Friday, December 24, 2010

there's a fairly good show on, on the show Nova .... it's the latest on from few months back on economics and perception. they try to make an argument for a "get it now" ideology ... bird in the hand sort of thing. but that's wrong. if you tell a person you will give them a hundred dollars in a year, or if they want, you can give them $102 in a year and one day .... they will choose the second. but if you ask them if they want a hundred dollars now, or $102 tomorrow, they will ask for the $100 now. and the show tries to make an argument how that is an illogical choice when it is not.

has to do with the abstract value of money being combined with the abstract idea of TIME. and not for reasons of "give me now, tomorrow i may be dead" as the limp theorist they employ seems to believe. no ... the reasons to choose $100 now over $102 tomorrow, are that when factored by TIME, you have a choice of either receiving $51 dollars a day for your time .... or $100 a day. $100 today IS the more logical choice. NOT "appears to be."

waiting is seen as the equivalent of "working" .... there is no distinction between leisure and industry, for time is time and the action does not determine the duration realized.

applying the same view to a wait of a year for $100, or a wait of year & day for $102 ---you're looking at about $8 a month wage, which is how the brain "quantifies" the 'time' of 'wait.' then, adding a day for $2 extra, makes that one day jump from $8 a month 'wage,' to $60 dollars a month. the extra day does not 'add to the wait' so much as it increases the wage RATE. like a boss saying, i'll pay you 7 times your regular wage if you'll work just one more day.

the simple reason, is not rational verses irrational behavior. the difference is between working man verses non-working. the difference is between those making REAL money, and those who live to inject more 'ghost-money' into the economy. and then the reason those who work for their money are suckered, is because as a rule the industry in our society pay employees AFTER the time is given, not before. so the set-up implying no-faith in the worker, is ALSO the psychological plant for creating a factoring process in the brain that precludes distinction between leisure verses 'working' TIME.

when TIME becomes an element of the equation, to compute leisure verses working doubles the amount of computation necessary. the human mind will say screw it, and make time time.... no matter the activity.

therefore, someone like your brother, who makes $100,000 a year, will actually spend less TIME on the phone with YOU, because you are unemployed and seen as having "less-valuable" time. after all, he has 'things' to do, and you have nothing better to do than WAIT.

the reality is not perceived at all .... that since you are not SELLING your time for a specific amount, that means you are NOT indentured. that means your time HAS NO PRICE: it does NOT mean that your time has no value. what makes time valuable?

some would say spending it with friends and family, some say it's a walk in the woods. how valuable was the time Da Vinci, for example .... when he paused for two minutes to doodle the sketch of an airplane?

CAN you apply a set value to TIME? the answer is, you can't. unless a "complete destruction of man" is set as a DATE for the 'ends of all things' .... there is no determining factor for how valuable someone's time BECOMES.

even the time spent fucking ....... and i'm SERIOUS. how VALUABLE is the TIME of Da Vinci's parents, when they TOOK the time to procreate in order to BIRTH that individual?

you cannot separate these things .... and the average person perceives the nature and continuity. so it is not so much as the brain being "lazy" and a person refusing to distinguish leisure from working time.

the reasons go deeper. down, not up. for anyone with half a brain looking at the bigger picture -- the answer is "why bother?" and you come smack dab up to the "meaning of life." what IS comfort? can you EVEN experience comfort, if not first experiencing 'uncomfort.' (notice webster doesn't give us that word ...allows only 'discomfort' which makes it so you can ONLY take comfort AWAY. gives it a starting point that in reality it DOES NOT HAVE).

so our language, even ... is reinforcing our misperceptions. and the reality is that you CANNOT even experience true leisure, without working first. is the opposite true? that you cannot experience true 'working' ... without having leisure first?

then we go deeper ... and slam up to our REASONS for child-labor laws. what are the DIFFERENCES in 'economic-thought' of those who grow up working on a farm, for example ... to those who play and go to school in a city?

a better question ... is WHICH one would YOU want at your back, if you all had to go march off to war together?

and a REALLY interesting question ... is that, in the psychology of a human, does work as a child make for a more discerning individual in an adult? and the POINT for child labor laws .... which incidentally, arose at the same time in our history as the pyramid economic scheme and the robber barons. AND approximately on the heels of the 'invention' of psychology itself......could the REAL point of sending children to school and play for their TIME use, to be to create a more compliant workforce?

so i find it quite interesting, that the VERY design of the economists to 'engineer' a working force for industry in this country ... is the same damn thing they are now attacking and placing the blame on WORKER for maintaining the misperceptions that THEY planted.

it's like ..... what are you going to do NEXT, hit me over the head and blame me for having a skull that damaged your hammer?

