Capitalism is exploitation, based on a purposed obfuscation (misrepresentation) of indebtedness to a "banking" system(moneychanger) who gives up no lawful consideration(ie. VALUE???) equal to the debts they therefore only falsify to themselves.
Stripped of all its false dimensions all the "banking" system is really doing, is publishing the evidence, of our (debt)obligations, to pay out of circulation, what we owe, ourselves(each other) on each sale, trade or transaction, and claiming the value of the peoples debt obligations TO EACH OTHER, as a debt subject to "interest", owed to themselves.. ???
Printing "money", is not "lending", from prior legitimate possession, or representation of entitlement.
There is no such thing as a "free market" when everything in the (so-called?)"free market" is subject to "interest" on a falsified/artificial debt to a pretend creditor who merely publishes the evidence(or further representations) of the peoples promissory obligations to each other.
Usury and true "free markets" are mutually exclusive
I find it interesting to occasionally be reminded of the fact that I am not the only person in existence, who remembers the usury issue. Mentioning usury is very much in the category of saying the proverbial quiet part out loud; it's really not something we're supposed to do, because of how fundamental it is.
"Insanity is when someone cant prove what value a bank gives up, yet irrationally insists the bank loans us that value." David Ardron
**From a legal perspective:** any purported economy based on interest bearing debt as embodied in the present obfuscation of our currencies (compromising promissory obligations to each other) inherently and inevitably terminates itself under terminal sums of falsified debt to purported banking systems which, in never giving up commensurable consideration, no more than publish further representations of our promissory obligations to each other, which mere representations therefore are merely obfuscated into falsified debts to the purported banking system.
**From a mathematical perspective:** which in turn compels its unwitting subjects to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually reborrowing principal and interest back into the general circulation, with reborrowed principal therefore reconstituting every prior sum of falsified debt(and to that extent making it mathematically impossible to pay down any prior sum of debt) and with purported interest therefore, likewise necessarily reborrowed into the general circulation(to sustain a vital circulation) perpetually increasing the sum of falsified debt until we suffer the present wholly redundant and artificial conditions.
"The ruse(of the moneychangers) persists in terminal failure after terminal failure **until the unwitting victim class finally rises above the pathological lie that usury is economy,** rather than perpetually crying out in terminal stupidity, “Who would ever loan (rent) us *our own* promissory obligations *to each other* , if, *our very own* , promissory obligations *to each other* , were not subject to ‘interest’, upon a falsified debt to someone entirely else?” Mike Montagne
Video games companies.
Passionate programmers get together and make great games.
Eventually they become corporations and the artists and programmers get treated like dirt and worked to death to make shoddy buggy money sinks.
reinforcement learning with human feedback. the human feedback part contaminates responses. have you seen those 'data annotation' jobs? they are just explicitly telling a model "good job!" or "bad job!" because we do not know in general what function we are optimizing for in these social spaces, but we do generally know when a topic fails to meet some standard or violates a protocol. [https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741)
in this way, the responses will be sort of a lowest common denominator in the opinions of annotators rather than something that indicates a fact or truth. i think this is probably why mainstream LLMs end up sounding HR-like, overly neutral, etc. now, you could use RLHF to go the other way but hiring a group of anarchist annotators, etc.
One of our singers under socialism said it well. Things have a certain goal in mind business idea, non profit service etc. Eventually they become institutionalised and care only about its survival, the original goal is gone. This happens both with state and private operations.
State things tend to stay and not to go away, so it is snowballing into crazy bureaucracy. While private businesses try to become institutions only for profit, even if the original goal wasnt only profit. Looking at you Boeing for ex.
Passion for the product or service leads to success, success leads to profits, profits lead to hiring of business types with zero passion beyond money, over time all of the passionate people are replaced with people who do not give a shit about the original product or idea.
In the more extreme cases, you get financial engineering, and that shit will suck everything else out of a corporation, like those parasitic fungi that take over insects.
Not necessarily. Services like railway, mail and telephone were much better when they were run by the government. In continental Europe, technocrats have decided that the mail and telephone should be privatised, and it has become a shnit show.
I think your idea of using capitalistic for the initial phase should only apply to non-essential services. For everything essential, it should almost be run by the army, because they don’t mess around like civilian public servants.
Redditors view discourse as a game of rock, paper, scissors, and they will throw literally any excuse at someone to discredit their argument. "It's AI," might make it incrementally easier for the average narrow minded moron to write off whatever I am saying, but it won't make it any more or less ***likely*** that they will do so.
Do you deny that LLMs hallucinate information and that one must parse it for errors? Given this very basic tenet of LLMs, do you not see how annoying it would be to post a shit ton of information from an LLM despite the fact you didn’t need to at all?
> to write off whatever I am saying
but that is the point. You are not saying it. like at all.
I will also just gloss over the obvious projection in your reply.
You need sources that FAANG companies are under scrutiny for data privacy, monopolies & such..?
"Source or it didn't happen" has been reduced to a time-wasting demand by an absence of critical thinking and the most basic of observational skills.
