It seems to me like we are getting very close to being able to roll over to Open source hardware as well, where you can get something that you can have every line of code and every schematic for and still have something that's a reasonably functional.
I don't think I've ever understood free as in libre more than the last few years.
I don't think I've ever understood free as in libre more than the last few years.
That reminds me of when I graduated from college. The oil and gas companies were all hiring, and everyone knew there was insane money to be made in oil and gas. Haliburton in particular was looking for people.
Money or no, you need to be able to sleep at night, and with the war in Iraq still fresh in my memory there was absolutely no way they were getting an application.
Money or no, you need to be able to sleep at night, and with the war in Iraq still fresh in my memory there was absolutely no way they were getting an application.
Ultimately, the only ones we can control is ourselves. It's difficult to be virtuous -- it's difficult even defining what is virtuous. If you can do those two things you may not take over the planet and direct everything that happens to everyone everywhere, but it can have a greater actual effect over time.
You don't need a lack of ec to become filthy rich, just corruption. When the state is so big I need to earn three or four dollars to earn a dollar for myself (the balance being paid for by loans we don't intend to pay back) the easiest route to becoming filthy rich isn't serving customers, but sucking up to the mega state.
There's a number of ways to get taxpayer money to people without ever involving customers. There are of course no bid contracts, but there's also forgivable loan guarantees given to preferred businesses or industries, or direct subsidies and grants. You can just create some false program only your "charity arm" could possibly administer to hand the company giving you kickbacks a billion dollars. And as I will explain later, those are just the honest direct ways of putting money in someone's pocket.
Tax is more than just income tax. It's also sales tax, tarrifs, gas taxes, carbon taxes, debt we never intend to pay back and debt monetization which leads to inflation. Put it all together and the government takes an overwhelming proportion of what we earn.
The inflation tax in particular is basically a poor person tax, a middle-class tax, a working class tax. Rich people who own assets see their assets continuously rise with inflation as part of the process of buying and selling in an open market, poor people who actually have to work for their money find that they have to keep on fighting for raises just to keep the same quality of living, and in the meantime their taxes keep going up because they're making more money putting them into new brackets.
Monetary policy is another great way to extract wealth out of the masses and hand them to the wealthy. You don't need to directly hand the money to the wealthy, just make sure that the rich are good and liquid, and the poor aren't, and basically make a promise to the investment class that you're going to make sure their numbers always go up, so they can take as much risk as they want while the working class and the middle class tiptoe over broken glass, one wrong step meaning you lose everything.
Tesla's a really good example. Tesla is the world's smallest car company. They hardly make any cars, they hardly sell any cars, they hardly have any revenue, and there's absolutely no indication that they're going to have very much future revenue. Their main product is Tesla stock. Elon musk became the richest person in the world because there's so much money sloshing around in financial markets it had to go somewhere, and he happened to be the lightning rod. It's fairly unlikely that he became the lightning rod entirely by chance. He got deals on factories and preferential treatment in regulations, definitely preferential treatment and how his companies are presented by the state and the state influenced arms of the media, and so it just became the place to send your money, and because it becomes the place to send your money, it grows, which makes it more the place to send your money. This would never have happened if we hadn't had 15 years of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy and given explicit and implicit guarantees to the world's richest people that they will never see their numbers go down.
I could go on, forever. I published a book for a reason, because I have a lot to say. But that's enough for now.
Tax is more than just income tax. It's also sales tax, tarrifs, gas taxes, carbon taxes, debt we never intend to pay back and debt monetization which leads to inflation. Put it all together and the government takes an overwhelming proportion of what we earn.
The inflation tax in particular is basically a poor person tax, a middle-class tax, a working class tax. Rich people who own assets see their assets continuously rise with inflation as part of the process of buying and selling in an open market, poor people who actually have to work for their money find that they have to keep on fighting for raises just to keep the same quality of living, and in the meantime their taxes keep going up because they're making more money putting them into new brackets.
Monetary policy is another great way to extract wealth out of the masses and hand them to the wealthy. You don't need to directly hand the money to the wealthy, just make sure that the rich are good and liquid, and the poor aren't, and basically make a promise to the investment class that you're going to make sure their numbers always go up, so they can take as much risk as they want while the working class and the middle class tiptoe over broken glass, one wrong step meaning you lose everything.
Tesla's a really good example. Tesla is the world's smallest car company. They hardly make any cars, they hardly sell any cars, they hardly have any revenue, and there's absolutely no indication that they're going to have very much future revenue. Their main product is Tesla stock. Elon musk became the richest person in the world because there's so much money sloshing around in financial markets it had to go somewhere, and he happened to be the lightning rod. It's fairly unlikely that he became the lightning rod entirely by chance. He got deals on factories and preferential treatment in regulations, definitely preferential treatment and how his companies are presented by the state and the state influenced arms of the media, and so it just became the place to send your money, and because it becomes the place to send your money, it grows, which makes it more the place to send your money. This would never have happened if we hadn't had 15 years of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy and given explicit and implicit guarantees to the world's richest people that they will never see their numbers go down.
I could go on, forever. I published a book for a reason, because I have a lot to say. But that's enough for now.
And the biggest wallet in the world is the state, and it'll happily pick winners anyway, regardless of what the rest of the market wants.
At that point, all that matters is sucking up to decision makers in government. Even the top companies in the world can't compete with that kind of buying power.
At that point, all that matters is sucking up to decision makers in government. Even the top companies in the world can't compete with that kind of buying power.
The US federal government has enough of a budget to buy the top 3 companies on earth straight-up.... Every single year. China can buy the top company. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, and Italy could buy about half of the top company. Besides buying things, these governments can also straight-up hand cash to companies for various reasons and using various methods. Besides spending money directly, they can exercise authority to help industries. Central banks for example are an explicit insurance policy for banks (along with all the other insurance policies like fdic). Internet companies get blanket immunity for things that any other company would be liable for, and they also got a largely government funded worldwide communications network that any other type of communications company would have to somehow create themselves. Then there's clever companies that ask for more rules, but rules they can follow to ensure nobody else can create a company that does what they do.
And then the companies hand the money received in one way or another back to the government as "lobbying" for further beneficial rules.
So yeah, we can focus on trying to do the right thing ourselves, but there's some structures you simply can't change so easily. If that's all it took, then the companies would have gone out of business years ago.
And then the companies hand the money received in one way or another back to the government as "lobbying" for further beneficial rules.
So yeah, we can focus on trying to do the right thing ourselves, but there's some structures you simply can't change so easily. If that's all it took, then the companies would have gone out of business years ago.
Can you create money out of thin air? I can't. I'd go to jail if I tried.
So who really created that money?
So who really created that money?
The legal framework is actually completely out of whack. The money that you deposited in the bank has very little relation to the money that you put in there. Right now, reserve requirements are 0%. Meaning, if you put $1 in the bank, the bank is allowed to lend out Infinity dollars.
The only way that you can have a system where you can print Infinity dollars is that the government has created this system. Those are government dollars, and a massive subsidy for one industry that's allowed to do this even though you and I never could.
The only way that you can have a system where you can print Infinity dollars is that the government has created this system. Those are government dollars, and a massive subsidy for one industry that's allowed to do this even though you and I never could.
That goes to the root of what I'm saying, the government did create the system because some unbelievably rich people used some of their money to convince them to create the system.
Prior to the current system, fractional reserve banking still did exist but it was something that had a connection to physics, monetarily speaking. Investors would invest in a bank, the bank would technically loan out the money, and they would probably loan out more money than they had, but investing in a bank account was an investment. You had risk and you had return. There was a chance that too many people would try to pull their money out of the bank at once, and there just wouldn't be money there and the bank would run out of money and go out of business.
Even though arguably what they were actually doing should have been illegal anyway since they were showing two people the same dollar, at least there was a way that they could overdo it. Later, you basically ended up with this lender of last resort with the ability to print as much money as it was required to keep Banks from going under, and then various insurances that meant not only were they taking risks with depositors money, but those risks were fully insured and backed with the full faith and credit of the United States. Then the banks turn around and give the money they've made entirely due to the government in exchange for further favors. They don't even need to tax to get it, they just erode the buying power of everyone earning wages and let banks skim some off the top for the privilege.
Prior to the current system, fractional reserve banking still did exist but it was something that had a connection to physics, monetarily speaking. Investors would invest in a bank, the bank would technically loan out the money, and they would probably loan out more money than they had, but investing in a bank account was an investment. You had risk and you had return. There was a chance that too many people would try to pull their money out of the bank at once, and there just wouldn't be money there and the bank would run out of money and go out of business.
Even though arguably what they were actually doing should have been illegal anyway since they were showing two people the same dollar, at least there was a way that they could overdo it. Later, you basically ended up with this lender of last resort with the ability to print as much money as it was required to keep Banks from going under, and then various insurances that meant not only were they taking risks with depositors money, but those risks were fully insured and backed with the full faith and credit of the United States. Then the banks turn around and give the money they've made entirely due to the government in exchange for further favors. They don't even need to tax to get it, they just erode the buying power of everyone earning wages and let banks skim some off the top for the privilege.
The fact that there is good government and bad government doesn't mean one is government and one is not.
The fact that bad government is worse than no government is often true, though.
The US healthcare system is a prime example. There's as much public money there per capita as universal healthcare systems around the world, but the system is so badly run that it effectively doesn't exist, so people end up paying the state to provide the service, then they pay insurance companies to provide the service a second time.
The fact that bad government is worse than no government is often true, though.
The US healthcare system is a prime example. There's as much public money there per capita as universal healthcare systems around the world, but the system is so badly run that it effectively doesn't exist, so people end up paying the state to provide the service, then they pay insurance companies to provide the service a second time.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
If you want to just change the goalposts by saying me telling my son to clean his room is government and therefore me telling him not to call his mom a bitch is a violation of government freedom of speech, then I guess so.
Unless me telling my son not to call his mom a bitch is capitalism?
Unless me telling my son not to call his mom a bitch is capitalism?
I was sitting thinking more about what you're saying, and I think you've missed a core piece here, and that's the power of the state and what that adds.
Capitalism is by definition private ownership and control of capital. Therefore, if something is too heavily controlled by the state it isn't capitalism anymore. I'd argue that something so heavily supported and controlled by the state as banking therefore isn't capitalism. It's more like fascism, especially when you start having NGOs getting their fingers into the process as well.
We have an example of something like the banking system done entirely in a private manner: Bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin loan companies. They generally don't have government regulation, and the don't have government support. If they use money they have while promising clients that they can always pull their money but go too far, then as I explained earlier they will go out of business. It's happening a lot right now, lots of companies going out of business because they fraudulently claimed to have bitcoin they didn't have, and they don't have the protection of the state to make their deceptive business model risk-free.
Capitalism is by definition private ownership and control of capital. Therefore, if something is too heavily controlled by the state it isn't capitalism anymore. I'd argue that something so heavily supported and controlled by the state as banking therefore isn't capitalism. It's more like fascism, especially when you start having NGOs getting their fingers into the process as well.
We have an example of something like the banking system done entirely in a private manner: Bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin loan companies. They generally don't have government regulation, and the don't have government support. If they use money they have while promising clients that they can always pull their money but go too far, then as I explained earlier they will go out of business. It's happening a lot right now, lots of companies going out of business because they fraudulently claimed to have bitcoin they didn't have, and they don't have the protection of the state to make their deceptive business model risk-free.
Based on the history of rights and common law, you're correct. The first human rights ever were property rights, and prior to that the kings owned everything and simply delegated out his various possessions to different people. Eventually, courts decided that there was such a thing as a right to property, and that you owned a control that property, and that you could pass down that property to your heirs. From there, common law courts ended up deriving civil rights from the property rights.
And that kind of swings back to my previous point, because good government would have fair and reasonable rules about property, and rules that basically apply to everyone the same. And we've seen that, that where is at one point for example only white men could own property, eventually that privilege was extended to people of color and eventually women and that is the way things should be (but don't say that on the fediverse LOL). When you have a certain set of rules that give specific protections or powers to only one group of people, often that is a bad law, and the extraordinary powers and protections granted to the banking industry are a good example. If a bank had to maintain its business model without all of these different protections, it would be no different than these Bitcoin exchanges. They would be constantly going out of business, and they did constantly go out of business, and that's why they got in bed with government.