gotta remember, folks ....... this was all set in motion by the generations that brought us TWO ........not ONE .......step right up! they brought us TWO wars. and in a time, no less .... where it took a boat to travel the distance. you are looking at a generation span that more historical impact than EVERY other before it back to before Christ.

and NOW ...... we're having to clean up their mess. and i don't know IF we can. as far as "reason" ...why them, why now? we have the 'industrial revolution' the 'chemical revolution' the various strides to foster innovation.

but we also have 2 main factors in human psychology: the introduction of cocaine. AND the creation of a public school system.

take your pick.

and then ASK yourself, why do we have LAWS on the books from centuries back, making suicide ILLEGAL.

how do they plan to arrest a dead man? so if you TRY, you damn well better succeed. if we did NOT currently have that type of legislation in place ........ what kind of 'occurrences' would be required for a legislative body to convene and MAKE suicide illegal?

gotta remember, these people aren't stupid. if ANYTHING, the human (specifically caucasian race) was brighter generations back. not dimmer. just because they weren't getting on their cell phones to call their boss, doesn't make them STUPID. because i can guarantee you, that the LEAST of our predecessors, would NOT need a law to prevent them from getting on that phone in the car.

they would just SEE it as foolish, and not do it.

so ...............we have generations now, of INFERIOR humans, trying to clean up the mess made by those who were a good 50 points or better in IQ range. anybody ready to call uncle?

and THEN, the few who are left with a smattering of brain cells .... decide to use that to blame economic disaster on the WORKING man and the "obvious" conclusion the "he is just not SMART with money" and that the REASON you don't get to eat is because you couldn't figure out how to press a penny up to a glass window.

now, am i pissed? extremely. you all made your mess .... you clean it up. that's what i want to say. but they are NOT cleaning up ..........what does america DO? we IMPORT other cultures then, to run them through the SAME rat maze after our own native citizens got worn out trying to find the cheese. AND we put THAT forth as some altruistic endeavor. AND we crush anybody who does not play ball with our economic engine. AND we figured out how to harness the very thing that took down the LAST bad world empire, and make the principals for HAVING religion a psychological fortification for the very thing, it was created long ago to FIGHT.

so .....if i create one more "so" i'm going to fall into a so-tangent of infinity. the point is, that MONEY is abstract, and TIME is abstract. you are TOLD what they mean. when engineered in meaning TOGETHER .... what you have is genocidal brainwashing.

why i have worked at attacking TIME: because against money, we already lost that war. going the greater distance, is not going to make us understand that TIME does not exist. it is a figment of your imagination ....... you were NOT born with a clock sewed into your forehead. someone INVENTED the clock.

AND it's based on the INVENTION to measure DISTANCE .... the mechanics are identical. and then they "WOW" the populace with "scientific" connections between distance and time! i mean .............. come the fucking on ........ how much more does this societal 'information-machine' expect the average "thinking' person to believe and swallow?

it leaves us with NOTHING. the only reality you can then trust, is whatever discoveries can be singularly made. we are at square ONE. man hits stone on rock, makes spark and starts fire. and what are the PRESCHOOLS now toting as the optimal teaching mechanism? personal investigation of environment.

developed in italy ........... the people who BROUGHT us crucifiction in the first place. Merry Christmas.

now .... ditching THAT particular fun tangent i couldn't resist, here is the rest of my article:

so we are looking at differences of those who "visualize" the abstract idea of money as something earned for their time ...... verses those who perceive money as a means to power. has nothing to do with rational/irrational ... if anything, choosing the $100 today does not "appear" to be the rational choice .... it IS the rational choice. so they got that wrong.

and the experiment to show how bidding on a $20 dollar bill winds up with some interesting results .... it's not the "competition" variable that created the scenario. it was a matter of math again .... over time. the one that stopped the bidding and took the loss, was able to do the math. and see that continuing the bidding was creating an equal loss for each of them. he was thinking in a group dynamic, verses the other male who was not.

had nothing to do with "irrational" behavior or attitudes toward money ...and everything to do with the meaning of true intelligence. the results of that experiment only proved a strong sociological difference in protecting ones fellow man as it relates to the brain-calculation function. can understand how the one who kept bidding, would rather lose the $8.00 than $28.00. but could he SEE, that no matter how hard he tried, working for less of a loss INDIVIDUALLY only made for MORE of a loss, jointly?

but he couldn't do the math and see that the other could stay in the game, and they would always have a $20 diffence in loss. there WAS no competition. the only variable that changed was the increasing loss for each individual if they continued to foolishly bid.

since conditions of the game allowed for no variance in the difference ... "winning" would prove nothing of individual worth or skill .... so it's not a worthwhile game and a waste of time. the look of dejection on the face of the 'loser' was not because he was broken up over paying $28. it was because, that for $28 .... he didn't even get a REAL contest.

