Posts by Jack Smith5

@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

Joshua Moore13 said:Are you kidding me?

You expect people to pull 50-100 hours of "community service" for free *after* they've already put in an eight-hour workday? And you're calling that "freedom of labor"?

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing with me?

one free pass.

In my experience, I haven’t met anyone who actually avoids working—at least, I can't recall ever meeting such a person.
I’ve met plenty of people who hate their current jobs because they’re unfulfilling or suffocating, but make no mistake, those people are eager to work. They just want to do honest work and get paid fairly for it.

There is honestly no legitimate reason why society needs to oppress people or force them into roles they despise. We already have the mechanization and infrastructure sitting right there, ready to handle almost all the dirty work.

Now, I can already hear the skeptics asking: "But what about the essential stuff? Like sanitation, road repairs, maintaining infrastructure, unclogging toilets, hauling hazardous waste, and so on?"

The answer is actually quite simple. When things hit the breaking point, people realize they have to step up. It’s the same logic as shoveling snow; when a blizzard hits, a massive crowd of volunteers suddenly appears. It’s the same with blood donations—nobody enjoys being stuck with a needle or feeling weak afterward, yet people do it voluntarily. Why?

Because they see a genuine need. When people realize there’s nobody else to fix the pothole on their street or repair the main road they drive on every single day, they will absolutely step up and do something about it. And let’s be real, everyone has enough spare time to dedicate at least 50 to 100 hours a month to community service without exception. Let's get to work!

Look, if your city’s sewer system backs up or a water main bursts, you aren't going to sit there complaining—you’ll rent or borrow an excavator, some shovels, lights, and tools, and you'll get to work. Period.

So, the system is inherently sustainable because we have plenty of able-bodied people and the necessary machinery to keep everything running smoothly. The issue is that we currently have people being paid specifically to do these tasks, while the rest of us have been conditioned to accept exploitation. By the time a grueling workday is over, most people are too exhausted to do anything except sit in front of the TV and complain.

The reality should be different: you should come home from work feeling rested and energized, because you spent eight hours doing something that actually fulfills you and makes you feel alive.

Sure, the truth is we might have to give up certain luxuries—like having thirty different brands of toilet paper to choose from at the supermarket—but the trade-off would be immeasurably greater.

The freedom to work on your own terms.

Hyperinflation? Please, I’m talking about pocket change here.
We're looking at maybe 10% of the budget at most, just scraping the surface.

The government—and the European Union too—is constantly subsidizing production through various joint funds they pull money from anyway. Nothing actually changes. A "normal" person isn't going to notice a slight uptick in the money supply, except for those specific people I mentioned who basically act as a black hole for social wealth: the financiers. Large-scale capital might notice a fresh influx of cash, but do you really think 99% of people—regular citizens or small business owners—are going to sense a thing if the state injects new money? They won't notice a damn thing. They don't deal with enough volume to track those kinds of shifts. They’ll just take their slice from the government and pass it along to pay for the services or tech they need.

So, what I’m actually getting at is this: why can't the state just 'tweak' the financial system directly? Why does everything have to be routed through the banks?

The funniest part of your argument is where you claim planning is impossible. Every single company—even one with just two employees—operates by looking ahead. Setting prices is essentially forecasting the future, not to mention everything financial institutions do with their projections and risk management. And what is a budget if not a plan? If there were no planning involved, why would we even bother with budget reallocations? Honestly, that was some pretty nonsensical stuff you dropped there.

Look, I’m not trying to become an expert on modern economics, so I’m not going to kill myself studying it. I’m a mechanical engineer, not an economist.
All I care about is an economy based on honest labor and getting paid fairly for that work.

Of course I don't grasp the nuances of today's economic system, because hardly anyone does. It isn't taught properly in high school, college, or university. People might memorize a few terms, but they don't actually understand how the economy behaves or how its processes function.

I wish you had made an effort to give a concrete answer to my actual question: what would happen if the government controlled the influx of fresh cash—keeping it minimal for the general market, but significant enough to jumpstart future production? But apparently, it's "logical" to you that only banks should handle that. Basically, you're saying you only get money if you pay more...

William Anderson5 said:I wonder what would actually happen if the market was suddenly flooded with ten times the amount of PlayStations currently in existence—all appearing out of nowhere, with nobody knowing where they came from, except for the people actually selling them...
I'm leaning towards thinking their value would drop, but what’s your take on it?...
A banknote is just another commodity, much like a PlayStation, and it’s subject to market forces that simply can't be controlled the way you seem to think they can...

The government essentially holds the right to manufacture and distribute capital by subsidizing whatever specific direction they want the economy to take. For instance, if the US decides to pivot heavily toward electric vehicles, they might just dump $3 billion into subsidies for the companies manufacturing them...

