I'm completely fine with this, but if this becomes the norm it also means that farmers won't be able to take out loans from centralised institutions (also fine by me) because there'll effectively be no hard collateral.
Part of the solution has to be community level saving and lending institutions, which used to be the norm. A bank manager who everyone knows where he lives and drinks is a lot less likely to do something unpopular like evicting a widow, or selling her debt to vulture funds.
The downside of that is that people might have to accept their retirement savings will take a hit if something bad happens and borrowers can't repay.
The main reason savings and loans institutions died is because the feds started using public funds to guarantee loans which matched their requirements. As a result, politicians took control of the risk assessment local bankers used to be experts in and banks kept merging and growing larger to become more efficient at interfacing with washington.
That's also the core of what drove the 2007 financial crash: Clinton lowered the standards and guaranteed a load of cheap loans which could never be repaid. Then Bush was landed with the baby when they started failing.
So long as the feds are free to use public funds in that manner centralised retail banks will always be cheaper than local ones. That said, if small communities got educated on the subject they might see the value in having a backstop against jewish takeovers.
The entire mortgage system is crony capitalism designed to send wealth upward to giant banks, on the backs of working people that need a place to live. The idea of democratizing lending is just ideological cover. And then people wonder why the 1% has all the wealth and blame free markets and beg for even more government intervention.
Fancy medicines don't get researched if there's no ability to patent them (which is government intervention). Without this intervention, there's little incentive to research new medicine. However, this also creates a perverse incentive to find treatments instead of cures and only research novel medicines and never old ones. A more socialist/authoritarian state could fund this research and eliminate or reduce the perverse incentives. We still owe a lot of modern medical knowledge to Nazi Germany.
An absolute free market? All you'd get is snake oil.
The government tracking and guaranteeing your land rights is intervention as well. If the government intervened to make land ownership affordable then that would be properly motivated and might work. That which the US government does with the FHA and the GSEs is not properly motivated. The intention there is, like I say, to guaranty a flow of wealth upward to big banks and to prop up land prices. The government does this for its own reasons. My take on it is the mortgage keeps the man under control. Some sort of social stability thing and also a pension boost for old people when they downsize.
This government intervention is not an honest attempt at affordable housing.
Governments can't really make things affordable. The most they can do is criminalise expensive options, but that doesn't create cheap options (at least not in the long term). They can also take money from you to subsidise things, but that still makes them expensive, you just have less of a choice about how much of your money goes towards them.
Sure, but they can definitely make things expensive. That's what seems to be going on with housing. People are trying to acquire the most modest amounts of property -- a place to put their stuff; not even productive land. And they can't afford to do so without borrowing for 30 years. Housing costs become people's single largest expense. That seems off to me. It wasn't always the case. The government seems to relish it. And the system ultimately concentrates the wealth up top, as we see.
That's definitely true. Over here the government drove all the cheap accommodation off the market and made it impossible to build more. Currently I rent the dirt cheapest place I can get, it's €550 a month and that's several hundred euros below market value. Even going back ten years you could find places for a fraction of that.
Unfortunately they've successfully sold the story that the high prices are being caused by "greedy landlords" and can be solved with more laws. Most people haven't even the most basic notion of economics.
Fancy medicines don't get researched if there's no ability to patent them
Patents aren't a market structure, they're state intervention.
An absolute free market? All you'd get is snake oil.
That's all we currently get.
Government is necessary for advanced medicine.
Government hinders advanced medicine. With government controlling medical licencing you have to pay through the nose to get whatever the jews want you to have.
Patents aren't a market structure, they're state intervention.
Yes, I stated this.
Government hinders advanced medicine.
It can enable or it can hinder. Government is a tool and it can be used well or it can be used poorly. Without government, there's no incentive to spend a lot of money researching something that someone else could copy for 0.01% of the cost once they know what works.
there's no incentive to spend a lot of money researching something that someone else could copy for 0.01% of the cost once they know what works.
That's definitely not true. Filesharing has effectively rendered copyright obsolete, and yet media production is bigger than ever. Why? People are prepared to pay innovators to keep innovating. Crowdsourcing is another example, people happily pay money for media and inventions they could consume for free, but they want to help support for it's own merits.
There's also such a thing as first mover advantage and originality perceived as equalling quality. There's plenty of companies producing george foreman grills for pennies now, but people still pay a premium for the original because they assume it'll be better.
If you needed some new asthma medication for your kid, would you prefer to get the stuff from the guy who developed it and proved it works, or some mystery liquid from an online seller based in India?
Honestly I can't think of a single government regulatory regime that hasn't been thoroughly corrupted. We won't get better medicines that way, we'll get whatever campaign donors want us to have at the prices they think they can extract from us.