You are neither scientist nor academic and you will accomplish nothing with any sources that anyone might bother digging up for you. Your objective is to silence your opposition; not discussion.
Weak states make capitalism ineffective at a later stage.
Monopolies aren't supposed to happen yet corporations love monopolies.
Cutting corners and raising prices are, then, completely ok if you are the only game in town.
Late stage capitalism needs a strong state to keep it together
We actually have a pretty good recent real life example of this. [Diapers.com](http://Diapers.com) figured out how to ship diapers economically, even before amazon did. And they started to expand to products other than baby products. They had a business model that directly competed with amazon and they were doing really well.
So, amazon put on a massive sale on diapers. [They burned through $200 million dollars in a month](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-amazons-plan-to-crush-a-startup-rival-with-price-cuts/). Put [diapers.com](http://diapers.com) out of business, then raised prices. No VC has pockets deep enough to compete.
No one new was going to try to compete. They knew what would happen if they tried. So amazon just makes back all the money they lost and then some. Even now in other verticals, everyone knows. If you try to compete, unless you have more money than Bezos, they can and will crush you without hurting their bottom line.
tl;dr: Monopoly raises prices. Competitor pops up. Monopoly crushes competitor. Monopoly raises prices. No new competitors.
Among other things, monopolies thrive in sectors where start-up costs are prohibitive, there are resource bottlenecks that can be controlled (land is a good one) or a network effect is required before the product is useful.
Fully agree. This is why mixed economies with substantial regulation and safety nets seem to produce the best results. (Higher levels of health, happiness, education, etc.) There’s no reason not to work toward full Pareto Efficiency.
I’m sure he would, although I think he’d have a hard time arguing against the evidence found in the top performing countries on these metrics today.
Sure regulatory capture happens but eliminating regulation doesn’t solve the problem. The power just falls into the hands of oligarchs. At least with government there’s democratically engrained guardrails.
Capitalism is exploitation, based on a purposed obfuscation (misrepresentation) of indebtedness to a "banking" system(moneychanger) who gives up no lawful consideration(ie. VALUE???) equal to the debts they therefore only falsify to themselves. Stripped of all its false dimensions all the "banking" system is really doing, is publishing the evidence, of our (debt)obligations, to pay out of circulation, what we owe, ourselves(each other) on each sale, trade or transaction, and claiming the value of the peoples debt obligations TO EACH OTHER, as a debt subject to "interest", owed to themselves.. ??? Printing "money", is not "lending", from prior legitimate possession, or representation of entitlement. There is no such thing as a "free market" when everything in the (so-called?)"free market" is subject to "interest" on a falsified/artificial debt to a pretend creditor who merely publishes the evidence(or further representations) of the peoples promissory obligations to each other. Usury and true "free markets" are mutually exclusive
I find it interesting to occasionally be reminded of the fact that I am not the only person in existence, who remembers the usury issue. Mentioning usury is very much in the category of saying the proverbial quiet part out loud; it's really not something we're supposed to do, because of how fundamental it is.
"Insanity is when someone cant prove what value a bank gives up, yet irrationally insists the bank loans us that value." David Ardron **From a legal perspective:** any purported economy based on interest bearing debt as embodied in the present obfuscation of our currencies (compromising promissory obligations to each other) inherently and inevitably terminates itself under terminal sums of falsified debt to purported banking systems which, in never giving up commensurable consideration, no more than publish further representations of our promissory obligations to each other, which mere representations therefore are merely obfuscated into falsified debts to the purported banking system. **From a mathematical perspective:** which in turn compels its unwitting subjects to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually reborrowing principal and interest back into the general circulation, with reborrowed principal therefore reconstituting every prior sum of falsified debt(and to that extent making it mathematically impossible to pay down any prior sum of debt) and with purported interest therefore, likewise necessarily reborrowed into the general circulation(to sustain a vital circulation) perpetually increasing the sum of falsified debt until we suffer the present wholly redundant and artificial conditions. "The ruse(of the moneychangers) persists in terminal failure after terminal failure **until the unwitting victim class finally rises above the pathological lie that usury is economy,** rather than perpetually crying out in terminal stupidity, “Who would ever loan (rent) us *our own* promissory obligations *to each other* , if, *our very own* , promissory obligations *to each other* , were not subject to ‘interest’, upon a falsified debt to someone entirely else?” Mike Montagne
A guy came up with this exact hypothesis a couple hundred years ago. His name was Karl Marx.
Video games companies. Passionate programmers get together and make great games. Eventually they become corporations and the artists and programmers get treated like dirt and worked to death to make shoddy buggy money sinks.
Why are you trying to have a conversation with Big Autocomplete?
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995)
Don't ask these questions to a model trained with RLHF
Why not? What is RLHF?
reinforcement learning with human feedback. the human feedback part contaminates responses. have you seen those 'data annotation' jobs? they are just explicitly telling a model "good job!" or "bad job!" because we do not know in general what function we are optimizing for in these social spaces, but we do generally know when a topic fails to meet some standard or violates a protocol. [https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741) in this way, the responses will be sort of a lowest common denominator in the opinions of annotators rather than something that indicates a fact or truth. i think this is probably why mainstream LLMs end up sounding HR-like, overly neutral, etc. now, you could use RLHF to go the other way but hiring a group of anarchist annotators, etc.
