What do you want?

[RED DAWN]

You wanted to put spiritual information behind a paywall. Don't mind that anyone with deep pockets can get around such paywall with ease, including our adversary, when those in need without the money would be left without the info.

Don't mind him, he's definitely a jew or equilivant.

And you're a self admitted troll who makes bait threads to waste everybody's time. I really don't think you are aware of the fact you will never again be taken seriously by anybody in this group.

That's fine. I'm going to look over the fact that you're a weak psychic vampire with shitty ethics and address this usually. I don't care if people think I'm credible. Your opinions are inconsequential to me. I risked losing my "credibility" and being spiritually attacked in order to access this group's ethics, as well as practicing general ambiguity and then confessing to this. Why would you have any reason to believe I cared about what I was very willing to lose? If I'm banned, so what?

 

[Dahaarkan]

Don't mind him, he's definitely a jew or equilivant.

And you're a self admitted troll who makes bait threads to waste everybody's time. I really don't think you are aware of the fact you will never again be taken seriously by anybody in this group.

That's fine. I'm going to look over the fact that you're a weak psychic vampire with shitty ethics and address this usually. I don't care if people think I'm credible. Your opinions are inconsequential to me. I risked losing my "credibility" and being spiritually attacked in order to access this group's ethics, as well as practicing general ambiguity and then confessing to this. Why would you have any reason to believe I cared about what I was very willing to lose? If I'm banned, so what?

Nah you made a shitpost to get attention and waste everybody's time for your own entertainment. There is no deeper meaning behind any of your shitposting besides wanting attention.

My opinion is so inconsequencial to you that you had to reply explaining yourself to me...

lol

 

[mastermind...]

puts people who live in poor countries at a serious disadvantage in their right to occult knowledge

In what kind of scenario would you need to urgently curse someone?

 

[Jrvan]

"I disagree. If the enemy systems collapse then the replacement will happen organically because it's within the Gentile soul, and White people naturally build society wherever they go. Furthermore, we are not relying on enemy systems at all in the first place. That is a misunderstanding on your part. If we were relying on enemy systems then this society would not be standing in the first place. That's why the jews are trying to crash it right now. America is fundamentally Satanic in its foundation. Just because there is corruption and rampant xianity among the populace doesn't mean it's an enemy system. This society is already Satanic thanks to the Founding Fathers. American values are Satanic values, and America is a Satanic nation."

... We pretty much disagree entirely on everything you wrote here. You underestimate how deeply corrupted the world really is of jewish influence. America is not free of jewish influence, nor is it intentionally Satanic country, as far as I know. The obvious problem with this is that America racially enslaved blacks and committed genocide against the natives. Yes, eventually Abe stopped slavery in North America, but the point still stands. What about the bombing of Hiroshima was "Satanic", or that of Serbia of Yemen or plenty of other places they brought indiscriminate destruction? No, clearly America isn't fundamentally Satanic. The jews have crashed America, how can you even imagine you're free right now as an American? Didn't you see the jewish influence in the country when covid vaccines were forced on you? No, America isn't free either and democracy failed long ago if so much control is possible.

I didn't say it is free of jewish influence. Of course jews are influencing. We have ZOG. America is still Satanic in its foundation though. You should read some things on the JoS because it proves what I'm saying. The constitution is Satanic and it was written and signed by Satanists. Satanists built this country from the ground up. I don't care about what has happened under jewish guidance, and I don't have to apologize for what jews have done with the reigns of my country. I could cite many other things that European countries are "guilty" for while jews were controlling them, but why bother? Slavery has been practiced by every race and every country on Earth. Natives owned slaves, Blacks owned slaves. Jews always owned the most slaves, and jews always treated slaves the worst. Americans did not commit genocide against the indigenous, that is bullshit. The Natives attacked the settlers because they were paid by the jews. Retaliation is only natural. The land never belonged to those primitive savage tribes anyway. Many of them were barbaric and disgusting, and lived lower than beasts. The scalping practice speaks for itself. Jews created the atomic bomb, and a jewish president ordered it to be dropped on the Japanese. The war in the Middle East is all because of jews. Even then, compare how American soldiers treat the Middle Easterners when occupying compared to how the israelis treat the Middle Easterners.

Yes I am free as an American. I'm a hell of a lot more free than I would be if America didn't exist, and I was back in the middle ages under church tyranny like my ancestors lived through. Covid vaccines were not forced on me either. The jews attempted to coerce me into taking the vaccine, but I always had a choice. People made a choice when they chose their job over their body after they were told they could only keep one. They were still given a choice. In other countries, or if it was during the middle ages, I would not have gotten that choice. They would have strapped me to a bed and stuck the needle in my arm against my will. Yeah I feel pretty damn free. I can commune with people on an openly Satanic forum without the government busting my door down on the orders of jews (something they very much wish they could do).

"You are confusing religion with society. That's the main misunderstanding here. If we separate the two within your comment then it can more easily be replied to in a coherent fashion. First, the religion problem. People have already conformed to a Satanic "world" as I mentioned already before, but what you mean is a Satanic religion. In other words, abandoning xianity. It can be hard to wake people up from a mass cult like xianity, but the Nazis did it once with the power of the Runes and by catching the jewish xians red handed and punishing them publicly. It can all happen again. We are creating the pathways for it to happen again which the jews previously blocked."

As soon as "jews stop existing", and the Demons supposedly manifest on earth to guide humans, do you really think there will be a separation of church and state / religion and government? Of course in the undeniable existence of spiritual phenomena and million+ year old benevolent Gods, human politics will quickly become redundant. Some humans are so indoctrinated that they wouldn't care if priests had sex with minors in front of them on the streets. The Nazis didn't remove xianity, nor did they really seem to try. If the Demons didn't "break their freewill", they won't integrate. Don't underestimate human stupidity.

I'm unsure how exactly things would play out in reality, but if the jews just went poof tomorrow, nations would fall and a global economic collapse would surely happen, worse than it already is.

You're right that in ancient times, religion and politics were closely entwined. The politicians were spiritual people, many of whom were initiated into the Mystery Schools, and the King or Pharaoh was often the most spiritually advanced soul in the society.

However, you are having a conversation with me about current times and happenings. You are very much changing the subject here. Until the population advances spiritually then the politics will remain secular. The Gods are not going to deny freewill, and they never have. They could have done so many times by now, but they don't. They allow humanity to choose its fate. Human politics will never become redundant. Humans are supposed to govern themselves. That is why there are two tiers of law: Divine (which is the blueprint) and human level. Humans are supposed to attempt to match their society and law as closely as possible to Maat, Rta, Themis, and various other names which all have to do with Divine Justice. Human level justice in human society is supposed to try to model itself after Divine Justice, as best as humans can. As society continues to develop as a result of increased wealth and increased spirituality, it gets closer and closer to the perfected model of Divine Justice. I believe I wrote some posts about this in the past, but it's a hard topic to cover and convey simply because it's so complex and has layers of understanding.

The Nazis did remove xianity to a far more successful degree than the Italian Fascists were able to. Mussolini had to give up on his project of removing xianity. Hitler had his people doing Runic chants, having Pagan weddings, Pagan festivals, etc... their flag had the Swastika on it for crying out loud. The Runes were openly used in public which is something the church historically never allowed, and would have instantly sought to mass murder people for because they fear the Runes. Xian clergy were arrested. How can you say that the Nazis didn't even try to remove xianity? Not only did they try, but they were largely successful. The Hitler Youth were raised as Pagans. Look at the soldiers, they had Runes right on their helmets. The Nazi uniforms had so many Pagan symbols decorated on them. Skull and crossbones is Pagan and Satanic Alchemy, Swastika armband is Pagan, equal armed cross is Pagan, etc... Even the word "Nazi" is Pagan. The whole of Nazi Germany was openly Pagan. It scared the shit out of the jews because of how openly Satanic it was. You're telling me they didn't remove xianity from power? Are you kidding with me?

To be honest, I think you are a little too cynical about humanity. When the jewish spells are broken, you will see a whole other side to humans. Just like what was seen in Germany.

I'm going to forget I read that. You can't blame the Jews for literally everything, even for most things we are at least partially responsible. If you disagree and want to scream Jew everytime something happens or ever has happened, and want to entirely ignore the fact that people (gentiles) are a source for their own problems, fine. You'll be trapped and addicted to a sense of entitlement through victim complexes, and these will continue even after the Jews vanish one day. Figure your own shit out, I'm done talking about this with you.

Nearly everything I said is backed up by the JoS websites, and historical record. The small amount that isn't, is my own understanding from meditations, intuition, and research.

Do what you want.

 

[Jrvan]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and because I love the JoS and don't want to misrepresent it, here are links to proof of what I said:

https://satanslibrary.org/666BlackSun/Third_Reich.html

https://satanslibrary.org/666BlackSun/Satanic_Symbols.html

https://satanslibrary.org/English/The American Founding Fathers Were Satanists.pdf

 

[Voice of Enki [JG]]

I said to put curses behind a $10k paywall. That would stop most kids and most idiots. Since we are SS, it should be no problem for anyone to pay $10k for curses, sooner or later.
How is that jewish? Do jews put curses behind $10k paywalls?

Curses are spiritual information, and that would not even stop any foolishess from happening and furthermore those in urgent need without capabilities for procurement would be left outside. Besides, the info is on wayback machine already, you can not remove what is posted online at this point.

Lastly, the upvoting aka. "credit" system you presented would be very easily misused in this enivorment. I think others explained the same earlier so I should not go into detail anymore.

I'm still waiting for an answer on my question: do jews put curses behind $10k paywalls?

You could of said that it's wrong to put a price on curses. But why did you say that it's jewish? I'm waiting for evidence. Otherwise it's just slander on your part.

Jews do in fact do this. There's many occasions where jews will swindle copious amounts of money out of a rich person to curse a business rival or something like this.

Of course, most of the time they are fake, or deliberately put in no effort, only pretending and stealing money from the foolish person gullible enough to think a rabbi or jew would genuinely do spiritual work for them.

However, they absolutely have circles where they do disgusting things and sacrifices for a price, so long as they can benefit from it, not only monetarily, but other ways.

Usually this is only reserved for their own, and would swindle any others out of all their wealth, or use curses to gain influence over any rich or influential person that comes in contact with these circles, controlling and corrupting Gentiles through initiating them in jewish kabbalah (a lot of celebrities fall victim to this, due to how gullible and ignorant many of them are), asking copious amounts of money for false and stolen knowledge which only leads to the destruction of any practitioner, etc.

