captainamerica

You are straw-manning billionairess and wealth creation at scale. The yacht money if redistributed will lose its value and will not accomplish much as it does in imagination. It is not that simple. I am not talking about higher taxes here. That is different. This is a gross abuse of how mathematics works. About 70 percent of the wealth today is self-made. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html

This level of redistribution done today will simply ensure that the value of the dollar employed in its current work is lost, without actually increasing the motivation of the rest like you are saying or the dollar holing similar values for them. Can you admit that this is correct while vision over the very long term(centuries) is worthwhile implementing as it will start becoming more and more practical? If today the Billionaires don't exist the inequality would just shift to another group like conservative political parties, who knows some elite group of millionaires etc. Not the people, that's the fallacy I thought you can see this. It will not come down to the people who need it in the end.

Consciousness can be studied for the purpose of harmony as separate from Enlightenment. They are still connected though.

Without machinery, innovation is not possible. What you are saying will not work in real life today. The physical hardware or machinery is just not there. Elon Musk will work, I am talking about the work actually happening. Tax them, but a 100 percent ?

@Leo Gura Double lol. Some insights you can never get with psychedelics. They can only be attained by meditation and EEG machines. Not even EEG machines are enough. Some come through mediation, being truthful 100 percent of the time, the aid of a Guru, devotion etc. Little-known methods for getting rare insights into consciousness. These are not possible otherwise.

You could be wrong about some things too Leo. I routinely analyze 50-100s of factors in several of these topics each due to better ability. That's my gift. You are missing some key things in this.

We do that is why we stand for higher taxation and wages. A lot of what you said is due to the govt. functioning. What you are saying strawman Billionaires and their contributions to mankind. Their necessary place in today's society.

@Leo Gura If this is implemented today then it will lead to self-cannibalization of the value being created at scale itself due to power shifts, power which the society does not viably has structures to place that power somewhere else. Instead of helping others create value and live well. What use is "being more conscious" if it goes beyond current evolutionary demands, straight to the Moon and right beyond it? Real consciousness increase happens in the relative domain's problems, according to how reality is functioning on the physical plane.

Systematically your statement is wrong as Billionaires come by value creation and getting like 1-2 percent of that money created by them. Even existentially this insight is wrong as Absolute manifests in the relative using certain mechanisms which can be studied. Separate from that, dharma or righteousness is recognized according to some principles formed more than your definition of "being more conscious". What you are saying bypasses this.

Kings not existing is the same way someday money itself will become unconscious and will cease to exist. This does not mean money is wrong and I compare money to slavery. Society was not evolved enough then to allow for trades and other growth activities without Kings. Even Science was not possible without Kings, society was so underdeveloped. Out of Kings, Massive wealth/value/product creation, etc. choosing to compare Billionaires to slavery is certainly not the most accurate choice. Being targeted at 2 percent, 1 percent whatever the correct number is makes it much more likely to happen than some person believing in socialism for the US, another thinking billion dollars is wrong now, another religious fanatic calling money itself wrong, some wanting 70 percent, etc., in my humble opinion. People have a wrong belief that money is evil, when they hear such things they instantly jump to conclusions about the rich. Others may consider it wrong for society in some timeframe. The difference between both these types of people is vast when they physically implement their ideas or when it is physically manifested. The former is destructive for society. This is a subtle nuance, not many get. They think when the surface ideas are matching they will match physically as well, but the difference is two universes apart. I do love your work, Leo. Gotta agree to disagree in that case I guess.

@Leo Gura Today, one can earn billions of dollars by inventing great products, movies, etc. It is harmonious to practically all the elements, given today's variables. Your frame is wrong. Or 500 about years from now. By visioning 300-500 years your life purpose is getting fulfilled and in a good way. It must feel very fulfilling to you as well. But what about now? "A conscious society" as you call it will have more than that. It will have education and collective wealth like technology etc. for it to work that way.

@Leo Gura 100 percent taxation and higher income for the employees. We are worlds apart. It literally seems like you are taking the argument and misdirecting it, honestly. And Bezos did not steal most of his money from his employees. His company added like 5- 10 trillion dollars to peoples' lives. Out of that, about 15 percent is Amazon's market cap. Of that 5-10 trillion Bezos has like 2 percent. Common bro.

