Future is FOSS reshared this.
The way problems are solved today, is ambunalces!
In today's society humans deal with problems by trying to clean the mess, instead of looking where the problems come from.
Waste? Let's clean up! Climate change? Let's implement renewable energies! Human trafficking and slavery? Let's go after the traffickers and put them in jail! Drug consumption? Punish! Theft? Jail! Inequality? Well...tax the rich!
This is similar to the ambulance approach. Imagine if we dealt with human health problems the same way, by quickly intervening when someone has a heart attack, or cancer, or any disease, and try to save them. This would be a disaster! We need research to see what creates heart disease, cancer, infections, so that we try to both prevent it and be able to save these humans when they suffer from such diseases.
In essence, we need a health care SYSTEM if we want to deal with the human health problems. There is no other way around this!
Therefore, if we ever want to have a chance to deal with the other human problems such as waste, corruption, pollution, climate change, inequality, slavery, and so forth, we need a SYSTEM. We need "hospitals" and "research centers" that can study what creates such problems in the first place, and try to prevent them or learn how to better fix them. There is no other way around this!
Ambulances are great! very useful! Without them we would be in big troubles. Someone having a heart attack needs an ambulance to come and save him/her. Organizations that try to reduce waste, keep us safe from "bad" people, push for renewable energies to replace fossil fuel sources, and so forth, are also a necessity. But they will lead to nowhere unless there is a similar system that studies these problems, as it is the healthcare system.
So, imagine we only had ambulances that came and tried to save humans when they had health problems. This would be a ridiculous and primitive system. Right!? Now imagine that we do it like that when it comes to the other problems we are facing today, as a species. We have no research system that looks at what creates these and tries to prevent them.
We need "ambulances", but they are useless in the long run. What we really need is "hospitals", "research centers", and overall a "healthcare system" for our global non-health related problems. #tromimg
Waste? Let's clean up! Climate change? Let's implement renewable energies! Human trafficking and slavery? Let's go after the traffickers and put them in jail! Drug consumption? Punish! Theft? Jail! Inequality? Well...tax the rich!
This is similar to the ambulance approach. Imagine if we dealt with human health problems the same way, by quickly intervening when someone has a heart attack, or cancer, or any disease, and try to save them. This would be a disaster! We need research to see what creates heart disease, cancer, infections, so that we try to both prevent it and be able to save these humans when they suffer from such diseases.
In essence, we need a health care SYSTEM if we want to deal with the human health problems. There is no other way around this!
Therefore, if we ever want to have a chance to deal with the other human problems such as waste, corruption, pollution, climate change, inequality, slavery, and so forth, we need a SYSTEM. We need "hospitals" and "research centers" that can study what creates such problems in the first place, and try to prevent them or learn how to better fix them. There is no other way around this!
Ambulances are great! very useful! Without them we would be in big troubles. Someone having a heart attack needs an ambulance to come and save him/her. Organizations that try to reduce waste, keep us safe from "bad" people, push for renewable energies to replace fossil fuel sources, and so forth, are also a necessity. But they will lead to nowhere unless there is a similar system that studies these problems, as it is the healthcare system.
So, imagine we only had ambulances that came and tried to save humans when they had health problems. This would be a ridiculous and primitive system. Right!? Now imagine that we do it like that when it comes to the other problems we are facing today, as a species. We have no research system that looks at what creates these and tries to prevent them.
We need "ambulances", but they are useless in the long run. What we really need is "hospitals", "research centers", and overall a "healthcare system" for our global non-health related problems. #tromimg
2 people like this
Eggs with Wigs: Elon Musk is Steve Jobs, and Tesla is Apple
Here's a long post about these "revolutionary" billionaires that are just merchants. https://social.trom.tf/display/dbc8dc44-1860-fd8f-6dd3-2a9890027416 #tromimg
Here's a long post about these "revolutionary" billionaires that are just merchants. https://social.trom.tf/display/dbc8dc44-1860-fd8f-6dd3-2a9890027416 #tromimg
Georgi likes this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Eggs with Wigs: Elon Musk is Steve Jobs, and Tesla is Apple
Read it in full here. Else you miss out on some funny stuff.
People think that these billionaires are revolutionizing our world and innovating, but the reality is they are making eggs with wigs.
How can you sell an egg so many times, when it is just an egg? Ask Musk or Steve, or the other companies. But basically you put wigs on the eggs, paint them, and make them look different when the reality is you just sell eggs and in essence they are all the same.
Now, if you invent a device called a "phone", that is meant to connect people with each-other, and your goal is to sell as many of those, you have to put wigs on them at one point, since you can't improve them that much. The phones improved over time: better screens (full HD, 2k, 4k), the signal improved, the audio quality, how fast they are, and so forth. But for the past years this was maxed-out. If you make a smartphone (tiny screen that is) with a screen that's above full HD, then that's a wig on an egg, since the human eye won't be able to even distinguish that. if you make phones thinner, edge to edge screens, and so forth, then that's another wig on the egg. These are fashion aspects, nothing to do with making the phone better. Even the phones' cameras didn't improve much at all for the past years, especially considering that humans mostly take photos to then post on social(ad) platforms, where they get reduced in quality by a lot.
In all, phones should be about getting in touch with other people and content. Phone, watch videos, read articles, use some apps, play games. And most phones could do those perfectly fine for the past many years. What they are doing today with smartphones is to (again) add wigs on those eggs. Their "improvements" are either total lies, or extreme exaggerations meant to market their product and sell more of them.
Now back to Musk.
Cars should be about moving people from one place to another, else what are they for? Taking the dinner inside them? Sleeping inside them?
Cars started as a tool, but then they realized you can paint them different colors and sell identical cars every year. A car should be: fast perhaps, safe, not very polluting, comfortable. Anything else?
And most cars improved in some of those areas for the past 50 years, but not much at all for the past 20 or so years. Most cars are very fast. Even cars produced 20 years ago can go well over 200km/h. But the roads are getting more jammed with cars, so pretty much no one maxes their car's speed. Basically, if you want to go from point A to point B today, it is not much faster than 30 years ago. And if it is a bit faster, it certainly is not because of the car's speed, but because of the infrastructure. So, faster cars? Yeah, a bit faster today, but seems to make almost no difference for real life conditions. No innovation here.
Cars are indeed safer today (it seems), but when you crash at high speeds this may not be relevant. Airbags for example are not a new invention, together with seatbelts. And the comfort...seats are as comfortable for the past 20 years as they've ever been, and the car AC is not something Musk invented.
Overall, Musk did not make cars safer, faster, more comfortable in a manner that is innovative. The changes were small and incremental. Yes, having electric cars is better than gas powered cars, but Musk didn't invent that either, nor was he the first to make electric cars. (source). And Tesla's "self driving" capabilities are exaggerated auto-pilots.
In essence, Musk does what Steve Jobs did with phones: exaggerate the claims about their products, portraying it as "innovation". Just for the sake of selling more stuff. No wonder they were/are billionaires.
And this is so obvious with the release of the newest Tesla car that stands at about 100.000 Euros... Here's a video from the most popular tech youtube that just got one:
Tesla Model S PLAID Impressions: Re-Inventing the Wheel! - Invidious
The same way that Apple rounds the corners of their phones and remove useful buttons or ports, Tesla changes a useful design of the steering wheel and functional buttons, for the sake of creating "something new". Nothing useful, just fashion, that may in fact make driving more dangerous and uncomfortable. But hey, is cool.
This other video says a lot about Musk's "vision" while showcasing his next cool thing: the Cybertruck.
ELON MUSK, JAY LENO AND THE 2021 CYBERTRUCK (FULL SEGMENT) | Jay Leno's Garage - Invidious
He is crating this "cool" car that has bulletproof windows. Asked why, he replies:
That sums up the "innovation" of these billionaires. They do "cool" stuff. Not useful, not new, not innovative, not revolutionary. Just cool. And all of these waves are created and pushed by, you guessed what, trade. These are merchants like most of us are. It's just that they are so popular so everybody talks about them.
And yes, SpaceX, the Hyperloop and pretty much all of these "revolutionary" technologies Musk invested into, are neither "revolutionary", nor very realistic or practical. This is a great video going in detail about all of these:
Starlink: BUSTED!! + ALL other Failed Musk promises! - Invidious
All in all, people are fooled/conned by these billionaires who portray themselves as egg-innovators, but the truth is they only put wigs on eggs to be able to sell as many eggs as possible.
#tromimg
People think that these billionaires are revolutionizing our world and innovating, but the reality is they are making eggs with wigs.
How can you sell an egg so many times, when it is just an egg? Ask Musk or Steve, or the other companies. But basically you put wigs on the eggs, paint them, and make them look different when the reality is you just sell eggs and in essence they are all the same.
Now, if you invent a device called a "phone", that is meant to connect people with each-other, and your goal is to sell as many of those, you have to put wigs on them at one point, since you can't improve them that much. The phones improved over time: better screens (full HD, 2k, 4k), the signal improved, the audio quality, how fast they are, and so forth. But for the past years this was maxed-out. If you make a smartphone (tiny screen that is) with a screen that's above full HD, then that's a wig on an egg, since the human eye won't be able to even distinguish that. if you make phones thinner, edge to edge screens, and so forth, then that's another wig on the egg. These are fashion aspects, nothing to do with making the phone better. Even the phones' cameras didn't improve much at all for the past years, especially considering that humans mostly take photos to then post on social(ad) platforms, where they get reduced in quality by a lot.
In all, phones should be about getting in touch with other people and content. Phone, watch videos, read articles, use some apps, play games. And most phones could do those perfectly fine for the past many years. What they are doing today with smartphones is to (again) add wigs on those eggs. Their "improvements" are either total lies, or extreme exaggerations meant to market their product and sell more of them.
Now back to Musk.
Cars should be about moving people from one place to another, else what are they for? Taking the dinner inside them? Sleeping inside them?
Cars started as a tool, but then they realized you can paint them different colors and sell identical cars every year. A car should be: fast perhaps, safe, not very polluting, comfortable. Anything else?
And most cars improved in some of those areas for the past 50 years, but not much at all for the past 20 or so years. Most cars are very fast. Even cars produced 20 years ago can go well over 200km/h. But the roads are getting more jammed with cars, so pretty much no one maxes their car's speed. Basically, if you want to go from point A to point B today, it is not much faster than 30 years ago. And if it is a bit faster, it certainly is not because of the car's speed, but because of the infrastructure. So, faster cars? Yeah, a bit faster today, but seems to make almost no difference for real life conditions. No innovation here.
Cars are indeed safer today (it seems), but when you crash at high speeds this may not be relevant. Airbags for example are not a new invention, together with seatbelts. And the comfort...seats are as comfortable for the past 20 years as they've ever been, and the car AC is not something Musk invented.
Overall, Musk did not make cars safer, faster, more comfortable in a manner that is innovative. The changes were small and incremental. Yes, having electric cars is better than gas powered cars, but Musk didn't invent that either, nor was he the first to make electric cars. (source). And Tesla's "self driving" capabilities are exaggerated auto-pilots.
In essence, Musk does what Steve Jobs did with phones: exaggerate the claims about their products, portraying it as "innovation". Just for the sake of selling more stuff. No wonder they were/are billionaires.
And this is so obvious with the release of the newest Tesla car that stands at about 100.000 Euros... Here's a video from the most popular tech youtube that just got one:
Tesla Model S PLAID Impressions: Re-Inventing the Wheel! - Invidious
The same way that Apple rounds the corners of their phones and remove useful buttons or ports, Tesla changes a useful design of the steering wheel and functional buttons, for the sake of creating "something new". Nothing useful, just fashion, that may in fact make driving more dangerous and uncomfortable. But hey, is cool.
This other video says a lot about Musk's "vision" while showcasing his next cool thing: the Cybertruck.