Jews don't sell any of the legit or serious things which they use strictly for their own, for the same reasons as to why some spiritual satanic information is beyond any PayPal or monetary value. Some things cannot be given out, no matter what price is offered for it.

In the case of the enemy it is because they cannot afford to have Gentiles know and learn about their secret methods, as it would lead to their destruction when their secret methods are known openly.


Part of the reason we are in this situation at all today, is because deep spiritual information had been given out irresponsibly by foolish ancients, giving the jews access to sacred knowledge which should have never fallen into their hands.

Anything which can be known by all should be available publicly, while anything behind that can never be shared for any price and can only be known by people the Gods deem worthy, loyal and responsible to handle this knowledge as intended by them.

That is how Satan intents it, and that is how it will be.

Hail Satan!

 

[Blitzkreig [JG]]

And you. I think you know I wouldn't say anything with the intent to downplay you or mock you. I'm being very honest here. And honestly much of what I'm saying to you, I wish someone had told me in the past.

I get the vibe that you feel that you are in a courtroom in here at all times, and have to constantly defend yourself from everything everyone says about you, even when people misunderstand and misrepresent you, I want you to know that it really is unnecessary for you to debunk every little thing that is said about you.

Are you aware of this: https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=351506#p351452

 

[Blitzkreig [JG]]

I don't care about the approval of others but when it comes to defining money, we must reach a consensus or I'm gone.
I've put forward how I see it but instead of getting a yes or no, I get character assassination attempts on me. That is what is frustrating me.
I want to know asap if we are going to continue together or not so that I stop wasting time if that's not going to be the case.

What sort of consensus are you looking for? Satanism will radically change the world, likely involving many different changes to the definition or context of money.

I would like to give you a specific concept, but honestly, I can only speculate based on the basic tenets of Satanism. Those tenets include meritocracy, but also empathy, which may alter how we transfer wealth.

In the near future, you could expect something like NatSoc Germany's currency system. As Satanism takes greater root, and the population becomes more advanced, then expect this to change.

I am replying to you mainly to alleviate what otherwise seems like a major concern for you. At the same time, I think you are placing way too much importance on speculative theorizing. Even if your only goal in life is to secure the maximum amount of wealth, you will do this best through your spiritual advancement. Therefore, focus on that.

Potentially hindering your advancement in some way, just to prove a point about money, would be more destructive to you than you may realize now. That is what I wish for you to avoid.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=359827 time=1653817458 user_id=21286]Even if your only goal in life is to secure the maximum amount of wealth

You are making the wrong assumption there. Replace "wealth" with "appreciation" and you'll begin to understand me.

" post_id=359827 time=1653817458 user_id=21286]
What sort of consensus are you looking for? Satanism will radically change the world, likely involving many different changes to the definition or context of money.

Once set and adopted by most, the definition is not going to change. There is a tremendous amount of momentum behind money and it builds every day.
Perhaps what you have in mind is the financial system, which is much easier to change.
If you don't understand the difference between the two, then that could probably be the source of so many misunderstandings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_system

" post_id=359827 time=1653817458 user_id=21286]too much importance on speculative theorizing.

Isn't that what SS are supposed to do? Use their brains? Or just go with what feels best?
Would you rather do it now, while the group is relatively small, or later, when millions of people are set in their ways?
You can't tell people (especially the andrapoda) that the Gods were wrong about something and now they've changed their minds.

 

[Jrvan]

" post_id=359827 time=1653817458 user_id=21286]

I don't care about the approval of others but when it comes to defining money, we must reach a consensus or I'm gone.
I've put forward how I see it but instead of getting a yes or no, I get character assassination attempts on me. That is what is frustrating me.
I want to know asap if we are going to continue together or not so that I stop wasting time if that's not going to be the case.

What sort of consensus are you looking for? Satanism will radically change the world, likely involving many different changes to the definition or context of money.

I would like to give you a specific concept, but honestly, I can only speculate based on the basic tenets of Satanism. Those tenets include meritocracy, but also empathy, which may alter how we transfer wealth.

In the near future, you could expect something like NatSoc Germany's currency system. As Satanism takes greater root, and the population becomes more advanced, then expect this to change.

I am replying to you mainly to alleviate what otherwise seems like a major concern for you. At the same time, I think you are placing way too much importance on speculative theorizing. Even if your only goal in life is to secure the maximum amount of wealth, you will do this best through your spiritual advancement. Therefore, focus on that.

Potentially hindering your advancement in some way, just to prove a point about money, would be more destructive to you than you may realize now. That is what I wish for you to avoid.

These sermons from the library are really good, and they might interest him.

https://satanslibrary.org/English/your_financial_slavery_explained_by_HP_HC666.pdf

https://satanslibrary.org/English/Money.pdf

https://satanslibrary.org/English/Fiat Currency, Labor Value, and Money.pdf

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=358945 time=1653689266 user_id=346]What about gold? If I found gold on my property, that's lucky, yet I couldn't do anything good or bad to others to determine whether or not I find the gold.

I agree. We shouldn't use gold as money. The currency in Hitler's Germany wasn't backed by gold. The government made a list of needs and set prices for those needs. Anyone fulfilling them was issued Marks. “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler

I didn't say we should use gold as money. I said that gold is equivalent to money. If I find gold, I can sell it for Marks, thus making finding gold the same as finding money. The point of what I said is that, there is an unavoidable amount of luck in determining who gets money, and it has nothing to do with good deeds. No amount of "we shouldn't" can change this.

However, I did not say that our money should be backed by gold. Money should be backed by labor as Hitler said in your quote. Without any jewing, this is the natural result of a healthy economy. Labor creates value, which is money.

" post_id=358945 time=1653689266 user_id=346]
Money is anything valuable. That's all it is. Anything of value can be used as money, and anything scarce and in demand is valuable.

If that's the case, then we are in a zero sum system. In such a system, for you to have, I must have not. Thus I'm justified in taking your money by whatever means necessary. Money has to be fungible and divisible and very few things are fungible and divisible.

Valuable possessions are not money because they are not fungible nor divisible. One dollar is equivalent to another dollar. A car is not equivalent to another acr.

Are you still not convinced that my definition fits perfectly what Hitler had in mind?

No, it's not even close.

You said "Valuable things are limited." This is simply not true. Labor can create an unlimited amount of valuable things, which is the whole point of labor-backed money. I can make software, computer chips, furniture, etc, all which add value to civilization.

Suppose I grow wheat and sell it. I have created something valuable from labor, thus making the value sum positive, not zero. Hitler's labor-backed Reichsmarks merely made this official. Labor creates value, which is the basis of all money. Even gold is useless without labor.

However, value does not come from the "goodness" of labor. I could bake cookies for myself with no good intentions toward anyone, yet this is still labor that creates value. Then if I realize that I baked too many and decide to share some, that is a very good deed, yet it creates nothing of value. The cookies already exist. You see? The two concepts of goodness and inherent value are not the same.

Also, non-fungible valuables can and have been used as money. Camels, diamonds, art, etc, are still used in some places. It just involves a bit more haggling.

But you are right about inflation. To put it more simply, the jews are printing billions of dollars backed by absolutely nothing, which makes dollars more common, thus making everyone's dollars worth less. (<- remove the space between those two words to see the end result: worthless)

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]
I didn't say we should use gold as money. I said that gold is equivalent to money. If I find gold, I can sell it for Marks, thus making finding gold the same as finding money. The point of what I said is that, there is an unavoidable amount of luck in determining who gets money, and it has nothing to do with good deeds. No amount of "we shouldn't" can change this.

However, I did not say that our money should be backed by gold. Money should be backed by labor as Hitler said in your quote. Without any jewing, this is the natural result of a healthy economy. Labor creates value, which is money.

I don't agree that labor creates value, nor does Hitler.
“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler

Pay attention to "mark’s worth of work done."
If the work is not needed nor wanted, you get no money.
Pay attention to the other part as well, "mark’s worth of goods produced."
It doesn't matter how you made the goods or how much effort you put into making them. You make a car, you get paid for that car's value.

Nowhere did he say "hours of work" or "effort."

A good dead doesn't necessarily involve back breaking labor on the part of the seller.
You found gold by chance and sold it to someone that likes gold? You did a good deed. The buyer was satisfied.
If someone is born with a talent for running fast, should we cut his legs?
Do you see my point? It doesn't matter what you did to do the good deed. If you made no effort at all on your part and managed to deliver a lot to others, you deserve a lot of recognition.
If someone spends a year doing back breaking labor, moving dirt from one place to another, should he be rewarded? What if no one wanted him to move the dirt? What if he made the world a worse place by doing that?
Does a smile require effort? Is it worth anything? What if a smile saves someone from suicide and (s)he gives you a million dollars for it? Did you commit a crime? Is that fair? Who cares? You saved someone's life with no effort at all, you delivered a lot of good and got rewarded for it.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]Labor can create an unlimited amount of valuable things

There's a limited number of atoms in the universe thus you can't have unlimited things.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]Suppose I grow wheat and sell it. I have created something valuable from labor, thus making the value sum positive, not zero. Hitler's labor-backed Reichsmarks merely made this official. Labor creates value, which is the basis of all money. Even gold is useless without labor.

Yes, wealth is created but money is made only when there's an exchange between two parties. There's negotiation involved. There must be an agreement on price. If your selling price is too much for the buyer, you won't get any money no matter how much effort you put into it.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]However, value does not come from the "goodness" of labor. I could bake cookies for myself with no good intentions toward anyone, yet this is still labor that creates value. Then if I realize that I baked too many and decide to share some, that is a very good deed, yet it creates nothing of value. The cookies already exist. You see? The two concepts of goodness and inherent value are not the same.

Who cares about your intentions? It doesn't matter why or how you made the cookies. If people are willing to pay for your cookies even though you were about to throw them away, you did a good deed to them and got money (rewarded) for it.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]Also, non-fungible valuables can and have been used as money. Camels, diamonds, art, etc, are still used in some places. It just involves a bit more haggling.

If money is not fungible then it's extremely inefficient and prone to scams. What if your camel is diseased and about to die? How can I tell if it looks like any other camel?

 

[Dahaarkan]

" post_id=359819 time=1653816899 user_id=21286]

And you. I think you know I wouldn't say anything with the intent to downplay you or mock you. I'm being very honest here. And honestly much of what I'm saying to you, I wish someone had told me in the past.

I get the vibe that you feel that you are in a courtroom in here at all times, and have to constantly defend yourself from everything everyone says about you, even when people misunderstand and misrepresent you, I want you to know that it really is unnecessary for you to debunk every little thing that is said about you.

Are you aware of this: https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=351506#p351452

I was not, but I think this advice doesn't apply only to jrvan. This foolish trend of accusing others of being kikes over disagreements for example is deplorable. This is a very serious and dehumanizing accusation to make and it's not taken seriously by anybody unless there is some kind of evidence behind it. Or if one is an idiot who believes everything they are told.

I don't think it's necessary to get angry or even address foolish claims and accusations.

 

[Dahaarkan]

I'm going to forget I read that. You can't blame the Jews for literally everything, even for most things we are at least partially responsible. If you disagree and want to scream Jew everytime something happens or ever has happened, and want to entirely ignore the fact that people (gentiles) are a source for their own problems, fine. You'll be trapped and addicted to a sense of entitlement through victim complexes, and these will continue even after the Jews vanish one day. Figure your own shit out, I'm done talking about this with you.

Nearly everything I said is backed up by the JoS websites, and historical record. The small amount that isn't, is my own understanding from meditations, intuition, and research.

Do what you want.

Nah dude, if your child gets kidnapped, raped and slaughtered by a kike on a pedo island it's your fault stupid goyim.

So what if kikes spent thousands of years intensely cursing humanity's collective soul, degrading and weakening human spirit which lead to almost all of the problems we're experiencing. Stop blaming jews stupid goyim.

Listen to the hyper advanced guru from the mysterious super advanced "group"...stop blaming the jews, goyim...blame yourselves.


Honestly I think it's jrvan's fault that the economy is collapsing and not the jewish active and direct attempts to collapse it. And definitely VoE is to blame for xianity, I saw him writing the bible thousands of years ago. No doubt Blitzkrieg is the one who created Islam. And Cobra, that fucking evil goy Cobra, probably wrote the torah himself!

Definitely not the kikes though, it's wrong to blame them, even for the crimes they themselves committed, and problems they themselves created. It's better to blame goyim for these, so saith the super advanced guru from the mysterious outside group...

 

[Jrvan]

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]
I didn't say we should use gold as money. I said that gold is equivalent to money. If I find gold, I can sell it for Marks, thus making finding gold the same as finding money. The point of what I said is that, there is an unavoidable amount of luck in determining who gets money, and it has nothing to do with good deeds. No amount of "we shouldn't" can change this.

However, I did not say that our money should be backed by gold. Money should be backed by labor as Hitler said in your quote. Without any jewing, this is the natural result of a healthy economy. Labor creates value, which is money.

I don't agree that labor creates value, nor does Hitler.
“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler

Pay attention to "mark’s worth of work done."
If the work is not needed nor wanted, you get no money.
Pay attention to the other part as well, "mark’s worth of goods produced."
It doesn't matter how you made the goods or how much effort you put into making them. You make a car, you get paid for that car's value.

Nowhere did he say "hours of work" or "effort."

A good dead doesn't necessarily involve back breaking labor on the part of the seller.
You found gold by chance and sold it to someone that likes gold? You did a good deed. The buyer was satisfied.
If someone is born with a talent for running fast, should we cut his legs?
Do you see my point? It doesn't matter what you did to do the good deed. If you made no effort at all on your part and managed to deliver a lot to others, you deserve a lot of recognition.
If someone spends a year doing back breaking labor, moving dirt from one place to another, should he be rewarded? What if no one wanted him to move the dirt? What if he made the world a worse place by doing that?
Does a smile require effort? Is it worth anything? What if a smile saves someone from suicide and (s)he gives you a million dollars for it? Did you commit a crime? Is that fair? Who cares? You saved someone's life with no effort at all, you delivered a lot of good and got rewarded for it.

Isn't that a bit redundant to say though? Someone won't hire a person for labor that they don't want. That's how the job market works, you have to advertise your skills that other people are willing to pay for. Otherwise, you have to find a way to create the job for yourself on your own. There are fortunately restrictions that prevent people from going onto someone's lawn and cutting down all their trees, or uprooting and removing their whole garden to "make space" or whatever other sort of landscaping modifications, without ever getting permission or being requested to do such things, and then demanding payment. Or sticking a needle in a stranger's arm on the street randomly and then saying "I just boosted your immunity! Now pay me for it."
So these undesired things that you are warning of, already are prevented from happening. It would fall under the category of criminality, and would be comparable to a mugger beating someone up and taking their wallet only to come back a few minutes later and being like "Remember me? I just relieved you of your wallet. Now pay me for the privilege." People can't just go around in society and do whatever they want. There are rules.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]Also, non-fungible valuables can and have been used as money. Camels, diamonds, art, etc, are still used in some places. It just involves a bit more haggling.

If money is not fungible then it's extremely inefficient and prone to scams. What if your camel is diseased and about to die? How can I tell if it looks like any other camel?

That's where government regulation and the legal system come in, as far as scamming is concerned.

I'll comment with my own thoughts on this. There are a lot of variables to value, and some of it is based on personal judgement. Things like precious metals, gems, etc... have inherent value. Those things will always have set prices. I don't need to worry about what those things are personally worth to me, because no matter what I personally deem them to be worth in price, I will only ever have to pay the set price that everyone else pays.

Let's take a personal example. I love swords. If I found a really amazing sword in a seller's collection, and I really wanted it... then this sword is going to be worth more to me than other buyers. Depending on how badly I want this sword, I could be willing to pay many times more than what the seller was hoping for. If they weren't originally willing to sell it then I might try to offer them grand amounts of money to part with it. That's the sword's personal value that I assigned to it. To me that one sword could be worth more than a casino, and I might just trade a damned casino if I wanted it badly enough. I would have to steal a casino first of course, but I think the point should be understood even if I'm exaggerating.

Trade is complex. The value of labor is unmistakable though. Not all labor even involves trading your labor either, like you have pointed out. Volunteer labor can generate wealth even if it's not paid with money. Your standing in a community rises, and people will see you better. There's an energetic component to that as well. I think you have made a lot of points here that don't necessarily negate other points by Soaring Eagle and others, but rather bring awareness to the complexity of it all. The complex totality of the topics is very hard to cover completely.

To create anything, you need to labor (magick is also labor, childbirth is labor, etc). Even someone who sits on their ass, and they never use their body, but they go online and come up with all kinds of ideas that they pitch to people, then they are still laboring with their mind. They are still laboring by using the computer and communicating with people. Whether they get paid for it is another story, and that's unfortunate. Right now all the big money and assets in society have been taken by thieves. Hardly anyone gets paid what they deserve. Jews definitely don't deserve all that money and material wealth, but they have it anyway. White people don't deserve to be dirt poor and living on the streets in many cases, but that's what happens anyway.

In a future society of our making, things will be fair and people will get what they deserve. If you toil away at a job for 5 or 10 years, you won't be unable to afford a house like how it is now. That's fucked up. Anyone will be able to buy their own house easily (not get it loaned with a mortgage, but actually buy it and own it) after putting in a few years of labor. That's how it is supposed to be. This jewish monopoly game is going to end. Gentiles will be able to get their needs met once again, and they won't be forced into a state of pure survival where they just work their ass off to make it to the next day. Living day by day hoping you make it to the next day is not life, and it's not how we are supposed to live or how things are supposed to be. It's crooked and wrong. National Socialism, a Satanic system, fixed this. A Satanic government will fix things again.

I kind of went on a tangent here, and I forgot what the original point was, and what I was trying to say or reply to. I hope this reply is helpful in someway though. By the way, while I'm at it, I don't believe that most people should need to take an accounting course in order to understand wealth and money on a basic level. People got by for a long time in fair systems without needing to understand concepts like depreciating value, and the complexities of trade. A long time ago, someone would learn from their parents how to balance the books and run the shop. It was simplified, and understanding the greater economy wasn't necessary. You knew and trusted that things were taken care of because you didn't have jews running your society so you didn't have to worry about things outside your shop. You could mind your business, and others would mind theirs. Nowadays you have to put your mind in everyone's business just to know what's going on because it's all so chaotic, and no one should have to use so much brainpower just to keep track of the economy so it doesn't run away on them. This current state of things is wrong and messed up, and it will eventually pass. Things will calm down again, and people will be able to relax because they will know that they have a trustworthy government managing things without a single jew involved.

 

[Jrvan]

I'm going to forget I read that. You can't blame the Jews for literally everything, even for most things we are at least partially responsible. If you disagree and want to scream Jew everytime something happens or ever has happened, and want to entirely ignore the fact that people (gentiles) are a source for their own problems, fine. You'll be trapped and addicted to a sense of entitlement through victim complexes, and these will continue even after the Jews vanish one day. Figure your own shit out, I'm done talking about this with you.

Nearly everything I said is backed up by the JoS websites, and historical record. The small amount that isn't, is my own understanding from meditations, intuition, and research.

Do what you want.

Nah dude, if your child gets kidnapped, raped and slaughtered by a kike on a pedo island it's your fault stupid goyim.

So what if kikes spent thousands of years intensely cursing humanity's collective soul, degrading and weakening human spirit which lead to almost all of the problems we're experiencing. Stop blaming jews stupid goyim.

Listen to the hyper advanced guru from the mysterious super advanced "group"...stop blaming the jews, goyim...blame yourselves.


Honestly I think it's jrvan's fault that the economy is collapsing and not the jewish active and direct attempts to collapse it. And definitely VoE is to blame for xianity, I saw him writing the bible thousands of years ago. No doubt Blitzkrieg is the one who created Islam. And Cobra, that fucking evil goy Cobra, probably wrote the torah himself!

Definitely not the kikes though, it's wrong to blame them, even for the crimes they themselves committed, and problems they themselves created. It's better to blame goyim for these, so saith the super advanced guru from the mysterious outside group...

I don't know what you're talking about mate. It's definitely not my fault. But if it's not my fault, and it's not the jews' fault... then it must be patriarchy.

Grab your ropes; let's hang every man who dares to breathe. Bonus points if they're White. Extra bonus points if you burn American flags because it's so racist and suppressive.

Give every native descendant a free house and a yacht. Oh what's that? They're telling me the rich ass jews don't want to give the native descendants a free house and a yacht? But they can just get Whitey to build it. WHAT? They want to keep what Whitey builds for themselves? Oy fuckin' vey. Sorry native descendants, jews said no. They said you can keep shaming Whitey though for totally factual historical oppression, and you can even fuck Whitey's bitch if you want. Oh you don't want to fuck Whitey's bitch? Right, that offer appeals to the other degenerates. Oops. It's hard for jews to tell the difference between you goyim.

 

[mastermind....]

Isn't that a bit redundant to say though? Someone won't hire a person for labor that they don't want. That's how the job market works, you have to advertise your skills that other people are willing to pay for.

No. It certainly sounds insane but that's how communist countries were run. It didn't matter what people wanted. Labor, especially stupid, repetitive, back breaking labor, was seen as the ultimate good, no matter if it was useful or not.
The commie state decided where and how people lived. Their needs and desires didn't matter. Poverty was seen as virtue, just like in xianity. Any way of earning money that wasn't digging ditches was seen as "bourgeoisie."
There's been communist (jew) infiltration into the education system and they've polluted people's views of money. I see it reflected into people's thinking, even here on this forum.
Without a solid understanding of what money is, everything else regarding money, finance, taxation, labor, laws, etc. is going to lead to disaster.

Once people start to view money as the reward for doing good deeds to other people, their focus will shift away from getting money, to earning/making money. Instead of focusing on getting a job, they'll start to think of what do others need and want and come up with ways to satisfy those wants and needs.
How many people have asked their neighbors what do they need and want? There's so much potential that is being wasted.
I see jobs as something that needs to go. The future should be made of partnerships. If someone is not willing to share profits, fuck them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

I don't agree that labor creates value, nor does Hitler.
“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler

Pay attention to "mark’s worth of work done."
If the work is not needed nor wanted, you get no money.
Pay attention to the other part as well, "mark’s worth of goods produced."
It doesn't matter how you made the goods or how much effort you put into making them. You make a car, you get paid for that car's value.

Nowhere did he say "hours of work" or "effort."

Of course not all labor is of equal value. That was part of my gold example in which almost no labor can produce a lot of value. And yes, the other extreme is worthless labor.

Yes, you are paid for the value you create, not how you make it. How is that relevant? That applies in any economy.

" post_id=360180 time=1653865577 user_id=346]Labor can create an unlimited amount of valuable things

There's a limited number of atoms in the universe thus you can't have unlimited things.

No, the big bang is bogus. The universe is infinite and eternal.

A good dead doesn't necessarily involve back breaking labor on the part of the seller.
You found gold by chance and sold it to someone that likes gold? You did a good deed. The buyer was satisfied.
If someone is born with a talent for running fast, should we cut his legs?
Do you see my point? It doesn't matter what you did to do the good deed. If you made no effort at all on your part and managed to deliver a lot to others, you deserve a lot of recognition.

This the core of the issue.

You're saying that if I found a ton of gold then I would deserve a lot of recognition, despite me doing almost nothing? What about the farmers who grow the food we eat, which is less valuable than gold and takes a lot more effort? People cannot live without food, but can live without gold. Obviously growing food is a much more "good" deed than finding gold.

Recognition (the acknowledgment of goodness) is fundamentally different than money. It cannot be sold or bought, and thus is not money.

If you try to assign a monetary value to goodness itself, you'll end up with these problems.

A transaction in a healthy economy must involve an exchange of equal value (Price = Product + Overhead), otherwise someone gets cheated.

If you use recognition of goodness as money, then the goodness of a deed must equal the value delivered by the deed. As I hope you can see with the gold vs. farmers example, this is not right. The two concepts of goodness and value are fundamentally different.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
You're saying that if I found a ton of gold then I would deserve a lot of recognition, despite me doing almost nothing?

Exactly that. If you made someone happy with no effort, you deserve the same recognition as someone that put in a lot of effort. What matters is the result, not how you got there.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]What about the farmers who grow the food we eat, which is less valuable than gold and takes a lot more effort? People cannot live without food, but can live without gold. Obviously growing food is a much more "good" deed than finding gold.

Put yourself on the buyer's side. Imagine yourself trying to get someone to build you a house according to a plan. The final product is going to be the same no matter who builds it or how much effort they put into it. Three persons are competing for your business. The first person says, it will cost you $50k, all I have to do is snap my fingers and it will come magically into existence. The second person says, it will cost you $500k and will take me a lot of work for an entire year. The third person says, it will cost you $1M because I use the most primitive of tools, I put in a lot of effort and it will take me two years. Knowing that the final product will be exactly the same no matter which one you choose, which one will you pick? If the prices, would that change your choice? Me, I pick the first one in every case.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
You're saying that if I found a ton of gold then I would deserve a lot of recognition, despite me doing almost nothing?

Exactly that. If you made someone happy with no effort, you deserve the same recognition as someone that put in a lot of effort. What matters is the result, not how you got there.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]What about the farmers who grow the food we eat, which is less valuable than gold and takes a lot more effort? People cannot live without food, but can live without gold. Obviously growing food is a much more "good" deed than finding gold.

Put yourself on the buyer's side. Imagine yourself trying to get someone to build you a house according to a plan. The final product is going to be the same no matter who builds it or how much effort they put into it. Three persons are competing for your business. The first person says, it will cost you $50k, all I have to do is snap my fingers and it will come magically into existence. The second person says, it will cost you $500k and will take me a lot of work for an entire year. The third person says, it will cost you $1M because I use the most primitive of tools, I put in a lot of effort and it will take me two years. Knowing that the final product will be exactly the same no matter which one you choose, which one will you pick? If the prices were all the same, would that change your choice? Me, I pick the first one in every case.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]...

Lets talk about sports. Imagine someone that is born so talented that he will outrun the current world champion and do this without having ever trained in his life. Would that make his accomplishment any less impressive? Would he not deserve recognition?

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]What about the farmers who grow the food we eat, which is less valuable than gold and takes a lot more effort? People cannot live without food, but can live without gold. Obviously growing food is a much more "good" deed than finding gold.

Put yourself on the buyer's side. Imagine yourself trying to get someone to build you a house according to a plan. The final product is going to be the same no matter who builds it or how much effort they put into it. Three persons are competing for your business. The first person says, it will cost you $50k, all I have to do is snap my fingers and it will come magically into existence. The second person says, it will cost you $500k and will take me a lot of work for an entire year. The third person says, it will cost you $1M because I use the most primitive of tools, I put in a lot of effort and it will take me two years. Knowing that the final product will be exactly the same no matter which one you choose, which one will you pick? If the prices were all the same, would that change your choice? Me, I pick the first one in every case.

The issue with your idea is not about different ways of producing the same product. It's about establishing a common sense of value between different products, like gold vs food, as I tried to explain in my last post.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
You're saying that if I found a ton of gold then I would deserve a lot of recognition, despite me doing almost nothing?

Exactly that. If you made someone happy with no effort, you deserve the same recognition as someone that put in a lot of effort. What matters is the result, not how you got there.

Let me condense what I said into one sentence. This is what you're saying:

A person who finds a ton of gold with no effort has done more good and deserves more recognition than a person who works hard to grow necessary food.

That does not make sense. That's the sort of nonsense that exists now where jewish billionaires got their money handed down from centuries of usury, and now get tons of press and recognition for doing nothing good at all. The people who deserve recognition - the inventors, the farmers, the people essential to civilization - are mostly ignored. What you're suggesting would go further in the wrong direction, by actually equating goodness with money, rather than just ignoring goodness.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=360853 time=1653973569 user_id=346]
The issue with your idea is not about different ways of producing the same product. It's about establishing a common sense of value between different products, like gold vs food, as I tried to explain in my last post.

Lets say you want to buy an industrial machine to produce cookies. You calculate how much profit the machine would produce and determine that the value of the machine is $100k. If the seller sets the price of it at $75k would you buy it? I would. I got more value than what I paid for. I'll make a $25k profit by using it.
If the same machine is at $101k would you buy it? No, it makes no sense. Why would you buy something for more than it is worth? You'd be losing money.
The same thing happens on the side of the seller. The cost to produce the machine is $50k, that's the value of the machine to him. If he sells it at $75k, he made a profit of $25k.
Both parties made a profit. Win-win situation.
Of course the buyer and the seller will negotiate and the price will fluctuate between $50k and $100k but it won't go under or over those boundaries. Negotiation between seller and buyer is what establishes the price. There's no such thing as "common sense of value." For a farmer, food has very little value as he produces it very efficiently. For him, gold is more valuable than food.
If you were a farmer and you wanted to buy gold, would it matter to you that the guy selling it found it by chance? No. Who cares?

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
Let me condense what I said into one sentence. This is what you're saying:

A person who finds a ton of gold with no effort has done more good and deserves more recognition than a person who works hard to grow necessary food.

If the gold is more valuable to people than food then yes.
If someone had the ability to make food appear by just wishing it in his mind, would he not deserve recognition?

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
That does not make sense. That's the sort of nonsense that exists now where jewish billionaires got their money handed down from centuries of usury, and now get tons of press and recognition for doing nothing good at all. The people who deserve recognition - the inventors, the farmers, the people essential to civilization - are mostly ignored. What you're suggesting would go further in the wrong direction, by actually equating goodness with money, rather than just ignoring goodness.

The catholic church prohibited gentiles from owning banks. Money lending was a sin and only jews were allowed to do it. Back breaking labor was seen as holy and handling money as dirty.
Supposedly, jews were "punished" by being prohibited from doing labor and "forced" to do money lending. Poor jews.
When money is based on material things, like gold, then it's deflationary. Good luck repaying a debt in a deflationary currency, especially at 40% interest.
Due to those facts alone, jews need to be stripped of all money and wealth.
I advocate for interest free money creation by the State, just like in Hitler's Germany. You deliver something valuable to the State, you get issued money, which is created right then and there.

 

[Jrvan]

This is all some very interesting and persuasive dialogue. I see ideas and implications on both sides that seem valid. I think it's like I said before, and the topic is so complex that both sides can be correct about many points without necessarily negating the other side.

I'll say this about systems and theories: the true test is whether or not it works when applied onto society. Something can sound good in theory, but then it totally fails when it is attempted to be applied. Society will go with what works, and hopefully this time when we find what works, the jews won't genocide us all and try to reset history again like they fucking did every time.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=360853 time=1653973569 user_id=346]
The issue with your idea is not about different ways of producing the same product. It's about establishing a common sense of value between different products, like gold vs food, as I tried to explain in my last post.

