I know I posted an article a while back that was PRO raising the minimum wage, but I think enough time has passed for me to revisit that idea. --Actually, at teh moment I can't find where my article went, so maybe I started to write it and changed my mind. The gist of that argument was that if we raised the minimum wage now, there would be a temporary period where the market needs to catch up. During that time period people would be able to catch up on their expenses and hopefully cut down expenses for when the market caught up to the new wage. --I didn't at the time think that it was a long-term solution, but it could potentally solve some short-term problems that drag down the long-term.
One drawback I imediately saw to the article was the timing of it, so that might be why I deleted it and never posted it: The economy has improved. Not only statistically, but I can see a lot of things that are different now that make me optimistic about getting a job if ever I need one. When I was young (in 2007) and couldn't find a job that would pay the bills, I complained. But now that I'm older and more stabilized, I realize that I can live on so much less (we're talking $300/mo + rent). I realize that rent is relative, because right now I cost-share my rent between 2 other people and 1/3rd comes down to about $450. It's an awesome setup, close to the freeway and downtown shopping, low crime, great area all around, but I also realize if I Wanted more I would have to pay more...like if I didn't want 2 roommates I could get a place for 2x as much ($900 would cover a 1 bed 1 bath dog friendly place I bet). Either way, 900 + 300 or 450+300 = 750 - 1200 ---I don't like putting this out there to the world, but in order to make a point I guess I have to get a little personal now and again. 1200/mo divided by 4 weeks a month 40 hours a week comes down to $7.50/ hour, which is close to the minimum wage.
Of course, I'm not working at the minimum wage, nor am I working 40 hours a week, because I've managed to streamline my processes and become efficient in making money. I work maybe 20 hours a week if that and often debate if I should be looking for more work or not when I'm comfortable and happy and the funny thing is that maybe 16 hours of that is spent at a low paying job that I could easily replace but choose not to because I like it there. My stress level is at an all time low when it comes to my financial concerns, and that is what makes me think that the economy is good again--well, that and the fact that I have several job offers on the table right now, all of which pay more than $7.50/hr (haha)
Even still, there is some hubub about raising the minimum wage going around, and I think I need to revisit my original PRO stance for it. Aside from it not being the right time to raise the minimum wage, I think we need to consider that the problem is not with the minimum wage. The problem is with the rising inflating dollar. --Our cost of living has risen due to changes to western culture (the need to have a cell phone now for example), and the rising cost of rent and other expenses.
Rent has been rising for what I see as two reasons: market demand, and capitalization. When the demand for rental units rose from 2007 and people opted not to own their own homes or could not afford to, capitalists swooped in and bought up the rental market and started renting it out. In other words, if you survived 2007 you decided to invest in real estate rentals because of the assumption that everyone will need to rent at some point in time. Rentals charge more than houses do because of the cost + profit model of pricing (you buy an investment, you want to make money, so you charge what it cost you [i.e. your mortgage or the lack of money you suddenly have] plus you tack on some profit.) Automatically, if you are renting, you are paying the mortgage of another plus some, so if you could afford to get the mortgage yourself, you would be cutting back expenses. That's how capitalism works: you pay the loan on the equipment to produce the goods, plus some for profit.
The other reason rentals are so high is the variablilty of these capitalists--some are paying more on the mortgage and if you have a better loan, you are essentially more efficently making money, so why not charge the same price as your competitor who has a comparable rental and net more profit?
Rent is maybe the biggest expense of everyone when it comes to cost of living. In other words, if you can lower the cost of rent, the cost of living with definitely go down. So instead of raising the minimum wage, wouldn't another alternative be to lower the cost of rent? Maybe the federal government could offer refinancing options to landlords who meet a certain criteria, part of which includes the agreement to lower rent for X years?
More on this later....
**************************88888
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Sunday, December 11, 2016
What a Dime Piece wants
Imagine, for a moment, that you have lots of money, that you were born with good looks, honed charm, and lots of friends.
Now, still imagining, what more would you want in life?
General consensus would say that you "want what you can't have," but that isn't true with most people in that situation--or at least not entirely true.