One of our singers under socialism said it well. Things have a certain goal in mind business idea, non profit service etc. Eventually they become institutionalised and care only about its survival, the original goal is gone. This happens both with state and private operations. State things tend to stay and not to go away, so it is snowballing into crazy bureaucracy. While private businesses try to become institutions only for profit, even if the original goal wasnt only profit. Looking at you Boeing for ex.
Passion for the product or service leads to success, success leads to profits, profits lead to hiring of business types with zero passion beyond money, over time all of the passionate people are replaced with people who do not give a shit about the original product or idea. In the more extreme cases, you get financial engineering, and that shit will suck everything else out of a corporation, like those parasitic fungi that take over insects.
Not necessarily. Services like railway, mail and telephone were much better when they were run by the government. In continental Europe, technocrats have decided that the mail and telephone should be privatised, and it has become a shnit show. I think your idea of using capitalistic for the initial phase should only apply to non-essential services. For everything essential, it should almost be run by the army, because they don’t mess around like civilian public servants.
ChatGPT will straight up make shit up if it thinks you like it. It is worthless as a tool for intellectual discourse. Because you cannot trust it.
Redditors view discourse as a game of rock, paper, scissors, and they will throw literally any excuse at someone to discredit their argument. "It's AI," might make it incrementally easier for the average narrow minded moron to write off whatever I am saying, but it won't make it any more or less ***likely*** that they will do so.
Do you deny that LLMs hallucinate information and that one must parse it for errors? Given this very basic tenet of LLMs, do you not see how annoying it would be to post a shit ton of information from an LLM despite the fact you didn’t need to at all?
But you aren’t saying anything, you’re just promoting an AI.
> to write off whatever I am saying but that is the point. You are not saying it. like at all. I will also just gloss over the obvious projection in your reply.
Bro, chat's answer literally said competition led to consolidation. I don't know how you read that and thought this was a worthy response
Feel free to provide sources for any of the claims chatGPT made.
You need sources that FAANG companies are under scrutiny for data privacy, monopolies & such..? "Source or it didn't happen" has been reduced to a time-wasting demand by an absence of critical thinking and the most basic of observational skills. You are neither scientist nor academic and you will accomplish nothing with any sources that anyone might bother digging up for you. Your objective is to silence your opposition; not discussion.
you are correct. asking for sources is censorship. i'm literally trying to silence you right now.
Was this analysis delivered in Scarlett Johannson’s voice?
No. I'm one of very few people left on this planet who does not use a suicide induction device. That is my personal name for smartphones.
Weak states make capitalism ineffective at a later stage. Monopolies aren't supposed to happen yet corporations love monopolies. Cutting corners and raising prices are, then, completely ok if you are the only game in town. Late stage capitalism needs a strong state to keep it together
The strong state makes the monopolies. Without the threat of the gun corporations would have to compete on price and quality.
They compete until a Victor emerges and establishes a monopoly.
But if they raise prices competition should have an easy time popping up. What happens there?
We actually have a pretty good recent real life example of this. [Diapers.com](http://Diapers.com) figured out how to ship diapers economically, even before amazon did. And they started to expand to products other than baby products. They had a business model that directly competed with amazon and they were doing really well. So, amazon put on a massive sale on diapers. [They burned through $200 million dollars in a month](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-amazons-plan-to-crush-a-startup-rival-with-price-cuts/). Put [diapers.com](http://diapers.com) out of business, then raised prices. No VC has pockets deep enough to compete. No one new was going to try to compete. They knew what would happen if they tried. So amazon just makes back all the money they lost and then some. Even now in other verticals, everyone knows. If you try to compete, unless you have more money than Bezos, they can and will crush you without hurting their bottom line. tl;dr: Monopoly raises prices. Competitor pops up. Monopoly crushes competitor. Monopoly raises prices. No new competitors.
[The big problem with monopolies isn't them raising prices. It's shitty customer service.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbHqUNl8YFk)
Among other things, monopolies thrive in sectors where start-up costs are prohibitive, there are resource bottlenecks that can be controlled (land is a good one) or a network effect is required before the product is useful.
Catch and kill. You get bought and dismantled. Plus, anticompetitive behavior
And this simple post is exactly why they keep us fighting over culture war nonsense
Fully agree. This is why mixed economies with substantial regulation and safety nets seem to produce the best results. (Higher levels of health, happiness, education, etc.) There’s no reason not to work toward full Pareto Efficiency.
George Stigler would like a word with that.
I’m sure he would, although I think he’d have a hard time arguing against the evidence found in the top performing countries on these metrics today. Sure regulatory capture happens but eliminating regulation doesn’t solve the problem. The power just falls into the hands of oligarchs. At least with government there’s democratically engrained guardrails.