Tectonic Shift in Almost Everything?

[Traveler]

Not sure where to put this thread.  After contemplating the possibilities, this forum heading was chosen but not for any defendable reason – more of a default.  The Book of Mormon stresses a dichotomy of possibilities that are polar opposites.  That “everything” exists with a opposing opposite.  In our literary past, Charles Dickens wrote a masterpiece called, “A tale of Two Cities” – I will quote the first paragraph.

Quote

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct to the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, the some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

 

Perhaps there should be many threads for this subject, but for now there is this thread.  Any subject could be selected – Politics, religion, education, science, health, mental health and stability, entertainment, foreign affairs or whatever.  There seems like we are standing at a threshold of a new world – but of what?  Are things about to get better or much worse?

I will pick science for one topic (though I am interested in all and more than what is listed above).  All the fundamentals of science are being challenged from the relatively new science of quantum physics that is questioning the fundamental particles of bosons and fermions to our very definition of gravity in both Newtonian and relativity physics.   The reason is because a wide range of experimental data is indicating that something of critical importance is missing and there is confusion over to define and quantify not just what it is but how far reaching and impactful it could be. 

In my lifetime science has exploded and changed how we view everything.  Some think science has even replaced religion or at least made religion obsolete.  And yet there seems to be more divergence than consolidation.  What seems to be obvious science to me is challenged by what I believe is pseudo-science.  For example, does science define what is a man or what is a woman, or can we control or dictate through science (or other means) what is a man or what is a woman?

But it is not the question nor the answer that I think is important.  There are two things that I think are more important to ask and answer first.  The first is what are we trying to discover?    The second is what are we intending to achieve?

Are we at a threshold of humanity?  A threshold that opens to a new and wonderful future or are we on the threshold of the destruction of humanity?  Or are we experiencing a natural evolution (change) in that indeed we are coming to an end of somethings that will never be again and a beginning of somethings that never were before?  Or are we just in a cycle that has happened before and will happen again with the old adage that the more things change the more they remain the same?

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I'm seeing things changing in politics, geopolitics, technology, and culture.  Maybe more. 

For the first two, I am reminded about the "Arab Spring" in 2011 when there were numerous populist revolts in various Arab countries against those country's leaders, some regimes fell, and many others were forced to change a bit.  Around 60,000 people killed by the time they were all done.   Similar uprisings and protests are happening here in the world's democracies, and fortunately playing out with only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the violence and killing.  Today is the 'national boycott day when we stick it to Amazon for dumping DEI', for example.  

AI will be changing things so my grandkids will live in a world as different from mine, as my world is as different from the 1890's.  

Culture is seeing a global shift to the right, as people who were blindsided by DEI and radical gender theory and violence done in the name of race, found their voice and are now fighting back.  The end of Facebook and Twitter taking censorship marching orders from the FBI fueled the free speech necessary to combat the rising left-wing authoritarianism.   It needs to shift more, as there's still plenty of cultural elements out there thinking assassinating our nation's president or a CEO of a healthcare company is a good/laudable/supportable thing.   

I see this as just another pendulum move humans do on a 20-30 year cycle.   I mean, it would be nice if the last days are here in 2025, but it would surprise me.  We're psyched about the announced temple arriving in our city in the next 2-5 years, and I look forward to making increased attendance a part of my upcoming retired life next decade.  And I'm still advising my kiddos to contribute to their 401ks early in their working life, so they can take care of themselves in 50 years when they retire. 

Edited February 28 by NeuroTypical

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In my lifetime science has exploded and changed how we view everything.

I get aggravated in how we (mostly politicians) use the word science.

The following are a few of my favorite quotes about science:

“We don’t know. We got nothing folks. Well, we got something. It’s tough...  It’s tough.” - Paul M. Sutter atrophysicist commenting about the theory of early Universe inflation and why it stopped.

“Science doesn’t tell us why.  It tells us why we were wrong.”  - Stuart Firestein (Neuroscientist)

“Science isn’t about being right.”  - Grant  Tremblay Astrophysicist 

After reportedly reviewing a paper with ideas that were so flawed or nonsensical and barely met the basic criteria of scientific discourse he commented, ‘This isn’t right, It’s not even wrong…’ - Wolfgang Pauli Theoretical Physicist

 

Science tests a null hypothesis.  