When most people find wealth, they turn to things that comfort them: drugs, pet projects, even prostitutes. Some people take up gambling because it makes them feel in control, others take up investments and figurative roles as head of X or Y because then they can feel like they are a part of something. Furthermore, the extremely wealthy preoccupy their lives with "cheap company"; they buy friendships and they even buy sex, usually coupled with other things like drugs and parties. --But what can you learn from this?
When a person suddenly has supposed unlimited power due to the things they possess (money, fame, good looks, etc) they don't really change much. They still go after their root passions and seek to fulfill their needs just like less powerful people do--or even how they did before amassing such power. They still try to get over boredom, but they do it in a different way. They still seek respect, a sense of belonging, or responsibility for life; even if they don't realize that these are the things they are striving for.
The next time you see someone who, in your mind, is a perfect 10, just remember that they are a person too. Whatever could you provide them that they don't already have? Why should they be with you? What sets you above the rest?
--These are just people! They still want excitement; they still want companionship. They want to be happy, and respected, and loved.
If you had what they have, would any of those things mean anything to you? Would money mean anything to you if you had an unlimited supply? Would beauty mean anything to you if you were full of natural beauty? If you had a lot of charm and charisma, would you really care about being around charismatic people? No. No No NO. You would not. You would be looking for that one person who has what you're really looking for.
One great mystery of life is that people really do want what they don't already have. Nothing you do can change that for them. People who obsess over being beautiful only do so because they are not naturally beautiful. If you try to show them you too are endowed with great looks, you will only make them jealous, insecure, or weak. This is because you will put on a facade that you somehow have what they do not have and their comparison to you will only make them feel disgusting inside.
The true thing that someone who is perfect wants, deep down, are the things that anybody wants: peace, happiness, safety, respect, and most importantly, Love. Show people that you are fully capable of loving them and they will give up their money, their fame, their beauty, their whatever they have, because, isn't that what we all really want?
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
I'm taking the bulk of my thesis information and logic from this community reddit post: https://m.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1lr2jt/an_open_letter_to_single_mothers/
Reasons single men should not [seriously] date single mothers:
Reasons single men should not [seriously] date single mothers:
- You will never be the main priority
- She doesn't have a good track record with relationships
- Another Man (the baby-daddy) will be your master
- You are held financially responsible for her children
- She'll have a higher expectation for you than she did her ex
- There are better options out there
First of all, you can't be the same priority level as she is to you. If she has one kid, then kid A has priority over herself who has priority over you. If she has two kids, Kid A has priority and Kid B has priority and then she has priority and then you are the next in line of her priorities. Whereas you are your number one priority followed by her being your second priority. If she puts it any other way, then she's probably not a good mom--or a good person, and you shouldn't date her anyway.
Second, there is a reason she's single. If she was divorced, it's a sign she didn't or couldn't work things out. If she was never married, then she was irresponsible somewhere along the way. The same arguments apply towards people who are divorced and why you shouldn't usually date them, but single moms should at least be responsible enough to not have children until they are in a stable enough relationship that it's not going to end.
There are a lot of counter-claims towards this argument, but I think it's fair to say that we don't know why a divorce happens, perhaps it has something to do with a pre-existing fault in both people that surfaced after marriage, in which case, how will you know if they've fixed their faults? Or perhaps it is that she developed bad habits during the relationship that caused unresolved conflicts in the relationship. Or maybe she didn't resolve conflicts. Or maybe she really isn't at fault for the divorce, but she is definitely affected by it. She has a lot of scars from it. She will always have those scars. Marriage is serious business, and divorce is equally serious; you don't walk away from that unchanged.
Want to go out to dinner to celebrate an accomplishment?--Too bad, you have kids and need a sitter. Want to have thanksgiving dinner as a family at your parents? Too bad, her baby daddy has the kids. Want to move out of state? Nope, in some situations the custody agreement bars her from moving more than 100 miles away. Want to go on a family cruise? Nope--don't have baby daddy's written permission to leave the country. --Not all guys are bad, but if she gets remarried, you can bet that he's going to be a source of drama when the kids want to call you their new dad.
Lets say baby daddy doesn't pay child support--where does mom get the money? If your finances are mixed then part of the money comes from your pocket. Your hard labor goes to these children who aren't even yours. If she works, then someone has to pay for a sitter--or YOU become the sitter. If she doesn't work then you definitely pay for it. You see--no matter how you cut the situation you're going to end up paying for these kids with both money, and with time.
Women--people in general--think that after something bad they can only get better, and they apply this to their relationships as well. After a relationship they say that "the next one will be better." After they get divorced and have these kids to take care of they say "I want my next husband to be more X and have more Y and do more Z and be a father to my children and ABCD" They don't say "I hope I find someone just like my ex." They hold you to higher standards than they did their ex, and if you start reacting the same way their ex did (go back and read reason #2) then they hold the same level of animosity towards you that they did their ex, because you're just like him.
Finally, if you're single, you have plenty of options to choose from. Find someone who is single just like you and doesn't have baggage. When placed with the choice of someone single vs someone who has kids, you would always choose the single person because there is much more potential there and the risks are lower. Being a single mom does not make them a better person, they can be just as irresponsible as single-no-children women. And even if they are responsible and make a lot of money and have all of these good traits, there is always some single woman out there who is just as responsible, has as much money and has good traits --but doesn't have children. The only reason to choose a single mom is if you are suddenly off of the market for single women--if there are none left period.
Now, there's no reason you can't be good friends with single moms. And there is no reason why you can't sleep with them. But do not get serious with them and think you're going to have a relationship with them, because of the above reasons.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Allan Watt's Chief Belief
Alan Watt's belief on the universe is that we are all timeless beings that are made up of pure energy. Because of our timelessness, we live multiple lives--birth to death--one at a time until we have experienced every life of every time period. --With that basis of belief, it becomes logical to say that we are all equals (Because we are all the same, just different time-space continuums) and to be accepting of everyone and everything.
It is easy for him to accept that the world is both yin and yang and that's okay, that people are made up of good and bad, that good things happen to bad people and bad things to good people --but the problem is that people apply what he says to their own belief systems and think that they can partially believe that everyone is equal and not that we are in fact the same person on different time-scales.
People who follow Allan Watts and several of these new age thinkers seem to say that the purpose of life is simply to exist. Which in itself is to say that there is no purpose to life, you exist, then you don't exist, you have a purpose then you die and your purpose is lost. --That makes a lot of sense in the atomic world simply because when atoms are connected, they have a purpose--they are more than just a single atom but are instead a chemical compound that makes an impact and therefore has a Use.
But this is the line of thinking that I have to step back from.
Just because something can be used a certain way, does not mean it should be used in that way.
e.g. Guns were created with the purpose of killing people, but not all guns should be used that way, or as my favorite director put it "Good swords are left sharp," i.e. they are never used and therefore never dull.
In other words, just because you think you were born to do something--whatever that may be--does not mean that you are destined to do it or that you should do it.
Furthermore, just because you are made up of energy--atoms, molecules glued together and organized by some mysterious force--does not mean that you are truly timeless. Salt is not Sodium and salt is not Chloride just because it is part sodium part chloride. Our person is not timeless. We are not timeless. Every moment counts. And we are not everyone else.
They say that only when you find out what something is not do you prove. You can never know anything other than what it is not, because the process of knowledge is based on elimination and the variables are infinite. I think I have debunked that theory--or rather that chain of theories is discredited by debunking their premise: that somehow we are energy simply because we are made of energy, and until someone else can come along and provide another valid theory as to why we are timeless beings, I will be left to wonder at that.
It is easy for him to accept that the world is both yin and yang and that's okay, that people are made up of good and bad, that good things happen to bad people and bad things to good people --but the problem is that people apply what he says to their own belief systems and think that they can partially believe that everyone is equal and not that we are in fact the same person on different time-scales.
People who follow Allan Watts and several of these new age thinkers seem to say that the purpose of life is simply to exist. Which in itself is to say that there is no purpose to life, you exist, then you don't exist, you have a purpose then you die and your purpose is lost. --That makes a lot of sense in the atomic world simply because when atoms are connected, they have a purpose--they are more than just a single atom but are instead a chemical compound that makes an impact and therefore has a Use.
But this is the line of thinking that I have to step back from.
