Search the Community

Recommended to me by @Dylan Lawrence Moore, I found Rich Dad, Poor Dad (not sure if the comma is part of the actual title since I don't think it is but I put it there anyway) as an audiobook on YouTube. And by GOD ABOVE was it the most productive and empowering red pill I've ever swallowed! Not only did it "reveal" (I put quotes because if you've been following Stefpai some of the stuff should already be known to you--however if you're a fresh face to the real world then it's as good as any a first step!) a lot of truths and facts about society, money, and etc. but it fundamentally encapsulates the core distinctions between the Rich, the Poor, and the Middle Class. The audiobook for the book proper is only 3 hours long--I won't attempt to boil it down to a couple paragraphs because every line is worth listening to and frankly I'd do a disservice if I tried. You can find a way to break down 3 hours into diggestable bits as needed and you'll be well-rewarded for it. As a "spoiler" though I'll point out what Robert Kiyosaki claims (and I think rationally and reasonably) to be the primary distinction between the Rich and the Middle Class/Poor: Financial Literacy. Financial Literacy is essentially knowing what wealth is, knowing how to separate assets from liabilities and the wisdom to tell the difference before sealing the deal. Public School education isn't much and College Education is becoming increasingly worthless (worse than worthless actually; about a few hundred thousand dollars of bad debt + anywhere from 2-10 years of your life, potentially!) and I have to say this book as an introduction to financial literacy was worth far more than anything I've ever learned from the government schools. Even more than my ability to read and do basic math, I'd dare say. I don't care how old you are or how busy you are: you will be helped by this book and the younger and fresher you are the more empowered you'll be in the long run by this information. Don't be the Poor Dad and embody the Poor Dad's ways of thinking and being; become the Rich Dad and invest in yourself. And this free audiobook is definitely an infinitely profitable return on investment!

A must read for everybody who wants to understand modern money world and some turnoffs of history: The Creature from Jekill Island What is the FED, who founded it, what does a central bank, how wars are financed and why state power today is as great as never before. regards Andi

Title says it all really. I'm a philosopher trying to find sanctuary in a world of zombies. If any of you live in Liverpool (in England) or know of any accommodation or anyone hiring, please message me; I am looking for a flat and income... although the purpose of the income would be just to pay rent! So if anyone wants to give me a room for free, I won't need to find a "real job". I am currently working as a handyman doing odd jobs, this brings in enough money to sustain me but I need to get away from people in my life who are toxic to my happiness and sanity. Please get in touch with me if you can help, send me a message or post a reply.

Hi everyone. I didn't want to leave my previous post floating in the virtual landscape. A quick recap; The post was my search for romance (anyway I feel a tad embarrassed so...) I have indeed considered the messages and arguments of RTR but still..umm...let's move on. Anyway! I am thinking of starting a French tuition business. I'll be honest (it's a virtue of course ) and say that I am nowhere near getting out into the high streets, shopping centres and green fields of La Grande Bretagne! But it's my aim at the moment. I will get to it women, men and les chats Anyone have any business tips and advice? Thanks.

From the Peak Prosperity Podcast: Published on Sep 28, 2015 Recently, author and "de-growth activist" Charles Eisenstein stopped by the Martenson homestead while traveling on business. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Chris sat him down to record an impromptu discussion on the nature of wealth. As should come as little surprise to Peak Prosperity readers, financial wealth ("money") is just one component -- and given society's current over-fixation with it, its pursuit oftentimes limits our ability to be truly wealthy.

When I went to counselling, my counsellor suggested I consider college. I think I would really enjoy studying for a computer science degree, but I'm starting to get more and more worried lately. I am worried that I may not be able to pay back my debts, and that I will regret ever going to college. I cannot be sure whether that would happen or not, and I'd like to think I can make it work. I really enjoy programming and working with computers, so I have a lot of options to do after college for sure. Even if I can't become a programmer immediately, I can do networking, computer maintenance, or other jobs like that. I think the job I'd probably enjoy the most would have to be Linux system administration. In addition to jobs after college, I will also be working during the summers, and while I'm in college most likely. That is the plan at least. Are my worries legitimate, or am I worrying too much? I have been known to do that a lot in the past.

In response to Stef's "The Truth About Makeup" video I've published a video on the male equivalent of makeup. Hope you enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqsjnLvd62Y&feature=youtu.be

University of Cumbria is hosting a free online class titled Money and Society in February-March 2015. It promises to enable students to: Critically assess views on the form and function of money and currency by drawing from monetary theories Explain theories on how social, economic and environmental problems arise from mainstream monetary systems Explain alternative forms of money and currency and the theories on how they can support better social, economic and environmental outcomes. Sounds like good fun - check it out....

