No trickle...
-
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
-
That's so peregrine lasagna
Oh my God, that's do bold. I know exactly what you mean. Clearly you've influenced the English language meaningfully
-
In American schools?
Normal public schools?
Economics is an elective, only available at fairly good schools, usually only taken by overachievers.
Most US Public schools don't even teach the basics of taxes or finances as it applies to an average person who is going to like, work a job that is taxed, buy a car with a loan.
Our education system has been intentionally destroyed by Republican
s for decades, the result is that roughly within +/- 2 years of when I graduated college... US average adult literacy rate has been plummeting.The average US adult now reads at a 6th grade level, average math skills are also terrible.
Uneducated people are easier to lie to and trick.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The average US adult now reads at a 6th grade level
Read this statistic recently, and while not surprising, it is shocking. I remember when I was young, the average was an 8th grade reading level. And I thought that was terrible.
I had an 8th grade reading level in the 4th grade for crying out loud, meaning the average American reads at a lower level than I could in elementary school.
-
In American schools?
Normal public schools?
Economics is an elective, only available at fairly good schools, usually only taken by overachievers.
Most US Public schools don't even teach the basics of taxes or finances as it applies to an average person who is going to like, work a job that is taxed, buy a car with a loan.
Our education system has been intentionally destroyed by Republican
s for decades, the result is that roughly within +/- 2 years of when I graduated college... US average adult literacy rate has been plummeting.The average US adult now reads at a 6th grade level, average math skills are also terrible.
Uneducated people are easier to lie to and trick.
What does nth grade reading level even mean? Why doesn't it get corrected to an average of what is actual? In the context of adults I can understand, but I think I've heard things like Xrh graders having an average reading level as Yth graders. But if the average reading level of Xth grades is something (like some amount of words), why isn't that what an Xth grade reading level is?
I hope that makes sense. Like if you everyone how their school experience is and they all believe they had a "worse than average" experience, clearly about half are incorrect.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]Build differently. It’s that simple. Our ancestors figured it out for 100k years
Yes, it is an option to revert to living in houses with earth floors, and no electricity, plumbing, or running water. My family has a cabin like that (sans the earth floor). I love staying there, and could probably build one in a year with a friend or two.
It doesn't really scale well though, so cities are out of the picture. Besides, it goes against the premise of something that works without drastically altering society. While there were large cities in earlier times (e.g. Rome around AD 0), these were largely built by slave labour. In earlier times, cities were also famous for offering terrible, cramped living conditions for common people, and disease was rife, due to inadequate waste management and clean water supply.
So yes, our ancestors "figured it out for 100k years", in the sense that they figured out how to build cramped, disease ridden cities using slave labour (alternatively near-slave workers). It's not feasible to house the modern world population on dispersed farms (the "Amish" solution), we need towns/cities.
In the end, the solutions you're pointing to would work for a far smaller global population, but not today. Even at 1700's level populations (roughly 7.5 % of the current), you would need to accept 1700's level living conditions. Whether we should drastically reduce living conditions in order to reduce the cost of housing and infrastructure is a fair debate to have, but a completely different one than the one at hand.
-
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
If that essay is about the forest, then don't bother, that's just analogy and i simplify and leave out a lot of thing just so i can explain it.
And if you can't bother with a real respond, why not just respond tomorrow instead? Or don't respond. Instead you demand me to just ask again tomorrow? You aren't my superior you know.