So, where exactly are you going to source the technology and machinery required to actually manufacture cars? That’s the real issue here. Even the massive global powerhouses, like China and Russia, are forced to hit the open market to buy Western tech. Russia isn't pulling oil out of the ground using its own proprietary tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside assistance, Russia wouldn't even be able to handle basic gas reserve research, and foreign corporations are constantly bringing their own specialized technology directly into China...
Go ahead, enlighten me then—how exactly do you plan on using that printed-up currency to build factories and churn out electric vehicles that actually stand a chance in the market, especially when almost everything you need has to be imported from overseas? Or are you going to waste everyone's time and money trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, only to likely end up producing nothing but overpriced junk that wouldn't sell even here in the States? In other words, it’s pretty obvious your plan would fall apart before you even get started, and given how much money was just printed to fund it, the fallout would be catastrophic...

The state should exist above the individual, acting as a safeguard to ensure that those who actually work and earn a living aren't just being bled dry by banks focused on nothing but their own greed. Instead of looking out for everyone, the state needs to act more like a neutral moderator between its citizens and corporations...

Look, banks operate and they turn a profit. If you honestly think running a bank is some kind of impossible feat, nobody is stopping you from stepping up and doing it yourself. Go ahead—issue someone a mortgage with a 25-year term and start collecting interest. Besides, who else is going to lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't just sit there and tell me the government would step in. We both know the government would just hand out those loans based on political connections, family ties, or whatever other favoritism is currently in vogue. It’s much better to have a private bank professionally assessing risk and issuing credit than to leave it to the state, which would inevitably just burn through capital and create massive losses...

So, what happens if there are just 1% or 10% more PlayStations on the market?

Look, where are you going to buy the tech and machinery needed to build cars? That's the catch. Even the massive global players, like Russia and China, have to hit the market to buy Western technology. Russia isn't pumping oil using its own homegrown tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside help, Russia couldn't even handle gas reserve research, and foreign companies bring their own proprietary tech straight into China.

But where are they buying it now? For instance, if the government dumped massive amounts of cash into the exact scenario I'm describing, what would the big shots do? They'd move it from one bank to another to another, and suddenly, the technology is delivered...

How does a bank even verify the source of funds, other than checking if they're counterfeit? Let's say we're talking about perfectly legitimate-looking currency that nobody knows the origin of except a select few—how would a bank or the market ever realize what happened?

Fine, enlighten me then. How are you going to use that printed-out money to build factories and produce electric vehicles that actually compete globally, when you have to import most of the components from abroad anyway? Or are you going to waste time and money trying to invent everything from scratch? There's a very real chance you'd just end up producing junk that wouldn't even sell in the US. In other words, your plan is basically doomed before it starts, and given all that printed money, the fallout would be catastrophic.

I'll pay a major construction firm to build my factories, I'll pay German suppliers for the metalworking machinery, I'll pay German engineers for the robotics and brains... keep going. Honestly, I could go all out and subsidize everything from the ground up—from the factory tech to the actual car itself, all produced domestically. I could even source the raw metal right here.

Banks operate and turn a profit. If you think running a bank is such a breeze, nobody is stopping you from doing it yourself. Go ahead, issue a 25-year loan and collect the interest. Besides, who else would lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't tell me the government would step in. The government would just hand out those loans based on political connections or family ties, just like they always do. I'd much rather have a private bank professionally assess risk and issue loans than have the state do it and run up massive losses.

That’s exactly the point. Money isn't being lent out in the way we see it today. Instead, the government is essentially gambling by printing new money before any actual new value has been created. If that gamble pays off, market value scales up proportionally with the increased money supply, which effectively keeps prices sitting right where they are.

So, if the government can't actually manage to get anything right, they suddenly find themselves flush with cash, yet somehow that money is worth less than it was yesterday. It’s a classic move.

So, how exactly does the system work then?
The government sets the direction for growth. They pick certain projects that align with their specific vision, and if you manage to get those projects approved by the bureaucrats, you get hit with a wave of subsidies to bring them to life. Essentially, the state injects capital based on its own projections of how much market value will increase, and once that money is out there, they step back and let the market take over from there.

So, here's how I see it: private companies shoulder the entire burden of building factories and developing tech. They kickstart production, and then it’s entirely up to the market to decide if they actually have staying power or if they're just dead weight. At the same time, the market serves as a scorecard for the government—it shows whether those taxpayer dollars were actually funneled into viable projects or just thrown down a drain. In a way, citizens are the ultimate decision-makers; by choosing which stimulated products to buy, we're essentially voting on whether the government's investment strategy was a smart move or a total bust.

Let me be clear: the government doesn't just print money out of thin air for every single subsidy. It only pulls that lever when there's a calculated opportunity to do so—specifically, when they determine that doing so will increase the overall value of what the state produces.

The fundamental difference here is that you aren't paying a private entity for innovation; you're handing that money over to the government. Sure, there's always the possibility that a private investor might take a chance on you, but that logic applies just as much to anyone the state decides *not* to subsidize. If the government refuses to cut a check, those innovators can still turn to private capital or banks to get their footing.

The thing is, the government gets to call all the shots regarding its own financial system. But here’s the kicker: the consequences of those decisions eventually come back to haunt them like a boomerang. Whether they made a brilliant move or a total disaster depends entirely on how much the value of our money takes a hit in the end.

Picture this: three people stranded on a tiny little island. There are two palm trees, three coconuts, some sand, and nothing but endless ocean surrounding you. That's the setup.

In the beginning, each of those three individuals possesses... $33...but there’s absolutely nothing left to buy.

Then one of them gets an idea. He starts weaving sleeping mats out of palm leaves and begins selling them to the other two. Suddenly, he’s got himself a business. $50 And the other two? Every single one of them. $25.

Then you have someone else who suddenly remembers they can just exploit those networks to sell fish to a different pair of buyers. Before you know it, the whole distribution of wealth shifts again—suddenly the ratios are sliding down from 150 to 100, then down to 50.

Then the third guy comes along, thinking he’s a genius for drying out the ocean just to produce salt, only to turn around and sell it to the other two so they can season their fish.

So, here we go again. Someone’s suddenly remembered that you can actually turn sand into glass, which—if you’re thinking clearly—could be used to improve the efficiency and speed of salt production. Just a thought.
So, here we go again. Someone’s decided they have a brilliant idea to build a little little waterwheel that spins around and automatically catches fish whenever the waves decide to toss it about.

And just like that, money becomes "overvalued"—suddenly it's too precious to spend. Now we're seeing it happen right before our eyes. $8.25 You won't just get one fishing net anymore; you'll be looking at an entire fleet. $8.25 You get the house... but suddenly, every single dollar feels as precious as gold. You find yourself thinking three times before you even consider spending a cent on anything.

In that case, it would probably be smart to just print more bills. You’d have to scale the money supply right along with product development just to keep trade moving smoothly—essentially making sure people can actually afford to buy what's being made. $8.25 He could have just bought a single network.

William Anderson5 said:The market. It’ll eventually adjust to the influx of unbacked cash...

How?
How is the market supposed to figure out that the money supply has actually expanded if the origin remains a mystery? It’s one thing to see the government decide to subsidize and dump $X billion into specific projects, but it's another thing entirely to track the actual flow. If you don't know where the cash is coming from, how can anyone accurately gauge the impact?

Ryan Nelson5 said:You can't cheat the system by printing money. 😁
Real value must be produced.

Yeah, well, value is generated by having capital to work with...

The government funds forward-looking projects to kickstart production, and from there, the market takes care of itself automatically.

Who’s going to know the government conjured that cash out of thin air, and how exactly is the market supposed to revolt against a move like that?

Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

Imagine if someone in Washington suddenly announced: "Look, over the last year of our administration, we've printed 30 billion dollars, and starting tomorrow, we’re going to pump that cash through subsidies into every domestic startup that shows potential but just needs a little capital to get production moving."

Does anyone actually have a clue what would happen in the real world? How would internal forces react versus external global factors? I'm genuinely curious to hear your take on this.

William Anderson5 said:Who exactly has enough to provide a comfortable life for everyone? Who am I supposed to get money from? Bill Gates? And based on what logic?
No thanks, I'll handle my own finances. As soon as I hear some hype about there being enough money for "everyone on Earth," I know exactly what that implies. I have no interest in being part of that. What I earn, I want to keep for myself and my family.
The reality is that a huge chunk of that wealth would just be "wasted" if you tried to redistribute it to everyone, because 99% of people wouldn't know how to manage the money they received. Within a few years, you'd just end up back where you started—with massive inequality and those "who rule over everyone."
They're just more capable...

It isn't actually about the cash; it's about material goods, technology, tools, and machinery. There is plenty of all that to ensure every single person on the planet has a steady supply of water, food, and energy (and I'm not just talking about oil).

And if we are going to talk strictly about money, I wasn't suggesting taking it away from you or Bill Gates to hand it to someone in a developing nation; I meant stripping the power of financial decision-making away from the bankers and the government.

The state has the right to create and distribute money by subsidizing specific directions of development. For example, if the US wants to invest heavily in electric vehicles, it could dump $2 billion into subsidies for companies producing them.

If those companies do a good job and create actual value—like cars that people actually buy—then the market has increased in value. You don't get inflation because that money, which the government essentially created out of thin air, is immediately entering the economic cycle and serving a purpose. Taxes are collected on that transaction, part of it returns to the state, and part stays with the individuals who did the work and earned it. The market is enriched by new value that matches the new influx of money.

The state should exist above the individual to ensure that those who work and earn are protected, rather than letting a bank—which only looks out for its own greed—call the shots. The state needs to act as a moderator for all citizens and businesses.

However, you would see inflation if the industry didn't use that $2 billion properly—if they embezzled the funds, bought luxury imports, or went on a land grab... if all the cash just ended up in the pockets of the corporate bosses who received the subsidies...
(The more money the government prints without it converting into tangible value—i.e., domestic production—the more money flows out to foreign interests, causing the dollar to weaken. Or, if it stays within the domestic market without increasing market value, you get inflation.)

But in that scenario, with higher conversion rates of the dollar into foreign currencies and no visible backing, foreigners increase the exchange ratio against the dollar, causing it to weaken. Or internally, if those billions are spent in the domestic economy without any increase in value, suddenly everyone has a pile of cash, and the more people have cash, the faster prices rise because the money loses its value.

Of course, what stops the corporate bosses from applying for another $2 billion in subsidies in a different currency? Well, the state, which must use its judicial system and inspectors to ensure they avoid option B: the misappropriation of printed government funds.

In my view, money has already lost its meaning in trade. It needs to be replaced, or at the very least, the way we decide its value and what backs it needs to change.

It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

The fix for all the issues mc brings up is simple self-sufficiency—basically just working for yourself on your own terms.

Burzynski has had a cancer treatment for ages hidden away in antineoplastons, but Big Pharma and the bureaucrats have strangled it. Why? Because they’d much rather push some high-margin, overpriced drug that sends people straight into bankruptcy—essentially debt slavery—before they even dream of offering a cure, let alone actually healing anyone after a mountain of struggle.

That’s the endgame for all of them: the banks, the pharmaceutical giants, and those massive corporations. Their goal is to trap as many people as possible in a cycle of debt. Once you're beholden to them, they hold all the cards; they’ll do whatever they want with you because they own you.

quietpilot87 said:Keeping your grades from your parents is practically a rite of passage. It’s just part of growing up—no big deal.
😁

Actually, there is. You should tell them.😁

But hey, if anyone here thinks they’re perfect, be my guest—go ahead and fail your next midterm. Or better yet, send the failing grade via email and see how that goes.

The best way to handle a bad grade is to make fun of yourself. Don't walk in there looking like you’re headed to a funeral or acting terrified. If you approach it with a bit of a smirk, it takes the edge off. If they ask why you're smiling, just tell them, "Well, look at your face—you're reacting like I just murdered my professor." Or, if they aren't buying the humor, try making a bet: "Tell you what, let's wager that I'll pull this grade up to a B by the end of the semester. If I do, you have to laugh with me next time I give you bad news. But if I fail to pull it up, you get to stay mad."$17"

Basically, use some imagination. The younger you are, the easier it is to play it off.😍

Bottom line? My advice is to turn it into a joke however you can.

So you claim you see some happy little family pushing a stroller, even though what’s actually there looks more like... well, something else entirely.

You swear you see sunshine, fluffy clouds, and a cozy little cottage, when all anyone can see is a machine gun...

You insist it's just a sleek car with nice alloy rims, despite the fact that it's clearly a tank...

You tell me there's nothing but cabbage growing in the garden, while ignoring the two old ladies out there brawling in the dirt...

With these kinds of delusions, I really don't know what to make of you.😉

Could you all take a look at this listing and give me your honest take? How much do you think this painting is actually worth?

Kyle Johnson2 said:Here’s the file OVDJE if this works for you. Just track down whatever Chinese font you need and tweak it however you like.

That should do it, thanks a million!
Best,👍

Can anyone figure out how to recreate this in Word? Or honestly, any other program would work.

The text dimensions should be roughly 9 x 5 inches.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...fija0001g.jpg/

How do you actually make text curve in Word? I'm looking to get that rainbow effect where the letters aren't just sitting in a straight line from left to right, but instead follow an arc, sort of like how a rainbow looks in the sky.

Now that opening an overseas account is actually legal and straightforward, I'm trying to figure out the easiest and cheapest way to pull this off.
Can I just walk into any bank within the European Union and get it done without a mountain of paperwork, or am I required to get some kind of green light from my local US banks first? How does the process actually work?

Which bank would you recommend for this? I’m looking for the lowest possible fees and minimal overhead for both setting up and maintaining the account.

My main goal is to link my PayPal to that specific account—basically using that debit card—so I can finally start receiving funds through PayPal without the usual headaches.

Does anyone have a link to a more detailed guide covering all this, or perhaps someone with enough free time to break down the logistics for me?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. And of course, Happy New Year!