Lets say you want to buy an industrial machine to produce cookies. You calculate how much profit the machine would produce and determine that the value of the machine is $100k. If the seller sets the price of it at $75k would you buy it? I would. I got more value than what I paid for. I'll make a $25k profit by using it.
If the same machine is at $101k would you buy it? No, it makes no sense. Why would you buy something for more than it is worth? You'd be losing money.
The same thing happens on the side of the seller. The cost to produce the machine is $50k, that's the value of the machine to him. If he sells it at $75k, he made a profit of $25k.
Both parties made a profit. Win-win situation.
Of course the buyer and the seller will negotiate and the price will fluctuate between $50k and $100k but it won't go under or over those boundaries. Negotiation between seller and buyer is what establishes the price. There's no such thing as "common sense of value." For a farmer, food has very little value as he produces it very efficiently. For him, gold is more valuable than food.
If you were a farmer and you wanted to buy gold, would it matter to you that the guy selling it found it by chance? No. Who cares?

The price of gold does not depend on how much you value it, and neither does the price of wheat. It depends on the supply and demand, but not you personally. Since prices are units of the same money, you can establish a sense of value between gold and wheat (how much gold = how much wheat) Everyone in the same economic situation (time and place) will have the same sense of value, excluding those who produce the goods, who can get them for less because they have no transaction overhead. This the natural result of using money and it's very efficient and convenient, but it can't happen with your "good deed" dollars, as I explained in my last post.

Imagine haggling over the price of coffee every morning based on how much good it will do you on that particular day.

(For expensive non-fungibles like cars or cookie machines, yes, there is some negotiation, because the actual value is not easy to determine. This can happen for wheat if the quality is in question, but not for individual people buying bread, etc.)

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
Let me condense what I said into one sentence. This is what you're saying:

A person who finds a ton of gold with no effort has done more good and deserves more recognition than a person who works hard to grow necessary food.

If the gold is more valuable to people than food then yes.
If someone had the ability to make food appear by just wishing it in his mind, would he not deserve recognition?

Yes, a better way of producing the same food does deserve more recognition. And obviously, the value of the food remains the same regardless of how you made it. (If anything, it will cost less.) Isn't this what I've been saying all along? That recognition and money are different? I must have missed your point in that example.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
That does not make sense. That's the sort of nonsense that exists now where jewish billionaires got their money handed down from centuries of usury, and now get tons of press and recognition for doing nothing good at all. The people who deserve recognition - the inventors, the farmers, the people essential to civilization - are mostly ignored. What you're suggesting would go further in the wrong direction, by actually equating goodness with money, rather than just ignoring goodness.

The catholic church prohibited gentiles from owning banks. Money lending was a sin and only jews were allowed to do it. Back breaking labor was seen as holy and handling money as dirty.
Supposedly, jews were "punished" by being prohibited from doing labor and "forced" to do money lending. Poor jews.
When money is based on material things, like gold, then it's deflationary. Good luck repaying a debt in a deflationary currency, especially at 40% interest.
Due to those facts alone, jews need to be stripped of all money and wealth.
I advocate for interest free money creation by the State, just like in Hitler's Germany. You deliver something valuable to the State, you get issued money, which is created right then and there.

That all sounds fine. It's your other idea of "money is a unit of account of how much good one has done to others" that I disagree with.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

This is all some very interesting and persuasive dialogue. I see ideas and implications on both sides that seem valid. I think it's like I said before, and the topic is so complex that both sides can be correct about many points without necessarily negating the other side.

I'll say this about systems and theories: the true test is whether or not it works when applied onto society. Something can sound good in theory, but then it totally fails when it is attempted to be applied. Society will go with what works, and hopefully this time when we find what works, the jews won't genocide us all and try to reset history again like they fucking did every time.

That's true. This is one reason we study Nazi Germany, because that was a real economy, not just someone's ideas. But there is certainly a lot more to learn, and they only began to transition to a proper economy.

This topic is of little importance now, since the Gods will give us instructions when the time comes, but it's interesting and I'm having fun, so why not!

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
The price of gold does not depend on how much you value it, and neither does the price of wheat.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]It depends on the supply and demand, but not you personally.

Those two are extremely high volume items. You can't take those two and generalize it for everything. Lets take for example a piece of art that was just made. It's unique in the world and has no history of price. How do you determine the price? There's no way of doing that. It will be put up for auction and the highest bidder gets it. It doesn't matter how much effort the artist put into it.
A single person can move the price, wildly. You probably haven't experienced it personally because you only trade (buy/sell) in very high volume items.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]Since prices are units of the same money, you can establish a sense of value between gold and wheat (how much gold = how much wheat) Everyone in the same economic situation (time and place) will have the same sense of value

They won't. Everyone has a different sense of value. Take some bread and ask ten people how much they'd pay for it. You'll get ten different answers. Why? Because we are not in communism. We are not equal. Everyone has different needs, wants, knowledge, experience, capital, etc.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Imagine haggling over the price of coffee every morning based on how much good it will do you on that particular day.

If it didn't do you any good you wouldn't be buying it, unless you were addicted, misinformed or had a mental illness.
If I'm selling you coffee, I don't care how much good it's going to do to you. I only care to get the most money for my coffee. Likewise, your goal is to pay the least for the coffee.
If you are willing to pay a lot for my coffee, then I'll know that it does you a lot of good. I'll be happy to receive a lot of money and be happy to know that I did you a lot of good.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
(For expensive non-fungibles like cars or cookie machines, yes, there is some negotiation, because the actual value is not easy to determine. This can happen for wheat if the quality is in question, but not for individual people buying bread, etc.)

There's always negotiation. Even the individual people buying bread, they have the power to negotiate, unless someone puts a gun to their head and forces them to buy.
Even the price of a high volume item like wheat is hard to determine. So hard that it's a different price every second.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
Yes, a better way of producing the same food does deserve more recognition. And obviously, the value of the food remains the same regardless of how you made it. (If anything, it will cost less.) Isn't this what I've been saying all along? That recognition and money are different? I must have missed your point in that example.

If no one had a need to eat or if no one ate wheat based food, then the value of wheat would be zero (although the price wouldn't because for now there are costs in producing it).

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
That all sounds fine. It's your other idea of "money is a unit of account of how much good one has done to others" that I disagree with.

Maybe you are missing the second part.

Money is a unit of account of how much good one has done to others. "Good" being defined as something desired by the other party.

If you don't like that definition, feel free to offer an alternative.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
The price of gold does not depend on how much you value it, and neither does the price of wheat.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]It depends on the supply and demand, but not you personally.

Those two are extremely high volume items. You can't take those two and generalize it for everything. Lets take for example a piece of art that was just made. It's unique in the world and has no history of price. How do you determine the price? There's no way of doing that. It will be put up for auction and the highest bidder gets it. It doesn't matter how much effort the artist put into it.
A single person can move the price, wildly. You probably haven't experienced it personally because you only trade (buy/sell) in very high volume items.

The vast majority of things people buy are high-volume items, which was my point. Do you really want to bid or haggle over a cup of coffee? A roll of scotch tape? A pencil?

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]Since prices are units of the same money, you can establish a sense of value between gold and wheat (how much gold = how much wheat) Everyone in the same economic situation (time and place) will have the same sense of value

They won't. Everyone has a different sense of value. Take some bread and ask ten people how much they'd pay for it. You'll get ten different answers. Why? Because we are not in communism. We are not equal. Everyone has different needs, wants, knowledge, experience, capital, etc.

As I said before, I'm not talking about your personal sense of value. The price of these high-volume items does not depend on you, so the question how much gold a dollar can buy vs how much wheat, is the same regardless of your personal sense of value. Whether or not you actually do a transaction does depend on your sense of value, but the price you pay doesn't.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Imagine haggling over the price of coffee every morning based on how much good it will do you on that particular day.

If it didn't do you any good you wouldn't be buying it, unless you were addicted, misinformed or had a mental illness.
If I'm selling you coffee, I don't care how much good it's going to do to you. I only care to get the most money for my coffee. Likewise, your goal is to pay the least for the coffee.
If you are willing to pay a lot for my coffee, then I'll know that it does you a lot of good. I'll be happy to receive a lot of money and be happy to know that I did you a lot of good.

Exactly, and the price still does not depend on the individual. It depends on the demographics of all the customers - how much they are willing to pay. That is determined by how much each person wants it (how much good it would do), but because you can't change the price per customer without creating a huge inconvenience, the price is a reflection of the group, meaning that almost nobody would be getting the exact price they would if you negotiated over it, thus again proving point that money and goodness are different.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
(For expensive non-fungibles like cars or cookie machines, yes, there is some negotiation, because the actual value is not easy to determine. This can happen for wheat if the quality is in question, but not for individual people buying bread, etc.)

There's always negotiation. Even the individual people buying bread, they have the power to negotiate, unless someone puts a gun to their head and forces them to buy.
Even the price of a high volume item like wheat is hard to determine. So hard that it's a different price every second.

Did you negotiate the last time you bought bread? I doubt it. Neither did I. Yes, you certainly could, but one of the best features of money is the ability to eliminate negotiation in favor of convenience. You usually only choose to negotiate when the item is so expensive that you feel like it's worth your time if you get a better deal.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
Yes, a better way of producing the same food does deserve more recognition. And obviously, the value of the food remains the same regardless of how you made it. (If anything, it will cost less.) Isn't this what I've been saying all along? That recognition and money are different? I must have missed your point in that example.

If no one had a need to eat or if no one ate wheat based food, then the value of wheat would be zero (although the price wouldn't because for now there are costs in producing it).

That's very true. How is it relevant? This was about changing the method of production, not the demand for the product.

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
That all sounds fine. It's your other idea of "money is a unit of account of how much good one has done to others" that I disagree with.

Maybe you are missing the second part.

Money is a unit of account of how much good one has done to others. "Good" being defined as something desired by the other party.

If you don't like that definition, feel free to offer an alternative.

I did, or rather, Hitler did. Remember that quote: “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler
Notice how it says nothing about good deeds or one's feelings. It talks about labor and goods produced. it's It's all about adding real value to the economy. If a farmer grows $1000 of wheat, he has added $1000 dollars of value to the economy. Hitler's system balances that by printing $1000 as the reward. To phrase it like yours, it says that:

Money is a unit of account of how much the economy is worth. This is all based on that common sense of value I talked about. The reason that wheat was worth $1000 dollars is because of the relation between the demand for wheat vs other goods. That changes over time, but it's a reflection of the economy, not individuals.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=362456 time=1654386324 user_id=346]
Do you really want to bid or haggle over a cup of coffee? A roll of scotch tape? A pencil?

Actually I did haggle over a pencil. A nice fountain pencil.
As long as no one is forced to buy or sell, negotiation is always involved. Even if you are not able to communicate with the seller to make an offer.

