Stupid World

[mashman]

Which is the point I am making, the lazy consume, but produce nothing. Of course it is not the whole, but the story it tells is that they are the members most suited for removal as they do not produce (same as daddy trust fund/inheritance lazy rich fucks). And by this I'm not talking about culling them, not all problems should be solved by such extremism mashy.
I think you need to focus less on the money, and more on the resource and production contributions of people. Just because the lazy keep money velocity up, does not mean they provide any meaningful service.

ROI is not affected by whether the money is given freely or not; money is given (wealth redistributed) to the lazy, and money is returned when they spend it, they do not return more than they are given, therefor the ROI is always a loss, it is simple maths.

So what's your definition of removal if not cull? You said "Perhaps just burn the bennies instead". Maybe I got you wrong and you actually meant burn them. Perhaps I should have started pointing the extremist finger.

I think I should focus on that which I choose i.e. removing money so that the lack of activity of the lazy doesn't impact on our services and day to day life. Such an approach also takes production contributions into account. Money can't accomplish that, in fact it exacerbates it without question. So I reckon my focus is spot on ta muchly. Contributing to the velocity of money isn't a meaningful service? If you say so.

There is no ROI, as in it is not a real thing as the money is not invested, it is a contribution given knowingly without return. So there is no loss. It's like saying that fractional reserve banking, in theory, is a zero sum game and that the associated debt can always be repaid. It ignores any shred of real world application.

[Akzle]

. It's like saying that fractional reserve banking, in theory, is a zero sum game and that the associated debt can always be repaid. It ignores any shred of real world application.

which brings us roundly back to the point of the thing.
now bog, since yafm can't explain this shit, maybe you could have a bash.. the whole "world owes three times more than there is" thing... hm?

[TheDemonLord]

I think I should focus on that which I choose i.e. removing money so that the lack of activity of the lazy doesn't impact on our services and day to day life.

Lol.

The only way that the Lazy won't impact Services and day-to-day life is if they are excluded from them (Al a Ocean1). Services take time, skills and resources (even if you remove the Monetary restraint, which as I've pointed out previously is merely a medium of exchange).

If you do not contribute anything in the way time, skills or resources then you are a Net drain. Period.

Such an approach also takes production contributions into account. Money can't accomplish that, in fact it exacerbates it without question. So I reckon my focus is spot on ta muchly.

Actually, it's the other way around, Money is an attempt to solve the problem - by giving us a commonly accepted and understood unit of value that is easily divisible.

How many Sheep is a Cow worth? That's a nearly impossible question to answer, however if everyone agrees that a Cow is worth $500 and a Sheep is worth $300 - then it makes comparing dissimilar items easier.

There is no ROI, as in it is not a real thing as the money is not invested, it is a contribution given knowingly without return. So there is no loss.

it is a contribution given knowingly without return. So there is no loss.

Given, without return.

Sounds almost like the definition of a Loss to me....

It's like saying that fractional reserve banking, in theory, is a zero sum game and that the associated debt can always be repaid. It ignores any shred of real world application.

Well, the Debt can always be repaid - the bit that you are oh so carefully ignoring is that it is Human Nature to want more and so people are always borrowing.

But you know - Details and all that....

[TheDemonLord]

which brings us roundly back to the point of the thing.
now bog, since yafm can't explain this shit, maybe you could have a bash.. the whole "world owes three times more than there is" thing... hm?

Easy:

There is untapped, un-calculated Resource (Human, Mineral and Time) that is ignored in that equation. Also on that note - if you own a Billion Dollar beach front property and there is a Tsunami and it is raised to the ground - is the "There is" lost?

You and I both know that in a closed system, it's not lost, it's just been transformed from elegant and desirable structures down to it's base minerals, that will be deposited, ready to be re-used again.

But in the Financial equation, that is a Billion dollars worth of debt with no 'There is' attached to it anymore.