We make shaky theories and then use these theories to make predictions.  We shouldn’t.

When I hear a politician say we are following the science, I cringe.

Edited February 28 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

18 minutes ago, mikbone said:

When I hear a politician say we are following the science, I cringe.

Laughing is also an acceptable response.

[Phoenix_person]

There's a common belief on the far Left, which I share, that capitalism is collapsing on itself. We live in a system that is propped up on the assumption that anyone can work their way up and become wealthy. While there's truth to that, it's tainted by the fact that ~99% of the world's population will never achieve that regardless of how many bootstraps we pull up (those of us who have bootstraps, that is). 

Wealth disparity is getting out of control, and it's unsustainable. If the religious want continued population growth, and the sense I've always gotten from this forum is that you do, then eventually the scales will need to be balanced. There's no reason to believe that we can't feed the hungry, heal the sick, and house the homeless to a far greater extent than we currently are. I haven't heard many arguments against it that don't boil down to "Billionaires have an inherent right to hoard wealth, and taxing them out of billionaire status is tyranny". It's dumbfounding how often I hear these talking points from people who are WAY closer to being in poverty than they are to being wealthy. And it's not hard to see where those talking points come from. 

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

I get aggravated in how we (mostly politicians) use the word science.

The following are a few of my favorite quotes about science:

“We don’t know. We got nothing folks. Well, we got something. It’s tough...  It’s tough.” - Paul M. Sutter atrophysicist commenting about the theory of early Universe inflation and why it stopped.

“Science doesn’t tell us why.  It tells us why we were wrong.”  - Stuart Firestein (Neuroscientist)

“Science isn’t about being right.”  - Grant  Tremblay Astrophysicist 

After reportedly reviewing a paper with ideas that were so flawed or nonsensical and barely met the basic criteria of scientific discourse he commented, ‘This isn’t right, It’s not even wrong…’ - Wolfgang Pauli Theoretical Physicist

 

Science tests a null hypothesis.  

We make shaky theories and then use these theories to make predictions.  We shouldn’t.

When I hear a politician say we are following the science, I cringe.

The reason why science and theology are forever at odds with each other is because one believes that absolute truths exist and the other does not. Science knows it doesn't have all the answers and is okay with that. And yes, science gets things wrong all the time. That's why it's constantly being vetted and challenged. It's a feature, not a bug, and it's always been that way. It's hard to "trust" something that's absolute, because trust isn't necessary in that hypothetical instance. There's a saying in some atheist circles: only Sith and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

There's a common belief on the far Left, which I share, that capitalism is collapsing on itself. We live in a system that is propped up on the assumption that anyone can work their way up and become wealthy. While there's truth to that, it's tainted by the fact that ~99% of the world's population will never achieve that regardless of how many bootstraps we pull up (those of us who have bootstraps, that is). 

Wealth disparity is getting out of control, and it's unsustainable. If the religious want continued population growth, and the sense I've always gotten from this forum is that you do, then eventually the scales will need to be balanced. There's no reason to believe that we can't feed the hungry, heal the sick, and house the homeless to a far greater extent than we currently are. I haven't heard many arguments against it that don't boil down to "Billionaires have an inherent right to hoard wealth, and taxing them out of billionaire status is tyranny". It's dumbfounding how often I hear these talking points from people who are WAY closer to being in poverty than they are to being wealthy. And it's not hard to see where those talking points come from. 

The reason why science and theology are forever at odds with each other is because one believes that absolute truths exist and the other does not. Science knows it doesn't have all the answers and is okay with that. And yes, science gets things wrong all the time. That's why it's constantly being vetted and challenged. It's a feature, not a bug, and it's always been that way. It's hard to "trust" something that's absolute, because trust isn't necessary in that hypothetical instance. There's a saying in some atheist circles: only Sith and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes.

I am glad to see you posting again.  Thanks for your input.  I am, however, concerned with what appears to me to be a rut you are stuck in.  I will challenge your understanding of wealth verses poverty.  Throughout all history the single most economic system to even come close to eliminating poverty has been capitalism.  The single most “economic” cause in the disparity between wealth and poverty in our era that I am aware of is the implementation of compound interest.   Because of your particular view – I would very much appreciate a dialog that addresses compound interest.