Just because something can be used a certain way, does not mean it should be used in that way.
e.g. Guns were created with the purpose of killing people, but not all guns should be used that way, or as my favorite director put it "Good swords are left sharp," i.e. they are never used and therefore never dull.
In other words, just because you think you were born to do something--whatever that may be--does not mean that you are destined to do it or that you should do it.
Furthermore, just because you are made up of energy--atoms, molecules glued together and organized by some mysterious force--does not mean that you are truly timeless. Salt is not Sodium and salt is not Chloride just because it is part sodium part chloride. Our person is not timeless. We are not timeless. Every moment counts. And we are not everyone else.
They say that only when you find out what something is not do you prove. You can never know anything other than what it is not, because the process of knowledge is based on elimination and the variables are infinite. I think I have debunked that theory--or rather that chain of theories is discredited by debunking their premise: that somehow we are energy simply because we are made of energy, and until someone else can come along and provide another valid theory as to why we are timeless beings, I will be left to wonder at that.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Not sure just need someone to talk to.
I'm turning to this because I guess I feel unheard. --or whatever emotions are associated with that.
I perceive myself as a good, benevolent person. I think this mostly because I have no ill motivations, and genuinely have progressive/good-future-making motivations. I don't usually get jealous, I want people to succeed, even if it means they are better than I am. I am also willing to help people succeed as long as they just ask me for help--provided that I can help them.
I think I'm peace motivated--but I focus on long-term peace rather than short term concessions. I want to resolve conflicts with lasting resolutions rather than short-term appeasements. I'm open to anything. Everything is subject to negotiation, everything has a price-tag and if you can figure out what I don't even know about how much I value something or why I value something, you can have it.
So it bugs me whenever people make accusations about me that are negative. They might be true, but they aren't what I perceive, and that makes it difficult to face. I come around eventually--I would come around quickly if I could only see it, but I can't always see it, even when I want to see it.
The way these accusations are presented helps--obviously there are more gentle ways of saying things--but not always. What helps me is being specific. Obviously, I don't want to be these negative things, and telling me that when I do X it causes Y, which is not something I want to be, can put it into perspective for me.
I perceive myself as a good, benevolent person. I think this mostly because I have no ill motivations, and genuinely have progressive/good-future-making motivations. I don't usually get jealous, I want people to succeed, even if it means they are better than I am. I am also willing to help people succeed as long as they just ask me for help--provided that I can help them.
I think I'm peace motivated--but I focus on long-term peace rather than short term concessions. I want to resolve conflicts with lasting resolutions rather than short-term appeasements. I'm open to anything. Everything is subject to negotiation, everything has a price-tag and if you can figure out what I don't even know about how much I value something or why I value something, you can have it.
So it bugs me whenever people make accusations about me that are negative. They might be true, but they aren't what I perceive, and that makes it difficult to face. I come around eventually--I would come around quickly if I could only see it, but I can't always see it, even when I want to see it.
The way these accusations are presented helps--obviously there are more gentle ways of saying things--but not always. What helps me is being specific. Obviously, I don't want to be these negative things, and telling me that when I do X it causes Y, which is not something I want to be, can put it into perspective for me.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Exploitation System
I've read up briefly on the problem with the current US dollar system and it was described in a unique way:
In other words, by the FED "printing out money" they are allowing the fulfillment of national debt obligations, but only by forcing everyday citizens to need twice as much for their locally inflated prices.
In a very weird way, the federal reserve's method of printing money is more like renegotiating national debts in light of inflation. It is as if I went to my creditor and said, "look, I've paid you X amount of dollars, I owe Y amount of dollars, but could you reconsider my X as valued higher simply because you have greater purchasing power with that X now than you did back a few years ago?
On a more macro level, I think countries are stupidly agreeing to this kind of negotiation and still accepting international bonds because in an equally bizarre way, their currency goes up when the $USD inflates--again, they agree to this simply because their purchasing power goes up because of it.
All of this happens on a massively large scale with no accountability for the micro level (surprise surprise, just like everything else in our human existence from overuse of pesticides, polluting the ocean through dumping of waste, killing off the bison, etc)
But, pause for a second because credit needs to be given where credit is due (no pun intended): what this kind of "renegotiation" really does is create a buffer for $USD expenditures and purchases. Put another way, it postpones international inflation from affecting US markets. (postpones, but does not eliminate). In other words, if I conduct international business and I trade $USD for $MXN (Mexican Pesos), I can buy a whole lot more goods for my money, then when the market has blips and bumps in Mexico or China or Japan or Europe, it doesn't hit the U.S. until businesses have had sufficient time to react.
If the USD drops in value to a critical level and the FED "prints more money," (a complicated process that only partly has anything to do with printing and more to do with lending and giving away money), these countries that have split investment in the USD, (Whether because the government has purchased bonds or commodities or international businesses it's the same) benefit by being able to pick and choose which currency is worth more--they can establish new long-term contracts in light of a declining dollar and/or force exchange to their currency, plus they get their USD that were owed when they negotiated the bond.
But this doesn't help the average american. Large international businesses like Walmart, and Apple are going to pocket their profit and not trickle it down to their customers. Oil companies like BP and Shell will raise prices saying that it costs them more to produce the oil, and then make a killing off of the exchanges.
This in turn affects your average american who does not have access to international business--sure, people believe in the lie that they will get their retirement money which is based on investments in international and national businesses, but it is a lie because they don't have control over it. They put all of their money at risk and yet do not control that risk themselves--a broker business or hedgefund manager controls the risk and scoops up the cream of the profits and they give the minimal that they can get away with giving you and when the risks become too high and there are issues and you lose your money in a great recession/depression/whatever, they just blame it on the market and go on their merry way because they already made a killing off of you.
This whole system is exploitation at it's greatest, and everyone turns a blind eye to what they are doing by saying "well, my little exploitation here isn't going to affect the whole system because I;m only a small part of the system" yet EVERYONE is doing it. Everyone is exploiting everyone else.
Brokers make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually own. Banks make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually possess. The FED gives away money to big banks on a whim chance that it will improve things. Congress keeps borrowing money that they will never be accountable to pay back (Their terms aren't long enough, first of all, second of all, they rely on the FED to ensure that it gets paid back--and it does!) Businesses exploit their workers by not offering them fair wages. Businesses exploit the government by lobbying for laws to be passed that benefit them at the expense of the american public (healthcare laws I'm looking at you).
The whole human race is disgusting!
If there is some intelligent life out there capable of reading this and doing something about it, please liberate me from what mankind is doing.
It seems our entire species is founded on the exploitation of everything else.
...Consider that there may indeed be "cycles" of or changes in the supply and demand for Pine Boards -- when some new territory is opened to cutting, the supply of boards may increase -- or when a building boom occurs, the demand for pine boards may increase.
But should we allow the "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)" to change the definition of a "FOOT" so that we can have the illusion of more "board feet" of pine being available when supplies decrease?
I mean that way, if the "official" length of a foot was cut in half, then lumber mills could still supply the same amount of "board feet" from half the number of trees. But beware -- when you specify lumber for building a house or garage, you will need to then ask for 16ft long boards for the walls (and not 2x4's but rather 4x8's) -- because otherwise you will end up with a really short building!...
In other words, by the FED "printing out money" they are allowing the fulfillment of national debt obligations, but only by forcing everyday citizens to need twice as much for their locally inflated prices.
In a very weird way, the federal reserve's method of printing money is more like renegotiating national debts in light of inflation. It is as if I went to my creditor and said, "look, I've paid you X amount of dollars, I owe Y amount of dollars, but could you reconsider my X as valued higher simply because you have greater purchasing power with that X now than you did back a few years ago?
On a more macro level, I think countries are stupidly agreeing to this kind of negotiation and still accepting international bonds because in an equally bizarre way, their currency goes up when the $USD inflates--again, they agree to this simply because their purchasing power goes up because of it.
All of this happens on a massively large scale with no accountability for the micro level (surprise surprise, just like everything else in our human existence from overuse of pesticides, polluting the ocean through dumping of waste, killing off the bison, etc)
But, pause for a second because credit needs to be given where credit is due (no pun intended): what this kind of "renegotiation" really does is create a buffer for $USD expenditures and purchases. Put another way, it postpones international inflation from affecting US markets. (postpones, but does not eliminate). In other words, if I conduct international business and I trade $USD for $MXN (Mexican Pesos), I can buy a whole lot more goods for my money, then when the market has blips and bumps in Mexico or China or Japan or Europe, it doesn't hit the U.S. until businesses have had sufficient time to react.
If the USD drops in value to a critical level and the FED "prints more money," (a complicated process that only partly has anything to do with printing and more to do with lending and giving away money), these countries that have split investment in the USD, (Whether because the government has purchased bonds or commodities or international businesses it's the same) benefit by being able to pick and choose which currency is worth more--they can establish new long-term contracts in light of a declining dollar and/or force exchange to their currency, plus they get their USD that were owed when they negotiated the bond.
But this doesn't help the average american. Large international businesses like Walmart, and Apple are going to pocket their profit and not trickle it down to their customers. Oil companies like BP and Shell will raise prices saying that it costs them more to produce the oil, and then make a killing off of the exchanges.
This in turn affects your average american who does not have access to international business--sure, people believe in the lie that they will get their retirement money which is based on investments in international and national businesses, but it is a lie because they don't have control over it. They put all of their money at risk and yet do not control that risk themselves--a broker business or hedgefund manager controls the risk and scoops up the cream of the profits and they give the minimal that they can get away with giving you and when the risks become too high and there are issues and you lose your money in a great recession/depression/whatever, they just blame it on the market and go on their merry way because they already made a killing off of you.
This whole system is exploitation at it's greatest, and everyone turns a blind eye to what they are doing by saying "well, my little exploitation here isn't going to affect the whole system because I;m only a small part of the system" yet EVERYONE is doing it. Everyone is exploiting everyone else.
Brokers make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually own. Banks make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually possess. The FED gives away money to big banks on a whim chance that it will improve things. Congress keeps borrowing money that they will never be accountable to pay back (Their terms aren't long enough, first of all, second of all, they rely on the FED to ensure that it gets paid back--and it does!) Businesses exploit their workers by not offering them fair wages. Businesses exploit the government by lobbying for laws to be passed that benefit them at the expense of the american public (healthcare laws I'm looking at you).
The whole human race is disgusting!
If there is some intelligent life out there capable of reading this and doing something about it, please liberate me from what mankind is doing.
It seems our entire species is founded on the exploitation of everything else.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
A battle was lost today
How shall I put this?
I don't want to reveal too much too soon, but I suppose I will release a tiny part of a secret and leave my fans guessing about what's going on inside my brain.
I've found a way--provided I am able to accumulate enough money up front--to live on less than $5k per year, which I intend to make by online work. This is all part of a larger, master plan called operation Self 100.
Self 100, I suppose, isn't a classified secret, but like a specific religion would put it, it is "sacred" to me, so I'm not going to talk much about it in depth. (that's a joke, btw).
Self 100 is 100% self sufficiency--to create more than 100% of what is consumed. It applies to: food, water, clothing, electricity, rent/lease/taxes/mortgage, etc. It's a full lifestyle that relies entirely on renewable systems, bartering, and concise planning.--think of it as living the way colonists did, except without the rampant exploitation of resources [colonies could only last until the resources were depleted and then require imports, Self100 can last until the person doing it gives up/dies, but someone else could take over at that point].
The sad truth is that governments get in the way of self-100 because they expect you to produce and pay taxes--even if you don't benefit from those tax things. Thoreau tried to combat this but failed with multiple lawsuits, so rather than evade it all together, I intend to make just imports to pay the export tributes off.
As the title suggests, however, a battle was lost today, and I'm not talking about a legal battle or a physical battle, but rather a mental battle. Part of preparing for Self100 is conducting feasibility scenarios to explore the full scope of Self100. Self100 isn't supposed to be limiting in any way--it's supposed to allow you to have whatever you want provided that you find a way to incorporate it into the whole system and make it "renewable." For instance, you could do self100 on a rental system where you rent a home or lease a business or any number of things that ultimately bring you an income, which means you could do self100 in a city, you could self100 your business you could self100 a lot of things, but I've found that smaller, privately owned is the cheapest route and easiest to fly under the radar.
The moment that you get big enough to be noticed, other people are going to want a slice of the pie and your exports go up which require you to bring in more inputs and often times that means doing things you don't want to do just to pay off the exports. --That's the complete opposite of what self100 means. It means you don't have to do anything you don't want to do because your entire system is self sustaining.
The scenario I played out was somewhat depressing though. There is something that I want to incorporate into my long-term plan and when I looked into the costs, I found out the following scenarios:
Option A - $0 - $1,200 With the assistance of the government (something I would consider a MAJOR input and I don't know if I want to do that or not)
Option B - $5000 - 12,000 The typical method. No benefits no drawbacks but there are certain usual risks that might be better avoided.
Option C - $26,000+ An alternative that eliminates the risks of option B but provides others. The wait-time is as long as 24 months before some level of stability is achieved, but there are a lot of forms to fill out and monitoring.
Option C became invalid when I saw the price tag, and option B is a lot of money for someone who only does online work and doesn't want to get strapped with debt.
I guess the biggest thing to understand is that: Controlling the means of production gives you freedom. That's all I want to do with self-100 is create a system where I control the means of production and don't have to do anything I don't want to do and that will truly last forever.--That's how I intend to rule the world.==No exploitation.
I don't want to reveal too much too soon, but I suppose I will release a tiny part of a secret and leave my fans guessing about what's going on inside my brain.
I've found a way--provided I am able to accumulate enough money up front--to live on less than $5k per year, which I intend to make by online work. This is all part of a larger, master plan called operation Self 100.
Self 100, I suppose, isn't a classified secret, but like a specific religion would put it, it is "sacred" to me, so I'm not going to talk much about it in depth. (that's a joke, btw).
Self 100 is 100% self sufficiency--to create more than 100% of what is consumed. It applies to: food, water, clothing, electricity, rent/lease/taxes/mortgage, etc. It's a full lifestyle that relies entirely on renewable systems, bartering, and concise planning.--think of it as living the way colonists did, except without the rampant exploitation of resources [colonies could only last until the resources were depleted and then require imports, Self100 can last until the person doing it gives up/dies, but someone else could take over at that point].
The sad truth is that governments get in the way of self-100 because they expect you to produce and pay taxes--even if you don't benefit from those tax things. Thoreau tried to combat this but failed with multiple lawsuits, so rather than evade it all together, I intend to make just imports to pay the export tributes off.
As the title suggests, however, a battle was lost today, and I'm not talking about a legal battle or a physical battle, but rather a mental battle. Part of preparing for Self100 is conducting feasibility scenarios to explore the full scope of Self100. Self100 isn't supposed to be limiting in any way--it's supposed to allow you to have whatever you want provided that you find a way to incorporate it into the whole system and make it "renewable." For instance, you could do self100 on a rental system where you rent a home or lease a business or any number of things that ultimately bring you an income, which means you could do self100 in a city, you could self100 your business you could self100 a lot of things, but I've found that smaller, privately owned is the cheapest route and easiest to fly under the radar.
The moment that you get big enough to be noticed, other people are going to want a slice of the pie and your exports go up which require you to bring in more inputs and often times that means doing things you don't want to do just to pay off the exports. --That's the complete opposite of what self100 means. It means you don't have to do anything you don't want to do because your entire system is self sustaining.
The scenario I played out was somewhat depressing though. There is something that I want to incorporate into my long-term plan and when I looked into the costs, I found out the following scenarios:
Option A - $0 - $1,200 With the assistance of the government (something I would consider a MAJOR input and I don't know if I want to do that or not)
Option B - $5000 - 12,000 The typical method. No benefits no drawbacks but there are certain usual risks that might be better avoided.
Option C - $26,000+ An alternative that eliminates the risks of option B but provides others. The wait-time is as long as 24 months before some level of stability is achieved, but there are a lot of forms to fill out and monitoring.
Option C became invalid when I saw the price tag, and option B is a lot of money for someone who only does online work and doesn't want to get strapped with debt.
I guess the biggest thing to understand is that: Controlling the means of production gives you freedom. That's all I want to do with self-100 is create a system where I control the means of production and don't have to do anything I don't want to do and that will truly last forever.--That's how I intend to rule the world.==No exploitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)