so the one guy lost $8 and the other guy lost $28. does that make either one a "winner?" what you are seeing are DIFFERING perceptional values of negative numbers. and the abstract value of money as a measure of HUMAN value, which creates "worth" into a matter of 'differences.' (on this we get struggles for society to 'conform' due to ANY difference being tied to a negative) technically, there is no such thing as a negative number. you can't sit there with 3 apples, have someone tell you they are going to take FOUR apples away from you and leave you with MINUS one apple.

it's not reality .... it's a type of abstract thought. so DEGREE does not pertain to negative .... a loss is a loss. there IS a bottom. you cannot fall infinity into debt. you either have one, or you don't. it's a singular degree of finite value. once the bidding scenario passed the point of either one experiencing a GAIN, they both lost equally, while the instigator never risked ANYTHING. at the initial bid of $10 for twenty, with the rules that were in place, you have him getting full price on first bid. he doesn't even HAVE to have the $20. you just gave him that $20, that he is then selling BACK to you for whatever can be gotten. he doesn't care when the bidding stops. the fact that there IS bidding is all that is necessary.

the important point of that experiment, is the notion of 'complicity.' with an economic 'game' of this sort, you don't need TWO suckers. you only need one. and then the "winner" of the bid is given a "commission" from the instigator. now ask yourself ......... what do realestate agents DO?

what happens in the mind of a person who perceives the REALITY of numberic quantification, over the abstract principals currently ruling our economic ideologies?

like once i'm dead, then Capitol One can get their fee out of my cold dead body. but saying i owe them "negative dollars" makes no sense to me. having that total go MORE negative ... makes no sense to me. all they are doing, is making it impossible to simply pay back the original loan amount. for the purpose .... and this is the interesting catch these days .... that a promissory note with all that interest and fees tacked on, is WORTH more to them than the actual return of the money they loaned you in the first place.

using a "debit" and "credit" ....two column accounting system: how is it, that in our LANGUAGE, a "credit" is considered a 'good' thing ......and a "debit" or debt ...... a BAD. when for accountants, the DEBIT is the money IN, and the 'credit' is the money OUT. so now we have "credit cards" and "debit cards." with essentially NO difference. they are BOTH money out for the user. BUT, only ONE is money IN for a third party? not really, because HAVING an account WITH a debit card is giving your money to SOMEONE ELSE to HOLD. then, they can use it for whatever THEY want, with the only stipulation that when you ASK for it, you get it.

as the "use" of held funds increased, the NEED to charge overhead fees for "banking service" disappeared. there are enough using the service, that the bank can guarantee continual USE of those funds - especially with the advent of computers to calculate where and when.

so they want to hold onto the promisary note ... showing that degree of an asset. my ability to see a "credit card" (good=money in) as someone saying here, take this "free money." because that is what it is, right? or not free money, but it WAS free goods. how you spend that is the actual determiner.

but that perception by the 'average citizen' to take a credit card and use the money without paying EXTRA for the goods they ALREADY have (it IS the more logical choice) ...that logic is used AGAINST their wielders, and gives a lending company like Capital One a 1000% profit per loan over 10 years. how much false assets you think they got on the books?

simple acceptance by an individual when offered 'free' money .... results --because of our legislation and economic legal practices ..... in a profit over time for the lending company REGARDLESS of actual recompense on the loans themselves. UNTIL, the balance tips to where there is more 'ghost money' in our economy than real money. it is a very solid line.

when this business practice was discovered, that's when you got every po-dunk company and their brother's uncle starting a credit card company and ASKING people if they would like to borrow money.

people forget ... that until then, nobody would solicit someone else to loan them money. that was a stupid thing to do. the person needing a loan goes to the lender.... not the other way around.

the farmer needs $100 to fence his land ... he goes to the bank and asks for the $100. the bank doesn't go to HIM, asking him if he could USE a $100, because gee wiz, his fence is looking pretty shoddy right now.

so what you get, is we ARE selling money ....for money. and those buying money, for money, are simply paying more of their net worth for their goods.

you want to blame somebody .... is it the jews? the germans? the english bankers? the masons....knights of columbus .... drunken frat boys?

is it a coincidence that every math-teaching principle is geared to create a perceptional deficit within those who consider group dynamic? and question of the day, ARE those ones the lines of nobility that carry elements of stewardship and governance for the proper continuance of a PEOPLE .... over the individual or single-family protective qualities?

in the financial markets .... and today's economy .... are we witnessing a very different sort of "french revolution." and this time, when they take the tower ... is it going to be a hole in the ground, instead?

because that's what we got. two of them.

No comments: