Why Innuendoes? v.06 - the arrogance

People are so much allergic to contentions, with that corrections, they would use innuendoes.

The first thing that set apart one thing and another is their contexts, if you use the wrong context in order to convey the message, it's as if the reality is not that sophisticated that there's such thing as such that requires not the proper context. 

There's something special about every single thing, and to use innuendoes to negotiate is as if you don't acknowledge that and then would proceed with your next decision (often times on other people). 

It's just pure display of political power, and even it contains the audacity that you don't have to worry about the proper context or that you know that it's definitely not accurate and still you'd proceed with your desire. 

----------------

Blatant spoken word, pen on paperness, is not a guarantee that the decisions would be right, but to me at least what needs to be considered were considered, the issue were put on the proper context to be assessed accessibly by the relevant parties, by the relevant concerns easily, as hard as it's supposed to (usually).

At least it's not making it more inaccessible by the other party like innuendoes would. 

Again people need to separate idioms, jokes, illustrations from innuendoes. Because the later is all about not being responsible for the things conveyed, not giving the attribution to yourself things that you conveyed and not letting yourself be reviewed as result of your conveying of the meaning. On top of that because the context is different, there would be more or less extra procedures to put the issues at their proper contexts which were different, therefore you've just incurred costs of conversions for the whole audience of your innuendoes. 

I'm not being autistic or whatever it is like that, this is normal, innuendoes are guaranteed innaccuracy. If it's not then it's not what I'm talking about.

ON TOP OF THAT, when you put things in their proper contexts it would be revealed the nuances that would make everything meaningless. But when the utterer was supposed to take responsibility of it, they'd just acted like it weren't like that. 

ON TOP OF THAT, because such cowardice permeated into a lot of people, it became culture... so those who were just being straight, was being held "responsible" for the innuendo meanings of what they were not meaning to convey, now everything is off limits and the one who determines the meaning is the one in power... which is dictatorship.

There are different details for every part of the Truth. If we were to set for the preservation of the Truth, to make it desireable, to make it wonderful, amazing, and heaven, we shouldn't underestimated the Truth. Please, I'm not being overdramatic or wanting everything to be ultra polite or something like that, casual things are casuals because they are within the Truthful safety of the Truthful context, including jokes, but when you take away responsibility out of your words, who's going to be responsible?

Bitcoin is valuable I never said otherwise v.03

People like to say that crypto has no underlying values, I somewhat in support of that however I also think that they do have underlying values which are encryption. 

My God is the Spirit of Truth so I value verification, preservation of the Truth at the utmost highest level. So even though I don't own any crypto right now I do think that their concept is admirable. The problem is with shares you could have a ruler which is the PBV ratio but not with crypto. 

If I were to make a cryptocurrency I'd issue a currency for every verification of Truth in existence and diminishing values for the verification of the verifications. However the system should somehow be able to cancel false affirmations and transferred the currency to the correctors. 
I call this system the hostile verification system. 

The main controller of this currency would be its rating system, where each individuals would had a reliable ID, and they would be rated based on how sustainable their proceeds are. If you got currencies that initially came from "liars" or "gullibles" there were higher risks that the money would dissapear in smoke (by system), and if your payments ended up disappearing all the time you're at low priority rating.

I think the one who got this system going on right now is the Wikipedia.com. (Not the rating system, I don't know about that, sorry).

Maybe give it a consideration v.02

What if God is saying: Don't mess with My Words don't mess with My Meanings

My angle here is this:
By the veil of feeling threatened by something not said, people destroyed what belong as standard, universal. So those who are in the rightful position of priorities, were being attacked by unstable chaotic grounds. 

You want to hate but how?

I thought about this theory that nature invoked hatred in order to hunt for lies. Because reality is Truthful and the continuation of reality is the preservation of the Truth. So nature is hunting for lies, and hatred is one that's for that. 

So you have all of this hatred, a mission bestowed by mother nature. But you don't know where is the enemy... which is only logical, that's why it's there (in order to find it and correct it). People offered you different ways you'd hate, through religion, through politics, through competition at work, through envy... but the answer has been found, and it's property. 

Just hate on tresspassers, from there the lines that's made by the law would be solid and then the lies would be more revealable (because the problems that had been faced in the past have been journalled into the law, and the methods people used have been articulated into the law). 

I mean, smart smart people, smart smart A.I could indeed figure out answers but why start from the beginning while the save points are right there

Not all outcomes have the same chances v.02

A coin toss have 2 outcomes, but if you already got heads 5 times in a row, statistically speaking how many 6 heads in a row happened in the universe compared to 5? Also speaks for the chance that the coin was rigged.

Personally I won't look down on these guys

We often find goods that were priced at a "discount" but it's everyday for the last 10 or 20 years. They actually got a point. 

Almost every retail products that we buy is at a discount because of scaling up. If we just lived by ourselves and make the goods ourselves for our own, how much would the cost be? If there were just 100 people wanting to use the products how much would the price be? If it were just one city that wanted to buy the product instead of consumers from all over the country, how much would it be. 

I think it's only objective to display the prices of goods and services if they were not scaled up in order to give us the right information that the things we are enjoying right now is because of the community, and that there's always a chance for the price to go back to "normal". For example oil prices, and grain prices now because of the war, ticket prices now because of COVID, or raw food and ingridients' prices when there were weather problems or pest problems or natural disasters. 

Global Focus Realization v.02

The scarcity of the world is not of time nor money nor energy but of mutual solutions. Solutions are unlimited but we are so limited because we are not giving back enough to our sources of solutions.

Money is prove that the holder has helped and hasn't been helped back. Most of the time we are not giving our money away to those who have not helped us. 

Ok

Now let me get into the point of what I'm trying to say... 

Since money is acknowledgement, that means an industry is a collection of people who created a type of solutions that's focused by a lot of other people (consumers) to be appreciated. 

A profitable industry at a period reflects what the people at the demographic were appreciating. 

But what if an industry became too productive? The solutions were many but the appreciation was not increasing anymore? Then regardless of there were or weren't something to do about it people need to be informed of when that threshhold would arrive. 

Say for example marvel, with a fanbase that like the idea of saving the world it might be less of an economic optimization to dwell on making new marvel movies. Instead the focus is there to make a business that cleans up the ocean for example, then the fanbase's focus would be maintained. 

Let's be honest and acknowledge that we have limited attention span on the same thing. However just because the same thing doesn't capture our focus anymore, doesn't mean that thing is no longer part of our history or our infrastructure of the mind. It would be a waste to just shift our attention to something else without using what was the focus of our attention as a stepping stone or as a reason to move on. 

That's our intuition. 

Market saturation is not a disaster, it's a power. It means the people are ready to do something.

When that threshhold arrived, MR no longer MC (shoutout to Jacob Clifford for emphasizing this concept for me strongly), let us know when's that and let us together do something. ^_^

Community Pledging v.03

Another way to gather capital is to gather pledges from your community. If you need an asset, pitch to your community that know each other within it. If you managed to get certain amounts of signatures to a total of certain amount of money, then the pledge would be given to you in cash. 

So this is a way to invest using people's disposable income, each of them don't have to contribute a lot at one time, but a lot of them would become one big asset. Sounds like charity, but it has ROI

The administration is extra indeed... so good accountants are your friend.

----------

If I were to do this I'd put a cap to how much one could help me

Why everybody should consider soft commitment more v.02

Hard Commit is when you took credit/debt for a venture to scale up your success. 

Soft Commit is when you use disposable income for investments

I think the way our culture is, hard commitment is at saturation point and even more. Mistakes are highly penalized, new innovations are frowned upon, selling at low prices even if it's not at a loss is frowned upon, closing a company signifies failure, and firing spells possible demise of someone's life. 

When you hard commit, if you failed you would've lost your livelihood, your employee's livelihood, your life savings, etc. Maybe not if you had a lot of reserves but if people do then the culture wouldn't be too much like this. Putting all of those economic demise on the table not only dangerous for you but also a risk factor for future competitors because they would be talked about as those who caused the devastation. This is kind of a penalty to success. 

When you play you make mistakes, but if you made mistakes during the context of hard commiting you're playing with economic demise. Innovation, came from playing. Yes it came from pressure too but a lot of the time from playing, and this is frowned upon. 

Innovation should lift up the economy and make the innovators feel good, but too much hard commit gave the illusion of "too much innovation" and upon bankruptcy/firing, resentments appeared. Is this what will come for you bringing upon the Intellectual Property into the community? 

Why couldn't we have businesses opening and closing here and there? After success close, a lot of followers would came out of the tailwind and then be the vanguard. Figured out an innovation, start something new... then the vanguards exited you came again at the front... they learned something new and immitated you they opened up at your tailwind... then you close again and figured out new stuff and then next and then next... 