File sharing sucks right now. It's an option, but it's a big hassle finding sites with file sharing content, torrents for older content with seeds, and there's no guarantee it'll be a quality version or even what it says on the tin. A lot of morons hop into it and get viruses this way. Even streaming sites are a viral vector for the unaware.
This is the case because content owners use copyright laws to strike most of the good and popular file sharing sites. This very much is a case of government intervention protecting media creation.
For low end consumer goods, there's a LOT of Chinese shit out there. Stuff made to questionable standards (probably includes lead) that, if it doesn't poison you, will break within 2 years. This isn't first mover advantage, but people wanting a reputation. And this is largely the fault of Amazon making everything about price and reviews. It's easy to get 1000+ fake reviews to make a product look good. And from that point these chinese goods can put everything but the most iconic brands out of business.
File sharing sucks right now. It's an option, but it's a big hassle finding sites with file sharing content, torrents for older content with seeds, and there's no guarantee it'll be a quality version or even what it says on the tin. A lot of morons hop into it and get viruses this way. Even streaming sites are a viral vector for the unaware.
It's hit and miss, but I find it's still at least as good as a streaming site or buying physical discs. Usually better.
As for viruses... never gotten one. It's pretty easy to preview the contents of a torrent before downloading.
This is the case because content owners use copyright laws to strike most of the good and popular file sharing sites. This very much is a case of government intervention protecting media creation.
Totally, but it's whackamole. So far they've taken down a lot of sites but failed to seriously prevent filesharing.
For low end consumer goods, there's a LOT of Chinese shit out there. Stuff made to questionable standards (probably includes lead) that, if it doesn't poison you, will break within 2 years.
Caveat emptor. Buying disposible products can be a legitimate decision. For example, I don't want or need underwear that will last me the rest or my life.
This isn't first mover advantage, but people wanting a reputation. And this is largely the fault of Amazon making everything about price and reviews. It's easy to get 1000+ fake reviews to make a product look good.
Right, but who actually reads those? I mostly look up videos and articles about the product if it's expensive, or ask a friend who has one.
And from that point these chinese goods can put everything but the most iconic brands out of business.
Kind of. If a brand has been protected from competition for years (like the US car market up until the 80s) then it's probably vulnerable to being replaced, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Sometimes iconic brands have turned to shit and need to die.
I think mortgages probably would make sense for young couples while they're trying to get established. Like a five year term or something. Even with a community based financial system it would still be a useful way to do things. Lending for a quarter of a century or more is nuts. If they can't pay it off in five years they should be thinking smaller. Another big part of the problem is jews controlling the planning departments, where they can shift things around to stop white developers competeing with the tribe.
The downside of that is that people might have to accept their retirement savings will take a hit if something bad happens and borrowers can't repay.
This is actually the biggest fucking problem we have right now if you ask me. Sooooo many old people have all their "wealth" (retirement savings) tied up in predatory jewy schemes and they can't fathom parting ways with any percentage of it. They wouldn't die, but their cherished lifestyle would and heaven forbid that happens, even if it means their kids/grandkids must suffer.
It's one thing to realize everything sucks and the old people just don't get it...it's another thing when you realize they do get it and they're just going along with it because "muh sheckles..."
Good point. I kinda sympathise tbh. It takes a huge act of courage to burn everything and start fresh, especially when you're at the end of your life rather than the beginning. It's much easier to just rationalise and hope things get better.
I sympathize with boomers as well. From they’re POV they participated in a contract and kept their end up and deserve their $$$ and if its not working for millenials or zoomers they should just work harder for jews. They know somethings wrong but they think they can vote their way out of this. Its tough to convince them that we’ve been conquered from within and that their behavior is part of the problem. Its difficult to turn them from some well worn mental pathways through which they perceive the situation, but I really object to the villification of people who worked and raised kids for 50 years and maybe only have 10 left.
We need to end money lending and insurance totally. Contrary to popular belief it doesn’t produce wealth. If everybody has to borrow money to buy land it just drives the price of land up. If everybody is insured against car crashes it drives up the cost of getting your car fixed. Its an addiction of society that decreases efficiency because like taxes, it supports a bunch of useless bureacrats( and we know who they are). Money lending hurts everyone because it fucks with pricing mechanisms.
I do think until we can totally outlaw it we need some financial institutions that we control. But we cant lend money to people who turn around and sell their land to some nigger or immigrant or corporation.
I keep saying their only work product is disinformation. In this case financial disinformation. A “free market” is not flawed if everyone is playing by the same rules. That is not what capitalism is.
Really, when you look at the whole “colonialism” debacle in which Europeans became entangled with non-whites who harm our society, it was fueled by jewish userers who pandered to the worst impulses of the degenerate aristocracy with easy money fueled by ‘vice’ commodities: coffee, tea, slavery, tobbacco, opium, rum. Holland, England, Spain, Portugal, France —all competing agaist each other to be the BMOC and all in bed with the jew. Just like todays white elites.
It's still a production economy and there was always finance involved. What's changed is that the jews have successfully coopted the government to enforce little private monopolies in so many market sectors (especially finance). So the producers always have to fork over a share to some jew.
We need to end money lending and insurance totally. Contrary to popular belief it doesn’t produce wealth. If everybody has to borrow money to buy land it just drives the price of land up.
It's not about producing wealth, it's about making sure that resources end up in the hands of those most capable of using them, while still rewarding those who worked for them. If I have a killer idea for a business and the skills to pull it off, it makes a lot more sense for me to have access to the tools I need to make it happen ASAP rather than having to save up for ~10 years by which time the opportunity may have passed.
I get the desire to just have everyone be 100% self sufficient but it's not a very efficient way to do things.
If everybody is insured against car crashes it drives up the cost of getting your car fixed.
Well, insurance is about risk management. Unfortunately cars can do a lot of damage if something goes wrong, it's impractical to expect individuals to foot that bill alone in the rare instances where it happens. Although I would like to see a situation where insurance is based on ability and demographic membership. So if you're part of a group that routinely drives unsafely, you have to pay more, but you can also reduce your risk by taking driving courses and having speed limiters on your car and such.
Same for health, young men shouldn't have to pay the same premiums as women, and there should be bonuses for staying fit and getting regular checkups.
I do think until we can totally outlaw it we need some financial institutions that we control. But we cant lend money to people who turn around and sell their land to some nigger or immigrant or corporation.
As I mentioned in another comment credit unions might be a workable already existing legal structure to achieve this. They're essentially community banks, although it might be difficult to work around equality laws requiring you to take all comers.
Fraternal societies used to manage health/income/life insurance but they got nerfed to make way for the new deal. Not sure what their legal status is now.
It's not about producing wealth, it's about making sure that resources end up in the hands of those most capable of using them
Why do you want resources in the hands of those most capable of using them? Because they produce the most wealth. Wealth can be a bit tricky to define but lets say its a measure of goods and services that are objectively valuable or valuable to a large proportion of the population.
while still rewarding those who worked for them
I suppose you’re thinking of low skill workers here.
If I have a killer idea for a business and the skills to pull it off, it makes a lot more sense for me to have access to the tools I need to make it happen ASAP rather than having to save up for ~10 years by which time the opportunity may have passed.
This is what business partners are for. If you need to make “it” happen ASAP, its because it fills a critical need and there should be lots of willing business partners. But more likely is that an entrepreneur wants to get rich quick in a hypercompetitive environment. But most of the growth in this hypercompetitive environment is bad growth. This hypercapitalist environment is not resulting in a good market outcome for the vast majority of the society. We need to focus on high quality growth that improves the efficiency of the whole society.
We focus on rapid time to market and end up with a bunch of shit companies that are a flash in the pan. Live fast die young is bad economic strategy.
I get the desire to just have everyone be 100% self sufficient but it's not a very efficient way to do things.
No thats not what I mean. But we might have to ban companies over a certain size. 5000 years ago everybody made their own clay pots. Then they decided one guy would only make clay pots and trade them for food or other goods: improved efficiency. Then clay pot makers formed companies in which 50 or 100 potters would work together to improve efficiency further. And then 1000. At some point the growth of a company has dimishing returns in efficiency and then it begins to hurt efficiency. A clay pot monopoly forms and demands extortion prices for pots. And then you are at square one making your own fucking pots. Thats where we are now. It is incredibly important to figure out where that sweet spot is. Amazon is too big.
Well, insurance is about risk management. Unfortunately cars can do a lot of damage if something goes wrong, it's impractical to expect individuals to foot that bill alone in the rare instances where it happens.
Wrong. We are all paying for each other’s car damage bills plus the salaries of 5 million people employed by the insurance industry. Except some of us are having way more accidents than others. If the burden is on the individual to save money for a rainy day emergency, then more careful and financially conserving people are rewarded. If the majority of people can’t pay for repair on their car for the typical accident, mechanics will lower their prices. We don’t need 5 million insurance agents. They could be car mechanics instead. Insurance industry just obfuscates risk information. If people who tend to crash cars and dont save money cant pay for a new car, thats a good thing.
Same for health, young men shouldn't have to pay the same premiums as women, and there should be bonuses for staying fit and getting regular checkups.
This is all a health shell game. Health insurance is a totally unnecessary bureacratic layer that grossly increases health cost and adds no value. It just destroys information. People need to allocate their own money toward health care. Savings will work once we eliminate inflation rape. Health care is not that expensive. It does not cost $200 for your doctor to look at you for 12 minutes. You are paying for lawsuits and insurance and medical school loans and government regulation. Its totally inefficient.
As I mentioned in another comment credit unions might be a workable already existing legal structure to achieve this. They're essentially community banks, although it might be difficult to work around equality laws requiring you to take all comers.
Weve gotta figure out how the orthodox jewish sects do it. They buy up entire neighbor hoods and settle their people in them. I don’t know if the members own or rent from some organization owned by the group. Theyve figured out all the angles. I mean, we need to help our people by land, houses to raise kids in, and help building small businesses. I know its icky to model ourselves on them but there are some lessons to be learned.
Why do you want resources in the hands of those most capable of using them? Because they produce the most wealth. Wealth can be a bit tricky to define but lets say its a measure of goods and services that are objectively valuable or valuable to a large proportion of the population.
Ok, but the financial system itself shouldn't be expected to produce wealth, just facilitate those who do. Similar to how my brain doesn't produce strength but it tells my muscles how to.
I suppose you’re thinking of low skill workers here.
Well, anyone who worked to acquire capital goods should be compensated if someone else is given them.
This is what business partners are for. If you need to make “it” happen ASAP, its because it fills a critical need and there should be lots of willing business partners. But more likely is that an entrepreneur wants to get rich quick in a hypercompetitive environment. But most of the growth in this hypercompetitive environment is bad growth. This hypercapitalist environment is not resulting in a good market outcome for the vast majority of the society. We need to focus on high quality growth that improves the efficiency of the whole society.
We focus on rapid time to market and end up with a bunch of shit companies that are a flash in the pan. Live fast die young is bad economic strategy.
Currently, yes, the VP sector is dysfunctional and run by parasites with no real connection the the organisations they fund or the investors they draw money from.
That doesn't mean it has to be that way though, or that the existence of investment is the problem
No thats not what I mean. But we might have to ban companies over a certain size. 5000 years ago everybody made their own clay pots. Then they decided one guy would only make clay pots and trade them for food or other goods: improved efficiency. Then clay pot makers formed companies in which 50 or 100 potters would work together to improve efficiency further. And then 1000. At some point the growth of a company has dimishing returns in efficiency and then it begins to hurt efficiency. A clay pot monopoly forms and demands extortion prices for pots. And then you are at square one making your own fucking pots. Thats where we are now. It is incredibly important to figure out where that sweet spot is. Amazon is too big.
If there's a "we" banning companies above a certain size, that implies the existence of a megacompany doing the banning. That organisation will attract all the wrong people who will create all the same problems.
Fortunately size limitation is not a problem in a darwinian economic environment. Growing too big imposes significant efficiency and maneuvrability costs. Currently those costs are compensated for by being more efficient at interfacing with the state. Take state intervention out of the picture and all those megacorps will bleed out from a thousand cuts.
Wrong. We are all paying for each other’s car damage bills plus the salaries of 5 million people employed by the insurance industry. Except some of us are having way more accidents than others. If the burden is on the individual to save money for a rainy day emergency, then more careful and financially conserving people are rewarded. If the majority of people can’t pay for repair on their car for the typical accident, mechanics will lower their prices. We don’t need 5 million insurance agents. They could be car mechanics instead. Insurance industry just obfuscates risk information. If people who tend to crash cars and dont save money cant pay for a new car, thats a good thing.
Yes, because the insurance industry are effectively administrators of government programs, not private contractors.
This is all a health shell game. Health insurance is a totally unnecessary bureacratic layer that grossly increases health cost and adds no value. It just destroys information. People need to allocate their own money toward health care. Savings will work once we eliminate inflation rape. Health care is not that expensive. It does not cost $200 for your doctor to look at you for 12 minutes. You are paying for lawsuits and insurance and medical school loans and government regulation. Its totally inefficient.
Even back before all that bureaucratic inflation happened it still made sense for fraternal societies to contract medical care in bulk. The other issue is that even if healthcare did get more efficient with less intervention (and I agree it would), there's still no limit to how much you can spend trying to cure someone. Some people will always prefer to spend more than others. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to insure for those costs.
Weve gotta figure out how the orthodox jewish sects do it. They buy up entire neighbor hoods and settle their people in them. I don’t know if the members own or rent from some organization owned by the group. Theyve figured out all the angles. I mean, we need to help our people by land, houses to raise kids in, and help building small businesses. I know its icky to model ourselves on them but there are some lessons to be learned.