As a side note – it is my personal belief and understanding that compound interest would absolutely be completely eliminated in a true capitalist economy.   Compound interest is an element directly controlled out of by an oligarchy.  Which BTW is what your graphic represents the most.

I would also like to discuss 5 factors that I believe contribute to why individuals are not productive and able to function economically.

First category. I will call them the severely handicapped (either mentally or physically or both) they are incapable of economically benefiting society and must be cared for.  There is no possible way for them ever to contribute.

Second category. I will call them addicted substance abusers.  Though this mostly a spectrum rather than an individual category – they are never-the-less individuals incapable of economic contribution or of making decisions on their own and must be cared for.

Third category.  I will call them the age category which is in essence adolescence and extremely aged

Fourth category.  I will call Hobos.  These are individuals that for whatever reason have made a conscious decision to drop off from contributing economically to society.  Though they are mentally and physically capable of contributing, they choose otherwise.

Fifth category.  I will call the economic fringe.  They are hardly capable of contributing economically and any difficulty experienced leaves them temporarily below the poverty line.  This is the only category that can be helped out of poverty by various efforts of charity. 

My personal experience with those that suffer from poverty fit into both the first and second categories.  They suffer from both mental (or physical) and substance dependence.  I have worked to help these individuals and have concluded that I lack the understanding of any beneficial method of assistance.  If you have some beneficial ideas, I would be interested in how you have had success.  It is mostly my impression that the first 3 categories must be institutionalized.  The first two categories must be socially institutionalized, and the third category is best institutionalized within a family organization – preferably headed by a loving father figure and a loving mother figure.  (I do recognize that the preferred family may not be functional which leaves less preferable possibilities).

I have had little exposure to the third category, but I believe they will choose what they will regardless of intervention by anyone else.

My final question is – Is the idea of only Sith and religious fundamentalists dealing in absolutes -dealing in an absolute in and of itself?

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am glad to see you posting again.  Thanks for your input.  I am, however, concerned with what appears to me to be a rut you are stuck in.  I will challenge your understanding of wealth verses poverty.  Throughout all history the single most economic system to even come close to eliminating poverty has been capitalism.  The single most “economic” cause in the disparity between wealth and poverty in our era that I am aware of is the implementation of compound interest.   Because of your particular view – I would very much appreciate a dialog that addresses compound interest.

Compound interest isn't something that occupies much thought for me. It sucks and it's likely never going anywhere. I feel that way about many features of capitalism. I have bigger fish to fry at present. 🤷‍♂️

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

As a side note – it is my personal belief and understanding that compound interest would absolutely be completely eliminated in a true capitalist economy.  

How do you figure? A true communist economy would be an actual utopia, but theory alone only gets you so far. We've spent centuries watching capitalism play out in practice. The idea of capitalists abandoning compound interest is a fantasy.

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

 Compound interest is an element directly controlled out of by an oligarchy.  Which BTW is what your graphic represents the most.

Good luck getting rid of it, especially under a government that doesn't want to regulate anything.

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Fourth category.  I will call Hobos.  These are individuals that for whatever reason have made a conscious decision to drop off from contributing economically to society.  Though they are mentally and physically capable of contributing, they choose otherwise.

An overwhelming majority of the people you put in this category are also in categories 1 and/or 2 (and those two have a TON of overlap). Yes, some of them make a conscious choice to stop trying to contribute to society and put a roof over their heads. Often, they arrive at this decision after years of hardship due to addiction and/or mental illness. Everyone has a breaking point. Most people are situationally closer to being hobos than they are to being millionaires.

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Fifth category.  I will call the economic fringe.  They are hardly capable of contributing economically and any difficulty experienced leaves them temporarily below the poverty line.  This is the only category that can be helped out of poverty by various efforts of charity. 

I'm 5 with a heavy dose of 1 and a splash of 2. I wouldn't say that my mental illness and predisposition to addiction prevent me from working altogether*, but it certainly hasn't made life easy. 

*I have a 100% disability rating from the VA for PTSD alone. According to their rating criteria, I am not mentally competent enough to work and should probably be institutionalized. I'm inclined to disagree, though I certainly won't downplay the severe volatility of my mental state. I'm a free man only because they concluded, correctly, that I am not a danger to anyone but myself. And while the VA has assured me that there's a bed in St Cloud waiting for me if I ever need it, there aren't enough resources to institutionalize everyone who is a danger to themselves.