So this poem was posted by a dude on Facebook... Money empowers, but I'm a slave to my wage, working hard for nothing but I need to be paid. I need my money to survive, but working so hard I'm not living, I'm just alive. Money controls everything, who lives and who dies, it's even a cause to invade money is the master and I am the slave. Here is my response... You're enslaved, but to what you do not know. Money can't tell you where to go. Life requires effort in order to survive, with or without money you must work to stay alive. Not working for the man or following his plan, but consuming for the body to increase its lifespan. Money is time spent working, effort, sweat, and even some twerking. A man who's a slave and desires power doesn't see the hour on the bell clock tower. Possessing lots of money is to own the efforts of other men. Money only amplifies the qualities within. A slave remains a slave when he fears his master. Waking to the truth won't be a disaster. You are the chained and the accuser, continuing the pains of child's abuser. "Please, daddy, play catch with me!" "Not now, son. Don't you know food ain't free?" "Please, mommy, sing to me!" "Not now, daughter. We have guests, you see?" Break free from your past and you'll no longer be enslaved. Money is not a blessing or a curse, but a means of exchange. Men don't invade for money; they invade for slaves. ---------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts?

While reading through MESwPM I noticed that Rothbards definition of inflation differs significantly from Mises's. Rothbard's- The process of issuing pseudo warehouse receipts or, more exactly, the process of issuing money beyond any increase in the stock of specie, may be called inflation. Mises- In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur. How did Rothbard deviate from Mises? I find it very strange because usually Rothbard is seen as expanding on Mises but here he has changed his work. I think that both definitions have different ramifications on ABCT but I could be wrong. What does everyone else think?

At least Auroracoin (Iceland) and Scotcoin (well...) are now in existence. I suppose this was something to be expected as more and more human (geeky) cattle learns about fiat money, while being unwilling to process other kinds of irrationality in their lives. These coins of course have nothing to do against Bitcoin (first mover advantage, network effect, global use, and basically objective factors... *yawn*) and their obvious absurdity shines beautiful light on the fact that countries and states are a thing of the past. Anyway, I thought this was rather funny.

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it: 1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever. 2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so. 3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights. I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered: "No. It's because money is only numbers, not property." After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them! Markus FIN

Hello, I think I came up with a mathematical proof that everyone in an anarcho-cap. society will be rich. The question that popped into my mind afterwards was: if everyone's rich, do we even need money? (I doubt Bill Gates looks at price tags). I thought this bowling pin would be easy to strike down, but surprisingly it isn't. I looked up some Mises Institute videos about the existence of money, but they create a straw-man by saying that without money you need 'double coincidence' to occur however it's possible to have something akin to accounts receivable/payable. I favor money because I feel that it would be a logistical nightmare without it, but is there any other reasons why money is preferable to no money? (I'm currently fascinated by a moneyless society, although I'd probably choose to live in one with money)

Hey hey, I recently had a conversation with my mother regarding the government. I was arging as that she is a christian and therefore dislikes theivery. I said the government takes her money forcefully and she has no say in it. Her response is that she gives the money to them willingly because every time she uses the roads she owes them money to finance the war against drugs & iraq/afghanistan. I told her if she did not give the money willingly they would take it anyway. She said she would give it willingly anyway and therefore its A-ok. Is it just me or is she an idiot? I told her she doesnt owe them the sweat off her back and that her money goes to evil causes. She wouldnt hear any of it and I should, "Find a new place to live". Anyone wanna jump on this and assist me in any way possible please? Thanks!

HiThis is my first post to the message boards. I've long been an advocate of liberty, freedom, and truth and was directed this week to the work of Michael Tellinger. He uploaded a video in December called Ancient Technology and the ubuntu movement. (I haven't provided a youtube link because I'm not that familiar with the rules. ) The latter 3rd of the 2 hour video talks about anarchy and his proposal for an anarchical community based on what he calls contributionism. His model has no money, no barter, no trade and only a requirement to assist the community for 3 hours a week for the good of the community to the best of your ability. Having listened to dozens and dozens of Stefan's videos on youtube, I see a great deal of similarity in their work and I was surprised to see no mention of Tellinger within the forum. I think a Molyneaux - Tellinger interview would be a fantastic listen. Would love to hear what others think AFTER they watch/listen to at least the latter portion of video.

Lawrence White spoke at MTSU on December 2, 2013. The title of the talk was 'The Federal Reserve System at 100: Success or Failure?"