I've PM'd you about this before :P
But yes, we need white self-help organisations. Regaining control of our education and media is the first step. Those who tell the stories rule society.
I agree with you. I've meaning to pose to voat or poal the question: What is usury, and how can we live without it? I understand the perverse incentive that interest charging creates. But getting rid of it does beg the question of how capital should be financed. Business owners need startup funds, after all. I find Islamic bonds to be an interesting idea. They structure investments without charging other Muslims interest, and the whole system is jew-free (supposedly).
Good quesition. Some people might define usury as charging over a certain percent of interest.
You could have some limited usury where you have a limit to the percent of the investment you could finance, like 50% down on a house, at a limited interest percentage like 3% annual (not includinng inflation) over a shorter term like 5 or 10 years, not 30. This would mitigate the problems of lending. Maybe its a step toward phasing it out totally.
I've been through this debate several times, usually they can't define usury or define it so broadly that virtually all trade would be prohibited.
One guy did define it more specifically and we eventually arrived at a definition where usury is when a government intervenes to protect profits or shield from losses. That's quite far from the popular understanding of the word though which is "too much" interest.
I find Islamic bonds to be an interesting idea. They structure investments without charging other Muslims interest, and the whole system is jew-free (supposedly).
As far as I can tell they work via profit sharing, which is just a slightly more chaotic version of interest with a different name.
If I rented you a delivery van and you used it to make enormous profits I don't see why I should deserve huge repayments. Equally if you didn't manage to make any money I don't see why I should get nothing. You making money or not isn't my responsibility, providing the van is.
Same goes for finance, it's just an asset being loaned, no different from a vehicle or a tool. The cost of borrowing it should reflect it's market value and the time it's being borrowed for, not how well or poorly I manage to use it.
Perhaps a key difference between usury and lending is that there is a fixed period after which the loan will be repaid. Under "capitalism", the government borrows unlimited amounts while running a deficit -- there is no plan for repaying the debt. Thus the taxpayer is a victim of usury. Starting at the very top, you have a monetary system based on usury.
Another system enabled only by government is fractional-reserve banking. Banks are permitted to loan out money they don't have -- but only to the point permitted by government. If you substitute a finite and scarce resource for money, this isn't possible. One might look at this as an advantage -- economists seem to. However, my issue is where this system concentrates the wealth. It seems quite clearly to lead to all the wealth in the hands of the most privileged lenders, at the end of the day.
That is not a good example at all and I'll tell you why.
You disagree with communism because it takes from the productive and empowers the state while no one may own anything of real value. ie: land
So in order to avoid communism we use a form of free market economics and this provides for contracts to be negotiated and made.
This man, who widowed his wife, negotiated a contract with someone without making allowances for other problems. Or maybe he couldn't? So he gambled and apparently lost.
Just like this mortgage insurance company gambled when they guaranteed the debt by securing the property.
It's true, the mortgage company could just walk away but so could the farmer and the worst part is that the mortgage company walks away what about the next farmer who needs a loan to get started? Who will loan him that money?
I agree in general, but I do think the social impact of commercial decisions should be taken into account when making them. Like sure, the contract says the lender owns the farm now, but if they chuck out the dead guy's family onto the street it's going to cause more problems in the community than "someone's pension might take a hit."
My preferred solution to this problem is to have all finance organisations be organised at a local level, so that lenders, facilitators and borrowers are all directly connected in the same social framework. In that case it's more likely they'll work to find an alternate solution with minimum social disruption (or even be aware of one to begin with) than to just take the easiest option and fuck the consequences because you live on the other side of the country.
We need to turn our neighbors into neighborhoods again, and, in my mind, that requires women using their natural mothering instincts to, yeah, be mothers to their own children, but also, to use the instincts to, in a healthy way, mother our neighborhoods.
Not only is that not happening, but worse, those natural motherhood instincts have been corrupted to be used against us, aka cultural Marxism.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 8 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 09:06:47 ago (+9/-1)*
Part of the solution has to be community level saving and lending institutions, which used to be the norm. A bank manager who everyone knows where he lives and drinks is a lot less likely to do something unpopular like evicting a widow, or selling her debt to vulture funds.
The downside of that is that people might have to accept their retirement savings will take a hit if something bad happens and borrowers can't repay.
[ + ] AnonymousLex
[ - ] AnonymousLex 3 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 09:19:45 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 14:15:59 ago (+0/-0)
The main reason savings and loans institutions died is because the feds started using public funds to guarantee loans which matched their requirements. As a result, politicians took control of the risk assessment local bankers used to be experts in and banks kept merging and growing larger to become more efficient at interfacing with washington.