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

My personal experience with those that suffer from poverty fit into both the first and second categories.  They suffer from both mental (or physical) and substance dependence.  I have worked to help these individuals and have concluded that I lack the understanding of any beneficial method of assistance.  If you have some beneficial ideas, I would be interested in how you have had success.

I have $20k in medical debt and a lawsuit against me from a bank over a delinquent credit card (related to the medical debt). I would not say that I have had success. 

The biggest problem with the way we approach poverty is that we keep trying to address individual symptoms of a very complicated affliction that tends to render people into burdens on society rather than contributors to it, and it's hard to garner support for people who struggle to be productive citizens. 

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

The first two categories must be socially institutionalized,

Compulsory mass institutionalization of disabled people and addicts is a terrible idea that will probably end with war crimes (and has, historically). As I said, categories 1 and 2 don't get much sympathy from the general public, especially at the ballot box. If we were to provide support for everyone unable to work, the tax burden would be tremendous, and there aren't nearly enough charities to pick up the slack. Heck, I'm a disabled veteran and I couldn't find any organization in the Twin Cities metro that would provide me with assisted living (which the doctors really wanted me to have due to my fresh skin grafts, not to mention the entire psychiatric reason that I was recovering from burns in a St Paul psych ward to begin with). I was considered too high of a suicide risk. Instead, I had to look for an apartment, which I was able to secure entirely from the psych ward. And I was only able to do THAT because I receive $4k/mo from the VA because the Army broke my brain. A lot of mentally ill folks and addicts don't have that lifeline, and there are a LOT of mentally ill people and addicts clinging to that bottom rung of society's ladder with far less support than I've had. 

Here in Minnesota, in addition to trying to increase taxes on the wealthy, progressives are pushing hard to drastically reduce corporate welfare to free up money for more support for our most vulnerable citizens. Because let's face it, the only time poor people were freely given government cheese was when it was ACTUAL cheese. Meanwhile, at the federal level, I'm sure Elon will have no trouble finding new government contracts for his companies, paid for with all that money he's saving taxpayers. A lot of the people you're describing benefit from programs that are currently at the front of the line for government cuts, because Medicaid foots the bill for a lot of those programs. Republicans know it. 14 Minnesota Republican state legislators recently signed a letter to Trump and their congressional delegation urging them not to jeopardize Medicaid funding in budget talks. They know it would be political suicide for them to have to reciprocate those cuts at the state level. Walz is warning of possibly needing to do exactly that (and yes, he's getting a lot of DFL pushback for it). If that happens, the DFL gets to paint a huge target on the GOP's back, and I have a feeling that Minnesota isn't unique in that situation.

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

and the third category is best institutionalized within a family organization – preferably headed by a loving father figure and a loving mother figure.  (I do recognize that the preferred family may not be functional which leaves less preferable possibilities).

I'm old enough to remember the lieutenant governor of Texas saying that he and a lot of elderly people were willing to risk dying of COVID during the peak of the pandemic if it meant getting people back to work so our economy wouldn't completely collapse. I also recall that not being a very controversial take in GOP circles. We've seen what conservatives think of the most vulnerable people in our population. Our society (not just conservatives, to be fair) values our national economic stability above the well-being of people who are unable to contribute to the economy, a group of people that I've heard go by many names: leeches, social parasites, welfare queens, etc. And yes, fraud and abuse are big problems in welfare programs (just ask Brett Favre), and those issues shouldn't be ignored. But the legitimate need is too great to let abuse derail the entire support network, lean as it is already. 

 

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

My final question is – Is the idea of only Sith and religious fundamentalists dealing in absolutes -dealing in an absolute in and of itself?

 

The Traveler

It's a paradox, yes. No one ever accused George Lucas of good writing, but that doesn't mean that there's no use for paradoxical ideas in our world. The paradox of tolerance (that intolerance cannot and should not be tolerated) does a good job of demonstrating that.

Edited March 2 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

On 3/1/2025 at 10:58 AM, Phoenix_person said:

We live in a system that is propped up on the assumption that anyone can work their way up and become wealthy.

Who came up with that idea?

Capitalism NEVER promises that "anyone" can become wealthy.  That's just the mantra of self-help gurus.

