captainamerica

Bullshit is when some of the actualized .org members are afraid of using the letter "I/I am" for communication. Due to believing in fake spirituality. Some of them are too dumb to realize that introverts communicate this way most effectively and the likes of Simen Sinek recognize this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozSjZ6iRKSA

He does actually have a genius-level understanding of it. The capital allocation efficiency in govt. vs private is 100x so so the companies being changed point is addressed there. 100x capital allocation efficiency is needed for sure for the survival of so many. And the govt. changing fundamentally is a fantasy as well if the current expenditures are looked at.

@Consept I will not be able to continue this discussion due to time constraints. But I thank you for your time. That is the thing. We have hit one of the cruxes of this matter. Other people becoming successful. I will make a post on it in some time. You review that and share your thoughts on it. Sorry about this as well. I did think of an outline but cannot continue the discussion now due the time constraints I am facing.

Not sure if you are referring to something from my posts above or maybe it is just a genuine misunderstanding that you are referring to. I will assume it is just a simple misunderstanding. To clarify, the title of this thread and the video linked is misleading. Elon Musk did not say that Billionaires should not be taxed. He is referring to the assumptions and claims of "Progressive" leaders in America. I know he is referring to the claims made by Progressive leaders in America because he hinted so in the latest interview by WSJ available on YouTube(from which the clip is taken) and he has discussed this in other interviews as well. Via Tweets as well. He is not saying that billionaires should not be taxed. He is paying about 60% tax. Under progressive leaders like Elizabeth Warren he would pay about ~95% tax, maybe more. (60 percent federal tax + state taxes on top of the 60% tax in the first 10 years to about 95% over time). He is referring to the assumptions behind the claims made for it. That's my point as well. Also, you mentioned the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal. Decisions like this are not taken because Mark Zuckerberg is a Billionaire. The executive team and managers were aware of this as well. And in the other Big companies, corrupt decisions are taken even when there are no Billionaire founders or board members. Like At and T as an example (link posted below). Such decisions are taken literally all the time by Big Corporations without having a Billionaire Founder to support because the millionaire members of the executive team or the board of directors are corrupt. The only solution is regulation. In Big Corporations, these decisions will still be taken even after taxing away the founders. At the end of the day regulation is needed, that is the fix. Otherwise, all wealth has to be banned. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-paid-for-8-5-million-fake-fcc-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/

This is insightful: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1479083279256993794 There is an abundance of such data.

I am referring to this:

@Consept Let me ask you, you mention this thing about profits repeatedly so… Do you not like the idea of profits? Should profits be abolished? Also since we are discussing wealth inequality in the US, what are your thoughts on this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFShD7xGIe0

Not my point at all. But again it begs the question. The US has a military budget which is more than the next 11 biggest countries combined. Who/What components are stopping the US from misusing the Military or any other aid that it will give since it has so much wealth? This is assuming your assumption that wealth is the only component that determines. I agree. You should not just turn around and say such a selfish thing. But I don't see literally anyone saying that. Perhaps a minority of wealthy people say that, if you want to close the loopholes for those who do not pay taxes I am with you. Elon Musk for example has a tax rate of 57 percent plus there are surcharges and added tax on exercising options I believe so it is about 60 percent tax. He, and many others, are paying a 60 Percent tax, who is saying I don't want to contribute anymore? That is the thing. We have hit one of the cruxes of this matter. Other people becoming successful. I will make a post on it in some time. You review that and share your thoughts on it.

Countries don't have profits. They have good economics and bad economics. And Wealth. If we assume your conception of Wealth being the only factor for misuse then, US can hypothetically just stop reporting the CIA experiments and still continue them and not even report them as "expenses" etc. Same goes for other things, they can just stop reporting or publishing about it. Apart from that, the US has an unfunded obligation of 150 Trillion dollars. (You may check below for the sources.) This will take the USA 50-100 years of economic growth to cover. Billionaires have a total wealth of 4 trillion dollars so there is no short cut available as well. It will take 50-100 years. The US is not going to meet its expenses anytime soon, yet the US does so many things because of its good Wealth. The Wealth is the factor that enables it not "profits" and according to you it is the only factor so here we are. In 2021, govt. collected 4 Trillion Dollars and spent 6.8 Trillion dollars. In 2020, Govt. collected 3.5 Trillion Dollars and spent 6.6 Trillion dollars. In 2019 1 Trillion dollars extra from collection. And this trend you can observe before all the way. If we go by the logic that the country will just increase its spending then you will need to tax every individual and business 50% of their wealth. Assuming that wealth alone is the problem. Another example. New York is the financial capital of the world. It impacts the world in all sorts of positive ways. But the impact it huge and disproportionate. Sources: https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/truth-in-accounting-u-s-national-debt-closer-to-123-trillion-nearly-796-000-per/article_60e10fcc-a1f8-11eb-8dc7-ff790d87d9ee.html https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/debt-in-perspective-analysis.pdf https://alec.org/article/americas-national-debt-a-rendezvous-with-reality/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pension-is-a-lie-theres-210-trillion-of-liabilities-our-government-cant-fulfill/?sh=36b1443965b1

Is this the best that you can do? “At the top, there are no easy choices. All are between evils, the consequences of which are hard to judge.” ~ Dean Acheson While I do not 100% agree with the quote but it does say a lot about the gravity and ambiguity of Reality. Life is not rainbows and peaches and cream. There are indeed naïve as well as foolish perspectives that will get people hurt and even killed. If you dislike my perspective then you are welcome to keep to yourself. There is no tax on keeping your mouth shut if you got nothing to say. Thank you.

You may have missed the post that I made above. No problem. Check the post. But let's discuss both at the same time because both are clearly relevant to the topic. I don't see how it does not have the same relevance if we think about it.

Can you please define which kinds of decisions are we talking about here? Decisions over the product or company are already regulated a lot for eg. SpaceX cannot even hire people who are not American citizens even if they have a work visa because the company is in this industry. The entire process and all of the launches are regulated as well.

Btw, I don't think the progressive leaders believe this. Only the certain voters. This is not what the Scientists are not saying. AOC said the world is coming to end in 12 years for eg. It is a common tactic. This technique is followed by visionaries and salesmen all the time. You can take a group of people and give a vision very motivating to them but despite all the good execution along those lines, it does not stick. It looks like it will but it fails with an unimaginable consistency. An idea or a vision needs to have a sense of urgency to stick to a group of people over a long time. This is the key. Most of the time Progressives are using this fact to use Climate Change ideas to further a sense of urgency towards their economic vision to have certain voters like their ideas for the economy and win votes.

America is an Individual country within the global system. Another example. New York is the financial capital of the world. It impacts the world in all sorts of positive ways. But the impact it huge and disproportionate. @Consept So should the world tax America 50 percent of its GDP?

The answer to your question is no. But my question is about your assumptions of the system and the fact that it is a complex matter that cannot be resolved in a binary thinking manner. Can an individual actually do that with wealth alone or there are there several other underlying factors and components in the system? That is the point. Because if it is as simple as wealth alone then:

Why not? How does your point still stand? America is so rich it can single-handedly destroy the planet with climate change according to the Progressive's understanding of the effective rate of Climate Change. Why should others deal with it? America is so rich it can and does change geopolitics at its whim. Why should the other 7 billion people in the globe be forced to live with a country so rich it can afford a war 7400 miles away effortlessly? America has a highly disproportionate global resource(including Physical labor and even IT) use because an average citizen in America is so rich. America is so rich it has more Military budget than the next 11 biggest countries combined. You don't even need me to say what wrong can happen due to that at a global level. Even within its borders, the CIA has done a lot of stuff like the Gateway process for military usage. All because it has money to fund it. No other country comes even a 100-mile radius close in this arena. And to top it all, America has so much money it can easily bribe the United Nations and other bodies that can prevent this from happening. What's stopping that?

In terms of Wealth Inequality, by that logic, the rest of the world should tax America half of its GDP. Lol. But there is this thing called complexity.

Rest in Peace _/\_ He had a lot of insight into Psychedelics. @Sine Please take care. <3

I agree. The majority of the Rigging happens by industry an Avg. person does not even know about. Progressives project and propagandize that everyone is like this. I agree. We will sort out some sane approaches for the good of all. For the greater good. I don't agree with the paradigm that money is given to him. That paradigm requires a Tier 2 civilization basically. In Tier 1 people manipulate and abuse it. They even go to the lengths of denying an inventor his own invention, stage green cannot handle this as well. There are at least 10-20 manipulations that can be observed in this direction. It is a general trend not exclusive to Billionaires. A better paradigm is he sold these many products and earned like 10-15 cents on the dollar per product. Or people started buying shares in his company. Customers purchased his products, nobody gave him the money. Two different things. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, etc. have talked about how they want to be taxed and have limited govt. He did say he is for taxation. But not like the progressives, that will not benefit. In fact, 50 percent of Billionaires are on the economic left. This is a general trend as well. Throughout history when times get tough people even on the top are 50/50 divided with left and the right. People think it is 100 percent of the top against the general populace. But it is 50/50 divide just like the general populace. Mark Cuban talking to friends of some progressive politicians said it is a good idea to have higher taxes on Billionaires, it happened about 1-2 years ago I believe. He then asked what are the details like what will happen when the stock goes down after the capital gains have been collected beforehand, they said we have not discussed or thought of details. They basically said currently the idea is for marketing.

Looking back I don't really think it was condescending for the most part. Writing in words lacks the depth of body language, tonality, etc. so naturally, there are miscommunications like this in text communication. This happens all the time nothing new when you are texting or communicating online, you could have said nicely. You may have also conflated a matter-of-fact tone in some places to be a condescending tone.

That is not the reason. It is not defending Elon. Progressives strawman so much it becomes hard to talk to people brainwashed by them. For eg., they say Elon Musk should pay more taxes. Or Jeff Bezos should pay more taxes. After they repeat this emotional line so much they try to make tax policy for the whole spectrum of the economy, but people now have been brainwashed due to emotional repetition do not debate. Since day 1 in this case the Progressives knew that it is not possible to write Legislation just for Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. The debates we do is about the collective effect of tax policy for eg. But their emotional brainwashing makes their voters feel "oh Elon Musk should pay more taxes" and in that the Progressives write legislation for all of the businesses, their leaders etc. Bernie Sanders once defended terrorists in Kashmir for his ideology. But they transcend the need for debate only by their emotional manipulation of the masses. The cognitive dissonance with them is huge. https://www.opindia.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-ignorant-comments-on-kashmir-rebuttal/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/bernie-sanders-rebukes-india-over-kashmir-move/articleshow/70938016.cms https://www.opindia.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-took-pro-jihad-stance-on-kashmir-at-an-event-organized-by-isna-an-organisation-with-close-ties-to-terror-groups/ I did not look through you. You started saying Stop Patronizing Me, Back off. Stop Patronizing Me Back Off, Multiple times. So I backed off. I disagree. First, I started reacting after you started saying Back Off, Stop Patronizing me.... . You may kindly check the above. I was looking to talk and discuss it properly before. If you had not said that I was planning to continue the discussion. After that in my opinion there was no point. It was not a communication issue on my part. Patronizing means to "appear kind or helpful and supportive condescending" There is an element of faking kindness and help. So you said stop patronizing and back off. No point in communication after that. Second, The feedback loops and incentives are not analyzed like done by you. This is not a personal attack. When you asked about them I did give a medium-level elaboration. I was looking to discuss it more but after you said Back off, I am Patronizing .... then there was no point. I disagree, as I have said above. I was looking to discuss it further. I do not think there was a point after that though. Likewise, the point is not to hurt you. As for hurting someone I respect, that is not the point. There is a greater point, I have given an example for it above. I will give one more example for the same. People from different countries(on this forum included, but common on Social Media in general) talk about American politics as if they know the daily challenges of Americans and how they are created. Less than one percent of such people actually bother to understand the challenges people in the US are facing. There are two choices 1. Do not talk about American Politics. 2. Give the few hundred hours of work required to understand the specific challenges of the American people. How is it that compassionate people cannot make either one of the choices? There is cognitive dissonance and it has a cost to people. There is a huge difference in decision making in the following two groups: Group 1: A person's son or daughter or mother or father in this group may get seriously hurt by that decision. 10 years down the line if he loses his job he may have to cry helplessly alone or worse in front of his or her daughter. Or after retirement, he may suffer miserably and bear the neglect. Group 2: They don't live in America or have at least not done the work as discussed. When they talk about American politics confidently, people vote for it and something wrong happens 10 years down the line an avg. person in this group will just ignore it due to the cognitive dissonance and blame it or maybe say to themselves "I was just trying to help. ". Well. There is a huge difference in the dynamics of how these two groups make decisions and look at American Politics. When someone has to bear the cost of the outcome the people think completely differently then. You say to an outsider about how American problems like Money printing can combine with something like misinformed tax policy and hurt them most of the time they basically get back to their own point "capitalism bad and this and that..." It is not about you this is the case most people from other countries discuss American Politics. Whereas you discuss this with an American, regardless of them being on the Left or the Right, they generally wanna at least consider it before they give their opinions and decisions as it will come back at them.

Yes.

Why so?

Another example of it is Elon Musk. It is known that Elon Musk has Asperger's Syndrome. One of the highest degrees of it. Yet people who knew this said, "oh the whole life of Musk is built around his Ego" along those lines, in different phrases but same thing. Do you know how hard it is to even survive with Asperger's, life gets unimaginably difficult and along with very difficult chronic negative states of Mind. It is not just about Elon Musk. This is a consistent pattern. We cannot believe that people who behave in this manner are an embodiment of compassion.