Random Thoughts

[Glarundis]

having power over currency means you can manipulate its worth, but those who have more money will still be richer than those who have less money.

well, the thing is, if the state was really on a "all for the people, nothing against the people" theory, then i'd feel safe to give control to the state. but the state isn't a static entity, it's something that is made up of some people that are in the government, and they can very well manipulate things for their personal gain

i'm not in favor of the state as being "just another" form of private company, but atm it's really what happens, maybe it (in theory) happens less in cases of monarchy, because the pride of a monarchy would always be its countries' people? therefore, for your personal gain, you would make sure your country is economically well. with a monarchy, it's a personal thing, your country reflects who you are. without monarchy, you're just that bastard who stole from the country for 4 years so you don't give a crap about it. of course, this theory means nothing if the monarchs are also bastards

based on what you said, i'd prefer the nationalistic view over the liberal view, but one thing i tell you. private companies work well or they are obliterated. public companies work like shit, but they don't disappear, they just keep on eating the country's money. based on the example of portugal, i would say that 99% of public companies are a total disaster. it's annoying as fuck to see such things exist.
if you're a private company and you don't do well, people won't be happy with you, people won't buy from you and you're fucked. but not if you're public. best example of this is CP, a portuguese train company. and it gets incredibly worse when there's no competition. they can be as shitty as can be but people still have to rely on them because there's no alternative

[Mike]

having power over currency means you can manipulate its worth, but those who have more money will still be richer than those who have less money.

I don't mind that in decent proportions since I'm not egalitarian. Free markets are a good way manage production, as long as the state makes sure that in the end, the interest of the nation is put first - profit for the industrialist is natural to follow, but not the goal.

The problem is that a globalist bank can, for example, dump the value of a particular currency and by means of business associates buy property in that country. The money paid for the property will be nearly worthless for the seller within days, but the property has the same value for the buyer.

well, the thing is, if the state was really on a "all for the people, nothing against the people" theory, then i'd feel safe to give control to the state. but the state isn't a static entity, it's something that is made up of some people that are in the government, and they can very well manipulate things for their personal gain

Yeah. Short-sightedness and populism tends to ruin even the few good politicians of our time.

i'm not in favor of the state as being "just another" form of private company, but atm it's really what happens, maybe it (in theory) happens less in cases of monarchy, because the pride of a monarchy would always be its countries' people? therefore, for your personal gain, you would make sure your country is economically well. with a monarchy, it's a personal thing, your country reflects who you are. without monarchy, you're just that bastard who stole from the country for 4 years so you don't give a crap about it. of course, this theory means nothing if the monarchs are also bastards :P

Yeah, one guy once wrote that "Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false." I don't fully about monarchs, but I believe this type of leadership is better if we are to trust the state to be the means to organize the nation and not a harmful leech.

based on what you said, i'd prefer the nationalistic view over the liberal view, but one thing i tell you. private companies work well or they are obliterated. public companies work like shit, but they don't disappear, they just keep on eating the country's money. based on the example of portugal, i would say that 99% of public companies are a total disaster. it's annoying as fuck to see such things exist.
if you're a private company and you don't do well, people won't be happy with you, people won't buy from you and you're fucked. but not if you're public. best example of this is CP, a portuguese train company. and it gets incredibly worse when there's no competition. they can be as shitty as can be but people still have to rely on them because there's no alternative

Both private and public companies have failed on a number of levels. The former usually when they take over old state projects, the latter usually when they try to run a service like a business. That's my experiece of it in Sweden at least, with all our corporate semi-monopolies entangled with old public service institutions.

[Glarundis]

I don't mind that in decent proportions since I'm not egalitarian. Free markets are a good way manage production, as long as the state makes sure that in the end, the interest of the nation is put first - profit for the industrialist is natural to follow, but not the goal.

yeah, in decent proportions. the problem is, when there's room in the law or the system for a decent proportion, there will be room for an undecent proportion. by what law or "just" system would you stop people from being richer than a % if all they did was "legal"? i agree with you, but i think it's not possible to have such a system, unless it would be based on everyone's common sense (which is like 99.9% impossible). based on what would the state say "you are too rich now, all the money you make past this point is given to the nation"? jews had a system where after x years you would "reset" your savings and debts, or something like that, to prevent families being either too rich or too poor, as generations would pass.

i also agree that profit is natural to follow for industries, but atm it's the only concern (as it should be, but the problem is they look at nothing to achieve more and more profit). like with money, it should be something to trade with, rather than a good itself.