" post_id=362456 time=1654386324 user_id=346]
As I said before, I'm not talking about your personal sense of value. The price of these high-volume items does not depend on you, so the question how much gold a dollar can buy vs how much wheat, is the same regardless of your personal sense of value. Whether or not you actually do a transaction does depend on your sense of value, but the price you pay doesn't.

It does. Once a year I buy wheat and flour directly from a farmer and I negotiate over the price.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Exactly, and the price still does not depend on the individual. It depends on the demographics of all the customers - how much they are willing to pay. That is determined by how much each person wants it (how much good it would do), but because you can't change the price per customer without creating a huge inconvenience, the price is a reflection of the group, meaning that almost nobody would be getting the exact price they would if you negotiated over it, thus again proving point that money and goodness are different.

Of course, if I'm selling a house and one person offers me more than anyone else, I'll sell it to that person. That person needs the house more than anyone else and is willing to pay a higher price. Thus I've done more good by selling the house to the person that needs it more urgently.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Did you negotiate the last time you bought bread? I doubt it. Neither did I. Yes, you certainly could, but one of the best features of money is the ability to eliminate negotiation in favor of convenience. You usually only choose to negotiate when the item is so expensive that you feel like it's worth your time if you get a better deal.

I don't buy bread, I make it. You can't eliminate negotiation. The simple refusal to buy something is sending a message to the seller, even if the seller does not perceive it.
As long as there is free will, there is negotiation.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]

" post_id=360769 time=1653957438 user_id=346]
Yes, a better way of producing the same food does deserve more recognition. And obviously, the value of the food remains the same regardless of how you made it. (If anything, it will cost less.) Isn't this what I've been saying all along? That recognition and money are different? I must have missed your point in that example.

If no one had a need to eat or if no one ate wheat based food, then the value of wheat would be zero (although the price wouldn't because for now there are costs in producing it).

That's very true. How is it relevant? This was about changing the method of production, not the demand for the product.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it took you one minute or one year to produce the thing. The thing will do the same amount of good to others and thus you'll get the same amount of recognition.
Thus, labor is not inherently valuable.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
I did, or rather, Hitler did. Remember that quote: “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler
Notice how it says nothing about good deeds or one's feelings. It talks about labor and goods produced. it's It's all about adding real value to the economy. If a farmer grows $1000 of wheat, he has added $1000 dollars of value to the economy. Hitler's system balances that by printing $1000 as the reward. To phrase it like yours, it says that:

Money is a unit of account of how much the economy is worth. This is all based on that common sense of value I talked about. The reason that wheat was worth $1000 dollars is because of the relation between the demand for wheat vs other goods. That changes over time, but it's a reflection of the economy, not individuals.

The bold part is where I disagree. He said "work done" not "labor." Those are different. "Work done" refers to something that needs to be done.
"I need this house built" is the "work" that needs to be "done." If one can do the work in a year or in a second by simply wishing it in his mind, the work done is the same and thus the reward is the same.
If someone needs a house built and you make it appear by wishing it in your mind, isn't that something good that you've done to someone else?
Lets say you sell that house for $100k.
You make 1000 more houses like that and make a total of $100M.
But now you want a castle and your mind is not powerful enough to make one. So you go and ask a more powerful person to make one for you. You haggle on the price and agree on $50M. The other person snaps his fingers and you get a castle in less than a second. Are you not happy? Does it matter to you how the other person did it?
You may think that this is crazy and irrealistic but in the future it may well be that way. One just presses a button on a screen and a huge 3D printer makes a castle appear in a few days. No labor involved.
If we don't separate labor and money then our civilization will be greatly stunted.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=362456 time=1654386324 user_id=346]...

Correction, fountain pen, not pencil.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=362456 time=1654386324 user_id=346]
Do you really want to bid or haggle over a cup of coffee? A roll of scotch tape? A pencil?

Actually I did haggle over a pencil. A nice fountain pencil.
As long as no one is forced to buy or sell, negotiation is always involved. Even if you are not able to communicate with the seller to make an offer.

" post_id=362456 time=1654386324 user_id=346]
As I said before, I'm not talking about your personal sense of value. The price of these high-volume items does not depend on you, so the question how much gold a dollar can buy vs how much wheat, is the same regardless of your personal sense of value. Whether or not you actually do a transaction does depend on your sense of value, but the price you pay doesn't.

It does. Once a year I buy wheat and flour directly from a farmer and I negotiate over the price.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Exactly, and the price still does not depend on the individual. It depends on the demographics of all the customers - how much they are willing to pay. That is determined by how much each person wants it (how much good it would do), but because you can't change the price per customer without creating a huge inconvenience, the price is a reflection of the group, meaning that almost nobody would be getting the exact price they would if you negotiated over it, thus again proving point that money and goodness are different.

Of course, if I'm selling a house and one person offers me more than anyone else, I'll sell it to that person. That person needs the house more than anyone else and is willing to pay a higher price. Thus I've done more good by selling the house to the person that needs it more urgently.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
Did you negotiate the last time you bought bread? I doubt it. Neither did I. Yes, you certainly could, but one of the best features of money is the ability to eliminate negotiation in favor of convenience. You usually only choose to negotiate when the item is so expensive that you feel like it's worth your time if you get a better deal.

I don't buy bread, I make it. You can't eliminate negotiation. The simple refusal to buy something is sending a message to the seller, even if the seller does not perceive it.
As long as there is free will, there is negotiation.

You're missing the point. Unless you're a hermit or something, you will be buying tons of cheap necessities that you can't easily make yourself. (Paper, paint, staples, toilet paper, towels, etc)
It would be a huge inconvenience to negotiate for each and every one. Yes, you might get a better price, but it's not worth your time if the item is cheap enough.

There are times when haggling is important, and I've spent plenty of time on eBay bidding and haggling. However, the vast majority of things people buy are mass-produced cheap goods, for which it's a tremendous convenience to just pay a fair price and be done with it.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]

If no one had a need to eat or if no one ate wheat based food, then the value of wheat would be zero (although the price wouldn't because for now there are costs in producing it).

That's very true. How is it relevant? This was about changing the method of production, not the demand for the product.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it took you one minute or one year to produce the thing. The thing will do the same amount of good to others and thus you'll get the same amount of recognition.
Thus, labor is not inherently valuable.

" post_id=361476 time=1654123739 user_id=346]
I did, or rather, Hitler did. Remember that quote: “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” - Hitler
Notice how it says nothing about good deeds or one's feelings. It talks about labor and goods produced. it's It's all about adding real value to the economy. If a farmer grows $1000 of wheat, he has added $1000 dollars of value to the economy. Hitler's system balances that by printing $1000 as the reward. To phrase it like yours, it says that:

Money is a unit of account of how much the economy is worth. This is all based on that common sense of value I talked about. The reason that wheat was worth $1000 dollars is because of the relation between the demand for wheat vs other goods. That changes over time, but it's a reflection of the economy, not individuals.

The bold part is where I disagree. He said "work done" not "labor." Those are different. "Work done" refers to something that needs to be done.
"I need this house built" is the "work" that needs to be "done." If one can do the work in a year or in a second by simply wishing it in his mind, the work done is the same and thus the reward is the same.
If someone needs a house built and you make it appear by wishing it in your mind, isn't that something good that you've done to someone else?
Lets say you sell that house for $100k.
You make 1000 more houses like that and make a total of $100M.
But now you want a castle and your mind is not powerful enough to make one. So you go and ask a more powerful person to make one for you. You haggle on the price and agree on $50M. The other person snaps his fingers and you get a castle in less than a second. Are you not happy? Does it matter to you how the other person did it?
You may think that this is crazy and irrealistic but in the future it may well be that way. One just presses a button on a screen and a huge 3D printer makes a castle appear in a few days. No labor involved.
If we don't separate labor and money then our civilization will be greatly stunted.

If someone figures out an easier way of producing the same goods (like houses), then the price goes down to reflect that. Less labor involved means that eventually the goods will be less valuable because they are easier to produce.

Look at computers as an example. The first computers took a huge amount of labor to produce. The transistors were soldered by hand. Naturally, with all that labor involved, computers were extremely expensive.
Then as integrated circuits, assembly lines, and automation came along, computers became easy to produce. Because less labor was required, computers cost less to make, so their value in dollars went down. A $0.50 microprocessor can outperform the million dollar 1954 TRADIC. Why? Because someone figured out a way to make the same goods with less labor and material. If you time traveled to 1954, you could make billions of dollars selling $0.50 microprocessors, until the market caught up.

In the short term after a breakthrough, yes, the reward will be high for low labor, but it adjusts quickly.

Yes, labor is not inherently valuable. I should have clarified how my example includes that. The fact that the farmer grows $1000 worth of wheat implies that the labor was desired, because the wheat had $1000 of value (i.e. someone would pay for it). If labor is not needed or wanted, then it produces nothing of value, so obviously it does not receive a reward (money).

Value comes from the relationship between scarcity and demand. If something is scarce and in demand, then it is valuable. There are two factors in making something scarce: (1) Lack of material and (2) lack of labor. Gold is scarce because it is rare, not because it is hard to mine. Houses are scarce because it takes labor to build, not because trees are rare. If you could press a button to 3D-print a house, then the price of houses would go down, due to market competition. You would make a little money in the short term, then the price would adjust downward to reflect the actual cost of material+labor involved, driven by your competitors inventing similar methods.

 

[Stormblood]

Of course, if I'm selling a house and one person offers me more than anyone else, I'll sell it to that person. That person needs the house more than anyone else and is willing to pay a higher price. Thus I've done more good by selling the house to the person that needs it more urgently.

Needy people usually can pay less because they are working class, struggling and with a low credit score. They are not going to offer a higher price because they can't afford it, even if they need it more urgently than anyone else. People who think like you are the reason Billy and other kikes are allowed to accumulate property which they are going to use for their animal farm, and making more people homeless unless they get microchipped and enter the new Chinese social credit score economy where you'll only eat cockroaches if anything and live in a 1x1 cubicle, while the kikes will have multiple holiday homes the size of a duchy. Congratulations on hypothetically contributing to the jewtrix.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

Of course, if I'm selling a house and one person offers me more than anyone else, I'll sell it to that person. That person needs the house more than anyone else and is willing to pay a higher price. Thus I've done more good by selling the house to the person that needs it more urgently.