ELON MUSK, JAY LENO AND THE 2021 CYBERTRUCK (FULL SEGMENT) | Jay Leno's Garage - Invidious
He is crating this "cool" car that has bulletproof windows. Asked why, he replies:
"I mean that's badass cool "
That sums up the "innovation" of these billionaires. They do "cool" stuff. Not useful, not new, not innovative, not revolutionary. Just cool. And all of these waves are created and pushed by, you guessed what, trade. These are merchants like most of us are. It's just that they are so popular so everybody talks about them.
And yes, SpaceX, the Hyperloop and pretty much all of these "revolutionary" technologies Musk invested into, are neither "revolutionary", nor very realistic or practical. This is a great video going in detail about all of these:
Starlink: BUSTED!! + ALL other Failed Musk promises! - Invidious
All in all, people are fooled/conned by these billionaires who portray themselves as egg-innovators, but the truth is they only put wigs on eggs to be able to sell as many eggs as possible.
#tromimg
This entry was edited (3 days ago)
2 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Good guy vs Bad guy
So this guy created the Internet Archive and his motive was to create a free library of books or any digital media.
By doing this he managed to provide tons of free content for the world. He is not rich at all, but he created a lot of value for our society. His project is basically archiving the entire internet.
At the same period of time this other guy created a business out of selling books. Then he thought to sell more stuff. In other words, to not be kind and give people stuff for free, but to force them to trade for that stuff.
And now he is the richest man on Earth. He has more power than anyone else.
That's the winner of a trade-based society. As simple as that. Our society is producing these monsters and punishes the good people when they do not trade themselves. The story of the Internet Archive guy is a success story in the sense that he managed to keep the project alive due to volunteer help he got form others. But most will fail when approaching the society in the same tradeless manner. In other words, if you are not a ruthless trader, you will probably not make it in this world.
A sad society that humans invented.....and we have to make them aware of that and why we should give up to this primitiveness. #tromimg
By doing this he managed to provide tons of free content for the world. He is not rich at all, but he created a lot of value for our society. His project is basically archiving the entire internet.
At the same period of time this other guy created a business out of selling books. Then he thought to sell more stuff. In other words, to not be kind and give people stuff for free, but to force them to trade for that stuff.
And now he is the richest man on Earth. He has more power than anyone else.
That's the winner of a trade-based society. As simple as that. Our society is producing these monsters and punishes the good people when they do not trade themselves. The story of the Internet Archive guy is a success story in the sense that he managed to keep the project alive due to volunteer help he got form others. But most will fail when approaching the society in the same tradeless manner. In other words, if you are not a ruthless trader, you will probably not make it in this world.
A sad society that humans invented.....and we have to make them aware of that and why we should give up to this primitiveness. #tromimg
This entry was edited (4 days ago)
10 people like this
5 people reshared this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Self Driving Car Ad
Here's a video about self driving cars by Veritasium https://ytb.trom.tf/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI and some thoughts about it:
1. The video is sponsored by the company making the car...so from the get-go this is 100% not ok. This type of media is going to get worse and worse. These ytb channels have millions of subscribers, and if they make videos about a company, and the video is sponsored by the company itself, I do not care what the company and product is about, this is biased from the get-go and I cannot take that information seriously. Unfortunately most people do not care and they just go about their day talking how cool self driving cars are and how safe, because they saw it on Veritasium.
2. Self Driving cars do have a lot of benefits over the current moronic transportation system: they should be safer, they should reduce the cost (in terms of resources) of cars (we need way less cars); but what else?
3. A public transportation system is the smartest way to go about moving people from one place to another. Period. If you let hundreds of companies dictating how we should move about, then their focus will always be on how they can make more profits on top of that. No bueno. A public transportation can include the vehicles (small or big, like trains or pods), but also the road itself that can be made as a total system. So no more crazy ass roads where both people and cars go about.
In essence: technology nowadays is "marketed". Big companies exaggerate claims about technology and pretty much everyone swallows that without thinking twice. This is not good at all. If we are to redesign our transportation system, we cannot rely on companies whose main (or sole) drive is to make as much profits as possible. This is like asking Musk or Bezos to come up with a better plan for exploring the outer space! Oh wait...maybe they are getting there. We are fucked...
#tromimg
1. The video is sponsored by the company making the car...so from the get-go this is 100% not ok. This type of media is going to get worse and worse. These ytb channels have millions of subscribers, and if they make videos about a company, and the video is sponsored by the company itself, I do not care what the company and product is about, this is biased from the get-go and I cannot take that information seriously. Unfortunately most people do not care and they just go about their day talking how cool self driving cars are and how safe, because they saw it on Veritasium.
2. Self Driving cars do have a lot of benefits over the current moronic transportation system: they should be safer, they should reduce the cost (in terms of resources) of cars (we need way less cars); but what else?
3. A public transportation system is the smartest way to go about moving people from one place to another. Period. If you let hundreds of companies dictating how we should move about, then their focus will always be on how they can make more profits on top of that. No bueno. A public transportation can include the vehicles (small or big, like trains or pods), but also the road itself that can be made as a total system. So no more crazy ass roads where both people and cars go about.
In essence: technology nowadays is "marketed". Big companies exaggerate claims about technology and pretty much everyone swallows that without thinking twice. This is not good at all. If we are to redesign our transportation system, we cannot rely on companies whose main (or sole) drive is to make as much profits as possible. This is like asking Musk or Bezos to come up with a better plan for exploring the outer space! Oh wait...maybe they are getting there. We are fucked...
#tromimg
Why You Should Want Driverless Cars On Roads Now
How close are we to having fully autonomous vehicles on the roads? Are they safe? In Chandler, Arizona a fleet of Waymo vehicles are already in operation. Wa...Invidious
Future is FOSS likes this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Space Exploitation
When billionaires develop space technologies and proclaim to go and explore the space, one must be naive to think that they will do anything but exploit the space, as they do on Earth.
Our trade-based society is exactly like a Monopoly game, and some players get to own the entire game and do whatever they want, while proclaiming to do good things. Their thirst for playing and winning more and more, cannot go away when the game itself incentivizes them to follow such motives.
Unfortunately our lives, the Earth, and now the outer space, are all monopolized by a few players who are ruthless when it comes to them winning at any costs. The problem is that the rest of the players do not understand that this is just a game. They are trapped in their fantasy land thinking that the economy is a god-given entity, that money is real, ownership is something we need, and overall that our society is not human-made, but something we are born into and have to play by its rules.
While billionaires launch into the outer space with their rockets built on top of slaves and wasted resources, the rest of the humans should land from the fantasy world onto the Reality Planet.
We try our best, with our resources, to provide all kinds of materials for humans to be able to land on Planet Reality: news, photos, videos, documentaries, lectures, books, tools to replace their adsocial-networks and other such online nonsense that keeps their minds busy and dumb, with ones that are trade-free and relevant, and a lot lot more. See https://www.tromsite.com/tools/
Unfortunately very few react to such tools and fewer see their true value. Some people, who do indeed recognize that our society is at fault here and not individuals, are also unimpressed by such projects/tools it seems, dreaming of building utopic cities or huge projects that they never end up building. They dismiss projects like TROM, probably thinking that it is a nice project but not that relevant...
My question is: if we do no take care of brains in today's insane society, and so so online where most brains spent their time, then how are we going to even start a conversation about changing this society?
For humans to land from the Fantasy World, to the Reality Planet, they need brain enemas more than anything else right now. #tromimg
Our trade-based society is exactly like a Monopoly game, and some players get to own the entire game and do whatever they want, while proclaiming to do good things. Their thirst for playing and winning more and more, cannot go away when the game itself incentivizes them to follow such motives.
Unfortunately our lives, the Earth, and now the outer space, are all monopolized by a few players who are ruthless when it comes to them winning at any costs. The problem is that the rest of the players do not understand that this is just a game. They are trapped in their fantasy land thinking that the economy is a god-given entity, that money is real, ownership is something we need, and overall that our society is not human-made, but something we are born into and have to play by its rules.
While billionaires launch into the outer space with their rockets built on top of slaves and wasted resources, the rest of the humans should land from the fantasy world onto the Reality Planet.
We try our best, with our resources, to provide all kinds of materials for humans to be able to land on Planet Reality: news, photos, videos, documentaries, lectures, books, tools to replace their adsocial-networks and other such online nonsense that keeps their minds busy and dumb, with ones that are trade-free and relevant, and a lot lot more. See https://www.tromsite.com/tools/
Unfortunately very few react to such tools and fewer see their true value. Some people, who do indeed recognize that our society is at fault here and not individuals, are also unimpressed by such projects/tools it seems, dreaming of building utopic cities or huge projects that they never end up building. They dismiss projects like TROM, probably thinking that it is a nice project but not that relevant...
My question is: if we do no take care of brains in today's insane society, and so so online where most brains spent their time, then how are we going to even start a conversation about changing this society?
For humans to land from the Fantasy World, to the Reality Planet, they need brain enemas more than anything else right now. #tromimg
6 people like this
Aaron reshared this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Making progress with the TROM II documentary ;)
But it will take many months to finish. So far so great. #tromimg
But it will take many months to finish. So far so great. #tromimg
5 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
The great Notes application is now officially part of https://trom.tf/ - you should read more about it here https://trom.tf/notes/ to understand how to quickly set it all up. It works online or offline, and on any operating system. It syncs between them all and is auto-backed-up in the cloud and offline. Not to mention it is fully encrypted. Plus, you can use whatever text editor you prefer. If you write books, this is great for you. If you write simple notes, it is perfect. If you want to have to-do lists or tasks, again it meets your needs. Code? Again, you can do that too. Markdown support...Vim editor...you name it :). Plus, lots of themes and other extensions.
This Notes app normally costs 10 dollars a month (https://standardnotes.com/features) but we provide all of these features trade-free. So take advantage of that!
#tromimg
This Notes app normally costs 10 dollars a month (https://standardnotes.com/features) but we provide all of these features trade-free. So take advantage of that!
#tromimg
4 people like this
it seems really interesting. On first look it seems similar to standard notes. I'll have a look
Tio likes this.
Heh yes it is a StandardNotes instance with all of the features enabled. It is a Yunohost package! ;)
As said in the post:
As said in the post:
This Notes app normally costs 10 dollars a month (https://standardnotes.com/features) but we provide all of these features trade-free. So take advantage of that!
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
Thomas likes this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Our work on TROM II continues ;):
It is a lot of work so it will take many months to finish it. Cannot say it will be released this year...we will see. We post updates, as usual, on https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom + https://www.tromsite.com/live/
#tromimg
It is a lot of work so it will take many months to finish it. Cannot say it will be released this year...we will see. We post updates, as usual, on https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom + https://www.tromsite.com/live/
#tromimg
2 people like this
This is how much humans in USA pay for their medical bills https://ytb.trom.tf/watch?v=sL-cS9-wxpg&autoplay=0 - it is of course insane to have a society in which humans have to pay to live. Even a broken hand in USA can bankrupt you. USA is obsessed with trading for everything, and as a result their citizens are slaves to debt. In Uk or Spain for example, if a citizen has any medical problems they will be taken care of for free. And that's how it should be! Maybe not all health problems can be accessed for free in these tribes, but most are.
In any case, we should take care of all human beings on this planet. We have enough humans who would be very happy to help (we call these "doctors"), and plenty of resources to do so.
We should not force people to trade for their basic needs when we live in a society of abundance already. #tromimg
In any case, we should take care of all human beings on this planet. We have enough humans who would be very happy to help (we call these "doctors"), and plenty of resources to do so.
We should not force people to trade for their basic needs when we live in a society of abundance already. #tromimg
Indian and British Doctors React to US Medical Bills Ft. Kiran Morjaria
If there's one country where it costs two kidneys to fix one, it's the US🇺🇸💸Join me, a doctor from India, and my friend @Kiran Morjaria who is a GP traine...ytb.trom.tf
2 people like this
:debian:𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚊:trisquel: reshared this.