Edited March 4 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

On 3/1/2025 at 8:42 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Compound interest isn't something that occupies much thought for me. It sucks and it's likely never going anywhere. I feel that way about many features of capitalism. I have bigger fish to fry at present. 🤷‍♂️

How do you figure? A true communist economy would be an actual utopia, but theory alone only gets you so far. We've spent centuries watching capitalism play out in practice. The idea of capitalists abandoning compound interest is a fantasy.

Good luck getting rid of it, especially under a government that doesn't want to regulate anything.

An overwhelming majority of the people you put in this category are also in categories 1 and/or 2 (and those two have a TON of overlap). Yes, some of them make a conscious choice to stop trying to contribute to society and put a roof over their heads. Often, they arrive at this decision after years of hardship due to addiction and/or mental illness. Everyone has a breaking point. Most people are situationally closer to being hobos than they are to being millionaires.

I'm 5 with a heavy dose of 1 and a splash of 2. I wouldn't say that my mental illness and predisposition to addiction prevent me from working altogether*, but it certainly hasn't made life easy. 

*I have a 100% disability rating from the VA for PTSD alone. According to their rating criteria, I am not mentally competent enough to work and should probably be institutionalized. I'm inclined to disagree, though I certainly won't downplay the severe volatility of my mental state. I'm a free man only because they concluded, correctly, that I am not a danger to anyone but myself. And while the VA has assured me that there's a bed in St Cloud waiting for me if I ever need it, there aren't enough resources to institutionalize everyone who is a danger to themselves.

I have $20k in medical debt and a lawsuit against me from a bank over a delinquent credit card (related to the medical debt). I would not say that I have had success. 

The biggest problem with the way we approach poverty is that we keep trying to address individual symptoms of a very complicated affliction that tends to render people into burdens on society rather than contributors to it, and it's hard to garner support for people who struggle to be productive citizens. 

Compulsory mass institutionalization of disabled people and addicts is a terrible idea that will probably end with war crimes (and has, historically). As I said, categories 1 and 2 don't get much sympathy from the general public, especially at the ballot box. If we were to provide support for everyone unable to work, the tax burden would be tremendous, and there aren't nearly enough charities to pick up the slack. Heck, I'm a disabled veteran and I couldn't find any organization in the Twin Cities metro that would provide me with assisted living (which the doctors really wanted me to have due to my fresh skin grafts, not to mention the entire psychiatric reason that I was recovering from burns in a St Paul psych ward to begin with). I was considered too high of a suicide risk. Instead, I had to look for an apartment, which I was able to secure entirely from the psych ward. And I was only able to do THAT because I receive $4k/mo from the VA because the Army broke my brain. A lot of mentally ill folks and addicts don't have that lifeline, and there are a LOT of mentally ill people and addicts clinging to that bottom rung of society's ladder with far less support than I've had. 

Here in Minnesota, in addition to trying to increase taxes on the wealthy, progressives are pushing hard to drastically reduce corporate welfare to free up money for more support for our most vulnerable citizens. Because let's face it, the only time poor people were freely given government cheese was when it was ACTUAL cheese. Meanwhile, at the federal level, I'm sure Elon will have no trouble finding new government contracts for his companies, paid for with all that money he's saving taxpayers. A lot of the people you're describing benefit from programs that are currently at the front of the line for government cuts, because Medicaid foots the bill for a lot of those programs. Republicans know it. 14 Minnesota Republican state legislators recently signed a letter to Trump and their congressional delegation urging them not to jeopardize Medicaid funding in budget talks. They know it would be political suicide for them to have to reciprocate those cuts at the state level. Walz is warning of possibly needing to do exactly that (and yes, he's getting a lot of DFL pushback for it). If that happens, the DFL gets to paint a huge target on the GOP's back, and I have a feeling that Minnesota isn't unique in that situation.

I'm old enough to remember the lieutenant governor of Texas saying that he and a lot of elderly people were willing to risk dying of COVID during the peak of the pandemic if it meant getting people back to work so our economy wouldn't completely collapse. I also recall that not being a very controversial take in GOP circles. We've seen what conservatives think of the most vulnerable people in our population. Our society (not just conservatives, to be fair) values our national economic stability above the well-being of people who are unable to contribute to the economy, a group of people that I've heard go by many names: leeches, social parasites, welfare queens, etc. And yes, fraud and abuse are big problems in welfare programs (just ask Brett Favre), and those issues shouldn't be ignored. But the legitimate need is too great to let abuse derail the entire support network, lean as it is already. 