That's also the core of what drove the 2007 financial crash: Clinton lowered the standards and guaranteed a load of cheap loans which could never be repaid. Then Bush was landed with the baby when they started failing.
So long as the feds are free to use public funds in that manner centralised retail banks will always be cheaper than local ones. That said, if small communities got educated on the subject they might see the value in having a backstop against jewish takeovers.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 15:51:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Kung_Flu
[ - ] Kung_Flu 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 20:57:58 ago (+1/-0)
Fancy medicines don't get researched if there's no ability to patent them (which is government intervention). Without this intervention, there's little incentive to research new medicine. However, this also creates a perverse incentive to find treatments instead of cures and only research novel medicines and never old ones. A more socialist/authoritarian state could fund this research and eliminate or reduce the perverse incentives. We still owe a lot of modern medical knowledge to Nazi Germany.
An absolute free market? All you'd get is snake oil.
Government is necessary for advanced medicine.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 2 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 21:55:19 ago (+2/-0)
This government intervention is not an honest attempt at affordable housing.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:23:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:45:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 17:53:17 ago (+0/-0)
Unfortunately they've successfully sold the story that the high prices are being caused by "greedy landlords" and can be solved with more laws. Most people haven't even the most basic notion of economics.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 14:55:47 ago (+0/-0)
Patents aren't a market structure, they're state intervention.
That's all we currently get.
Government hinders advanced medicine. With government controlling medical licencing you have to pay through the nose to get whatever the jews want you to have.
[ + ] Kung_Flu
[ - ] Kung_Flu 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 31, 2021 16:51:42 ago (+0/-0)
Yes, I stated this.
It can enable or it can hinder. Government is a tool and it can be used well or it can be used poorly. Without government, there's no incentive to spend a lot of money researching something that someone else could copy for 0.01% of the cost once they know what works.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 31, 2021 18:59:13 ago (+0/-0)
That's definitely not true. Filesharing has effectively rendered copyright obsolete, and yet media production is bigger than ever. Why? People are prepared to pay innovators to keep innovating. Crowdsourcing is another example, people happily pay money for media and inventions they could consume for free, but they want to help support for it's own merits.
There's also such a thing as first mover advantage and originality perceived as equalling quality. There's plenty of companies producing george foreman grills for pennies now, but people still pay a premium for the original because they assume it'll be better.
If you needed some new asthma medication for your kid, would you prefer to get the stuff from the guy who developed it and proved it works, or some mystery liquid from an online seller based in India?
Honestly I can't think of a single government regulatory regime that hasn't been thoroughly corrupted. We won't get better medicines that way, we'll get whatever campaign donors want us to have at the prices they think they can extract from us.
[ + ] Kung_Flu
[ - ] Kung_Flu 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 11, 2022 23:34:47 ago (+0/-0)
This is the case because content owners use copyright laws to strike most of the good and popular file sharing sites. This very much is a case of government intervention protecting media creation.
For low end consumer goods, there's a LOT of Chinese shit out there. Stuff made to questionable standards (probably includes lead) that, if it doesn't poison you, will break within 2 years. This isn't first mover advantage, but people wanting a reputation. And this is largely the fault of Amazon making everything about price and reviews. It's easy to get 1000+ fake reviews to make a product look good. And from that point these chinese goods can put everything but the most iconic brands out of business.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 12, 2022 01:29:35 ago (+0/-0)
It's hit and miss, but I find it's still at least as good as a streaming site or buying physical discs. Usually better.
As for viruses... never gotten one. It's pretty easy to preview the contents of a torrent before downloading.
Totally, but it's whackamole. So far they've taken down a lot of sites but failed to seriously prevent filesharing.
Caveat emptor. Buying disposible products can be a legitimate decision. For example, I don't want or need underwear that will last me the rest or my life.
Right, but who actually reads those? I mostly look up videos and articles about the product if it's expensive, or ask a friend who has one.
Kind of. If a brand has been protected from competition for years (like the US car market up until the 80s) then it's probably vulnerable to being replaced, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Sometimes iconic brands have turned to shit and need to die.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 18:08:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 10:15:19 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 14:25:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity 3 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 11:29:02 ago (+3/-0)
This is actually the biggest fucking problem we have right now if you ask me. Sooooo many old people have all their "wealth" (retirement savings) tied up in predatory jewy schemes and they can't fathom parting ways with any percentage of it. They wouldn't die, but their cherished lifestyle would and heaven forbid that happens, even if it means their kids/grandkids must suffer.
It's one thing to realize everything sucks and the old people just don't get it...it's another thing when you realize they do get it and they're just going along with it because "muh sheckles..."
