and also secure your own stability in the market. What if your machine broke down and it's very expensive to repair or replace? What if your current equipment can't catching up with the demand? What if your landlord wanted to sell the shop and you wanted to secure your location instead of moving, which also cost time and money? All these require a huge investment up front if you don't take loan, and in business, these might take up a large chunk of available fund that can otherwise used for something else, or even as emergency fund if there's market downturn.
To say it's immoral is to say the forest is sinful.
That's not how forests work. At all. I don't even know where to start on this
If you want a real response, ask me tomorrow. I can speak on this matter for days, but I'm done essay posting for tonight