Good Evening FDR!This is my first time writing here mainly becuase i didn't know what to start writing about.But now I have a problem that need some philosophy applied.I inherited money when my grandfather passed away, about 20 years ago, the money was placed in a trustfund.In mid 2009 my stepfather faked my signature and managed to get the money wired to his account.I noticed this 3 weeks ago.The bank now tells me that they are not responsible for verifying signatures or control who's account is being listed and that i should contact the police and press charges.I feel that they have a responsibility to me, as their customer, and that they should restore the funds by the value that they would have today.What I need help with is to sort out who is actually responsible and why.And if is the trustfund then i could use some strong logical arguments that can help me battle the suits.I can definitely provide you with more information if you need it.I'm not sure what information is relevant so this is just what I think is essential.Thanks in advance/L

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.

I thought this was a very good discussion, even though I think Peter (Schiff) and Stefan were talking past each other a little bit. It seems clear to me that Peter doesn't have a very good understanding of Bitcoin, but I think he has a very good understanding of economics and is right on the money (no pun intended) when he claims that Bitcoins are currently inflated and will likely see a sort of implosion. However, this does not preclude Bitcoins from becoming a real good functional currency. I think Stefan is right on that point. People just shouldn't get in on the hopes of getting rich quick. In fact, maybe they shouldn't get in right now at all, or for small amounts based on an ideological commitment to Bitcoin.

Time is our ultimate resource not money. Utilizing a system already in place to record our earnings we can tweak it to account for time rather than earnings. Currently, during your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings. Using time as a measure of one's earnings over money can be an easy transition. Hours are already being recorded by most employers. Who then report those hours to the Social Security Administration (The SSA). The SSA currently measures the amount of earnings in credits to determine eligibility for social security. Therefore, little needs to change to effect implementation of a record keeping program for validating hours accomplished. Example of the model: People work (or study, community service, etc) and have their hours posted to their Social Security record. You earn credits for time worked. For illustration, let's say 20 hours of work = 1 credit. There can be several levels of benefits for the credits accumulated such as: Level 1 Benefit (2 credits) = Food Level 2 Benefit (3 credits) = Clothing Level 3 Benefit (5 credits) = healthcare Level 4 Benefit (10 credits) = car Level 5 Benefit (15 credits) = home Level 6 benefit (20 credits) = 1 additional credit Level 7 benefit (30 credits) = vacation We can add that missing work would subtract 1 credit for every x hours missed. There can be many variables that can be tweaked to make it a fair system. Bean counters would have a field day working this out. This wouldn't be nearly as complicated as our current system is now with how we handle compensation packages, taxes, entitlement programs, etc.. The logistics aren't important right now so I don't need go into any further details on that. Once you reach a level, you have the choice to procure the goods or services that come with that benefit at no additional cost to you. We as consumers are free to choose where we take our business. This is no different than our current system. Only now we prove this with a social security card that tells the business what level benefit we have reached. For example, you go to a restaurant show them your card, they swipe it to verify and provide you with the service and food. If you don"t like the food or service, you don"t return to that business. If no one returns, they go out of business. The owners may or may not be allowed to start a new business. That will be up to either the Small Business Administration or the Fairness Review Board or both. Conversely, business failure will be reduced because of proper preparation for success and the ability to hire business managers and mentors will have increased. Nonetheless, there is still a risk of failure and a reward of success, although not as devastating when a loss in our current system is experienced. check out the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Abolishing-and-Eliminating-Currency-is-a-viable-proposal./1/ http://thenewsocialsecurity.org/blog.php #thenewssa