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 14:32:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 14:42:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 09:40:01 ago (+1/-0)
I do think until we can totally outlaw it we need some financial institutions that we control. But we cant lend money to people who turn around and sell their land to some nigger or immigrant or corporation.
[ + ] FalseRealityCheck
[ - ] FalseRealityCheck 4 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 09:58:46 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 10:30:41 ago (+1/-0)
Really, when you look at the whole “colonialism” debacle in which Europeans became entangled with non-whites who harm our society, it was fueled by jewish userers who pandered to the worst impulses of the degenerate aristocracy with easy money fueled by ‘vice’ commodities: coffee, tea, slavery, tobbacco, opium, rum. Holland, England, Spain, Portugal, France —all competing agaist each other to be the BMOC and all in bed with the jew. Just like todays white elites.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 15:12:59 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 14:24:03 ago (+1/-0)
It's not about producing wealth, it's about making sure that resources end up in the hands of those most capable of using them, while still rewarding those who worked for them. If I have a killer idea for a business and the skills to pull it off, it makes a lot more sense for me to have access to the tools I need to make it happen ASAP rather than having to save up for ~10 years by which time the opportunity may have passed.
I get the desire to just have everyone be 100% self sufficient but it's not a very efficient way to do things.
Well, insurance is about risk management. Unfortunately cars can do a lot of damage if something goes wrong, it's impractical to expect individuals to foot that bill alone in the rare instances where it happens. Although I would like to see a situation where insurance is based on ability and demographic membership. So if you're part of a group that routinely drives unsafely, you have to pay more, but you can also reduce your risk by taking driving courses and having speed limiters on your car and such.
Same for health, young men shouldn't have to pay the same premiums as women, and there should be bonuses for staying fit and getting regular checkups.
As I mentioned in another comment credit unions might be a workable already existing legal structure to achieve this. They're essentially community banks, although it might be difficult to work around equality laws requiring you to take all comers.
Fraternal societies used to manage health/income/life insurance but they got nerfed to make way for the new deal. Not sure what their legal status is now.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 17:44:33 ago (+0/-0)
Why do you want resources in the hands of those most capable of using them? Because they produce the most wealth. Wealth can be a bit tricky to define but lets say its a measure of goods and services that are objectively valuable or valuable to a large proportion of the population.
I suppose you’re thinking of low skill workers here.
This is what business partners are for. If you need to make “it” happen ASAP, its because it fills a critical need and there should be lots of willing business partners. But more likely is that an entrepreneur wants to get rich quick in a hypercompetitive environment. But most of the growth in this hypercompetitive environment is bad growth. This hypercapitalist environment is not resulting in a good market outcome for the vast majority of the society. We need to focus on high quality growth that improves the efficiency of the whole society.
We focus on rapid time to market and end up with a bunch of shit companies that are a flash in the pan. Live fast die young is bad economic strategy.
No thats not what I mean. But we might have to ban companies over a certain size. 5000 years ago everybody made their own clay pots. Then they decided one guy would only make clay pots and trade them for food or other goods: improved efficiency. Then clay pot makers formed companies in which 50 or 100 potters would work together to improve efficiency further. And then 1000. At some point the growth of a company has dimishing returns in efficiency and then it begins to hurt efficiency. A clay pot monopoly forms and demands extortion prices for pots. And then you are at square one making your own fucking pots. Thats where we are now. It is incredibly important to figure out where that sweet spot is. Amazon is too big.
Wrong. We are all paying for each other’s car damage bills plus the salaries of 5 million people employed by the insurance industry. Except some of us are having way more accidents than others. If the burden is on the individual to save money for a rainy day emergency, then more careful and financially conserving people are rewarded. If the majority of people can’t pay for repair on their car for the typical accident, mechanics will lower their prices. We don’t need 5 million insurance agents. They could be car mechanics instead. Insurance industry just obfuscates risk information. If people who tend to crash cars and dont save money cant pay for a new car, thats a good thing.
This is all a health shell game. Health insurance is a totally unnecessary bureacratic layer that grossly increases health cost and adds no value. It just destroys information. People need to allocate their own money toward health care. Savings will work once we eliminate inflation rape. Health care is not that expensive. It does not cost $200 for your doctor to look at you for 12 minutes. You are paying for lawsuits and insurance and medical school loans and government regulation. Its totally inefficient.
Weve gotta figure out how the orthodox jewish sects do it. They buy up entire neighbor hoods and settle their people in them. I don’t know if the members own or rent from some organization owned by the group. Theyve figured out all the angles. I mean, we need to help our people by land, houses to raise kids in, and help building small businesses. I know its icky to model ourselves on them but there are some lessons to be learned.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 18:18:27 ago (+1/-0)
Ok, but the financial system itself shouldn't be expected to produce wealth, just facilitate those who do. Similar to how my brain doesn't produce strength but it tells my muscles how to.