The New Church of Crypto-Economy
Another UN article. This time about Bitcoin and Blockchain. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094362
They say:
Which is insane. But then they also say:
Blockchain is a completely different thing. It is like coupling the Internet with Paypal. Blockchain is a very useful technology (and quite old) - as we explain it in detail in our book, here https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6562/128 . Unfortunately Blockchain, which is simply a more secure and transparent way to keep track of "transactions" or "interactions", is used to invent currencies. Instead it could be used to keep track of medical records, biodiversity, or the nights you could not sleep because you were too aroused, since pretty much anything is more relevant than using it to create a currency. So the Internet is a great invention. Paypal....not really, unless you compare it with traditional banking, in which case yes Paypal is slightly better (easier to use, faster, etc.). Same way Bitcoin or other similar cryptocurrencies, are slightly better than say Paypal-like entities, or banks.
But that's like saying hanging yourself is better than jumping from a 20 story building, because you can hang yourself at home, you feel less pain because the rope cuts the blood supply to your brain and you pass out very quickly, and you argue it is more safe because jumping from such a tall building you can land on someone else's head and kill them. To which I agree, hanging seems better. But that's the only difference between Bitcoin (handing), and jumping from a 20 story building (banks). But you are still dead... In the end both are currencies and both lead to massive corruption, inequality, lies, and the continuation of the game of trade that consumes us and the planet. And soon the rest of the solar system. Same shit.
The UN continues:
We showcase in detail in the same book, how any such technology can and will be tampered with, and it would not prevent fraud at all. This is a myth we keep on vocalizing: better security = better security. Not true! Better security simply equals different methods to bypass that security. As long as we play this game of trade, humans will be incentivized to break such security measures if that results in some advantages in the game of trade, for them.
Cryptocurrencies are the new-age religion:
In all, people who think that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is better than money, are the followers and the bishops of the new church of economy. We are witnessing the split of Christianity into the Catholic church, the Orthodox one, and so forth. each believing that their interpretation of religion is the right one:
That's what's happening with these cryptocurrencies today.
At the end of the day both are religions. People believe in them without every questioning what is religion or what is a currency. Who invented these notions and what purpose do they serve...
#tromimg
They say:
"each Mastercard transaction is estimated to use just 0.0006 kWh (kilowatt hours), whilst every Bitcoin transaction consumes 980 kWh, enough to power an average Canadian home for more than three weeks, according to some commentators."
Which is insane. But then they also say:
"Despite these issues, UN experts believe that cryptocurrencies and the technology that powers them (blockchain) can play an important role in sustainable development, and actually improving our stewardship of the environment."
Blockchain is a completely different thing. It is like coupling the Internet with Paypal. Blockchain is a very useful technology (and quite old) - as we explain it in detail in our book, here https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6562/128 . Unfortunately Blockchain, which is simply a more secure and transparent way to keep track of "transactions" or "interactions", is used to invent currencies. Instead it could be used to keep track of medical records, biodiversity, or the nights you could not sleep because you were too aroused, since pretty much anything is more relevant than using it to create a currency. So the Internet is a great invention. Paypal....not really, unless you compare it with traditional banking, in which case yes Paypal is slightly better (easier to use, faster, etc.). Same way Bitcoin or other similar cryptocurrencies, are slightly better than say Paypal-like entities, or banks.
But that's like saying hanging yourself is better than jumping from a 20 story building, because you can hang yourself at home, you feel less pain because the rope cuts the blood supply to your brain and you pass out very quickly, and you argue it is more safe because jumping from such a tall building you can land on someone else's head and kill them. To which I agree, hanging seems better. But that's the only difference between Bitcoin (handing), and jumping from a 20 story building (banks). But you are still dead... In the end both are currencies and both lead to massive corruption, inequality, lies, and the continuation of the game of trade that consumes us and the planet. And soon the rest of the solar system. Same shit.
The UN continues:
"One of the most useful aspects of cryptocurrencies, as far as the UN is concerned, is transparency.
Because the technology is resistant to tampering and fraud, it can provide a trusted and transparent record of transactions. This is particularly important in regions with weak institutions and high levels of corruption."
We showcase in detail in the same book, how any such technology can and will be tampered with, and it would not prevent fraud at all. This is a myth we keep on vocalizing: better security = better security. Not true! Better security simply equals different methods to bypass that security. As long as we play this game of trade, humans will be incentivized to break such security measures if that results in some advantages in the game of trade, for them.
Cryptocurrencies are the new-age religion:
In all, people who think that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is better than money, are the followers and the bishops of the new church of economy. We are witnessing the split of Christianity into the Catholic church, the Orthodox one, and so forth. each believing that their interpretation of religion is the right one:
That's what's happening with these cryptocurrencies today.
At the end of the day both are religions. People believe in them without every questioning what is religion or what is a currency. Who invented these notions and what purpose do they serve...
#tromimg
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
4 people like this
3 people reshared this
Businesses do not care about people. Period. They care about profits. Period.
This is another UN report: "Milestone moment for UN principles on business and human rights, but abuses persist " - https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094172
They say:
Basically they are telling corporations and governments to "please please treat your workers fairly...". And after 10 years the conclusion is:
Yeah...well...is anyone surprised?
Let me tell you, UN, why things are not working and never will. Ready?
We live in a world-wide trade-based society that transforms each and every one of us into merchants and consumers. How can we not be like that when we can't even live without doing this? No one takes care of us. You are born into this world and forced to play the game. And thus, our minds are focused to play the game all the time. And so, the nature of the game makes us want more and more and more, at any cost. Regardless of the rules.
It is that simple!
What do you expect, UN? For the players of the game of trade to care about their competitors and other humans? They cannot afford that. This will be a loss for them. If exploiting people will bring you more profits, you will do that regardless if you call yourself a communist, socialist, christian, muslim or whatever.
UN may have good intentions, and their reports are telling. But if UN doesn't understand this simple fact, then nothing will ever change. They keep on looking through each-others' butts, and all they see is narrow holes full of crap.
It is time to widen their view, and recognize that the "economy" is the biggest religion in the world, with billions believing in it. Stop trying to save the economy. Save the people from becoming slaves, dead, or profiteers. How about we talk about the human behavior for a bit!? To understand what makes these "corporate leaders" or "government leaders" or the rest of us, be so awful...
How about we take care of humans and make sure they have access to their basic needs (at least) as trade-free, so that they have time to think about today's problems, be relaxed, refuse enslaving jobs, consume less, and so forth!?
It is astonishing that UN (United Nations) seems to be so blind despite the fact that they have a lot of resources to look at these issues. #tromimg
They say:
"The 10th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights represents a milestone, they added, and an opportunity for countries and corporations to gear up for a new decade of action. "
Basically they are telling corporations and governments to "please please treat your workers fairly...". And after 10 years the conclusion is:
"However, workers and communities, including indigenous people, continue to suffer business-related abuses, which are occurring across all sectors and in all regions.
Prospects for protection or remedy are few, according to the UN experts, and activists who speak out are met with stigmatization, threats and deadly attacks. "
Yeah...well...is anyone surprised?
Let me tell you, UN, why things are not working and never will. Ready?
We live in a world-wide trade-based society that transforms each and every one of us into merchants and consumers. How can we not be like that when we can't even live without doing this? No one takes care of us. You are born into this world and forced to play the game. And thus, our minds are focused to play the game all the time. And so, the nature of the game makes us want more and more and more, at any cost. Regardless of the rules.
It is that simple!
What do you expect, UN? For the players of the game of trade to care about their competitors and other humans? They cannot afford that. This will be a loss for them. If exploiting people will bring you more profits, you will do that regardless if you call yourself a communist, socialist, christian, muslim or whatever.
UN may have good intentions, and their reports are telling. But if UN doesn't understand this simple fact, then nothing will ever change. They keep on looking through each-others' butts, and all they see is narrow holes full of crap.
It is time to widen their view, and recognize that the "economy" is the biggest religion in the world, with billions believing in it. Stop trying to save the economy. Save the people from becoming slaves, dead, or profiteers. How about we talk about the human behavior for a bit!? To understand what makes these "corporate leaders" or "government leaders" or the rest of us, be so awful...
How about we take care of humans and make sure they have access to their basic needs (at least) as trade-free, so that they have time to think about today's problems, be relaxed, refuse enslaving jobs, consume less, and so forth!?
It is astonishing that UN (United Nations) seems to be so blind despite the fact that they have a lot of resources to look at these issues. #tromimg
2 people like this
Alexio reshared this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Those who think that Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are better than money, understand nothing about this trade-based society. Currencies only represent trades, and trade is what pushes people to create so much destruction in the world. Also, to "mine" cryptocurrencies and spend so much energy doing that, more than countries of hundreds of millions of people, is simply insane. What these "miners" do is "solving" irrelevant mathematical problems to see what computer is first to get some rewards for that. Just to create more currency and "distribute" it in a very unequal manner to those who have the most powerful computers.
TROM cuts through this shit like a hot knife through butter, because TROM focuses on "trade as the origin of most problems", and not money.
#tromimg
TROM cuts through this shit like a hot knife through butter, because TROM focuses on "trade as the origin of most problems", and not money.
#tromimg
4 people like this
Zbych reshared this.
From the context, when you say "trade" here I take it you mean something other than "energy exchange"...
Otherwise it brings to question, how is "trade" different than "energy exchange"?
Would note again, "money" is ALWAYS a centrally controlled abstract as applied to mass for purposes of "energy exchange". Doesn't really matter if that central control is the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), "A.I.", or A-liens from the planet fuk me that come in yoga pants, bearing lattes and snakes, and when asked to leave reply "Namaste". Without that central control MONETARY "economic" (aka "energy exchange") mechanisms, such as "Price Discovery" for example, simply can't happen.
Absolutely agree with you that Cryptocurrencies do not in anyway stray from the monetary model, they are MONEY. So while there may be a form that appears on the surface as if there's all sorts of decentralized "free actors" in the space, it's ultimately no more decentralized than people creating their own YouTube channels or pointing out that they have over 400 channels to choose from on their TV and then acting like that means there's no longer only 6 some odd companies facilitating and servicing every single bit of what they just claimed was highly decentralized. In fact, since 2010-11, the crypto space has shown itself from multiple angles to stand as HIGHLY centralized and concentrated at it's root. (i.e. last I knew it was less than 1% of bitcoin wallets holding over 40% of the total BTC volume; which by itself creates a highly manipulable economic state over the mass)
But you don't seem to be discussing specifically MONETARY Economics (as you stress that you aren't), but just economics (aka "energy exchange") itself if I understand your application of the word "trade" here correctly.
If "energy exchange" itself, that is to say TRADES OF ENERGY is not to occur, how is something as basic as a stream running from one destination to another, subsequently facilitating grass growing, that subsequently facilitates the raising of food, which then allows one to cook a meal and share it with their family even supposed to occur?
The water would need to be stopped (as it's making energy trade exchanges with the grass), the raising of food related to the energy trade exchanges with the soil would need to stop, cooking again would entail energy exchanges as would the sharing of the food so those couldn't happen, just all energy trade exchanges, all economics, would need to stop. The mere act of burning calories couldn't even take place, as again, burning calories is a process of energy trade exchange.
Anyhow, just not sure what you specifically are meaning when you say "trade"....
please elaborate.
@Future is FOSS
The "S" in "IoT" stands for "Security".
Considering where things stood back in 2011 in mainstream block-crypto practices to where they are now, one would think the block-crypto sphere had elected on a path of "Who needs security anyway?"
Exchanges soaking up IDs, a near total indifference to overt market manipulations topped with FOMO rushes abounding, near total indifference to existing chipset issues (ala Intel ME and AMD PSP), the list goes on and on. Could it be worse?
Sure, it could be worse, and in fact it's arguably done nothing but continue to exceed itself, specifically in areas that strip individual security (notably in regards to a "powerful adversary"), over the past decade.
Security is such a non-issue that much like Microsoft's handling of Windows 8/Server 2012 on, one might presume of the absurd state of "SecurityLACK":
"its not a bug, ITS A FEATURE!"
(much of this period of history may later be reflected back on as the "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?" era)
Such said, when there's more empty homes then there are homeless people (such as in the U.S.) there's something deeper than just "money" or "energy misallocation" issues occurring. There's (IMO) a rather overt collectively emergent Moral Ethic issue. The "money" itself is simply a symptom of the state of said Moral Ethic issue. At it's very least, the "money" simply shows that the collectively emergent Moral Ethic has a standing consensus of and for "slave economics". That is to say, it places the judgement of some sort of "I" (which need not be a person, but simply a central entity) possessing an absolute "right" understanding of "value" over all others and subsequently for any economics (energy exchange) to take place it's congregant mass must OBEY and adhere to it's "value" set limits.
So if the collective Moral Ethic is one of Master/Deity to Slave, the larger economics is going to be a reflective manifestation of that order. Arguably akin to a "death cult" in as much that the central command increasingly seeks nothing but a total reflection of it's own self with no other dynamics as it "scales up". OBEY MY COMMAND
M:E E:P P:(p)W
"E"conomics is an emergent subset of "M"orality/Ethics,
"P"olitics (the deliberations in or of an existing "E"conomic state) is an emergent subset of "E"conomics,
"(p)"otential for "W"ar (failure of politics to amicably and peaceably resolve) is an emergent subset of "P"olitics.
Otherwise it brings to question, how is "trade" different than "energy exchange"?
Would note again, "money" is ALWAYS a centrally controlled abstract as applied to mass for purposes of "energy exchange". Doesn't really matter if that central control is the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), "A.I.", or A-liens from the planet fuk me that come in yoga pants, bearing lattes and snakes, and when asked to leave reply "Namaste". Without that central control MONETARY "economic" (aka "energy exchange") mechanisms, such as "Price Discovery" for example, simply can't happen.
Absolutely agree with you that Cryptocurrencies do not in anyway stray from the monetary model, they are MONEY. So while there may be a form that appears on the surface as if there's all sorts of decentralized "free actors" in the space, it's ultimately no more decentralized than people creating their own YouTube channels or pointing out that they have over 400 channels to choose from on their TV and then acting like that means there's no longer only 6 some odd companies facilitating and servicing every single bit of what they just claimed was highly decentralized. In fact, since 2010-11, the crypto space has shown itself from multiple angles to stand as HIGHLY centralized and concentrated at it's root. (i.e. last I knew it was less than 1% of bitcoin wallets holding over 40% of the total BTC volume; which by itself creates a highly manipulable economic state over the mass)
But you don't seem to be discussing specifically MONETARY Economics (as you stress that you aren't), but just economics (aka "energy exchange") itself if I understand your application of the word "trade" here correctly.
If "energy exchange" itself, that is to say TRADES OF ENERGY is not to occur, how is something as basic as a stream running from one destination to another, subsequently facilitating grass growing, that subsequently facilitates the raising of food, which then allows one to cook a meal and share it with their family even supposed to occur?
The water would need to be stopped (as it's making energy trade exchanges with the grass), the raising of food related to the energy trade exchanges with the soil would need to stop, cooking again would entail energy exchanges as would the sharing of the food so those couldn't happen, just all energy trade exchanges, all economics, would need to stop. The mere act of burning calories couldn't even take place, as again, burning calories is a process of energy trade exchange.
Anyhow, just not sure what you specifically are meaning when you say "trade"....
please elaborate.
@Future is FOSS
The "S" in "IoT" stands for "Security".
Considering where things stood back in 2011 in mainstream block-crypto practices to where they are now, one would think the block-crypto sphere had elected on a path of "Who needs security anyway?"
Exchanges soaking up IDs, a near total indifference to overt market manipulations topped with FOMO rushes abounding, near total indifference to existing chipset issues (ala Intel ME and AMD PSP), the list goes on and on. Could it be worse?
Sure, it could be worse, and in fact it's arguably done nothing but continue to exceed itself, specifically in areas that strip individual security (notably in regards to a "powerful adversary"), over the past decade.
Security is such a non-issue that much like Microsoft's handling of Windows 8/Server 2012 on, one might presume of the absurd state of "SecurityLACK":
"its not a bug, ITS A FEATURE!"
(much of this period of history may later be reflected back on as the "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?" era)
Such said, when there's more empty homes then there are homeless people (such as in the U.S.) there's something deeper than just "money" or "energy misallocation" issues occurring. There's (IMO) a rather overt collectively emergent Moral Ethic issue. The "money" itself is simply a symptom of the state of said Moral Ethic issue. At it's very least, the "money" simply shows that the collectively emergent Moral Ethic has a standing consensus of and for "slave economics". That is to say, it places the judgement of some sort of "I" (which need not be a person, but simply a central entity) possessing an absolute "right" understanding of "value" over all others and subsequently for any economics (energy exchange) to take place it's congregant mass must OBEY and adhere to it's "value" set limits.
So if the collective Moral Ethic is one of Master/Deity to Slave, the larger economics is going to be a reflective manifestation of that order. Arguably akin to a "death cult" in as much that the central command increasingly seeks nothing but a total reflection of it's own self with no other dynamics as it "scales up". OBEY MY COMMAND
M:E E:P P:(p)W
"E"conomics is an emergent subset of "M"orality/Ethics,
"P"olitics (the deliberations in or of an existing "E"conomic state) is an emergent subset of "E"conomics,
"(p)"otential for "W"ar (failure of politics to amicably and peaceably resolve) is an emergent subset of "P"olitics.
Alexio likes this.
By trade I mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade - it is inside of a context, that of the human world invented fantasy called "economic". I am deeply confused by what you are saying with "energy exchange". It is simply the economy we face today. In this worldwide society, if you want food, you need to give something in return. You can't just grab some food and eat. In most places you give yourself (like your skills, time, energy) and do something for someone else (carry stuff, punch some numbers in a computer, whatever). We call these "jobs". And we represent these trades between you who wants food, and the others who want you, with a currency. Today is mainly money. You then take this money and trade it for food to someone else. That's how this system works.
If you look more broadly you find multiple such trading systems in our society. For example youtube wants your attention (watch those ads!) because they can convert them later on into something else, like say money that then they convert into cars and houses and whatever. Others trade their computer power to "mine" bitcoin or other currencies, and in return they get some currency that then can be used to purchase real things. In the end these people do not trade for currency, but for what the currency can bring to them. You can't eat bitcoin or do anything with it. It is only relevant when you can do something useful with it, like accessing goods/services. Get a burger or a blowjob :D.
Other forms of trades are between you and your tribe. Your tribe may say: "You want food? Then respect our laws and give us as much info about you as possible. And if we think you are worthy, we give you food." These are called "social programs". You trade your freedom/(¡dignity and such, in order to get food, or whatever.
So I am not, of course, talking in an abstract way about trade, but about our society specifically. Makes more sense now?
If you look more broadly you find multiple such trading systems in our society. For example youtube wants your attention (watch those ads!) because they can convert them later on into something else, like say money that then they convert into cars and houses and whatever. Others trade their computer power to "mine" bitcoin or other currencies, and in return they get some currency that then can be used to purchase real things. In the end these people do not trade for currency, but for what the currency can bring to them. You can't eat bitcoin or do anything with it. It is only relevant when you can do something useful with it, like accessing goods/services. Get a burger or a blowjob :D.
Other forms of trades are between you and your tribe. Your tribe may say: "You want food? Then respect our laws and give us as much info about you as possible. And if we think you are worthy, we give you food." These are called "social programs". You trade your freedom/(¡dignity and such, in order to get food, or whatever.
So I am not, of course, talking in an abstract way about trade, but about our society specifically. Makes more sense now?
Alexio likes this.
As this comment is lengthy, I'll offer first this concise version of what it covers and deals with (more thorough statement beginning at "LONG FORM COMMENT" below):
1. Why I equated "Economics" to both "Energy Exchange" AND "Trade" as synonymous terms
2. What I meant by "Energy" (and might as well call EVERYTHING "energy")
3. Nothing you're saying makes sense to me about "Trade" in and of itself and even your own citation of what "trade" is professed that what you were saying only made sense within the limited subset of possible "Trade" forms that are of a centrally controlled trade nature (of which "money" just happens to be a subset of). In the context of EXCLUDING economics like "bartering", "gifting", "agorism", etc. yes, I totally see what you're talking about and agree such systems are "Slave Economics" by the very nature of their Central Control and Command being applied to a congregant obeying mass that is denied the ability of setting and/or carrying any meaningful "value" set of their own.
Apologize for the length, but eh, such can often be the natural result of real inquiry and discussion.
Can't say I have any real disagreement or issue with anything you've thus far stated other than semantics and a suggestion that you might want to reconsider how you're defining "trade" and "economics" simply to avoid what you mean falling into contradictions with itself when one approaches "economic theory" or it's subset of "monetary theory".
Discussions of this sort are important and I HIGHLY commend your (and the TROM teams) work. I certainly don't have all the answers and I'm really not sure there's any real "freedom" EVER possible from ANY central entity that claims to. However, without discussions like these beginning to take place, truly addressing the issues inherent to "Where are we?", "How did we get here?", and "What might we do moving forward?" aren't likely to be addressed or acted on in any meaningful way.
As the old saying goes.....
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
-Parliament Funkadelic
LONG FORM COMMENT:
From your own offered definition:
"Trade involves the transfer of goods or services from one person or entity to another, often in exchange for money. Economists refer to a system or network that allows trade as a market."
and
"An early form of trade, the Gift economy, saw the exchange of goods and services without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. A gift economy involves trading things without the use of money. Modern traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. Trade between two traders is called bilateral trade, while trade involving more than two traders is called multilateral trade."
First, notice that your own citation notes that "Trade" is a "Superset" of "money". That is to say, "money"/"monetary economics" ALWAYS holds an emergent relation to trade but trade IS NOT emergent from or always in relation to "money". As per your own citations claim:
"Modern traders generally [BUT NOT ALWAYS] negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money [MONEY BEING BUT ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF TRADE]
and "traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange [THIS IS ONLY GENERALLY], such as money [AGAIN, MONEY IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF MEDIUMS]. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning [THE ACTUAL REAL/TRUE ECONOMIC OCCURRENCE IS NEGOTIATED THROUGH ABSTRACTION, AN ACT OF PURE IMAGINATION]. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. [SIMPLIFIED IN AS MUCH THAT "VALUE" IS ESTABLISHED VIA A CENTRAL ENTITY AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE ENTITIES; ENABLING A REFEREE/JUDGE FOR MORE STREAMLINED "PRICE DISCOVERY"]
*Bracketed items being editorial notes originating from myself as opposed to the original citation*
Moving on, take heed that per the standard physics model both a "good" itself as well as a "service" are inherently imbued with and constituted of "energy" as given by the Planck Constant.
"a fundamental physical constant denoted h, and is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency."
Going even more explicitly into the details of things, we then have "Energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
"energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform work on the body, or to heat it. Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed." [NOTE THAT SUCH MEANS THAT IN MORE TRUE/NON-ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS THIS MEANS SOMETHING MUCH CLOSER TO MULTILATERAL EXCHANGE ALWAYS UNDERLIES THE TRUTH OF ANY ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS.... THINGS ALWAYS SUM TO ZERO!]
So this is why I noted "money" as always being a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for "energy exchange" (aka "economics"). The "money" is simply a "debt instrument" used for establishing that some "value" of "energy" is owed/obligated to the holder of "money".
For Nation State "money", the "Boss Level" as it were, became the central bank(s). The Central Bank of Central Banks, "The Boss" of the "Boss Level" being the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). Below the BIS is then the World Bank and IMF. Below the World Bank and IMF are then what people popularly think of when they hear the words "central bank", that being things like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the UK Bank of England, Japan's Bank of Japan, China's People's Bank Of China, etc. Finally one reaches the level of things like the "Member Bank(s)", which is the level at which the general public starts interacting with the CENTRALLY CONTROLLED system. These are banks like Bank Of America, Wells Fargo, BBVA (now PNC). Note that in light of all surface level appearances of "decentralization", the system itself does centralize; the appearance of "decentralization" being born of a result of mistaking different divisions of the same network as being unique and totally independent of each other when that simply NEVER was the case.
Of note, the BIS resides in Basel, Switzerland. There's the old saying of "Be like the Swiss" with underlying comment to how Switzerland was "neutral" in World War II. It's pretty easy to remain neutral when one is "The Boss (level)",
As fore-noted, in lieu of the advent of HFT (High Frequency Trading) and the like, "value" management was (basically) handed over to "A.I.".
If anything, the only roll left to the CBs (Central Banks) is one of providing "liquidity" to and for the "A.I." Such "liquidity" is made manifest through acts like "Quantitative Easing" (aka "Q.E."), which in a simple, just means "Creating new money out of thin air".
The CBs have then (made clear) that they are, for whatever reason, removing themselves from the system and basically turning over their role as a facilitator of Liquidity to the general mass. Which, in a simple, is opened up by allowing just about any and all to both
1. create money
https://djangostars.com/blog/how-to-build-your-own-blockchain-for-a-financial-product/
AND
2. Removing the human entity from (virtually) having anything to do with monetary management and exchange rates.
https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/free-software-payment-system-launches-at-swiss-university
As this process completes, the CBs have been rather blunt and clear, as per the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell last april...
"I'm in a position to guarantee that the Fed will do everything we can to support the economy for as long as it takes to complete the recovery."
*full interview here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-economy-update-2021-04-11/ *
A sneaky way of basically saying "QE! QE FOREVER!" as that's literally about the only tool left in the CB bucket to "support the [monetary] economy". As any cessation of QE has been shown to both clearly and drastically manifest as (monetary) market shocks and downturns. Never mind "Melt Down", the (monetary) market "Melts Up" (destroying itself in the process).
In an absurd world, sometimes the largest truths are easily mistaken for comedy. Such said, President's Camacho's speech on modern economics is single handily one of the most clear and direct commentaries I've ever heard or seen.....
*amended video of Camacho to help illustrate the TRUTH that underlays what may at first appear mere comedy. Take heed to the recent trillions (and a trillion means a million billion) injected into markets, the eviction stays (aka "rent forgiveness"), the government sending out of "free" money to both businesses and to lesser extent general citizens, and of course the advent of public "get rich quick" through things like the "Robin Hood" app platform and of course cryptocurrencies falling from the sky. Then ask yourself if what's being delivered by Camacho really comedy, or is it just that the truth itself really is that absurd.*
Enter the PO(o)R [aka "Proof Of Resource"], the increased implementation of physically monitored human actions [ala physical action tangible "service" as opposed to a "good"] as mining mechanisms as opposed to the POW (Proof Of Work) method of resolving hashes (for more detail see Microsoft Patent WO2020060606), and similar related derivatives such as "Real Asset NFTs".
It's ALL not only "Energy Exchange" management (the "banks" simply guiding the "currency"; perhaps better said as "current see"), but more specifically CENTRALLY CONTROLLED "Energy Exchange". As fore noted, "Economics" being at it's root nothing more than "Energy Exchange".
The old (monetary) system abstraction is updated and simplified via
1. Automated Management ("A.I."; derived from the collectively emergent moral ethic)
2. Everything and EVERYONE under the system is rendered into little more than a direct commodity of the system. To quote Mr. Schwab of the World Economic Forum "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
*"Valhalla Mr Beale" indeed*
Money, the game where even when you "win", you actually "lose".
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT (of the collectively emergent shadow) SELF
and
(CONGRATULATIONS, THE SYSTEM SAYS YOU HAVE VALUE!)
"In The Algos We Trust"
Finally, all the Keynesian nonsense resolves to a balanced Zero sum game.....
that is, a zero sum game of death (as all individualized independent thought and action dynamics are literally eliminated and killed off and converted into essentially a centrally controlled "Hive Mind".... Star Treks "Borg" comes to mind).
Capitalism reaches it's final stage monopoly, in doing so it realizes both the Corp State driven dream of Mussolini's Fascism, Hitler's National Socialism, AND (Marx/Engles) dream of Communism. All said things were little more than the same "monetary economics" and as such all carried the same "monetary economics" end place dressed in different clothes for different audiences for purposes of #AreYouNotEntertained (Please click subscribe, like, and stay engaged)
Again, Google and Apple themselves covered this (to little public fan fare) in the public open a couple years ago now and for whatever disagreements I may hold with such institutions, I commend them on their public clarity of statement.
https://archive.org/details/GooglesTheSelfishLedger
There's an (educational) game called Paper Clips.... it's a rather witty and fun expose on the workings of "monetary economics", I HIGHLY recommend checking out. I'll give a spoiler though on that one doesn't win the game until not just everyone, but literally everything, has been turned into a commodity.
https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html
#BeExcellentToEachOther (because might as well)
#MoneyIsDead (Pandora's Box was opened and RoboCthulhu will devour all in it's path!)
and #OllieCthulu (because RoboCthulhu gives ZERO fuks who or what's in it's way and there's no more getting rid of RoboCthulhu then there is getting rid of your own shadow.... so just see and recognize Cthulhu, ollie Cthulhu, but probably no need to stress trying to overly engage Cthulhu in a fight because such is just an exercise in futility)
1. Why I equated "Economics" to both "Energy Exchange" AND "Trade" as synonymous terms
2. What I meant by "Energy" (and might as well call EVERYTHING "energy")
3. Nothing you're saying makes sense to me about "Trade" in and of itself and even your own citation of what "trade" is professed that what you were saying only made sense within the limited subset of possible "Trade" forms that are of a centrally controlled trade nature (of which "money" just happens to be a subset of). In the context of EXCLUDING economics like "bartering", "gifting", "agorism", etc. yes, I totally see what you're talking about and agree such systems are "Slave Economics" by the very nature of their Central Control and Command being applied to a congregant obeying mass that is denied the ability of setting and/or carrying any meaningful "value" set of their own.
Apologize for the length, but eh, such can often be the natural result of real inquiry and discussion.
Can't say I have any real disagreement or issue with anything you've thus far stated other than semantics and a suggestion that you might want to reconsider how you're defining "trade" and "economics" simply to avoid what you mean falling into contradictions with itself when one approaches "economic theory" or it's subset of "monetary theory".
Discussions of this sort are important and I HIGHLY commend your (and the TROM teams) work. I certainly don't have all the answers and I'm really not sure there's any real "freedom" EVER possible from ANY central entity that claims to. However, without discussions like these beginning to take place, truly addressing the issues inherent to "Where are we?", "How did we get here?", and "What might we do moving forward?" aren't likely to be addressed or acted on in any meaningful way.
As the old saying goes.....
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
-Parliament Funkadelic
LONG FORM COMMENT:
"By trade I mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade - it is inside of a context, that of the human world invented fantasy called "economic". I am deeply confused by what you are saying with "energy exchange".
From your own offered definition:
"Trade involves the transfer of goods or services from one person or entity to another, often in exchange for money. Economists refer to a system or network that allows trade as a market."
and
"An early form of trade, the Gift economy, saw the exchange of goods and services without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. A gift economy involves trading things without the use of money. Modern traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. Trade between two traders is called bilateral trade, while trade involving more than two traders is called multilateral trade."
First, notice that your own citation notes that "Trade" is a "Superset" of "money". That is to say, "money"/"monetary economics" ALWAYS holds an emergent relation to trade but trade IS NOT emergent from or always in relation to "money". As per your own citations claim:
"Modern traders generally [BUT NOT ALWAYS] negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money [MONEY BEING BUT ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF TRADE]
and "traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange [THIS IS ONLY GENERALLY], such as money [AGAIN, MONEY IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEDIUM OF MEDIUMS]. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning [THE ACTUAL REAL/TRUE ECONOMIC OCCURRENCE IS NEGOTIATED THROUGH ABSTRACTION, AN ACT OF PURE IMAGINATION]. The invention of money (and later of credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. [SIMPLIFIED IN AS MUCH THAT "VALUE" IS ESTABLISHED VIA A CENTRAL ENTITY AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE ENTITIES; ENABLING A REFEREE/JUDGE FOR MORE STREAMLINED "PRICE DISCOVERY"]
*Bracketed items being editorial notes originating from myself as opposed to the original citation*
Moving on, take heed that per the standard physics model both a "good" itself as well as a "service" are inherently imbued with and constituted of "energy" as given by the Planck Constant.
"a fundamental physical constant denoted h, and is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency."
Going even more explicitly into the details of things, we then have "Energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
"energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform work on the body, or to heat it. Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed." [NOTE THAT SUCH MEANS THAT IN MORE TRUE/NON-ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS THIS MEANS SOMETHING MUCH CLOSER TO MULTILATERAL EXCHANGE ALWAYS UNDERLIES THE TRUTH OF ANY ABSTRACTED ECONOMICS.... THINGS ALWAYS SUM TO ZERO!]
So this is why I noted "money" as always being a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for "energy exchange" (aka "economics"). The "money" is simply a "debt instrument" used for establishing that some "value" of "energy" is owed/obligated to the holder of "money".
For Nation State "money", the "Boss Level" as it were, became the central bank(s). The Central Bank of Central Banks, "The Boss" of the "Boss Level" being the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). Below the BIS is then the World Bank and IMF. Below the World Bank and IMF are then what people popularly think of when they hear the words "central bank", that being things like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the UK Bank of England, Japan's Bank of Japan, China's People's Bank Of China, etc. Finally one reaches the level of things like the "Member Bank(s)", which is the level at which the general public starts interacting with the CENTRALLY CONTROLLED system. These are banks like Bank Of America, Wells Fargo, BBVA (now PNC). Note that in light of all surface level appearances of "decentralization", the system itself does centralize; the appearance of "decentralization" being born of a result of mistaking different divisions of the same network as being unique and totally independent of each other when that simply NEVER was the case.
Of note, the BIS resides in Basel, Switzerland. There's the old saying of "Be like the Swiss" with underlying comment to how Switzerland was "neutral" in World War II. It's pretty easy to remain neutral when one is "The Boss (level)",
As fore-noted, in lieu of the advent of HFT (High Frequency Trading) and the like, "value" management was (basically) handed over to "A.I.".
If anything, the only roll left to the CBs (Central Banks) is one of providing "liquidity" to and for the "A.I." Such "liquidity" is made manifest through acts like "Quantitative Easing" (aka "Q.E."), which in a simple, just means "Creating new money out of thin air".
The CBs have then (made clear) that they are, for whatever reason, removing themselves from the system and basically turning over their role as a facilitator of Liquidity to the general mass. Which, in a simple, is opened up by allowing just about any and all to both
1. create money
https://djangostars.com/blog/how-to-build-your-own-blockchain-for-a-financial-product/
AND
2. Removing the human entity from (virtually) having anything to do with monetary management and exchange rates.
https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/free-software-payment-system-launches-at-swiss-university
As this process completes, the CBs have been rather blunt and clear, as per the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell last april...
"I'm in a position to guarantee that the Fed will do everything we can to support the economy for as long as it takes to complete the recovery."
*full interview here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-economy-update-2021-04-11/ *
A sneaky way of basically saying "QE! QE FOREVER!" as that's literally about the only tool left in the CB bucket to "support the [monetary] economy". As any cessation of QE has been shown to both clearly and drastically manifest as (monetary) market shocks and downturns. Never mind "Melt Down", the (monetary) market "Melts Up" (destroying itself in the process).
In an absurd world, sometimes the largest truths are easily mistaken for comedy. Such said, President's Camacho's speech on modern economics is single handily one of the most clear and direct commentaries I've ever heard or seen.....
*amended video of Camacho to help illustrate the TRUTH that underlays what may at first appear mere comedy. Take heed to the recent trillions (and a trillion means a million billion) injected into markets, the eviction stays (aka "rent forgiveness"), the government sending out of "free" money to both businesses and to lesser extent general citizens, and of course the advent of public "get rich quick" through things like the "Robin Hood" app platform and of course cryptocurrencies falling from the sky. Then ask yourself if what's being delivered by Camacho really comedy, or is it just that the truth itself really is that absurd.*
Enter the PO(o)R [aka "Proof Of Resource"], the increased implementation of physically monitored human actions [ala physical action tangible "service" as opposed to a "good"] as mining mechanisms as opposed to the POW (Proof Of Work) method of resolving hashes (for more detail see Microsoft Patent WO2020060606), and similar related derivatives such as "Real Asset NFTs".
It's ALL not only "Energy Exchange" management (the "banks" simply guiding the "currency"; perhaps better said as "current see"), but more specifically CENTRALLY CONTROLLED "Energy Exchange". As fore noted, "Economics" being at it's root nothing more than "Energy Exchange".
The old (monetary) system abstraction is updated and simplified via
1. Automated Management ("A.I."; derived from the collectively emergent moral ethic)
2. Everything and EVERYONE under the system is rendered into little more than a direct commodity of the system. To quote Mr. Schwab of the World Economic Forum "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
*"Valhalla Mr Beale" indeed*
Money, the game where even when you "win", you actually "lose".
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT (of the collectively emergent shadow) SELF
and
(CONGRATULATIONS, THE SYSTEM SAYS YOU HAVE VALUE!)
"In The Algos We Trust"
Finally, all the Keynesian nonsense resolves to a balanced Zero sum game.....
that is, a zero sum game of death (as all individualized independent thought and action dynamics are literally eliminated and killed off and converted into essentially a centrally controlled "Hive Mind".... Star Treks "Borg" comes to mind).
Capitalism reaches it's final stage monopoly, in doing so it realizes both the Corp State driven dream of Mussolini's Fascism, Hitler's National Socialism, AND (Marx/Engles) dream of Communism. All said things were little more than the same "monetary economics" and as such all carried the same "monetary economics" end place dressed in different clothes for different audiences for purposes of #AreYouNotEntertained (Please click subscribe, like, and stay engaged)
Again, Google and Apple themselves covered this (to little public fan fare) in the public open a couple years ago now and for whatever disagreements I may hold with such institutions, I commend them on their public clarity of statement.
https://archive.org/details/GooglesTheSelfishLedger
There's an (educational) game called Paper Clips.... it's a rather witty and fun expose on the workings of "monetary economics", I HIGHLY recommend checking out. I'll give a spoiler though on that one doesn't win the game until not just everyone, but literally everything, has been turned into a commodity.
https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html
#BeExcellentToEachOther (because might as well)
#MoneyIsDead (Pandora's Box was opened and RoboCthulhu will devour all in it's path!)
and #OllieCthulu (because RoboCthulhu gives ZERO fuks who or what's in it's way and there's no more getting rid of RoboCthulhu then there is getting rid of your own shadow.... so just see and recognize Cthulhu, ollie Cthulhu, but probably no need to stress trying to overly engage Cthulhu in a fight because such is just an exercise in futility)
I think you are overly-complicating things. :P - My definition of trade is quite easy to grasp I'd say, as explained above. We also have a book explaining the "birth of trade" - see it here https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6616/1/ - and another one all about trade, here https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6562/1/ ;)
I appreciate your engagement, but I think you re taking the definition of trade to the stars and back, and that's not what we are talking about. :)
I appreciate your engagement, but I think you re taking the definition of trade to the stars and back, and that's not what we are talking about. :)
Alexio likes this.
@TROM
for as lengthy as my comment may have been; lets just say 1400 some odd pages is a whole other bracket of digestion. *he he* So, while started on the first book (which seems a considerably quicker tear through then the page number make it look), may be a bit before I'm in any position to question or offer any real thought on what's covered.
Such said, I will question (again) what exactly you mean with this word "trade".
As not only did your first citation on what "trade" was state that bartering AND gifting (among else) are in fact "trade", but the first book early on seems to fluctuate between referencing "trade" as something that extends beyond the bounds of mere centrally controlled methods as applied to a mass (i.e. "money") but then at times equates it to only centrally controlled means.
"To say that the act of trade began at one point in time is very unrealistic, as
people have likely exchanged goods and services for millennia. You have
sheep and I can take care of them, then you can give me some sheep meat, or
fur, for my service. You have cows and I make clothes, so I get some milk and
you get some shoes. You get the point. It’s important to mention though that
the notion of property varied greatly from one cluster of people to the next.
While we can’t exactly pinpoint any specific one, there were many tribes who
never thought of the land or animals that they farmed as theirs, but more as
them simply being there, and being farmed, and all tribes enjoyed the
advantages. If you were to ask them who owns the sheep, for example, they
would not be able to understand the question."
So o.k., right with you so far.... people have been exchanging since always (or at least specifically "millennia" as it's stated) and we're basically consistent with the whole notion of the conservative "law" (perhaps more like "theory") of energy so far.
But then right after that this is said:
"When american settlers got ‘bossy’ with indigenous indians and were
attempting to take their land, they were confused as to the borders of the
indian land, because the indians just grew their vegetables in open spaces,
or farmed in open spaces, not regarding the land as theirs or anyone else’s.
There are also people who some call ‘nomads’, who travel all the time, never
settling in one place. They view Earth as belonging to no one -it’s just thereand they take advantage of it to feed, clothe, and protect themselves. Even
today, there are tribes where the notion of property is foreign to them, and
trade (if it exist) is unrecognizable. So keep that in mind, as ‘trade’ is not a ‘naturally’ occurring thing that applies to all clusters of people (cultures)."
Notice how it's stated that seems "trade" has always (or at least for milu) been around AND how there's not only means of it other than centrally controlled abstracts (i.e. "money"), but that concepts of "property" need not even necessarily apply? Yet then it's equally equated to the issues that evolved out of centrally controlled mass exchange methods.
In any case, I'm still reading....
but will note that while "currencies" are one thing, over the course of my own studies into economics and monetary theory one thing I found (which is noted in the book) is that:
1. Currency itself often wasn't and isn't centrally controlled and nor does it inherently carry an intent that "this is basis of all exchange"
2. "Money", which is a specific type of currency that is always centrally controlled, far as I've been able to trace back hits out of Sumeria. It wasn't cash or coin as known, but it was assuredly "money". The earliest known coin form I was able to trace back stems back to Tyre (Greco-Roman Empire); earliest known paper cash some time later out of Asia/China. Something that may be found of interest is the earliest mention of "kings" and basically central control/orchestrated "civilization" I know of hits back to Sumeria and even "The Bible" that Rome would eventually come to flaunt features an Abraham that, among else, is clear on originally hailing out of Sumeria (Genesis 24). I note this mostly just to raise the question of if it's at all surprising that a place rooted in centralized control and basically "divine right" would hold (from what I could make out) the oldest historical reference to "money" (a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for energy exchange) and even "law" (complete with arguing lawyers) as among the things it carried in implemented working?
Such said, just thought I'd note that for now, but otherwise I'm taking the bait and at least reading the entirety of the first work before commenting or questioning any further with a continued suggestion that just for better conveying intent and meaning, just might want to consider that you may not want to hold to so ardently using the word "trade".
for as lengthy as my comment may have been; lets just say 1400 some odd pages is a whole other bracket of digestion. *he he* So, while started on the first book (which seems a considerably quicker tear through then the page number make it look), may be a bit before I'm in any position to question or offer any real thought on what's covered.
Such said, I will question (again) what exactly you mean with this word "trade".
As not only did your first citation on what "trade" was state that bartering AND gifting (among else) are in fact "trade", but the first book early on seems to fluctuate between referencing "trade" as something that extends beyond the bounds of mere centrally controlled methods as applied to a mass (i.e. "money") but then at times equates it to only centrally controlled means.
"To say that the act of trade began at one point in time is very unrealistic, as
people have likely exchanged goods and services for millennia. You have
sheep and I can take care of them, then you can give me some sheep meat, or
fur, for my service. You have cows and I make clothes, so I get some milk and
you get some shoes. You get the point. It’s important to mention though that
the notion of property varied greatly from one cluster of people to the next.
While we can’t exactly pinpoint any specific one, there were many tribes who
never thought of the land or animals that they farmed as theirs, but more as
them simply being there, and being farmed, and all tribes enjoyed the
advantages. If you were to ask them who owns the sheep, for example, they
would not be able to understand the question."
So o.k., right with you so far.... people have been exchanging since always (or at least specifically "millennia" as it's stated) and we're basically consistent with the whole notion of the conservative "law" (perhaps more like "theory") of energy so far.
But then right after that this is said:
"When american settlers got ‘bossy’ with indigenous indians and were
attempting to take their land, they were confused as to the borders of the
indian land, because the indians just grew their vegetables in open spaces,
or farmed in open spaces, not regarding the land as theirs or anyone else’s.
There are also people who some call ‘nomads’, who travel all the time, never
settling in one place. They view Earth as belonging to no one -it’s just thereand they take advantage of it to feed, clothe, and protect themselves. Even
today, there are tribes where the notion of property is foreign to them, and
trade (if it exist) is unrecognizable. So keep that in mind, as ‘trade’ is not a ‘naturally’ occurring thing that applies to all clusters of people (cultures)."
Notice how it's stated that seems "trade" has always (or at least for milu) been around AND how there's not only means of it other than centrally controlled abstracts (i.e. "money"), but that concepts of "property" need not even necessarily apply? Yet then it's equally equated to the issues that evolved out of centrally controlled mass exchange methods.
In any case, I'm still reading....
but will note that while "currencies" are one thing, over the course of my own studies into economics and monetary theory one thing I found (which is noted in the book) is that:
1. Currency itself often wasn't and isn't centrally controlled and nor does it inherently carry an intent that "this is basis of all exchange"
2. "Money", which is a specific type of currency that is always centrally controlled, far as I've been able to trace back hits out of Sumeria. It wasn't cash or coin as known, but it was assuredly "money". The earliest known coin form I was able to trace back stems back to Tyre (Greco-Roman Empire); earliest known paper cash some time later out of Asia/China. Something that may be found of interest is the earliest mention of "kings" and basically central control/orchestrated "civilization" I know of hits back to Sumeria and even "The Bible" that Rome would eventually come to flaunt features an Abraham that, among else, is clear on originally hailing out of Sumeria (Genesis 24). I note this mostly just to raise the question of if it's at all surprising that a place rooted in centralized control and basically "divine right" would hold (from what I could make out) the oldest historical reference to "money" (a centrally controlled abstract as applied to a mass for energy exchange) and even "law" (complete with arguing lawyers) as among the things it carried in implemented working?
Such said, just thought I'd note that for now, but otherwise I'm taking the bait and at least reading the entirety of the first work before commenting or questioning any further with a continued suggestion that just for better conveying intent and meaning, just might want to consider that you may not want to hold to so ardently using the word "trade".
Alexio likes this.
Thanks for taking a look at our books. But always keep in mind that if you want to put the microscope on any word, it will quickly lose any sense of reality. This is why we need context. And our context seems very simple: trade is the exchange of goods/services. Like we see today in so many different forms. I explained a lot in the comment section here and a lot more in the books mentioned. If you want, we could have a live discussion about "what is trade" in a special tromcast. If you can join and would want to do that let us know and we can schedule one. To have a friendly discussion about this notion. Could be useful for others to participate too and/or to listen.
Alexio likes this.
EMP SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
4D MONEY!
money is on a track to take care of itself in fairly short order and it's been well past the point of comically overt in that regard for years now. The global politics connected to it rendered little more than a #AreYouNotEntertained comedy show of ego and narcissism in the process. Fewer than 10 companies making up over 40% of an S&P 500 "free market", Market Flash Crashes of 666, and a Tweeter n Chief that grabs pussy descended of a Mary Christ (seriously, the Trump dynasty gets kicked off by one Mary Christ), and a Musk character that carries on about how one can tell that a sports car really was sent to mars because "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake".... I mean 'cmon. Mel Brooks and Monty Python combined couldn't come up with scripts so absurd.
It'd be nice not to have to live on the same stage as the absurd comedy wraps up it's centuries long season of OBEY, but it's more so the ethics that remain post the money turbulence that I really ponder..... not sure quite what to make of that one at current, not sure much of anyone does; but it'd be nice to start getting on with it over continuing on in the shadow of the zombie corp nation state valley of death.
4D MONEY!
money is on a track to take care of itself in fairly short order and it's been well past the point of comically overt in that regard for years now. The global politics connected to it rendered little more than a #AreYouNotEntertained comedy show of ego and narcissism in the process. Fewer than 10 companies making up over 40% of an S&P 500 "free market", Market Flash Crashes of 666, and a Tweeter n Chief that grabs pussy descended of a Mary Christ (seriously, the Trump dynasty gets kicked off by one Mary Christ), and a Musk character that carries on about how one can tell that a sports car really was sent to mars because "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake".... I mean 'cmon. Mel Brooks and Monty Python combined couldn't come up with scripts so absurd.
It'd be nice not to have to live on the same stage as the absurd comedy wraps up it's centuries long season of OBEY, but it's more so the ethics that remain post the money turbulence that I really ponder..... not sure quite what to make of that one at current, not sure much of anyone does; but it'd be nice to start getting on with it over continuing on in the shadow of the zombie corp nation state valley of death.
Magus likes this.
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Sustainable businesses. What a joke.
"Turning to sustainable global business: 5 things to know about the circular economy" https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1093802
This is a UN story. Even their story, meant to be positive, it is not. As they say:
Thinking that you can create sustainable businesses, it is like trying to make the water dry. You cannot. The goal of a business is to keep on making profits, else it cannot sustain itself.
Think about the following:
You have a hiking shoes company. You make boots for the people who want to hike. You employ 100 people or so, to design and produce them. You want to make really great hiking boots and make your business as sustainable as possible. How can you do that? Well, you cannot.
Three reasons why:
1. The chain of trades is wide and complicated in today's society. The raw materials used can come from other parts of the world that you cannot control or oversee. And a lot of materials go into such boots. Here's an example. So the production can be spread across the world, employing slaves, creating waste, pollution, and such. Things you cannot, again, oversee or control.
2. You have to compete with others and that means you are forced to lower your prices. If Amazon, or others, are playing "dirty" (unsustainable) and because of that they can have much lower prices, then very likely you are out of the business. So you are forced to cut corners and maybe lie, deceive, exaggerate about your hiking boots, to keep yourself afloat (to keep on selling them). You will have to invest into ads and marketing, and find cheaper producers/distributors for your boots.
3. The most important and easy to grasp issue: YOU HAVE TO KEEP ON SELLING HIKING BOOTS!
Look, if you are selling something (say hiking boots), you cannot afford to say: "Oh, we made enough of them...seems like most people have hiking boots. And we've also made them of such a good quality that they need no replacement - we don't have to produce new models. Let's stop producing more to not contribute to a potential waste of resources.". You cannot say that. If you say that you also say "Lets fire all of our 100 employees and lose our financial income and suffer because of that." It is that simple!
There is no such thing as a sustainable business, simply because a business NEEDS to keep on producing the shit they are making, endlessly! Else they cannot survive! Couple that with the fact that they have to compete (price wise) with other businesses + the fact that there is usually a huge chain of trades in order to produce any good/service (and you cannot control those), then it surely must mean that trying to make a sustainable business it is like trying to dry the water.
Humans have to take their heads out of their butts, and accept that we cannot keep on living in a trade-based society while trying to fix the problems created by the trade-based society. We need to start providing trade-free goods and services, at least when it comes to the basic needs, for most humans. To decouple them from this rat-trade-race, little by little. #tromimg
This is a UN story. Even their story, meant to be positive, it is not. As they say:
"However, there is still a long way to and there is even evidence that the world is going backwards: the 2021 Circularity Gap Report, produced annually by the Circle Economy thinktank, estimates that the global circularity rate (the proportion of recovered materials, as a percentage of overall materials used) stands at only 8.6 per cent, down from 9.1 per cent in 2018"
Thinking that you can create sustainable businesses, it is like trying to make the water dry. You cannot. The goal of a business is to keep on making profits, else it cannot sustain itself.
Think about the following:
You have a hiking shoes company. You make boots for the people who want to hike. You employ 100 people or so, to design and produce them. You want to make really great hiking boots and make your business as sustainable as possible. How can you do that? Well, you cannot.
Three reasons why:
1. The chain of trades is wide and complicated in today's society. The raw materials used can come from other parts of the world that you cannot control or oversee. And a lot of materials go into such boots. Here's an example. So the production can be spread across the world, employing slaves, creating waste, pollution, and such. Things you cannot, again, oversee or control.
2. You have to compete with others and that means you are forced to lower your prices. If Amazon, or others, are playing "dirty" (unsustainable) and because of that they can have much lower prices, then very likely you are out of the business. So you are forced to cut corners and maybe lie, deceive, exaggerate about your hiking boots, to keep yourself afloat (to keep on selling them). You will have to invest into ads and marketing, and find cheaper producers/distributors for your boots.
3. The most important and easy to grasp issue: YOU HAVE TO KEEP ON SELLING HIKING BOOTS!
Look, if you are selling something (say hiking boots), you cannot afford to say: "Oh, we made enough of them...seems like most people have hiking boots. And we've also made them of such a good quality that they need no replacement - we don't have to produce new models. Let's stop producing more to not contribute to a potential waste of resources.". You cannot say that. If you say that you also say "Lets fire all of our 100 employees and lose our financial income and suffer because of that." It is that simple!
There is no such thing as a sustainable business, simply because a business NEEDS to keep on producing the shit they are making, endlessly! Else they cannot survive! Couple that with the fact that they have to compete (price wise) with other businesses + the fact that there is usually a huge chain of trades in order to produce any good/service (and you cannot control those), then it surely must mean that trying to make a sustainable business it is like trying to dry the water.
Humans have to take their heads out of their butts, and accept that we cannot keep on living in a trade-based society while trying to fix the problems created by the trade-based society. We need to start providing trade-free goods and services, at least when it comes to the basic needs, for most humans. To decouple them from this rat-trade-race, little by little. #tromimg
5 people like this
2 people reshared this
Electric cars and batteries won't change the world-
Renewable energies and electric cars won't change our world by much. Maybe will not change it at all.
Think about this:
Imagine all boats in the world were motor-boats. Now someone comes along and has this brilliant idea of making boats that can "sail". He says "we can put these sails, big ones, on the boats, and let the wind push the boat." He the proceeds with detailing the process and how we can scale it up. "Brilliant!" the masses are screaming! And so a billionaire named Ksum Sozeb invests billions of dollars to make sailing boats, claiming that this will change the face of sea transportation. "No more water and air pollution! No more pollution in the manufacturing of motors! Free energy from the wind!" he says.
People like him and his tweets. He starts the production and soon we start to see more and more sail boats, and less motor boats. Amazing!
He manages to replace most of the motor boats with sail boats. Now we are saved! Or not...
In today's society, not in the imaginary story-world, this is probably the case. Many, if not most boats are sail boats. And yet this does not stop the extreme pollution, slavery and aggressive marketing meant to give birth to infinite consumption, of sail boats. Millions of sailboats are not used, lots are wasted, and the process of manufacturing them, disposing them, maintaining them, is immense.
In this trade-based society if you make sail boats you have to keep on making them. If you stop, you are fucked. You will lose. This alone should be the "aha...yeah" moment that would make us realize nothing is sustainable in today's trade-based society.
And so, if all cars will be electric by tomorrow, nothing of essence will be solved. The manufacturing and distribution of these cars and their parts (plastic, batteries, metal, rare earth elements, and so forth) is still extremely polluting and enslaves armies of young and old people.
Musk and others will have to keep on producing these electric cars at infinitum. And since they compete with others, they will be forced to find the shortest path to profit, and this leaves behind a lot of bad things such as slavery, corruption, waste, lies, etc.. If Musk, or others wanted to help humanity transport from one place to another, in a sustainable fashion, then he and others would invest in public transportation in a non-profit way. Simple! But they do not want that. They want to make profits. Simple!
And renewable energies are a good idea in theory, but insufficient and inefficient in today's trade-based society where it will be used to produce more shit, more waste, more slaves, more nonsense.
Unless we change the game of trade into a game of no-trade, then we cannot fix anything of essence. #tromimg
Think about this:
Imagine all boats in the world were motor-boats. Now someone comes along and has this brilliant idea of making boats that can "sail". He says "we can put these sails, big ones, on the boats, and let the wind push the boat." He the proceeds with detailing the process and how we can scale it up. "Brilliant!" the masses are screaming! And so a billionaire named Ksum Sozeb invests billions of dollars to make sailing boats, claiming that this will change the face of sea transportation. "No more water and air pollution! No more pollution in the manufacturing of motors! Free energy from the wind!" he says.
People like him and his tweets. He starts the production and soon we start to see more and more sail boats, and less motor boats. Amazing!
He manages to replace most of the motor boats with sail boats. Now we are saved! Or not...
In today's society, not in the imaginary story-world, this is probably the case. Many, if not most boats are sail boats. And yet this does not stop the extreme pollution, slavery and aggressive marketing meant to give birth to infinite consumption, of sail boats. Millions of sailboats are not used, lots are wasted, and the process of manufacturing them, disposing them, maintaining them, is immense.
In this trade-based society if you make sail boats you have to keep on making them. If you stop, you are fucked. You will lose. This alone should be the "aha...yeah" moment that would make us realize nothing is sustainable in today's trade-based society.
And so, if all cars will be electric by tomorrow, nothing of essence will be solved. The manufacturing and distribution of these cars and their parts (plastic, batteries, metal, rare earth elements, and so forth) is still extremely polluting and enslaves armies of young and old people.
Musk and others will have to keep on producing these electric cars at infinitum. And since they compete with others, they will be forced to find the shortest path to profit, and this leaves behind a lot of bad things such as slavery, corruption, waste, lies, etc.. If Musk, or others wanted to help humanity transport from one place to another, in a sustainable fashion, then he and others would invest in public transportation in a non-profit way. Simple! But they do not want that. They want to make profits. Simple!
And renewable energies are a good idea in theory, but insufficient and inefficient in today's trade-based society where it will be used to produce more shit, more waste, more slaves, more nonsense.
Unless we change the game of trade into a game of no-trade, then we cannot fix anything of essence. #tromimg
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
6 people like this
aye,
M:E E:P P:(p)W
Where "E"=("E"conomics / "E"nergy "E"xchange) is a an emergent subset of "M"=("M"orality).
"P"=("P"olitics) is an emergent subset of "E"(conomics).
And "(p)"[otential]"W"(ar) is an emergent subset of "P"(olitics)
So long as the base "morality"/"ethics" is "destructive" (it seeks elimination of creative "dynamic"), the ultimate emergent form of "E"(conomics aka "Energy Exchange") is itself going to be one that acts in the pursuit of "death" (that is to say, seeks towards stagnation and elimination of individual dynamics).
Any "profit" motive rooted in "I" scale in volume is going to ultimately seek to both consume AND control itself unto it's own end as it's root moral ethic is one rooted in a base function of maximizing the choice (aka "freedom"/"liberty") of a specific individual (entity) through achievement of nothing but a standing reflection of only that specified individual (entity). There's no achieving "freedom" when a root function is itself "ALL OBEY MY COMMAND".
M:E E:P P:(p)W
Where "E"=("E"conomics / "E"nergy "E"xchange) is a an emergent subset of "M"=("M"orality).
"P"=("P"olitics) is an emergent subset of "E"(conomics).
And "(p)"[otential]"W"(ar) is an emergent subset of "P"(olitics)
So long as the base "morality"/"ethics" is "destructive" (it seeks elimination of creative "dynamic"), the ultimate emergent form of "E"(conomics aka "Energy Exchange") is itself going to be one that acts in the pursuit of "death" (that is to say, seeks towards stagnation and elimination of individual dynamics).
Any "profit" motive rooted in "I" scale in volume is going to ultimately seek to both consume AND control itself unto it's own end as it's root moral ethic is one rooted in a base function of maximizing the choice (aka "freedom"/"liberty") of a specific individual (entity) through achievement of nothing but a standing reflection of only that specified individual (entity). There's no achieving "freedom" when a root function is itself "ALL OBEY MY COMMAND".
Alexio likes this.
Because our trade-free social network is so cool :) , we can now add posts into categories. And thus, we created a blog category here https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom/status?category=Blogs where you can see all of our TROM worthy, and brief, blogs. The section can be easily accessed via our main social network page https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom :
We highly recommend that you ditch Facebook/Twitter and the like, and come use our https://social.trom.tf social network (Friendica). You can connect with millions of people, follow pretty much anyone online, create long posts, add them to categories....there are no bans or restrictions, and so forth. See you there!
#tromimg
We highly recommend that you ditch Facebook/Twitter and the like, and come use our https://social.trom.tf social network (Friendica). You can connect with millions of people, follow pretty much anyone online, create long posts, add them to categories....there are no bans or restrictions, and so forth. See you there!
#tromimg
5 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
People in this society: This is such an amazing tool, a free Photoshop in the browser! Look: https://www.photopea.com/ - and so many comment and get excited about it and praise it.
People who understand how this trade-based society works: This software is not trade-free! You have to trade your currency (to unlock features), your freedom (accept their terms), your data (that they collect), your attention (because they inject ads).
This is how the understanding of trade cuts through the bullshit of this society where people pretend to provide "free" goods and services. Most do not. Be aware of that! #tromimg
People who understand how this trade-based society works: This software is not trade-free! You have to trade your currency (to unlock features), your freedom (accept their terms), your data (that they collect), your attention (because they inject ads).
This is how the understanding of trade cuts through the bullshit of this society where people pretend to provide "free" goods and services. Most do not. Be aware of that! #tromimg
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
2 people like this
"Company drops contentious Keystone XL pipeline project" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/9/company-drops-contentious-keystone-xl-pipeline-project
People are cheering how activism forced a multi-billion dollar project, meant to make profits and destroy the environment, to be canceled. It is great that activism can achieve, at times, such feats. It is also pointless overall. Unless we talk about what makes human beings just care about the profit (wink-wink: trade), then there is no sailing on this wind of activism. 1 such project can get canceled, after a 10 year battle, while in the meantime 10 more are probably planned. Or 100.
This a a photo with the Mexican army protecting turtle eggs' poaching:
While is nice that they are trying.....to think that this is the way forward is simply insane.
Point is, as long as we deal with the symptoms of this trade-based society, we will solve nothing. #tromimg
People are cheering how activism forced a multi-billion dollar project, meant to make profits and destroy the environment, to be canceled. It is great that activism can achieve, at times, such feats. It is also pointless overall. Unless we talk about what makes human beings just care about the profit (wink-wink: trade), then there is no sailing on this wind of activism. 1 such project can get canceled, after a 10 year battle, while in the meantime 10 more are probably planned. Or 100.
This a a photo with the Mexican army protecting turtle eggs' poaching:
While is nice that they are trying.....to think that this is the way forward is simply insane.
Point is, as long as we deal with the symptoms of this trade-based society, we will solve nothing. #tromimg
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
3 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
To fully see this post and all of the images, read it here: https://social.trom.tf/display/dbc8dc44-1460-c0bc-57b3-313281906726
Plastic pollution is one of the many problems created by this trade-based society. It is an enormous issue, alongside climate change, waste, air pollution, loss of biodiversity, human slavery, environmental destruction, inequality, and so forth.
Here's how simple it is to understand how these problems are created:
1. Human beings reflect their upbringing (the environment they grow in).
From the way they walk and talk, to what they like or hate, these are values humans pick from their environment.
2. Our environment is based on trade. Jobs, currency, the many products created, supermarkets, online premium accounts, data collection, ads, social credits, and so forth. It is a "give this to me, to give that to you" society.
This trade society gives rise to an endless circle of creating as many things as possible and selling them to others. A circle of extreme and infinite consumption that makes people only chase their own gains (profits).
So then you end up with a bunch of idiot consumers whose minds are filled with ads and "how and what to trade".
And they will create a pile of destruction in their way.
That eventually will trash their lives and this planet.
------------
Unless we understand this, nothing will change. We have to move away from a trade-based society. How about starting to provide trade-free goods/services to people? How about starting with their basic needs? This is a discussion that is not happening anywhere. So we need to be vocal about it. #tromimg
Plastic pollution is one of the many problems created by this trade-based society. It is an enormous issue, alongside climate change, waste, air pollution, loss of biodiversity, human slavery, environmental destruction, inequality, and so forth.
Here's how simple it is to understand how these problems are created:
1. Human beings reflect their upbringing (the environment they grow in).
From the way they walk and talk, to what they like or hate, these are values humans pick from their environment.
2. Our environment is based on trade. Jobs, currency, the many products created, supermarkets, online premium accounts, data collection, ads, social credits, and so forth. It is a "give this to me, to give that to you" society.
This trade society gives rise to an endless circle of creating as many things as possible and selling them to others. A circle of extreme and infinite consumption that makes people only chase their own gains (profits).
So then you end up with a bunch of idiot consumers whose minds are filled with ads and "how and what to trade".
And they will create a pile of destruction in their way.
That eventually will trash their lives and this planet.
------------
Unless we understand this, nothing will change. We have to move away from a trade-based society. How about starting to provide trade-free goods/services to people? How about starting with their basic needs? This is a discussion that is not happening anywhere. So we need to be vocal about it. #tromimg
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
8 people like this
2 people reshared this
Tio:
Now we know - we have 24h of recordings for TROM II. In total. Insane! All are added and synced in one massive Kdenlive project. These days I am starting the editing for it. Been waiting for this for months now. We have a ton of great content there. Let's see we may end up with a 20h documentary, divided into parts of course. And on top of this I will prepare a shorter one, around 2h or less. Will keep everyone updated, as always, on https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom or https://www.tromsite.com/live/ . #tromimg
Now we know - we have 24h of recordings for TROM II. In total. Insane! All are added and synced in one massive Kdenlive project. These days I am starting the editing for it. Been waiting for this for months now. We have a ton of great content there. Let's see we may end up with a 20h documentary, divided into parts of course. And on top of this I will prepare a shorter one, around 2h or less. Will keep everyone updated, as always, on https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom or https://www.tromsite.com/live/ . #tromimg
5 people like this
Recently human beings explored for the first time the 3rd deepest plate in the Ocean. Sounds good? Well, this is what the scientists described when they reached the bottom:
and
Source.
Imagine that! Humans go to the 3rd deepest place on Earth, a place not explored by humans, and find a teddy bear, a pair of pants, a shirt, and a lot of plastic. This is very telling of our trade-based society. People are transformed into merchants and consumers, and they do not care about anything else. Their trash is not their responsibility. And accusing individual humans or clusters of (companies or governments) is the easiest and most inefficient way (and 100% wrong) of trying to solve anything. It is no one's fault. It is this trade-based society that makes us all like that. Unless we change that, we change nothing.
And keep this in mind, climate change is one of the millions of severe problems this society confronts today, and will confront in the future. We can't just solve climate change, and end up with the same amount of problems on our hands. We have to change this society. Period.
#tromimg
“The only unusual thing there was the garbage. There was a lot of garbage in the trench. There were a lot of plastics, a pair of pants, a shirt, a teddy bear, packaging and a lot of plastic bags. Even me, I did not expect that, and I do research on plastics,”
and
“There was one funny scene when we were exploring the area. There was one white material floating around. I was saying ‘Victor, that’s a jellyfish’. We went there and approached and it was just plastic.
Source.
Imagine that! Humans go to the 3rd deepest place on Earth, a place not explored by humans, and find a teddy bear, a pair of pants, a shirt, and a lot of plastic. This is very telling of our trade-based society. People are transformed into merchants and consumers, and they do not care about anything else. Their trash is not their responsibility. And accusing individual humans or clusters of (companies or governments) is the easiest and most inefficient way (and 100% wrong) of trying to solve anything. It is no one's fault. It is this trade-based society that makes us all like that. Unless we change that, we change nothing.
And keep this in mind, climate change is one of the millions of severe problems this society confronts today, and will confront in the future. We can't just solve climate change, and end up with the same amount of problems on our hands. We have to change this society. Period.
#tromimg
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
3 people like this
Guess what? We finished the recordings for TROM II. Finally! Wow. We stay up until 4am to do them. Sasha was amazing and we got some really great footage from her interview. We may have some 20h of recordings so this these next months we will work on making sense of these all, and create the sequel to TROM documentary. It will be tough - very much so. We keep everyone updated with the progress on our website at https://www.tromsite.com/live/ or our social network at https://social.trom.tf/profile/trom #tromimg
3 people like this
We recorded Sasha today. Really great recording. Everything went so great, so smooth. This first part was all about her life story. Tomorrow we will record about the state of our society. Sasha prepared a lot. She read through a lot of UN reports and such, so that what she will present will be as factual as possible. All of the facts we will present in TROM II will be sourced, of course. Directly on the video and in the description. #tromimg
This entry was edited (3 months ago)
3 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Cryptocurrencies are as pointless, destructive, and nonsensical as any other currency (say money), social credits, direct trades, tokens and so forth. All are representations of trade. And trade is the source of most problems. Proof here https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6562/1/ #tromimg
3 people like this
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Recording with @Georgi done! Very good job Georgi! It was a very new thing for Georgi - she is not used to being filmed and to talk about such subjects. She perfectly understands all that we talk about at TROM, and despite being the first time she had to do this, she managed it very well. We have 2 more series of interviews now ;). #tromimg
5 people like this
I am happy to announce that we released TROMnews in german on https://tromnachrichten.de/
I was working all day on this and it looks great. Furthermore the move from our websites in german to our new server went very smooth and everything seems to not only work, but everything is faster than ever before. Loading speeds of website and books decreased a lot and all of that is possible thanks to @YunoHost who provide such an amazing tool to host digital services (wordpress-websites, social media platforms, video platforms, search engines etc.) by yourself!
Also thanks to @Tio who worked a lot on moving all websites to our new server!
This entry was edited (4 months ago)
Future is FOSS reshared this.
Ladies and gents, we are releasing yet another service for our trom.tf! A real and quite complete trade-free alternative to Google Docs https://office.trom.tf/ - read more about it here https://trom.tf/office/ . Create documents in seconds + kaban + polls + whiteboards. You don't even need an account, unless you want to save your work for more than 3 months. Everything is fully encrypted. Share, comment, work collaboratively. Take advantage of it! #tromlive #tromimg
4 people like this
Alexio reshared this.
Future is FOSS 13 hours ago •
Tio likes this.