 

It's a paradox, yes. No one ever accused George Lucas of good writing, but that doesn't mean that there's no use for paradoxical ideas in our world. The paradox of tolerance (that intolerance cannot and should not be tolerated) does a good job of demonstrating that.

Thank you for your input.

Compound interest was first known to be instituted in the banking industry of ancient Babylon over 4 millennium years ago.  It was first called interest upon interest.  Though elements of capitalism have always been used in all economic systems, capitalism was not officially instituted as an economic system until the industrial revolutionary period which began in the 18^th century.  My point here is that the two principles (capitalism and compound interest) are not synonymous.

What I have been trying to help you understand is that the failure of all economic systems have been directly related to a declining economic output – in short, the need for goods and services have far outreached the supply.   Sadly, almost every system that has previously existed has ended with a reserve of goods and services among a hierarchy of that society.  The exception being societies destroyed by natural disasters and wars.

The only reason that I support capitalism is because it is the only system capable of maximizing the output of goods and services.  Those that tout socialized economic systems focus only on the even distribution of goods and services and not on the increasing of goods and services – even in order to meet basic needs. 

I believe I understand your concerns – better than most.  At one point of my life, I spent 40 days surviving in high altitude deserts of central and southern Utah with a rope, the clothes on my back, the shoes on my feet, a hat, a jacket (military field jacket) and a knife.   I ate mostly grubs and insects.

I have met real hobos.  They tend to avoid cities and survive in mostly wilderness settings.

I consider someone to be institutionalized if they are dependent on the output of others to meet their needs.  The problem with relying and depending on others is that you will always be subservient to whatever they are willing to provide, or you will use force (even violence) to acquire needed goods and services.  I believe it is this complete misunderstanding of being subservient that is used to sell socialism as a beneficial economic solution. 

I am curious why you are opposed to capitalism on one hand and could care less about compound interest.  It is simple mathematics that is all that is needed to demonstrate that by eliminating compound interest one will triple to a multiple of ten one’s purchasing power depending on payoff structures.   If you use a credit card, borrow to purchase an automobile or home – would you be able to live within your means of 5 times your current salary?   That is what you would have just by going to a banking system without compound interest and our current capitalism.  You really think you would be better under any socialized system?  I doubt you have looked into this in depth.

As a side note my brother was hospitalized while he and I were on vacation in Norway – Norway is supposed to have the best socialized medical on the planet.  After the first night he was fearful for his and other’s life for lack of care at the hospital.

It should tell you something when the vast majority of illegal immigration into the USA are poor individuals trying to get into the most capitalistic nation on earth – many of whom are fleeing socialized countries.   Every nation I know of – including socialized countries (including Russia and China) have national banks charging compound interest. 

My friend – I do not care where you think you may want to live or how you may think you want to live anywhere – if you do not get rid of compound interest in your life (and those around you) – you will all be worse off economically than you are now.

 

The Traveler

Edited March 4 by Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

On 3/4/2025 at 3:11 PM, Traveler said:

My friend – I do not care where you think you may want to live or how you may think you want to live anywhere – if you do not get rid of compound interest in your life (and those around you) – you will all be worse off economically than you are now.

I agree with you, to be clear. I just don't think eliminating compound interest is a realistic goal right now. Greed is too deeply entrenched in every aspect of our financial system, and the people who benefit the most from compound interest have themselves deep in the pockets of politicians of both parties. You'd have just as much luck abolishing credit cards altogether.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 3/3/2025 at 3:23 PM, Carborendum said:

Capitalism NEVER promises that "anyone" can become wealthy. 

Of course it does.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I agree with you, to be clear. I just don't think eliminating compound interest is a realistic goal right now. Greed is too deeply entrenched in every aspect of our financial system, and the people who benefit the most from compound interest have themselves deep in the pockets of politicians of both parties. You'd have just as much luck abolishing credit cards altogether.

Thanks for your response.  

Riding society (at least on a limited basis) may be closer than you think.  Both by scripture (Quran) and by the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) the first or prime directive of a Jihad (holy war) is the ending of compound interest and Satan that is behind it.  This is the primary reason that the twin towers on Wall Street in New York, were targeted in 9/11.