Needy people usually can pay less because they are working class, struggling and with a low credit score. They are not going to offer a higher price because they can't afford it, even if they need it more urgently than anyone else. People who think like you are the reason Billy and other kikes are allowed to accumulate property which they are going to use for their animal farm, and making more people homeless unless they get microchipped and enter the new Chinese social credit score economy where you'll only eat cockroaches if anything and live in a 1x1 cubicle, while the kikes will have multiple holiday homes the size of a duchy. Congratulations on hypothetically contributing to the jewtrix.

Good point. I missed that one.
Another similar problem with this, is when companies like (((BlackRock))) use their large amount of capital to outbid people, then rent out the houses.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=364489 time=1654742105 user_id=346]
You're missing the point. Unless you're a hermit or something, you will be buying tons of cheap necessities that you can't easily make yourself. (Paper, paint, staples, toilet paper, towels, etc)
It would be a huge inconvenience to negotiate for each and every one. Yes, you might get a better price, but it's not worth your time if the item is cheap enough.

There are times when haggling is important, and I've spent plenty of time on eBay bidding and haggling. However, the vast majority of things people buy are mass-produced cheap goods, for which it's a tremendous convenience to just pay a fair price and be done with it.

Would you buy a pencil if it was $1000?
There's no such thing as fair price. The seller will try to get the highest price (s)he can get away with.
You are negotiating whether you have the option to make an offer or not.
Refusing to buy or delaying, is part of negotiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaying_tactic
"I'd buy this pen but at $1000? No way, let's check in a month, maybe they lower the price."
A month later, in commie russia: "Well, no one bought this pen and the price hasn't changed as the central bureau determine that it's a fair price, guess I'll never buy this pen."
You are negotiating whether you like it or not. Price is determined by negotiating by both buyer and seller. There's no other way.
If money had the property that you imagine it has, the soviet union wouldn't have collapsed. They were unable to set "fair" prices from their central bureau. It's just impossible to do.

" post_id=364489 time=1654742105 user_id=346]
In the short term after a breakthrough, yes, the reward will be high for low labor, but it adjusts quickly.

Most of the time that's true. People don't have a need to buy that which they already have.
If you already have a computer, a second one will not do you much good and thus the seller won't get the same amount of money from you.

" post_id=364489 time=1654742105 user_id=346]
Value comes from the relationship between scarcity and demand. If something is scarce and in demand, then it is valuable. There are two factors in making something scarce: (1) Lack of material and (2) lack of labor. Gold is scarce because it is rare, not because it is hard to mine. Houses are scarce because it takes labor to build, not because trees are rare. If you could press a button to 3D-print a house, then the price of houses would go down, due to market competition. You would make a little money in the short term, then the price would adjust downward to reflect the actual cost of material+labor involved, driven by your competitors inventing similar methods.

It is true that value and price have a strong correlation to supply and demand, however the correlation is not 1 to 1.
If I had an unlimited supply of something, that doesn't mean that I'm selling it for free. If the buyer is willing to pay x, I'll demand x.
The price will usually tend to reflect the maximum amount that the customer is willing to pay.

" post_id=364666 time=1654790481 user_id=346]

Of course, if I'm selling a house and one person offers me more than anyone else, I'll sell it to that person. That person needs the house more than anyone else and is willing to pay a higher price. Thus I've done more good by selling the house to the person that needs it more urgently.

Needy people usually can pay less because they are working class, struggling and with a low credit score. They are not going to offer a higher price because they can't afford it, even if they need it more urgently than anyone else. People who think like you are the reason Billy and other kikes are allowed to accumulate property which they are going to use for their animal farm, and making more people homeless unless they get microchipped and enter the new Chinese social credit score economy where you'll only eat cockroaches if anything and live in a 1x1 cubicle, while the kikes will have multiple holiday homes the size of a duchy. Congratulations on hypothetically contributing to the jewtrix.

Good point. I missed that one.
Another similar problem with this, is when companies like (((BlackRock))) use their large amount of capital to outbid people, then rent out the houses.

The problem is the federal reserve giving unlimited money to the kikes, allowing them to buy everything and everyone.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=364489 time=1654742105 user_id=346]
You're missing the point. Unless you're a hermit or something, you will be buying tons of cheap necessities that you can't easily make yourself. (Paper, paint, staples, toilet paper, towels, etc)
It would be a huge inconvenience to negotiate for each and every one. Yes, you might get a better price, but it's not worth your time if the item is cheap enough.

There are times when haggling is important, and I've spent plenty of time on eBay bidding and haggling. However, the vast majority of things people buy are mass-produced cheap goods, for which it's a tremendous convenience to just pay a fair price and be done with it.

Would you buy a pencil if it was $1000?
There's no such thing as fair price. The seller will try to get the highest price (s)he can get away with.
You are negotiating whether you have the option to make an offer or not.
Refusing to buy or delaying, is part of negotiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaying_tactic
"I'd buy this pen but at $1000? No way, let's check in a month, maybe they lower the price."
A month later, in commie russia: "Well, no one bought this pen and the price hasn't changed as the central bureau determine that it's a fair price, guess I'll never buy this pen."
You are negotiating whether you like it or not. Price is determined by negotiating by both buyer and seller. There's no other way.
If money had the property that you imagine it has, the soviet union wouldn't have collapsed. They were unable to set "fair" prices from their central bureau. It's just impossible to do.

The "fair" price I'm talking about is driven by market competition. If you are selling pens for $1000, I would sell pens for $10 and people would buy from me. Then you would have to sell pens for no more than $10 or you would go out of business. But then I might sell pens for $9, and so on, until the price goes as low as possible. All that is needed is regulation to prevent a monopoly creating artificially low prices to kill the small competitors. (If your pens were better than mine, then people might be willing to pay more, maybe $20, but the incentive of my cheaper pens would set a limit on how much you could charge before people switched to mine.)

I suppose you could consider "refusing to buy" as a form of negotiation. However, the ultimate price it reaches will not actually reflect your refusal to buy. It will reflect the average of everybody, which is the common sense of how much that pen is really worth. So the price you pay would still not be how much good the pen does you. It would be the average of everybody. (Unlike haggling, where the price you arrive at does directly reflect you.)

" post_id=364489 time=1654742105 user_id=346]
Value comes from the relationship between scarcity and demand. If something is scarce and in demand, then it is valuable. There are two factors in making something scarce: (1) Lack of material and (2) lack of labor. Gold is scarce because it is rare, not because it is hard to mine. Houses are scarce because it takes labor to build, not because trees are rare. If you could press a button to 3D-print a house, then the price of houses would go down, due to market competition. You would make a little money in the short term, then the price would adjust downward to reflect the actual cost of material+labor involved, driven by your competitors inventing similar methods.

It is true that value and price have a strong correlation to supply and demand, however the correlation is not 1 to 1.
If I had an unlimited supply of something, that doesn't mean that I'm selling it for free. If the buyer is willing to pay x, I'll demand x.
The price will usually tend to reflect the maximum amount that the customer is willing to pay.

If something is unlimited, then its value is just the labor involved it getting it to the customers. Yes, it's usually still not free.

Unless you are the only one who has the supply, your competitors will sell it for less, and people will buy from them instead, etc, as I described about the pens. The price will not be what the buyer is willing to pay, it will be the lowest price due to competition. (You do have some wiggle room thanks to time and place economics. If someone is already in your store, they might be willing to pay more for something because it's right there and thus more convenient.)

" post_id=364666 time=1654790481 user_id=346]

Needy people usually can pay less because they are working class, struggling and with a low credit score. They are not going to offer a higher price because they can't afford it, even if they need it more urgently than anyone else. People who think like you are the reason Billy and other kikes are allowed to accumulate property which they are going to use for their animal farm, and making more people homeless unless they get microchipped and enter the new Chinese social credit score economy where you'll only eat cockroaches if anything and live in a 1x1 cubicle, while the kikes will have multiple holiday homes the size of a duchy. Congratulations on hypothetically contributing to the jewtrix.

Good point. I missed that one.
Another similar problem with this, is when companies like (((BlackRock))) use their large amount of capital to outbid people, then rent out the houses.

The problem is the federal reserve giving unlimited money to the kikes, allowing them to buy everything and everyone.

The problem with companies like BlackRock goes much deeper than the federal reserve. It starts right at the center of Capitalism. It's a flaw in the core philosophy that "money makes money." In Capitalism, it is possible for one individual to acquire everything. Once BlackRock owns enough houses and has enough income from renters, they can use that income to buy more houses, until eventually they own everything. Even if the government doesn't print money. In Capitalism, people can make money just by having money, without doing any labor at all, and thus contributing nothing to the economy. That's the root of the problem.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]The "fair" price I'm talking about is driven by market competition. If you are selling pens for $1000, I would sell pens for $10 and people would buy from me.

That's what stupid people do when they enter a market.
The correct way to set prices is to start high and go lower step by step over a long period of time.
Right now you can make your own branded pen and sell it for $1k. Even though it's functionally the same as a $10 pen. Once you've served the $1k customers, you bring the price down to $900, then $800, etc. until you've sold everything.
The other option is to keep releasing a new version of the same pen every year and keep the same initial price.
Competing by cutting prices is the dumbest thing one can do.
If you are going to compete, offer something better at a higher price.

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]I suppose you could consider "refusing to buy" as a form of negotiation. However, the ultimate price it reaches will not actually reflect your refusal to buy. It will reflect the average of everybody, which is the common sense of how much that pen is really worth. So the price you pay would still not be how much good the pen does you.

As a seller, you don't know how much you are going to sell and for what price.
There's no "average of everybody."
An intelligent seller will start with a high price and slowly lower it until it starts selling in sufficient quantity. Once the sales decline, (s)he lowers the price gradually until everything is sold.

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]The problem with companies like BlackRock goes much deeper than the federal reserve. It starts right at the center of Capitalism. It's a flaw in the core philosophy that "money makes money." In Capitalism, it is possible for one individual to acquire everything. Once BlackRock owns enough houses and has enough income from renters, they can use that income to buy more houses, until eventually they own everything. Even if the government doesn't print money. In Capitalism, people can make money just by having money, without doing any labor at all, and thus contributing nothing to the economy. That's the root of the problem.

If there weren't bailouts (the federal reserve printing money and giving it to them), blackrock and many others wouldn't exist today.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/05/blackrock-is-bailing-out-its-etfs-with-fed-money-and-taxpayers-eating-losses-its-also-the-sole-manager-for-335-billion-of-federal-employees-retirement-funds/
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/blackrock-authored-the-bailout-plan-before-there-was-a-crisis/

In a system where the supply of money is limited, or only issued to certain parties, then yes, one person could acquire everything. If you own the money printer and you give unlimited money to yourself, of course you can buy everything and everyone.

In a system where the supply of money is unlimited and issued to everyone (in exchange for goods or services) then I don't see a way for one person to own everything.

You are assuming that I'm backing the current system which isn't the case. I've stated it multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I find such tactics dishonest and repugnant.

 

[gnome]

In a system where the supply of money is limited, or only issued to certain parties, then yes, one person could acquire everything. If you own the money printer and you give unlimited money to yourself, of course you can buy everything and everyone.

In a system where the supply of money is unlimited and issued to everyone (in exchange for goods or services) then I don't see a way for one person to own everything.

You are assuming that I'm backing the current system which isn't the case. I've stated it multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I find such tactics dishonest and repugnant.

I am beginning to understand this proposed system now. It might be helpful if you can explain how your examples operate in both the current financial system and the one you're proposing. Since, some may be comprehending your examples in the current existing system only - and in that case it may seem to be exploiting others.

I have a couple of questions if you don't mind:

Your proposed system rests upon the idea that everyone can provide value (goods and services) to society. How would this system handle those who cannot provide value, but are in need?

Could this system still be exploited by big successful business? I think it can. Once money has been acquired through the foundation of providing value to society, that acquired wealth can be used exclusively to further an agenda, targeted advertising, owning tech platforms, taking over the media, bribing - all that Jew stuff. Can value (and society) be distorted this way?

I'd be interested in finding out what you think the drawbacks of this proposed system would be, since you must not believe it is perfect?

...

Also, on your last comment, you have labelled "tactics" which you find dishonest and repugnant. But, initially, you described it as an assumption. An assumption or misunderstanding is not necessarily a tactic - and there likely was no ill intention...

 

[mastermind....]

Your proposed system rests upon the idea that everyone can provide value (goods and services) to society. How would this system handle those who cannot provide value, but are in need?

For now I only care about the issuance of money and the definition of money.
How such exceptions are going to be dealt with is outside the scope of my idea.
There can be many solutions. One way to deal with such a case is for the government to issue money to whoever provides for the person in need.

Could this system still be exploited by big successful business? I think it can. Once money has been acquired through the foundation of providing value to society, that acquired wealth can be used exclusively to further an agenda, targeted advertising, owning tech platforms, taking over the media, bribing - all that Jew stuff. Can value (and society) be distorted this way?

Depends on what kind of laws will be implemented. It sure is a hard problem to solve.

I'd be interested in finding out what you think the drawbacks of this proposed system would be, since you must not believe it is perfect?

The drawback is that it's hard to tell how one earned the money. Someone that stole it could be treated the same as someone that provided a great deal of value. I'm certain that once this problem is made apparent to the majority of people, people will come up with solutions.

Also, on your last comment, you have labelled "tactics" which you find dishonest and repugnant. But, initially, you described it as an assumption. An assumption or misunderstanding is not necessarily a tactic - and there likely was no ill intention...

Let me rephrase it : being subjected to so many misunderstandings is quite unpleasant.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]The "fair" price I'm talking about is driven by market competition. If you are selling pens for $1000, I would sell pens for $10 and people would buy from me.

That's what stupid people do when they enter a market.
The correct way to set prices is to start high and go lower step by step over a long period of time.
Right now you can make your own branded pen and sell it for $1k. Even though it's functionally the same as a $10 pen. Once you've served the $1k customers, you bring the price down to $900, then $800, etc. until you've sold everything.
The other option is to keep releasing a new version of the same pen every year and keep the same initial price.
Competing by cutting prices is the dumbest thing one can do.
If you are going to compete, offer something better at a higher price.

Well, it sure does work... Look at any cheap product on Amazon, like a USB drive of a certain size, and you'll see that the cheapest one (by a good brand) has at least 10x more reviews. Why? Because people, myself included, will simply sort the list by price and pick the cheapest good one.

Say what you will, but the facts speak for themselves. Cutting prices to compete works, and successful businesses do it all the time. (Yes, gradually lowering price is the way it happens, but the end result is the same.)

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]I suppose you could consider "refusing to buy" as a form of negotiation. However, the ultimate price it reaches will not actually reflect your refusal to buy. It will reflect the average of everybody, which is the common sense of how much that pen is really worth. So the price you pay would still not be how much good the pen does you.

As a seller, you don't know how much you are going to sell and for what price.
There's no "average of everybody."
An intelligent seller will start with a high price and slowly lower it until it starts selling in sufficient quantity. Once the sales decline, (s)he lowers the price gradually until everything is sold.

Is the price unique to each customer? No. (That would be very impractical.) Therefore the price is a reflection of what they are willing to pay, (an average as a group). Even if you start high and go low, at any given time, the price still reflects groups of customers, not individually. So, the money will still not be a reflection of good deeds, which is the problem with your idea.

" post_id=364802 time=1654825074 user_id=346]The problem with companies like BlackRock goes much deeper than the federal reserve. It starts right at the center of Capitalism. It's a flaw in the core philosophy that "money makes money." In Capitalism, it is possible for one individual to acquire everything. Once BlackRock owns enough houses and has enough income from renters, they can use that income to buy more houses, until eventually they own everything. Even if the government doesn't print money. In Capitalism, people can make money just by having money, without doing any labor at all, and thus contributing nothing to the economy. That's the root of the problem.

If there weren't bailouts (the federal reserve printing money and giving it to them), blackrock and many others wouldn't exist today.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/05/blackrock-is-bailing-out-its-etfs-with-fed-money-and-taxpayers-eating-losses-its-also-the-sole-manager-for-335-billion-of-federal-employees-retirement-funds/
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/blackrock-authored-the-bailout-plan-before-there-was-a-crisis/

In a system where the supply of money is limited, or only issued to certain parties, then yes, one person could acquire everything. If you own the money printer and you give unlimited money to yourself, of course you can buy everything and everyone.

In a system where the supply of money is unlimited and issued to everyone (in exchange for goods or services) then I don't see a way for one person to own everything.

You are assuming that I'm backing the current system which isn't the case. I've stated it multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I find such tactics dishonest and repugnant.

So do I. That's why I didn't use a straw man. :roll:

I didn't say anything about you backing the current system. You said that the problem with places like BlackRock is "the federal reserve giving unlimited money to the kikes, allowing them to buy everything and everyone." I replied saying how I believe the root problem is the idea of "money makes money". I didn't say you endorsed that philosophy. But it's relevant because BlackRock exists in the current system.

I don't dispute that the fed is making things worse. That is certain. However, let me explain the root problem more clearly.

Step 1. I use my savings to buy a $100K house, which I rent out for $274 per month.
Step 2. After 1 year (neglecting expenses), I use the the earnings to buy another $100K house, which I also rent. Now I'm making $548 per month, and I can buy two houses the next year. This is exponential. (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024)

After 10 years, I could own 1,000 houses and be making $274,000 per month, all while doing nothing useful for the economy! The ability to do this comes from the agreement of ownership. If I have something I don't need, I can let someone use it all the time, yet because I "own" it, they have to pay me all the time. That's the problem. This is possible no matter who prints money, or what money even is. The only solution is government regulation, like requiring that people who rent houses have the ability to buy it if they so choose.

 

[mastermind....]

" post_id=364981 time=1654882021 user_id=346]Well, it sure does work... Look at any cheap product on Amazon, like a USB drive of a certain size, and you'll see that the cheapest one (by a good brand) has at least 10x more reviews. Why? Because people, myself included, will simply sort the list by price and pick the cheapest good one.

Say what you will, but the facts speak for themselves. Cutting prices to compete works, and successful businesses do it all the time. (Yes, gradually lowering price is the way it happens, but the end result is the same.)

It's better that people specialize in their niche rather than compete.
Lets say that in your country there are ten IT companies that specialize in making apps. Is it better that they all work at making ten apps that are basically the same app but rebranded and then compete, or ten completely different apps?
What kind of structure will deliver the most happiness to people?
Likewise, if there are ten vehicle manufacturers, do you make them all manufacture cars? Wouldn't it be better if one makes cars, another makes bikes, another makes tractors, etc. ?
Competition for the sake of competition is stupid and harmful.
Imagine that you invest a lot of money to create a product. It fails. Then you invest money to create another. It fails. And another. It fails. After ten failures, one is a success. You price it at $100, it's durable, it sells well, gives you a nice profit margin and the buyers are happy. Then some jew from china makes a cheap copy for $10, with almost no profit margin. It's not durable and on top of that it's designed to break after a year. He sells just long enough for you to shut your business down and fire your employees. Then he increases the price to $50 and makes the product even worse, as there is no competition any longer. The buyers will be almost forced to buy after a year since their unit will most certainly break.
My father used to have a bakery right next to a major road. A group of jews (literally) opened a bakery in front of his and they started selling at such low prices that they were losing money on every sale. People were throwing insults at him, how he was exploiting people and being greedy for having such high (which in fact were normal) prices. After he shut down and fired the well paid employees, guess what happened? The jews increased the price and made the product worse while keeping the employees on a slave wage.
Competition for the sake of competition is parasitism. It's inefficient, harmful and destroys the economy.

" post_id=364981 time=1654882021 user_id=346]
Is the price unique to each customer? No. (That would be very impractical.) Therefore the price is a reflection of what they are willing to pay, (an average as a group). Even if you start high and go low, at any given time, the price still reflects groups of customers, not individually. So, the money will still not be a reflection of good deeds, which is the problem with your idea.

We certainly have the technology to implement individual pricing solutions. Many internet subscription companies do it already by offering a lower price to poorer countries. We can certainly create some tech to allow for individuals to haggle over every single item in the grocery store.

" post_id=364981 time=1654882021 user_id=346]Step 1. I use my savings to buy a $100K house, which I rent out for $274 per month.
Step 2. After 1 year (neglecting expenses), I use the the earnings to buy another $100K house, which I also rent. Now I'm making $548 per month, and I can buy two houses the next year. This is exponential. (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024)

I see your concern. It's outside the scope of my idea and I'm sure there can be many solutions to that. One solution that I'd implement is to forbid people from selling their last house/apartment unless they are going to buy another in the same transaction. It will certainly inconvenience many people, just as the banning of slavery inconvenienced many people. Just as it's forbidden by law to put your body up as collateral for a debt (slavery), it should be forbidden to put your residence (unless you have another) as collateral or to sell it.
That's my idea on how to solve that issue. You are most welcome to formulate and share your own.