TZM tzm tzm. you say we should get rid of money.let's say we achieve an RBE (resource based economy).are people free to do what they want? what if they create a cryptocurrency like bitcoin? supercomputers is not a magical answer to infinite everything. scarcity will still exist, whether it be in the form of gold, bottlenecks on production capabilities, inflexibility of capital goods, or limited living space in 3d.When the supercomputer cannot create the things people want in time, people will want to exchange among themselves. But how do you trade a car for some bread? how much is worth what? And lots of goods don't last very long, how will save up to trade those? They also need to barter, because there is no medium of exchange.People will naturally start instituting money in one form or another - (again, stop with the delusion that suptercomputers will put an end to scarcity. if it's not infinite, it's scarce. It just means the world will be able to support a lot more people, but once that limit is reached, scarcity will apply once again).So once a currency is instituted, there will be so many advantages to it, that it will stick around. TZM ppl like Peter Joseph say states are a natural result of freedom of action and wanting better for yourself in competition with others. Well, that's questionable. What's more solid is that media of exchange will arise naturally in an RBE.Now My big question is this: Will the people in charge of the central RBE system forcibly outlaw and ban money, in order to maintain the RBE? Or will people be free to do what they want, and use whatever media of exchange they want (or not) under an RBE? Will they be "cut off" from receiving resources from the RBE supercomputer, or in reduced amounts (I know you will say "no", but scarcity will hit, so that is not a legitimate answer). Will you support the RBE system to the point of disallowing the monetary system that was so reviled by TZM-ers? Will you engage in force to stop monetary systems from coming back alive? Will money be the new 'sin" of the new "state"?And while we're at it, when scarcity hits, and everything is free, how do "runs" or flocking to deplete the resource about to become in shortage get prevented? In a market system, prices go up, and you have a nautrally self-regulating feedback mechanism, which also sends signals to tell people to produce more of it and increase the supply. if you can push a button and just get it, you've essentially engaged in price-fixing, so you will get the same results as rent-control: no additional housing development, and massive shortage of housing (or the particular good). *edit: tries really hard not to calling TZM-ers economic illiterates, and instead posts this instead.My real question and purpose of this thread is to inquire about the policy and use of force of the RBE / TZM utopia, knowing that the time would come when they'd have to face that decision. You do have to face that decision because scarcity is not gone with a supercomputer whose magical algorithm is not even being developed by TZM as far as i know.Also, is there only one super computer that handles all the variables of everyone's supplies and demands and preferences and tastes? or can there be multiple? If multiple, who decides which computer governs which area or number of people? If so, is there a central management group that does this? What if everyone wnats to work for that? Who says they can or can't? Can there be overlapping of geographic or person coverage by different supercomputers? Why is it so deplorable to rely on supply and demand, property rights, voluntary trade, and the price mehcanism, which accomplishes things that no central supercomputer can't? the supercomputer would have to tap into everyone's brains (or just get super super scarily accurate in predicting what people want) to be anywhere near accurate. privacy issues. do we even want such a computer? Isn't that much power just a giant barrel of gunpowder waiting to be lit up by a violent sociopath that works for the world's suptercomputer department? It hardly seems stable from a game theory point of view.I used to be pretty ignorant, but critical of anarchy before i heard how it would work and all of the game theory objections were addressed by podcasts 1,2,64,131,and 203. So it's possible I'm being like that again about RBE. But i've yet to hear any real address to these issues. Why not have a king of the hill approach to truth? Science seems to do that just fine. But seriously, if we're going to talk, you have to accept that scarcity is not rid of by a supercomputer (again, which you aren't building). You have to learn basic economic principles. edit: excuse the grammar and the spelling. I just don't really care that much. Infer or impose whatever irrational, or statistically true judgement you want. I'm more concerned about the substance of the discussion, and if you're not, then do what you want. If I'm making money with this, or doing it for some professional thing, I'd consider it, but I just don't care. Just like I don't wear suits in my own home or when I visit my neighbor's house.

To make everything concise.My father took $500 out of a joint account we have (that I have been placing my paychecks in) without my permission, on the basis that he needs to regain his lost income from me going to college on his money. I need to know how to escape this situation in the most productive manner?Background about the situation:I recently stopped attending college, after 2.5 years because of the financial burden and my lack of initiative and motivation toward the subject that I had pursued. I instead took to philosophy and self work, and also found a job that could help me save for paying off the $6000+ loan I had incurred.I choose to stay with my parents, but in the past months it has become increasingly harder and harder to feel emotionally stable and just safety. If I don't want to do something that my father requests, the consequence is that he will stop providing some service that helps me achieve my goals like going to work. I can see this as a form of manipulation and I am just fed up.Going back to the money issue, I am currently trying to transfer the money out of the joint account into another account that is just my own.My initial step, out of fear and desperation, was to call a friend that offered to help me out with shelter, and let him know what happened, and ask for his help. This is not a guarantee, nor do I expect it to be.I just don't really know what to do since this manipulation will continue, and I don't know what other ideas are being planned against me if I don't follow what my father wants me to do. My father's response to me stopping my education, has become increasingly verbally abusive and manipulative.Here are some relevant questions.Should I let my current employer know of the full circumstance, if I am to relocate too far from the workplace?Should I ask for the money that was taken back? (Already have made it clear that I did not approve of the money being transferred)Should I talk about how I feel to my mom about her inaction in this situation?If I cannot find a place to temporarily stay soon, what are my other options?What steps can I take to proactively remain focused on my needs being met, and not appease my father's commands?What other things should I expect to arise in this situation?