Well, anyone who worked to acquire capital goods should be compensated if someone else is given them.
Currently, yes, the VP sector is dysfunctional and run by parasites with no real connection the the organisations they fund or the investors they draw money from.
That doesn't mean it has to be that way though, or that the existence of investment is the problem
If there's a "we" banning companies above a certain size, that implies the existence of a megacompany doing the banning. That organisation will attract all the wrong people who will create all the same problems.
Fortunately size limitation is not a problem in a darwinian economic environment. Growing too big imposes significant efficiency and maneuvrability costs. Currently those costs are compensated for by being more efficient at interfacing with the state. Take state intervention out of the picture and all those megacorps will bleed out from a thousand cuts.
Yes, because the insurance industry are effectively administrators of government programs, not private contractors.
Even back before all that bureaucratic inflation happened it still made sense for fraternal societies to contract medical care in bulk. The other issue is that even if healthcare did get more efficient with less intervention (and I agree it would), there's still no limit to how much you can spend trying to cure someone. Some people will always prefer to spend more than others. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to insure for those costs.
I've PM'd you about this before :P
But yes, we need white self-help organisations. Regaining control of our education and media is the first step. Those who tell the stories rule society.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 21:58:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:07:38 ago (+0/-0)
You could have some limited usury where you have a limit to the percent of the investment you could finance, like 50% down on a house, at a limited interest percentage like 3% annual (not includinng inflation) over a shorter term like 5 or 10 years, not 30. This would mitigate the problems of lending. Maybe its a step toward phasing it out totally.
I will have to check this out.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:15:03 ago (+0/-0)
I've been through this debate several times, usually they can't define usury or define it so broadly that virtually all trade would be prohibited.
One guy did define it more specifically and we eventually arrived at a definition where usury is when a government intervenes to protect profits or shield from losses. That's quite far from the popular understanding of the word though which is "too much" interest.
As far as I can tell they work via profit sharing, which is just a slightly more chaotic version of interest with a different name.
If I rented you a delivery van and you used it to make enormous profits I don't see why I should deserve huge repayments. Equally if you didn't manage to make any money I don't see why I should get nothing. You making money or not isn't my responsibility, providing the van is.
Same goes for finance, it's just an asset being loaned, no different from a vehicle or a tool. The cost of borrowing it should reflect it's market value and the time it's being borrowed for, not how well or poorly I manage to use it.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:41:26 ago (+0/-0)
Another system enabled only by government is fractional-reserve banking. Banks are permitted to loan out money they don't have -- but only to the point permitted by government. If you substitute a finite and scarce resource for money, this isn't possible. One might look at this as an advantage -- economists seem to. However, my issue is where this system concentrates the wealth. It seems quite clearly to lead to all the wealth in the hands of the most privileged lenders, at the end of the day.
[ + ] 2017Fallout
[ - ] 2017Fallout 4 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 08:43:32 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] fightknightHERO
[ - ] fightknightHERO [op] 6 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 08:45:14 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 2 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 10:52:50 ago (+2/-0)
You disagree with communism because it takes from the productive and empowers the state while no one may own anything of real value. ie: land
So in order to avoid communism we use a form of free market economics and this provides for contracts to be negotiated and made.
This man, who widowed his wife, negotiated a contract with someone without making allowances for other problems. Or maybe he couldn't? So he gambled and apparently lost.
Just like this mortgage insurance company gambled when they guaranteed the debt by securing the property.
It's true, the mortgage company could just walk away but so could the farmer and the worst part is that the mortgage company walks away what about the next farmer who needs a loan to get started? Who will loan him that money?
You should pay your debts when you've agreed to.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:20:56 ago (+0/-0)
My preferred solution to this problem is to have all finance organisations be organised at a local level, so that lenders, facilitators and borrowers are all directly connected in the same social framework. In that case it's more likely they'll work to find an alternate solution with minimum social disruption (or even be aware of one to begin with) than to just take the easiest option and fuck the consequences because you live on the other side of the country.
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 18:50:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 11:37:53 ago (+0/-0)
Not only is that not happening, but worse, those natural motherhood instincts have been corrupted to be used against us, aka cultural Marxism.
[ + ] fightknightHERO
[ - ] fightknightHERO [op] 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 29, 2021 11:43:28 ago (+1/-0)
and school niglets are stealing my oranges
trust me, i'm really fucking longing for the era where we all knew each other and all of the same race