Printing money does not solve this problem as Zimbabwe did. Nor does redistribution like you are saying due to your survival agenda or perspective perhaps. Redistribution after a point will make that dollar amount itself lose its value. Instead of helping people, it will not even be used for the wealth creation it is employed today. Ask real economists how this works. It is not simple like you are saying. Wealth cannot be just printed directly or redistributed without structures in place. These structures are what we call evolution. No magical pills to evolve billions of people in knowledge, political structures, collective human wealth aka technology, etc. at once.

@Leo Gura No. Your understanding of it does not fit in the current evolution of society in just the US alone. For eg. Kings existing today would be harmful in countries like the US, India, etc. But centuries, millennia ago that was what gave people the security to do their trades. Can you take a psychedelic and ask it to show the existential use of Billionaires? From my understanding of spirituality, if there are 50 planets similar to us most of them will have Billionaires or equivalents. It is that embedded. Even across species. I am not asking about a policy for 500 yrs from now. What about today?

@StarfoxEpiphany I am for taxation of Billionaires as long as it is not so much that it is basically stealing money. (Bill Gates agrees with both of these points as well. ) As long as it is done in a proper way that doesn't hurt businesses. They are not criminals for creating value at scale and inventing great products. I also believe that there are many issues with Wall st., Democratic Leadership and their vision around policies, etc. that are ignored. Solving them will be the real big win that people are looking for. Higher taxation is not going to solve much of the problems at scale, it is important though I believe. Hopefully, it is done properly. For eg., the middle-class assets allocation in the US cannot be solved unless proper financial (and overall) education is implemented. When financial education is zero, people cannot be empowered. That is like saying water is wet. This is one of the major causes of financial problems at scale, and there is no alternative or shortcut to solving this.

How are your efforts for healing going?

He was 98 yrs old bro, don't be sad.

@StarfoxEpiphany What is your approach for taxation? I like that you think about it from the perspective of businesses as well.

Based on several factors about 1 percent also seems great. 1-1.5 will add up to quite a bit over time. 2 percent may not be implementable practically. (Maybe in the long term...) I don't understand why Elizabeth Warren chose to start with 3 percent. 70 percent is stealing and the powerful leaders will definitely not allow it.

Holistic understanding of stealing money should include communism, crony capitalism and over taxation as well.

2 percent annual wealth tax seems great, assuming voting power in the company remains approx. the same somehow. It should be implemented soon. At 3 percent Elizabeth Warren seems nuts to me as that would take 70 percent of an individual's wealth over time (a quick guess of mine)

Who? @Vagos ?

@bejapuskas It seems like you care about making people understand feminism and transforming them positively. If that is actually the case then I will recommend looking beyond the limited lens of spiral dynamics. I am sure there are several-fold better ways to connect to people for this purpose than labeling them "Orange", "Green", "Yellow" etc. in the limited perspective of SD. In my experience and learning as well, there are better ways to have people understand feminism or even transform them and develop compassion and empathy from scratch. The possibility of depths that mastery can reach is so underestimated. You may have read about the superhuman feats of Bruce Lee, attained just through practice. Hatha Yogis start by holding their breath for a couple of minutes, practice it for years and decades, tens and hundreds of thousands of times and develop the ability to hold their breath for even a couple of hours. The simple metronome meditation given by Leo is practiced and repeated a million times by great meditators. In the Diamond Sutra, such a concentration is compared to Vajra, something that can cut through steel as easily as a sharp knife cuts through the mud. That attainment is just by sheer practice, millions of times! Who knows in 5-10 years from now you may become so skilled at this particular skill that you may transform them in just 5 min. of communication. I will approach it separately from SD though because that requires exquisite balance which only 1 in 100 people have, like Yellow.

@bejapuskas Sure , Mr fox guarding the hens house. You know what. I call your bullshit on that. Only devils fear understanding. Understanding is not demonizing it. Light = Evil . Vampire logic There is more to toxic Green than some ideas of feminism. Green feminism is good. Not fake non attachment and other things for sure.

@bejapuskas Self-proclaimed Green on this forum has even lied about being Green for weeks and months just to win stupid arguments. I will not name any names but if you have been here I think you may remember. Later they came out as Blue, struggling with orange values or barely managing their survival only beginning to question it. This lying is not what real Green is. I have talked to/known many amazing people who integrate it well, it is so amazing this thing is not even comparable to the real deal IMO. The real Green are bringing a new Orange-Green revolution in America. It is real and the trends are undeniable at this point. These trends are literally invincible, like evolution. Something to be grateful for if you cherish similar ideals :-) I will PM about the "college Green"...