Both private and public companies have failed on a number of levels. The former usually when they take over old state projects, the latter usually when they try to run a service like a business. That's my experiece of it in Sweden at least, with all our corporate semi-monopolies entangled with old public service institutions.

i'm not sure if i know what you're talking about, is this public-private partnerships, or something like that?
if it is, we have a few of those in portugal heh

[Mike]

I don't mind that in decent proportions since I'm not egalitarian. Free markets are a good way manage production, as long as the state makes sure that in the end, the interest of the nation is put first - profit for the industrialist is natural to follow, but not the goal.

yeah, in decent proportions. the problem is, when there's room in the law or the system for a decent proportion, there will be room for an undecent proportion. by what law or "just" system would you stop people from being richer than a % if all they did was "legal"? i agree with you, but i think it's not possible to have such a system, unless it would be based on everyone's common sense (which is like 99.9% impossible). based on what would the state say "you are too rich now, all the money you make past this point is given to the nation"? jews had a system where after x years you would "reset" your savings and debts, or something like that, to prevent families being either too rich or too poor, as generations would pass.

i also agree that profit is natural to follow for industries, but atm it's the only concern (as it should be, but the problem is they look at nothing to achieve more and more profit). like with money, it should be something to trade with, rather than a good itself.

Jews have a lot of things going on for them, but going down that line will lead me to a forum jail. Anyway, the concept is that the industrialist runs his corporation not on the premise that it's his right to do so, but because the nation, which has the right to its country and its resources, allows him the priviledge becase it's the most efficient way for the nation to develop. We build cars because we want our people to have cars. The best competitor in the national economy will make the most money. The price of cars and the wages of the workers will be regulated to avoid the pitfalls of liberal capitalism. Thus it is primarlily the genius of the man who can build the best cars that will be rewarded, and not the vampirism of the finance capitalist.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

-Henry Ford.

[Glarundis]

Anyway, the concept is that the industrialist runs his corporation not on the premise that it's his right to do so, but because the nation, which has the right to its country and its resources, allows him the priviledge becase it's the most efficient way for the nation to develop. We build cars because we want our people to have cars. The best competitor in the national economy will make the most money. The price of cars and the wages of the workers will be regulated to avoid the pitfalls of liberal capitalism. Thus it is primarlily the genius of the man who can build the best cars that will be rewarded, and not the vampirism of the finance capitalist.

yeah i think i get it now

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

-Henry Ford.

shows a bit how the banking system is

and as for the second sentence, it's almost the same nowadays, just need to change the highest wages part to the lowest wages part

[Mike]

and as for the second sentence, it's almost the same nowadays, just need to change the highest wages part to the lowest wages part :P

Yeah :)

[Percy]

Here's one..

You're in a sealed room with a torch, the walls are all one big mirror. If you turn on the torch for a few seconds and then turn it off, does the room stay light?

[Zaradon]

nope.

[Glarundis]

Here's one..

You're in a sealed room with a torch, the walls are all one big mirror. If you turn on the torch for a few seconds and then turn it off, does the room stay light?

ah!interesting one, although i don't really know the physics stuff for it. the thing is, for the light to fade, there needs to be "light friction", if there's such a thing. can anyone explain?
of course, this assuming that there would be no other way for the light to go out, the mirrors would be perfect, blabla.
much like an object, when thrown into space, if there's no friction, it will never stop. right? hypothetically speaking

[Percy]

Here is my view on it, everything comes to a stop at one point or another. That's a given fact. Even if light bounced around for x amount of time it'll have to come to a stop. But does light actually fade? Is 'light' caused by the speed at which it is traveling, for example something traveling so fast becomes brighter due to heat. But light has no heat? So what happens to light when it stops? Does it just become nothing? Or is somewhere in our universe a point at which all light stops and is forever bright?

There is no way light is caused by the speed at which it is traveling because then it wouldn't be light, it'd just be something else burning brightly?