[bogan]

So what's your definition of removal if not cull? You said "Perhaps just burn the bennies instead". Maybe I got you wrong and you actually meant burn them. Perhaps I should have started pointing the extremist finger.

I think I should focus on that which I choose i.e. removing money so that the lack of activity of the lazy doesn't impact on our services and day to day life. Such an approach also takes production contributions into account. Money can't accomplish that, in fact it exacerbates it without question. So I reckon my focus is spot on ta muchly. Contributing to the velocity of money isn't a meaningful service? If you say so.

There is no ROI, as in it is not a real thing as the money is not invested, it is a contribution given knowingly without return. So there is no loss. It's like saying that fractional reserve banking, in theory, is a zero sum game and that the associated debt can always be repaid. It ignores any shred of real world application.

I've not bothered going into detail, it is irrelevant as we are discussing their current state, rest assured though, they would not be culled.

Yet to accomplish that, you would need to focus on increasing understanding, starting with your own...

I disagree, in the same way the country can invest in healthcare, roading, etc, it invests in the lazy. Whether you agree with the term used, the fact remains that the money given to the poor, is never fully returned by your definition of their consumerism being a contribution, so there is always a loss.

[bogan]

which brings us roundly back to the point of the thing.
now bog, since yafm can't explain this shit, maybe you could have a bash.. the whole "world owes three times more than there is" thing... hm?

Sounds like bullshit to me. Three times more of what?

Easy:

There is untapped, un-calculated Resource (Human, Mineral and Time) that is ignored in that equation. Also on that note - if you own a Billion Dollar beach front property and there is a Tsunami and it is raised to the ground - is the "There is" lost?

You and I both know that in a closed system, it's not lost, it's just been transformed from elegant and desirable structures down to it's base minerals, that will be deposited, ready to be re-used again.

But in the Financial equation, that is a Billion dollars worth of debt with no 'There is' attached to it anymore.

Simpler than that, banks lend some company's some shit, some companys lend that out to some blokes, who lend it to some other blokes. Boom, money loaned is now 3x more than there is of it.

[Akzle]

Sounds like bullshit to me.

well, i thought so too.

Simpler than that, banks lend some company's some shit, some companys lend that out to some blokes, who lend it to some other blokes. Boom, money loaned is now 3x more than there is of it.

... banks... lending... money!
funny guy.

aww pet. you gots some lerning due.

[mashman]

Yet to accomplish that, you would need to focus on increasing understanding, starting with your own...

I disagree, in the same way the country can invest in healthcare, roading, etc, it invests in the lazy. Whether you agree with the term used, the fact remains that the money given to the poor, is never fully returned by your definition of their consumerism being a contribution, so there is always a loss.

Ok.

[oldrider]

Nicholas II, the last tsar, deposed and hurriedly murdered alongside his wife and children (pictured) by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

https://www.economist.com/news/books.../longtheyruled "Cui bono"

[Brian d marge]

Nicholas II, the last tsar, deposed and hurriedly murdered alongside his wife and children (pictured) by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

https://www.economist.com/news/books.../longtheyruled "Cui bono"

Well , ya cant annoy the boyz
and ya cant get on with the plan if people get in the way .

just shows ya what and how evil these people are ! ( the ones that shot the Tsar )

[oldrider]

Well then it moved on over to China etc etc - Henry has a good handle on why and what for! https://www.henrymakow.com/

[mashman]

As Cities Grow Worldwide, So Do the Numbers of Homeless... rockstar economy, er, yeah but nah.

[bogan]

As Cities Grow Worldwide, So Do the Numbers of Homeless... rockstar economy, er, yeah but nah.

So many issues like that seem to sidestep the bigger issue, population growth, how long should this go on unchecked? and the other side issue shown in their sob-story, should we be more active in curbing the poor decision making of welfare beneficiaries?

[Akzle]

, should we be more active in curbing the poor decision making of welfare beneficiaries?

whaddaya gonna do? vote for the other ones???

stupid cunt.

[Katman]

stupid cunt.

Quoted for emphasis.