My argument directed to my Islamic friends, is that 9/11 was evil because all the deaths were carried out on innocent captive slaves of compound interest and that the perpetrators of compound interest were unharmed.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course it does.

I disagree.

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for your response.  

Riding society (at least on a limited basis) may be closer than you think.  Both by scripture (Quran) and by the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) the first or prime directive of a Jihad (holy war) is the ending of compound interest and Satan that is behind it.  This is the primary reason that the twin towers on Wall Street in New York, were targeted in 9/11.

My argument directed to my Islamic friends, is that 9/11 was evil because all the deaths were carried out on innocent captive slaves of compound interest and that the perpetrators of compound interest were unharmed.

 

The Traveler

I think 9/11 was about a lot more than compound interest.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

On 3/3/2025 at 3:23 PM, Carborendum said:

Capitalism NEVER promises that "anyone" can become wealthy. 

Of course it does.

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I disagree.

From my perspective, all human economic systems are set up for human betterment.    Many of them is the benefit of certain humans only - warlords, dictators, royalty, etc.   

Socialism/communism is the notion that the best answer is equality of outcome.  "from each according to their ability, to each according to need" and so forth.   Doomed to fail because human nature, in fact nature in general, in fact universal laws force inequality of outcome.  The "E" in DEI is all about that.  A refutation of merit rewards, in favor of equal rewards regardless of merit.

Capitalism is the notion that equality of opportunity is the best answer.  Merit based, not equity based.  "Nothing's stopping you, show us what you can do, and you'll be rewarded if you create value."   Its the best thing we've come up with yet, because it aligns with human/natural/universal laws.   It forces individuals/families to create and grow their own merit and value.  It relies on human kindness and compassion for safety nets for the folks who can't.  If your birth defect is severe enough, you have zero chance of creating wealth.   Is it also doomed to fail as the wealth gap grows?  I dunno.  Maybe all systems are doomed to fail.   But capitalism, for 150 years, has done more to advance the human condition, than any other system.   Capitalism has the fewest massacres and genocides and mass deaths, no matter how it's measured.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 09:48 PM by NeuroTypical

[Phoenix_person]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

From my perspective, all human economic systems are set up for human betterment.    Many of them is the benefit of certain humans only - warlords, dictators, royalty, etc.   

Socialism/communism is the notion that the best answer is equality of outcome.  "from each according to their ability, to each according to need" and so forth.   Doomed to fail because human nature, in fact nature in general, in fact universal laws force inequality of outcome.  The "E" in DEI is all about that.  A refutation of merit rewards, in favor of equal rewards regardless of merit.

The idea that merit has no place alongside DEI is a conservative lie. There's plenty of room for both to coexist. It doesn't always work put that way because humans are flawed, but I suppose having Fox News personalities in high government positions goes to show that traditional meritocracy isn't immune from human error either.

Edited Thursday at 10:01 PM by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The idea that merit has no place alongside DEI is a conservative lie. There's plenty of room for both to coexist.

Dude I was literally reading the chat of my progressive DEI group, where they spent an entire hour griping about the evils of the word 'merit', and expressing their anger and hatred of the term and everything it entails.  Describing the ways they've been victims of the merit-based mentality.  Talking about how they as a historically marginalized racial minority was only able to get a jump up because of some program that replaced merit in the name of fighting white privilege.   Such notions are commonly expressed in that group across the 4 years I've been involved with 'em.   

So yeah, 'conservative lie' my flabby cuthroat capitalist hiney.  Or, more charitably, you've got your work cut out for you to convince many of your fellow progressives of the virtues of merit-based principles.

In your next community activist gettogether thing, maybe bring up how meritocracies are good things that help folks, and let us know how that goes.

Edited Thursday at 10:11 PM by NeuroTypical

[Phoenix_person]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dude I was literally reading the chat of my progressive DEI group, where they spent an entire hour griping about the evils of the word 'merit', and expressing their anger and hatred of the term and everything it entails.  Describing the ways they've been victims of the merit-based mentality.  Talking about how they as a historically marginalized racial minority was only able to get a jump up because of some program that replaced merit in the name of fighting white privilege.   Such notions are commonly expressed in that group across the 4 years I've been involved with 'em.   

So yeah, 'conservative lie' my flabby cuthroat capitalist hiney.

I've encountered conservative circles that think women and ethnic minorities have no place in civilized society. It's a good thing I don't limit myself to interacting with only one field of conservative thought.

