aurum

I expect that as consciousness evolves and society develops, we will see externalities become less economically adaptive. This is a law of consciousness. As identity expands and intelligence increases, the bias and double standards of the mind become less tenable. Currency and business structure will likely evolve. We will likely develop global institutions that help coordinate global economic activity. That said, survival will still continue. Which means competition, scarcity, zero-sum dynamics, power, leverage, unique advantage, positioning, innovation, etc. Anything that doesn't bend to survival will still die out. Beyond that, I don't feel confident in making too many particular predictions. It's possible we could see things like decaying currency, universal basic income, a movement away from debt-based economics, doughnut economics and the rise of B-corps. But I don't know at this point. The economy is an organically evolving entity and no one can consistently predict it. We simply adapt to survival incentives.

I appreciate the long-view. The question is still two-fold: 1) Whether NDEs would actually be competitive in an environment where extraction is less adaptive. 2) Whether passive shareholders are inherently maladaptive extraction I would argue that NDEs would mostly not be competitive in serious sectors, even 300 years from now. Because the reality is that shareholders = power. This is true even if there is an extractive element as well.

Passive stretching is conformist nonsense. At best, it gives you some temporary relief.

I will soon be launching another personal development product. This is the first time I've done so in years. I'm very excited about it. I deliberately did not create any paid products for a long time because they did not meet my standards. Finally, I have something that feels ready. It's my best work by far. It feels like the culmination of years and years of work for me. Maybe a handful of people on the planet are in a position to produce this besides myself.

You cannot compare VC investing to mortgages. They have different terms because they operate differently, with different goals and incentives. If startups wanted a bank loan, i.e a mortgage, they could get one. But notice they often don't. They specifically seek VC funding, because VC funding is superior for their goals. VC exists precisely because what you are describing doesn't work for innovative firms. Risk IS functionally infinite for a business because survival never ends. It doesn't matter how big you are, you are always at risk of losing it all. There is no time when you are in the clear. There are always competitors, changing markets, recessions, regulatory changes, lawsuits, loss of employees, etc. If they're so competitively advantageous, then where are they? Why isn't Amazon an NDE? That's fine, but that's not going to get you innovative firms that rise to prominence. You need high-risk investing. End of story.

This shows a lack of understand of the role of VC and what Silicon Valley does. The fact that some aspects of some projects might be initially funded by "patient capital" does NOT mean VC and Silicon Valley becomes irrelevant. It doesn't work like that. All those technologies need to be mass-scale commercialized and eventually win a significant portion of the market. That requires a business with massive amounts of capital, in the hundreds of millions, to do it. You do NOT get that money from "patient capital". It comes from investors willing to take huge risks for huge returns, i.e your "gamblers". And how do you know what is a good investment? This itself is an extremely powerful skill that the vast majority of people don't have. Yes, you DO need 100x returns for innovation. Because that's the only way it is sustainable when the vast majority of your investments fail. You need a small percentage to hit a massive home-run, or you're cooked as a VC. To not understand this is a lack of holism. VCs are structurally necessary. Do you really think toll booths aren't needed??? It's like you think a table only needs three legs. It's fine to want to plug value leaks. The problem is passive shareholders are NOT value leaks. You need passive shareholders because you need capital to survive. There is no moment where "risk has been repaid". And allocation cannot be left up to workers, because their incentive structure is different.

The "patient" capital you describe will never invest in innovative, highly-competitive, powerful companies. You will not get the next Tesla, OpenAI or other companies that require large, long-term risk with capped returns. The capital you are describing will invest in safe, low innovative firms. Those "gamblers" in Silicon Valley are the ones that actually create innovative things. They are needed, and a society that disregards them will pay the price. This shows your actual agenda, which is redistribution of resources to those at the bottom. You are assuming those at the top are parasitic, while workers are the actual value-creators and not exploitative. This is incorrect.

Alt-economics is usually deep self-deception. You have no idea how to do things better. Survival will crush your supposed solutions.

That does NOT solve the trap. No serious large investor would accept 3x returns. It's worthwhile for them to invest because they are looking for home-runs. Companies would also not want it because they need those huge investments. If you try to regulate 3x returns, the regulatory apparatus itself will get captured. Self-owned firms are also not a solution because all the profit that was going to shareholders will now just be extracted by those inside the company.

Non-profits DO care about profit and ARE extremely competitive amogst themselves. The distinction between charity and "normal business" is also not clear, because it's always about survival value. And it's always funded by someone. The only difference is they just don't hold onto their profit at the end of the year. Non-profits are usually weak compared to for-profit firms, unable to compete with them. And so why don't they reinvest more? Because having shareholders is more competitively valuable than reinvestment. Where is that initial capital boost going to come from? If it's comes from shareholders or banks, that's just a for-profit corporation. If it comes from donations or government grants, that's essentially just a non-profit. None of which get us anywhere new. No one is going to give your business free money, it's going to have to come from somewhere. And those that give it to you will expect something in return. No amount of utopian, alt-economics will change this.

@Davino you are essentially just describing non-profits. Those already exist, and they cannot outcompete the current capitalist system. If firms could just reinvest their surplus into the company, many of them would do that. The problem is they can't. They need capital from shareholders. Survival is the bottleneck. Not structure. Structure bends around survival.

@Lord Kadaver cut it off clean.

@Shermaningeorgia Heal your wounds with women. Your anger is obvious.

I wouldn't worry about measuring your results. Just focus on breaking down your nights deeply after you go out. You could journal, talk about it or just contemplate. Whatever way you like best to process. But spend a lot of time making sense of your interactions. You'll naturally adjust as you see your mistakes.

Happy holidays everyone.

@AION You can do things like ENM or swinging if you really feel like your sex drive is that high. But to be honest, I think you're fooling yourself a bit here. Dropping out of dating is not a solution to having a really high sex drive.

Exactly this. Just declaring yourself a solipsist does not mean you understand God or what solipsism is.

@Butters not "obedient". You don't need or want a slave. That will quickly become tyrannical.

Good SD Green take.

@Insightful27 you could look into Peter Ralston. World class martial artist and spiritual teacher that combines both.

Democrats have been smoking republicans in elections.

Very debatable. We'd need to narrow the claim rather than discussing all of "modern society". Modern society is a hodgepodge of sexual repression, liberalism and hedonism. Some people need liberation, some need constraints.

It's fine as far as helping people overcome sexual repression. But being too liberal about sex is not good. Sex requires constraints.

@Valach Good question. The most important thing is that you are not excessively needy, NOT that you actually date 10 women. Just knowing that you have the skills to go out and meet someone if you choose is usually enough. Get a reasonable amount of success with women under your belt and have a larger vision for your life. Don't get stuck thinking about any one woman until the actual time comes for commitment, keep going out. Obviously at some point if you want a LTR, you will have to be more emotionally invested. But this is not a problem as long as it doesn't cross a threshold. There's no easy answer to where that threshold is, you just have to use your head. If you're staying centered on your larger vision and the relationship is strong, that's a sign you've probably not crossed it.

"Not possible" is too strong. But yes, it will likely make it harder. You are going to be spending more time doing survival, since you will have more responsibilities.