If the government stepped in and canceled all debts tomorrow, it wouldn't be particularly equitable since there are some people who have massive debt and they would otherwise eventually go bankrupt for, but it wouldn't end capitalism. More likely it would hurt a bunch of people, make a lot of people much better off, and it would massively reduce the magnitude of things that got done.
A life without real debt isn't unprecedented. Under Christian ideology the commandment against usury was interpreted as a commandment against interest-bearing debts, and that commandment was carried forward to the Muslim theology and there are entire countries operating by Islam that don't have that kind of debt.
And that kind of swings back to my previous point, because good government would have fair and reasonable rules about property, and rules that basically apply to everyone the same. And we've seen that, that where is at one point for example only white men could own property, eventually that privilege was extended to people of color and eventually women and that is the way things should be (but don't say that on the fediverse LOL). When you have a certain set of rules that give specific protections or powers to only one group of people, often that is a bad law, and the extraordinary powers and protections granted to the banking industry are a good example. If a bank had to maintain its business model without all of these different protections, it would be no different than these Bitcoin exchanges. They would be constantly going out of business, and they did constantly go out of business, and that's why they got in bed with government.
If the government stepped in and canceled all debts tomorrow, it wouldn't be particularly equitable since there are some people who have massive debt and they would otherwise eventually go bankrupt for, but it wouldn't end capitalism. More likely it would hurt a bunch of people, make a lot of people much better off, and it would massively reduce the magnitude of things that got done.
A life without real debt isn't unprecedented. Under Christian ideology the commandment against usury was interpreted as a commandment against interest-bearing debts, and that commandment was carried forward to the Muslim theology and there are entire countries operating by Islam that don't have that kind of debt.
I know wikipedia is suspect these days, but this article matches with the story I was told by a lawyer:
https://wikiless.org/wiki/English_land_law?lang=en#History
"Feudalism meant that all land was held by the Monarch. Estates in land were granted to lords, who in turn parcelled out property to tenants. Tenants and lords had obligations of work, military service, and payment of taxation to those up the chain, and ultimately to the Crown. Most of the peasantry were bonded to their masters. Serfs, cottars or slaves, who may have composed as much as 88 per cent of the population in 1086,[4] were bound by law to work on the land. They could not leave without permission of their Lords. But also, even those who were classed as free men were factually limited in their freedom, by the limited chances to acquire property. "
Historically speaking, everything was the property of the king and simply granted for a limited time. It was a little after the dates above that the first property rights were established. Just the ability to own property was a big change, and later on the ability to have land solely pass to your heirs, rather than having your superiors be able to take it from you at any time.
"[...] the Statute of Westminster 1285 formalised the system of entail so that land would only pass to the heirs of a landlord. The Statute Quia Emptores Terrarum 1290 allowed alienation of land only by substitution of the title holder, halting creation of further sub-tenants."
Which quickened the process of the end of feudalism. The story is really interesting, and one I come back to often when talking about labor rights and the effects of certain ostensibly unrelated policies on the same.
https://wikiless.org/wiki/English_land_law?lang=en#History
"Feudalism meant that all land was held by the Monarch. Estates in land were granted to lords, who in turn parcelled out property to tenants. Tenants and lords had obligations of work, military service, and payment of taxation to those up the chain, and ultimately to the Crown. Most of the peasantry were bonded to their masters. Serfs, cottars or slaves, who may have composed as much as 88 per cent of the population in 1086,[4] were bound by law to work on the land. They could not leave without permission of their Lords. But also, even those who were classed as free men were factually limited in their freedom, by the limited chances to acquire property. "
Historically speaking, everything was the property of the king and simply granted for a limited time. It was a little after the dates above that the first property rights were established. Just the ability to own property was a big change, and later on the ability to have land solely pass to your heirs, rather than having your superiors be able to take it from you at any time.
"[...] the Statute of Westminster 1285 formalised the system of entail so that land would only pass to the heirs of a landlord. The Statute Quia Emptores Terrarum 1290 allowed alienation of land only by substitution of the title holder, halting creation of further sub-tenants."
Which quickened the process of the end of feudalism. The story is really interesting, and one I come back to often when talking about labor rights and the effects of certain ostensibly unrelated policies on the same.