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I've encountered conservative circles that think women and ethnic minorities have no place in civilized society. It's a good thing I don't limit myself to interacting with only one field of conservative thought.

I’ve been semi active in conservative circles for decades now and I’ve never heard anything close to that. Unless you have friends in the KKK or some other extreme far right group, this hard to believe.   

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I think 9/11 was about a lot more than compound interest.

Let me help you since you may not be able to find what needs to be considered on Google – but I would say you can go to a Muslem mosque on a Friday (Islamic day of worship) and ask the following.  On the last day of the Hajj before sundown – why are stones thrown at a pillar?   What is the significance of the last day before sundown and the pillar and throwing a stone?  And then as a follow-on question – What is the primary indication of HaSatan’s power at the end of times.

If you do now want to take the time at a mosque I will help you.  The Hajj is a symbolic representation the path in life leading to submission to Alah.  The word Islam means submission to the will of G-d (Alah).  The last day before sundown is representative of the last days of a world ruled by evil.  The pillar is representative of HaSatan that is the evil ruler currently in power of this world.  The throwing of a stone is representative of submission to the will of G-d to fight violently against HaSatan at the end of times.  The primary indication of HaSatan is the gathering of wealth by the means of compound interest.  As a side note this is parallel a Biblical (Christian) doctrine that the love of money is the root of “ALL” Evil.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

32 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve been semi active in conservative circles for decades now and I’ve never heard anything close to that. Unless you have friends in the KKK or some other extreme far right group, this hard to believe.   

And I don't know that I've ever met a leftist who honestly believes that merit isn't important at all. That's the point I was trying to make. Because yes, the conservative views I mentioned are very extremist, and a dime a dozen on places like Gab, which is used by current elected members of our government.

 

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Let me help you since you may not be able to find what needs to be considered on Google – but I would say you can go to a Muslem mosque on a Friday (Islamic day of worship) and ask the following.  On the last day of the Hajj before sundown – why are stones thrown at a pillar?   What is the significance of the last day before sundown and the pillar and throwing a stone?  And then as a follow-on question – What is the primary indication of HaSatan’s power at the end of times.

If you do now want to take the time at a mosque I will help you.  The Hajj is a symbolic representation the path in life leading to submission to Alah.  The word Islam means submission to the will of G-d (Alah).  The last day before sundown is representative of the last days of a world ruled by evil.  The pillar is representative of HaSatan that is the evil ruler currently in power of this world.  The throwing of a stone is representative of submission to the will of G-d to fight violently against HaSatan at the end of times.  The primary indication of HaSatan is the gathering of wealth by the means of compound interest.  As a side note this is parallel a Biblical (Christian) doctrine that the love of money is the root of “ALL” Evil.

 

The Traveler

I misread your post as saying that compound interest was the reason for the entire attack, not the reason for the specific target. My mistake.

FWIW, I am very aware of the Muslim beliefs about interest. It's come up in some of my organizing work, spearheaded by Somali residents and mostly in the context of housing. So yes, there's work being done around it. But I suspect that marginal, regional progress is probably the best we can hope for.

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

And I don't know that I've ever met a leftist who honestly believes that merit isn't important at all

I totally agree with you there, 100%. 

[LDSGator]

All of the liberals I know want their mom or son to be operated on by the best doctors, their plane to be flown by competent pilots, and their steak made by a chef who knows what she is doing. 

Edited Thursday at 11:53 PM by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I've encountered conservative circles that think women and ethnic minorities have no place in civilized society. It's a good thing I don't limit myself to interacting with only one field of conservative thought.

Ok, that's fair.   My particular "field of progressive thought" would be the ones professionally employed by global corporations that fund Employee Resource Groups.  You find those no-women types in what, X threads where qanon nazis hang out?

[Phoenix_person]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You find those no-women types in what, X threads where qanon nazis hang out?

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

yes, the conservative views I mentioned are very extremist, and a dime a dozen on places like Gab, which is used by current elected members of our government.

Gab's founder is a white nationalist who proudly wears the label of anti-semite. He pushes "white replacement theory", a racist fear campaign I've seen parroted by elected officials. White nationalism has its foot in the door of your party. It's in DC. It's in multiple state legislatures. You know why qanazis vex me so much? It's because of stuff like this: