 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Your argument may seem linear in your mind Joe
HCKaos,
I can only trust that your topic title is honestly written by you, and from that assumption on my part I participate in discussion.
You can then twist that around, in a false advertizement campaign, playing some game of your exclusive invention, a variation on "bait and switch", and turn a discussion into you claiming that I am arguing.
I am not arguing.
What is a legal credit?
That is a question to be asked.
That is a question to be answered.
You can answer it. What does that have to do with me? Leave me out of your answer. leave me out of your question. If you have an answer offer it up. If your answer is worth anything, to anyone, then your answer is worth something to someone, and how do you manage to turn that around into an argument?
A token for a video game, a voucher for cheese?
There is only so much power in existence. How much of the power in existence is usable power that can be used to save one human life?
If there is more than enough power existing to save every single human life, then how do you explain the torture millions, the dying millions, and the murdered millions, and even the murdered, and tortured billions of innocent people.
Now you have my question, before you, plopped on the table, like a screaming innocent toddler, fresh from the torture chamber, writhing, screaming in agony, as the last breath of that innocent human being is exhaled.
Plop.
The wet sound of raw flesh slaps the table.
You can play your games, you can argue with yourself, but what does that have to do with me, in your argument, your drama, your fantasy, your play?
I'm not here to argue. I have no interest in arguments. What the hell did you dream up as a topic title?
Allow me to quote it:
Is there any meaningful debate to be had here?
Is argument a synonym for debate?
You tell me. Set me straight. I'll look elsewhere for a competitive viewpoint, and I most certainly will avoid any arguments.
If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit?
From me?
If you are targeted by the legal criminals, then you are transferring power to them, because you create power, you do that, that is what constitutes the target on your back. The target says: "Hey, legal criminals, I produce surplus wealth, so here I am, come and get me, enslave me, take what I earn."
You are not targeted if you are an old person dying soon, on welfare, or social security, or in some measure powerless, having no stash of surplus wealth, nothing of value whatsoever, you are a bum on the street, old, worthless, unable to produce anything, begging, consuming, a net loss, a liability, a cost, a drain, a user, a consumer, nothing but cost.
Who pays that cost?
Legal criminals don't, they take, that is their version of earning. They take, that have no interest in the dying, homeless, non-productive, bums on the street, unless, perhaps, they vote, or sit on juries. They can help take all the power from the producers of power, if they can be made to behave as ordered.
You, if your net measure of production is greater than your net measure of consumption, constitute a source of surplus wealth, to be targeted, and exploited, as the legal criminals convince you that you have no choice, you must pay, you must transfer all, most, or as much as humanly possible, transfer your excess production, the total amount, or as close to the total amount as you can, transfer to them all of your production over your consumption, to them.
They want you to consume less, more for them.
You consume X.
X is less than Y.
Y is your total amount of production to date.
X < Y.
You produce more than you consume.
Who get's the extra?
How does someone else get the extra?
Why does someone else get the extra?
Why does all surplus wealth flow to a few people, from all the many people who produce surplus wealth?
What is the formula, what is the process, what is the means, what is the method, how, exactly, does all the production that is in excess of all the consumption manage to flow from the producers to the few people who collect all that surplus wealth, and can that flow of power slow down, or stop?
If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit?
Do you know what is a FICO score?
I have a very limited understanding of the FICO score, but enough to know that it is a competitive measure of credit rating. It is certainly not the best, there is certainly much room for higher quality, and lower cost methods of measuring credit more accurately.
Is there a competitive measure of credit, where the competitor offers a much more accurate, and much higher quality, and much lower cost, measure of credit than a FICO score? Is there a method working in Belgium, Switzerland, China, Japan, Africa?
If there is no competition working, then why is there no force of competition working to force the credit rating process to higher quality and lower cost?
What power has been spent on removing competition?
I don't know. I can guess. Meanwhile there is, absent nothing, a method of measuring credit.
That monopoly measure is called a FICO score. Do you know what is a FICO score?
What defines me as honest hardworking?
I think that there is a very good way to find out. I think there is a very accurate method by which your question can be competitively answered, so that the answer is the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost to you, where you are the person who is asking the question.
I think that your question is a good question. I'll repeat that good question:
What defines me as honest hardworking?
Do you pay any taxes? Do you know that inflation is a tax?
Do you know how inflation works as a tax?
If you are paying the inflation tax, then you are a net producer of wealth, you are not a net consumer of wealth, you have produced something worth stealing, and that makes you a net producer.
If you acquire that which you have, which is worth stealing, or taxing by direct tax, or taxing by income tax, or taxing by way of inflation, and you had acquired that taxable stuff, by way of deceit, you lied to get stuff that is later taxed, you perpetrated fraud, then you are not honest, are you? I can't answer that, I don't know you.
What defines me as honest hardworking?
Are you taxed?
Do you lie, deceive, perpetrate fraud upon some innocent targeted victim, so as to accumulate the stuff that you send to the tax man?
I can't answer those questions for you.
You asked.
I offered a competitive answer.
I do not argue.
What would be the point of argument, or debate? Do you see argument and debate as one and the same thing?
Is it, not using tax loopholes to avoid paying my fare share? Is it sweating while performing CPR, is it being ignorant?
Do you produce value? If you save a life, how can you measure that up as anything other than a very high measure of producing value, as high as giving birth, as high as creating a new human being, saving a life, whereby failure on your part, ignorance on your part, irresponsibility on your part, in that specific willful act, ends life instead.
Not only do you managed, without resort to deception (against a targeted victim), and without resort to threats of violence, and without resort to willful acts of violence upon innocent victims, to produce enough to keep your own life going, added to that great accomplishment, you also save the life of someone else, when someone else lacks the power to keep their own life going.
How is that not measurable as producing much, much, much, much, more than you consume?
Did the person you saved then go onward to kill millions of people, or billions of people, crushing the lives out of multitudes of people, and torturing them on their paths to early deaths, and all those victims were innocent of any crime?
If so, then, perhaps you should have let that one die. I don't know. I'm not you.
It seems to me, that the amount of power transferring to you, as payment for the value of what you produce, is less than right, less than equitable, less than reasonable, less than that which you earn, and all I have to do to prove it, is follow your tax return, and follow the rate of inflation if you happen to be paid in dollar units of money. Did you give that stuff to them? Is that your measure of some willful investment, or charity, according to you?
This isn't rocket science to me. It is easy math. It is easy, documented, legal, crime, accounts, on paper, or on digital records, undeniable, accurate, factual, understandable, traces, from you, to the legal criminals, in dollar denominated units, pennies, nickles, dimes, and dollars.
Leave me out. I'm not arguing. You have questions, you can get answers. I may not offer a competitive answer, compared to nothing?
I do not offer argument. What would be the point? Are you here to win something? Win something, then, do you need permission to win something? Do you need a targeted victim, willing, and able, to lose something, because you are so, so, so superior?
My understanding of credit has greatly improved since I no longer need it, thats not to say I may someday need it.
Why do I get the idea that you are speaking about one thing, and I am speaking about something entirely different? You are asking for a measure of credit, when, apparently, you are asking for a measure of how many legal dollars someone is willing to transfer to you, at any given moment in time.
Legal dollars are designed to be debt notes, debt based, legal, accounting instruments. You hold one. What happens to it?
You get a dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve System of Extortion began to be enforced by the legal criminals. That dollar in 1913 is worth X.
You hold that debt based legal accounting instrument for 98 years, up to today, how much is it worth today?
Why do you want dollars?
Why do you associate the concept of credit with the factual reality of the dollar unit of legal fraud?
I'm asking. I don't do that, it makes no sense to me, credit is credit, and legal fraud is legal fraud, one is not the other, so why confuse the two, as if the two were the same thing?
I was fortunate enough pre-bubble burst to sell my house in 05 for 3 times what I paid for it. I reevaluated what my family and I required to be happy, paid cash for a home down south which is modest at best compared to the previous, but none the less my only debts are to the government. No cash = no purchase.
Why do I now get this feeling that you are playing the part of Devil's Advocate, taking me for a ride?
I don't have magical powers of intuition. You write ignorant things, and then you write things that are measures of your exceptional intelligence, are you playing me for a fool?
I've learned, through experience, that those who "play" Devil's Advocates are not playing. They are the real deal.
There are, of course, exceptions to almost every rule.
I am trying to imagine which vehicles exist in the financial market that would enable someone, anyone, to offer an interest free or one percent interest loan.
Now you are back to being ignorant?
Credit is directly proportional to potential, not accumulated surplus wealth.
Savings, or amassed, or collected, or stored, or accumulated surplus wealth is surplus wealth, not credit, surplus wealth is here, now, existing, ready, spendable, fluid, powerful, liquid, ready, and all the spender has to do is turn on the switch, turn the valve, and the power flows, because the power to purchase has already been produced.
A warehouse full of gold, oil, electricity, food, oxygen, iron, Solar Panels, weapons, ammo, hydrogen, lap dancers, whatever, beer, you name it, it is one door away, you have the key, you have the control, you own it, you open the door, and you spend the supply of surplus power because it has already been created.
You had invested, you had avoided having your power stolen, you had produced more than you consumed, you had saved, you had stored, you had accumulated, you now have ready power to purchase.
That is not credit.
Someone else looked at you, before you did all that saving, and they said, that man earns my credit rating, he has the potential to make all that stuff, and I am measuring me as being in his debt, for that potential that he has, by my accurate judgement.
That is credit.
You earn it, as obvious potential, not as proven fact.
So, there you are, before you prove the fact, and no one, anywhere, judges you, as credit worthy, so you are set back, you have to prove your worth, you have to start small, you have to inch every step of the way, you have to struggle, you have to do without, you have to pinch every penny, you have to do everything yourself, you have to cut corners, you have to set aside, put off, delay, forestall, procrastinate, and even avoid doing things that you know will produce much greater value much sooner, if only, if only, if only other people would give you the credit you so obviously deserve.
What if you are back at that point where you will die, without credit, without help, and no one gives you credit, no one gives you help, you die, and that is the end of that story.
They help.
They gave you credit.
That is you, just you, and just one other person.
How about you, a family, and a group of families, and an impending drought, or a nearby belligerent army of criminals marching to your doors, but you have not saved, not yet, you were delayed, in saving, you were set back in saving, things were not working best, not yet, but the drought looms, the army marches, the legal criminals are at the gate, and you have no savings.
What do you do?
You have no savings.
All the people threatened have to stop doing their individual things and all the people have to start rowing the boat, in unison, to reach the shore before you all starve to death, failure to give each other credit, at that point, amounts to certain death.
You all have to stop making new inventions, stop consuming, stop using up, and you all have to credit each other with the power, and the permission, to go ahead and focus all remaining power into reaching one common goal, and that goal must be reached, or failure is death for everyone.
The enemy is at the gate, you all had better start making weapons, and meet the enemy at the gate with a much larger force of ready arms, making those enemies think twice about invading, pillaging, raping, stealing, and enslaving you, and your family, and your neighbor, and their neighbors, and their families.
A. None of you separately have the power to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals.
B. Even if you all collected all your individual supplies of surplus wealth into one pile of surplus wealth, the form of the wealth, and the actual constitution of the wealth is not useable in the work needed to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals.
C. The only possible path to survival as an individual, each individual in that group of families, is to agree to combine all effort to reach that one specific goal, and each person must do a specialized, individual job, so as to build the very things needed to defeat the drought, and the invading army, failure is death for all, or enslavement for all, there is no other way out.
Does each credit each other, or does someone come up with a plan that doesn't measure up?
It has nothing to do with me. Leave me out. I'm not arguing. People either invent credit, and then use it, or they don't, and credit is not used, no skin off my nose, I'm going to die eventually, and I've lived well so far.
Leave me out.
I'm not grinding an axe. I'm not arguing. I'm not on a crusade. You see bad things. I do too. There is a solution. Take it or leave it. Invent one yourself. When you do, let me see it. I'm curious. Is your solution viable, compared to the one offered by me? Absent one, it isn't, by default. The problem will not fix itself, it is not a problem to the people who cause it. To the people who cause the problem, it is the solution.
Past performance is no indicator of future returns, is that rhetoric or is that a staple of investing? Or both?
I don't look directly at the sun. I don't go running blindfolded across the I-15 Freeway at rush hour.
I don't stick my hand in fires.
I don't see any good in sending my power to legal criminals who then use that power to take more power from me.
Call me a fortune teller.
I don't have the schedule that the FOMC has, as they add double the supply of legal dollars, or cut in in half. They have that, not me. They aren't telling fortunes either, they have the facts, because they produce the facts.
More people transferring their non monetary power to other people in the form of ideas is what we lack.
A tool does no good if it isn't used, time spent on lap dances, or drinking beer, is a better investment, compared to making a tool that no one uses.
I'm not offering an idea, you have before you one of many possible solutions to the most dangerous threat to human kind existing today. What you do with it is your choice.
Your choices are beyond my power to control, and beyond my desire to control, if you ever need that tool, there it is, take it or leave it.
You alone are the judge of the value of your time, and your time spent with me here through keystrokes.
I am passing on knowledge gained while standing on the shoulders of giants, they deserve more credit than I can give them - alone.
Your next response will have answered that question.
I've been writing daily, for many years, thousands upon thousands of words, you are exceptional in that you respond. You are even more exceptional in that you respond without resort to willful deceit, or threats of violence, as I trust that you are doing, so much for my credit rating.
That does not mean, to me, that this exchange, necessarily, measures up as a debate. I'm not really sure as to what one is, exactly.
As to the measure of meaning, I can claim that such a thing can be measured in how much less power flows from you, or anyone, to someone who does not earn that power: if less flows that way, this exchange is as meaningful as that.