Is Joe Rogan Irresponsible?

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, datamonster said:

Sounds like what you're saying is that employment is inherently bad?!

No, I'm saying the opposite. Employment is good because it usually involve genuine value creation.

Leeching off of hard working people is bad. And that's what playing Wall Street is.

Quote

So, how can you be successful in business without being being a "thief" and a one-man company like you are, according to you?

This is not a problem at all. Any business that creates genuine value and innovation is a healthy kind of business. A one-man company is not necessary.

Trading stocks is not a business of any sort. It is leeching off genuine creative businesses.

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Leo Gura

   I meant the good contradiction as a positive, not in a negative meaning,

I know you were teasing.

But I replied seriously anyway because people here tend to be confused about this topic.

5 hours ago, montecristo said:

How is it stealing when the person who bought my shares was willing to pay the price I sold them for?

The stealing has been abstracted by the system. It is systemic stealing. The point of the system is precisely to give you, the trader, plausible deniability. So that if anyone questions you, you can genuinely  say, "But I didn't break any laws. I just sold some paper to someone else who wanted to buy it. So how could that be evil?"

You need to think holistically about how the whole Wall Street system works. The bottom line is this: If you earned a million dollars for clicking a few button on your computer, you obviously didn't work for it by creating any genuine stuff, therefore you must have stolen it from someone else who did.

Where did that million come from? It came from exploitation of the labor of works of the company you invested into. That million really belongs to them. But you used the Wall Street system to separate it from them. So while you enjoy your million, some mother working at Walmart cannot afford to buy medicine for her sick child and he dies. But the system is designed such that you don't see that and don't care.

Quote

How is investing in stocks to avoid inflation not exactly the same as what I'm doing as a speculator? You're harvesting value from the market same as me, just less.

In a sense this is true. The difference is that I'm aware of that. And also the difference is that I worked hard for my money and it is not fair to me to have my money inflated. So I feel it is reasonable to hedge against inflation. You can say that's selfish, and you'd be right. It is. But life is selfish. I'm not just gonna sit by and watch my money deflate.

The problem is, we're all stuck in Game A to some degree. No matter how much you try to break out of Game A, you can't entirely avoid it. But you can at least not deliberately and gleefully double-down on Game A -- which is what stock get rich quick schemes do.

Quote

So you see that if you "keep up with inflation" you're getting ahead of someone else, who worked for that money while you got it "for free" storing it in stocks.

Yes, and I'm okay with that. I also worked for money and when inflation happens someone else is getting a portion of my savings "for free" by eroding it.

Some degree of competition is hard to avoid here. My point is to not participate in it too much. Participate in it as little as you can stomach.

Quote

as you always say Leo, survival is dirty. 

Yes it is, which is why I don't hate daytraders. I am just guiding you away from it for your own sake and the sake of society as whole.

We want to create a society in which the hardest working people are most rewarded, not the opposite. A society in which clicking a few buttons earns you millions of dollars is not a healthy one.

[Leo Gura]

@Bryanbrax Not interested in that sort of thing.

Be very careful believing such things. It's all hearsay.

I went to 5 different psychics about my health issues and they all told be 5 different stories, all of them BS.

You cannot simply trust a psychic.

[Bryanbrax]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Bryanbrax Not interested in that sort of thing.

Be very careful believing such things. It's all hearsay.

I went to 5 different psychics about my health issues and they all told be 5 different stories, all of them BS.

You cannot simply trust a psychic.

 

i knew you would say that the difference here is that you paid hundreds of dollars just to get a reading , while this one is completely free there is nothing you lose here. if they weren't as confident in their ability they wouldn't be offering such in detail FREE energetic reading. 

i recommend trying this one and if it does resonate with you , you get an in-depth insight and if it doesn't , well u lose nothing.

also you ignored the first example i gave of the lady with paralysis , not sure how you explain them giving an in detail reading of her condition

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Bryanbrax said:

i knew you would say that the difference here is that you paid hundreds of dollars just to get a reading , while this one is completely free

Doesn't matter that it's free.

Quote

there is nothing you lose here.

There is much too lose. Money is the least important factor in such things. What is lost is one's understanding of the situation. Such readings can easily delude you with false ideas.

Quote

if they weren't as confident in their ability they wouldn't be offering such in detail FREE energetic reading. 

False. Every single psychic I visited was extremely confident in their abilities and suggestions. Too confidence. So confidence they often fooled me into their delusions.

Confidence is not a good signal of truth or accuracy. Often the opposite. Confidence covers up for genuine not-knowing.

Quote

i recommend trying this one and if it does resonate with you , you get an in-depth insight and if it doesn't , well u lose nothing.

No

Quote

also you ignored the first example i gave of the lady with paralysis , not sure how you explain them giving an in detail reading of her condition

You have no idea if their reading is accurate. It's all pure hearsay.

[Bryanbrax]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Doesn't matter that it's free.

There is much too lose. Money is the least important factor in such things. What is lost is one's understanding of the situation. Such readings can easily delude you with false ideas.

False. Every single psychic I visited was extremely confident in their abilities and suggestions. Too confidence. So confidence they often fooled me into their delusions.

Confidence is not a good signal of truth or accuracy. Often the opposite. Confidence covers up for genuine not-knowing.

No

You have no idea if their reading is accurate. It's all pure hearsay.

To determine if a reading is accurate or inaccurate all you have to do is determine if it resonates with you or not. For the example of the paralysis that would be pretty obvious since they mentioned they already had paralysis and was pretty serious. psychics  come in all different shapes and form aka different level of ability and knowledge , I know this especially since I spent a majority of my time last year in occult related groups , without  a proper understanding of the whole picture of what is going , it can be hard to decipher what's accurate or not. The spirit world communicates in symbols and seemingly only symbols when you have a dream about a person its not about that person so to speak but rather what that person represents specifically to you. The same goes for every interaction location or words that are said. They are '' divine messages '' in this regard , as when you decode the dream you drastically cut entire years if not decades off your learning curve especially when you heed them to them to their fullest extent.

There is no useless information otherwise they wouldn't be so wacky , nor would there be any time skips i.e. dream sequence changing randomly changing to a random location and interactions. Think of ww2 and how they'd send coded messages to each other .These messages can seem normal or silly or even nonsensical however when you break the code it yields an entirely different message altogether , and one that's actually objectively useful and can turn the tide of war completely. The same applies to your psychic vision when you tune into a spirit or person and wish to obtain information , the process is the same.

The biggest challenge here isn't necessarily your ability to see and hear but trusting what you see and hear. I want to stress that you absolutely mustn't take any image literately nor anything a spirit says to you. Take scanning for example. When someone scans someone and take the image literally they might say something silly like your sacral is dirty and so forth. However one who knows how to interpret what they see , knowing what these concepts represent to them who see the same thing may say " you need to worry less " or " you've been betrayed recently " , depending on what the imagery means specially to them.

Now , what about spirit communication ? Lets say a spirit calls you a worthless piece of shit . Remember this things aren't human and the spirit world communicates in symbols. They are not insulting you , they are delivering information to you and this is how your mind chose to receive it. To decode what they say consider the following template : Worthless ( w ) Piece ( x ) Of ( y ) Shit ( z ) Decode what each word specifically means to you , independently of the other and even of context. Focus on what it means to you , and not what you think it should mean. Then you may string together w x y z and get something far more profound. Do the same thing with any imagery you get , as well your dreams. This is what separates omniscient occultists , from those whom are hopelessly '' lost in the astral so to speak also known as delusional larpers that attempted to go without a qualified teacher nor guide.

A scan is someone psychically viewing you, your energy body, objects related to you, and extrapolating information from that It doesn't have to involve a person either, a scan can be of an object, or place. there is a more in-depth explanation but that's the basics for needing to learn. For for me I tend to be very skeptic person when i got scans in the past , i would cross reference all the scans i got in the past and see if there is a pattern going on , for example the second paragraph on my reading that i got a few weeks ago , i remembered that someone had something similar when they scanned me an year ago and i checked it , sure enough it was. The reading above is much more in detail providing context. if you don't understand the mechanics of the spiritual world then i recommend doing that.

The occult can be very interesting and very profound with their mechanics and metaphysics which directly tie into spirituality and larger reality  , but finding the right people can be very difficult , i know a few like the one who provided the mechanics of the spiritual world i posted above.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Bryanbrax

[Bryanbrax]

science and skeptics dont understand this nor can they appreciate how deep it goes.

[Leo Gura]

@Bryanbrax This is not the thread for this conversation.

[Bryanbrax]

arlight man just contemplate what i said above.

 

and to keep this on topic since the thread aready de railed 

 

[Phyllis Wagner]

@Leo Gura Would you disclose which stocks/ETFs you have bought and what % of your money lies there? No trying to snoop around I am just interested in managing wealth.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

@Leo Gura Would you disclose which stocks/ETFs you have bought and what % of your money lies there? No trying to snoop around I am just interested in managing wealth.

No, since I have a large following and I don't want to influence the market.

2 hours ago, datamonster said:

But as long as you have employees there's always gonna be someone on top who owns the company, i.e. who owns the shares and, according to you, thus leeches of their "creative work". What you're saying seems like a contradiction.

A) Not necessarily. The whole point of socialism is to change that system.

B) Even if there is an owner or a boss, that's not a problem per se. The problem is the systemic value extraction and exploitation. Owners and bosses deliberately conspire to squeeze hard working employees for value. Nothing is stopping Jeff Bezos from paying his employees double or triple. And they deserve it since they built that company. Bezos could still be ridiculously wealthy and Amazon could still be very profitable and successful even while paying x3 wages.

Quote

How do you think trading shares on Wallstreet harms those "hard working" employees, exactly?

It's a value extraction system. That value is generated by the lowest employees, then squeezed upwards and given to shareholders.

That is the entire point of Wall Street.

Quote

Also what do you mean by "hard working"? You are the one who always says that most people are lazy, uncreative and do the most mundane, uninspired work. Now you picture the average Joe as this super hard working, creative, massive value generator who always works so hard but evil people trading the shares of his company exploit all of this poor guy's efforts. This also seems contradictory.

The average Joe is hardworking, but does not generate much creative value. But even the most creative people who work for large companies get very little reward. Some average Joes are lazy, but they still do work and still deserve more pay. If they are super lazy then just pay them less.

I believe that hardworking Joe should be paid more because his work is often very hard. Think of Amazon's lowest level employees who barely have enough time for pee breaks. And I believe the creative folks should also earn a lot more. Basically all workers should get paid way more while shareholders and executives should get way less.

Quote

On the other hand, I'd say that most people in finance actually work quite hard, well above average.

They work hard at stealing value, sure. And Jeffery Epstein worked hard at raping girls, well above average.

[Joel3102]

7 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Again it's a lot more complex than the picture you're trying to paint here.

In general, ideological socialists have a poor understanding (or desire to understand) economics, finance or how capital markets work. 

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Amazon actually pays extremely well.

Not relative to their profits.

21 minutes ago, datamonster said:

How do you think that would affect other companies do who are already struggling and competing for the same workers and don't have the luxury of raising their wages that much?

Companies struggle to compete with Amazon regardless.

Amazon does not employ that many people. It would not be a problem. And if other companies followed suit, it would be good for most workers.

21 minutes ago, datamonster said:

I don't think you're appreciating the bigger picture.

Yes, it is complicated. But the current way capitalism runs will simply not last. It will crumble because it is fundamentally exploitative. That does not mean socialism per se, but it means serious systemic reform.

21 minutes ago, datamonster said:

If you consider the finance industry stealing, the biggest thieves would be our grandparents.

Yes, in a sense old folks are leeching of the young.

[montecristo]

@Leo Gura

 Does it make sense to put everyone to work making widgets, blogs and videogames that other people will pay for so they can generate enough value to deserve the money they receive? The reason why there is so much devilry, stock trading and scamming going on is that there is a survival need for money meanwhile there is a lack of opportunities to generate value that individuals or small collective ego's will value and pay for. The most important work on a collective level that will benefit everyone but no one in particular goes unfunded. 

The real thievery going on in the world right now is not wall street per se,  it's that asset owners live in a world of hyperinflation, they then take that inflated money down to the real world and pay deflated prices for goods and services. It's too good to be true for asset owners, it's as if the citizens of Weimar Germany could take their wheelbarrows full of million mark bills to the neighboring country and pay 1 or 2 marks for a loaf of bread. The money supply increases faster than the amount of value in existence, but instead of being distributed equally to people it pools into the limited number of assets that exist causing hyperinflation but in a localized way. 

Whether people are aware of it or not everyone is a speculator in financial markets, similar to there being nothing outside of god, there is nothing outside of financial markets. You think you're just a regular old Joe with a job, but a job is not a job, it's a commodity arbitrage. The value of the commodity of labor has been steadily decreasing overtime while the value of technology as a commodity has increased. For example a secretary with a computer is capable of orders of magnitude more value creation vs a secretary from the 1950's but they are not payed orders of magnitude more now. Value/money accrues to those that OWN that which generates the most value, an employee is separated from this equation under the current paradigm, a paycheck is not a paycheck it's an ownership interest buyout. What's needed is a sophisticated structure that accurately assesses each person's contribution and remunerates accordingly.

But even that does not solve the deep problem of Game A which is that you inevitably have grossly inequitable distributions of resources because it is in fact a zero sum game. In every transaction there is a winner and a loser, the game of musical chairs works for those that can win in more of these transactions than they lose. If you are personally solvent in this system you have stolen value from someone else by definition. It's fair to say though that I've stolen much more and contributed much less than someone who stole but at least contributed something in the process but it doesn't really change the ultimate dynamics at play. I also believe that given the size of the pie that even those who create no value should be able to have access to the necessities of life.

Granted there is an illusion that it's not zero sum because the denominator has grown so much over the last hundred years or so, i.e the amount of value that exists has gotten much bigger, but shares of that pie at any given moment are finite and therefore zero-sum.

The unfortunate thing about game A is that it tends to squelch those that don't actively participate in it, it's very much a "with us or against us" dynamic which drives its dominance. You are rewarded for participating and punished for not participating, there is no neutral stance to be taken. If you are not long the market you are short, holding cash is not abstaining it is an investment that you unconscioulsy believe offers a better return than anything else.

Might makes right unfortunately so don't we need the most conscious people to have the most might? Isn't it ironic that the biggest devils are the ones who accrue the most wealth and power and the most conscious rarely do? The world would be a much better place if that script was flipped. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by montecristo

[Leo Gura]

Game A is rampant and inevitable, but each of us as individuals can take actions to minimize it.

It's that simple. You can be less Game A-y.

You don't follow me because I am a Wall Street or self-help grifter, you follow me because Actualized.org is in some small way above that shit.

[montecristo]

@Leo GuraI agree,

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Game A is rampant and inevitable, but each of us as individuals can take actions to minimize it.

the action I'm taking to minimize it is to extract as much capacity from it as possible. Most people who want to be less game A-y make the mistake of not participating in it, punishing themselves and weakening the impact they can potentially have.

If they really cared about subverting game A and bringing about the change they want to see they'd find a way to become as powerful and influential as possible in service of that. I think you've done a smashing job of this actually.

[jimwell]

12 hours ago, montecristo said:

@Leo GuraI agree,

the action I'm taking to minimize it is to extract as much capacity from it as possible. Most people who want to be less game A-y make the mistake of not participating in it, punishing themselves and weakening the impact they can potentially have.

If they really cared about subverting game A and bringing about the change they want to see they'd find a way to become as powerful and influential as possible in service of that. I think you've done a smashing job of this actually.

The "Robin Hood" strategy is a sensible way to change things for the better. But the challenge is somebody who wants to be a Robin Hood needs to be Stage Yellow with a strong Green aspect and an additional aspect of either Red or Orange. Are you Stage Yellow? If so, Is your Green aspect solid? If not, and all you got is your Strong Orange aspect, you are simply a white-collar criminal, not Robin Hood. Worse with Stage Red people who are Robin Hood wannabes ?. They are just pure criminals.

The "Jesus" way did not work and never will (at least not significantly in a relatively short period of time). He was instead murdered because he had no power. His way works very well with angels, not with demons and devils. When dealing with demons and devils (in which almost all humans are), the Robin Hood way is very effective.     

The few "Robin Hoods" who have emerged in the 20th century such as Pablo Escobar were all wannabes. They tainted the Robin Hood image. Pablo Escobar "gave back" to the poor Colombians not because he had a strong Green aspect. It was a facade to cover up and justify his crime and bullshit himself into believing he was a Robin Hood. He was just a Stage Red criminal.

So, after accumulating millions via Game A, what is your plan to elevate humanity?        

[montecristo]

@jimwell

I don't see myself as a robinhood but I have given 100's of thousands of dollars to my friends and family unconditionally.

Giving away what relatively small amount of money I have to charity doesn't strike me as being very effective on a global scale.

I have plans to help humanity that I dare not speak of in a public forum because I want to try to limit the potential that I'd lose my freedom in the process, but rest assured someone somewhere (me) is doing what needs to be done. Essentially I am working on something extremely asymmetric and effective at the highest levels of the world's power structures, the consequences of my actions will reverberate for generations to come. It sounds grandiose/exaggerated but the sometimes hyperbole is just the proper descriptor.

 In any case, (I'm sure I'm the exception) my financial independence and total disregard for any kind of profit motive in the endeavor make it possible. It is interesting that markets have allocated resources to a person like me who would have had almost no other way to access significant amounts of capital. Perhaps they will have done some good in the end.