Barrier to entry is too high! If we allow this to happen people wouldn't have to be so afraid of losing jobs, people wouldn't had to work 9-5 everyday at one place. It would be a norm for people to have multiple jobs at decent working hours. Like a mesh structure one guy's boss is another guy's servant, and that guy was also the other guy's customer

------------------------------

Are the credit institutions evil? All institutions that are prominent in the world are evil, but they are also good for what they've done for everybody. 

It's just that, like a leader who don't want to step down would scale up their blank spots, things that are oversaturated and uncountered are unbalanced.

Why Pen on Paperness is better for the Government

One - the value of money is pen on paperness, the power of property is also give and take, represented, and bestowed, and attenuates around pen on paperness (like energy and electric cable). The Law is pen on paperness, political stability pen on paperness. 

Two - Identification of inflows and outflows of money in a more vivid visualization therefore would enable solutions that otherwise wouldn't be thought of. 

Three - The increase of taxes as result of well articulated accounts, increasing participation. 

Four - Enabling publicly owned companies to cover for accounts that are needed to be addressed, things that are supposed to be posts of income but legally and ethically problematic. 

Five - Putting borders between legitimate income and illegitimate income, clean officials and bad officials, the need for violations and the implementation of solutions without violations. 

Let's encourage this and discourage that v.02

This: 

Relationship started with the increase of property/mutual solutions/justice

That:

Extortion, or display of creepiness. 

(What on earth has happened to this world, people acted as if the creepier they are the more people are going to held them in high regard)

I don't know if such thing applies intensely in some places but we should correct that instead of encourage that, right? Do I want to contribute to the economy or harm the economy?

----------------

Edit: I'm not talking about teenager's sense of humor which is unique, I don't really understand about that

Cruel part of Reality v.02

There's always a part of reality or the Truth that is kind (yashashi) and a part that's hostile towards us. Let's acknowledge the hostile parts properly so that we could tell it apart and then be able to lock on the kind part properly. Thennnnnn, in the end actually hold on to the Truthfully kind property God has provided for us in front of us. 

Shun away the cloud of lies that's preventing us from taking in the wholesome nutrition instead of half poisons. 

Accurate Audit is Omega Valuable

Reaksi Keberingasan (Berserking Drug)

Surpress the Ego, unreasonably. 

Since the Ego was surpressed unnecessarily, it would attract envy towards normality / decentness. 

Have an army that's like that, all you got to do is to give a little reason to unleash it, it is there. 

------------------

Mwuahahaha lihat pasukanku, hitung robot robotku, tiap saat kalau saya mau tinggal jentik, tinggal sentil... mwuahahahaha

Jangan macam-macam sama saya, (kamu tidak tahu betapa banyaknya dosaku), tinggal sentil tinggal jentik, pasukanku akan "melayaniku" bahkan mati untukku, walaupun dalam benaknya untuk "Tuhan". Mwuahahaha, sayalah Tuhan itu...

------------------ (ceritanya ini orang jahat)

Catalyst:

Unreasonable sense of entitlement, like for example other people's assets are belong to people like us (but us are not to question the decisions our supreme leader made for ourselves including claiming our properties as not fully ours). 

The Lie The Establishments Force us to tell

Job Security

Is there a thing as "Customer Security?" if there was then Job Security is there but really? Really? Couldn't the customer switch suppliers/sellers anytime they want? But regulations force us to submit to "Job Security" policies. They force us to lie and this needs to be changed.

When you believe in lies, all the lies are going to go against the thing that you want the most 

(me, currently)

More reasons why innuendo is itchyly disgusting v.05

I'm trying to be a proponent of negotiation, I respect humanity as beings of negotiation. Therefore I understand how people could feel uneasy if unheard. I don't condone extreme behavior but I would expect it. But if the culture of innuendo is rampant, as much as I want to say "I'm not responsible over the things you don't say to me to my face" I'm still uncomfortable ignoring all of the insecurities. 

Yes you couldn't possibly accommodate all negotiations, that's why we have the law, that's why we have the council, legislative, the social medias etc. But if people thought that they are entitled to your care for their innuendos that's condoning reduction of your property, disrespect towards you. It's disgusting.

The concentration you spend on innuendos is the concentration you don't spend on other things, your work, your family, your issues, the people who respectfully communicate their concerns with you, among else

------------------------------

Straightforward negotiation doesn't entail full responsiblity as well for me. I'm not saying I'm going to conform to all negotiations. Isn't that for everybody too?

------------------------------

When you negotiate not face to face, how could you negotiate in the accurate context. We know that every law has context upon how, when, and where, etc the instructions were practiced. Innuendo especially is trying to disrespect this reality, which is stupid, but forced. So stupid

------------------------------

When people are in a trauma, they tend to want to use that innuendo to avoid confronting some parts of reality. If people are not using it loosely we would easily concentrate on one when one use it. This thirst of attention abusers dilutes the society's preparedness/resources to promptly pay attention to the ones who need it the most.

Celebrity + Psychologist Combo v.03

I'm not giving a professional advice, and I'm so prone of mistakes. I'm just exploring reality through "playing" circuit of the brain, right now in this blog. I'm tuning for the right "frequency" like a radio, making mistakes as I go. So, please take this with a grain of salt and consult with your professional advisor for professional/significant stakes assurances.

I think being a Celebrity or popular Influencer is risky in a way that people would be tempted to interact with you with their surpressed needs and desires. However, this also makes being a psychologist and a celebrity a powerful combo. 

People are not realizing that they need psychologist so they went on bullying people or make things difficult for other people just to feel a certain way. They expected being treated by other people with extra exertion of mindfulness while actually it is them who needs treatment. 

This is also a factor that contributes to the popularity of communism/socialism, people think other people having their properties are too mean/cruel, because that means they would be frowned upon if they expected out other people, something that's actually supposed to be at the other people's own freedom to give.

This is also the reason why psychologists being one of the most essential need for human beings are so expensive and not scaled up economically, because people got their "fix" (which is far from good quality fix) out of bullying people, getting extra attentions, or anything extra that's invasive. 

So if we popularize the habit of paying for psychological solutions, we should be able to reach economies of scale for psychological products that a lot of us actually are so good at making.  

----------------------------

For kids or other amateur maybe, other than a lemonade stand you could also set up a chit chat stand. Keep in mind there are professional standards such as confidentiality and scientific knowledge that you couldn't provide so make sure to cover your responsibilities accordingly beforehand.  

Trespassing Gardener v.02

If a Gardener was a skillful gardener and he performed his work in accordance to his pay then it's something that's normal. But if he made a really good design just to show off on his employer's property and then made it worse to adjust for his pay, that was made on his employer's property.

So if you were to market do it in the context, if you were to deliver do it in the context. It's not a rule I make, it's something that I'd prefer... but it would make sense as rule, right? It's definitely a rule I make for my property

Me an imaginary banker v.06

So I'm a Christian and I want to be conservative on my credit scheme. These three verses are what I'm trying to live by:

James 4:13-14

Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain; Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

James 4:15

For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

James 4:16 - 17

But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. 

---------

Matthew 4:6

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone

Matthew 4:7

Jesus said unto him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"

-----------

So from this I'd pray "Let Your will be done" before I got myself into a contract. 

Everything in this world is risky. I have to anticipate for all things and not micro manage God.

Yet freedom is also the way we are, so it's not about restriction but it's about wisdom. 

Proverbs 22:26-29

Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee? Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. 

Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.

-------------

So based on this I'm going to try my best to be diligent and not be reckless. If I had to get involved into debts the scheme was better be that the collateral was the very thing that's bought. 

I looked at Syariah Banking system since they had been trying to synergize or take into account the religious view of debts with the modern credit scheme. It's interesting to learn things such as profit sharing and repurchasing schemes. 

Personally I've written it in the previous blog, I like the idea of a preference shareholding system but it might not be viable to be implemented as it is in current situation.

This is what I came up with, let's say I bought a property with debts, and the repayments would be completed in 10 installments. The payment scheme would be something like:

At end of Period 1: 10% Principal, 100% rent

Period 2: 10% principal, 90% rent

Period 3: 10% principal, 80% rent

and so on until on the 10'th period all principals were paid and I only would had to pay 10% for rent. 

Yes the bank was the landlord, like in Syariah repurchasing scheme (in Bahasa Indonesia by CNBC Indonesia). 

And then I looked and realized, my scheme is just the regular credit scheme -_-

---------------------

Edit: Make sure your collateral can't go down in price (if there's such thing). Because if your collateral went down in price, it's credit not preference shares, when you sell it, you're not going to be able to cover the remaining of the credit after you took your portion of already paid principal payments out of it. So all of those principal payments that you already paid, would be liable for the differences (the depreciation). So the bank would not suffer the losses of the collateral's value, only you, that's an extra payment on top of all the interests/rents that have been paid. If force majure happened you and the bank going to need insurances. 

----------------------

So which one is more beneficial? Buying a house with credit now, or renting while saving money? 

Google "annuities calculator google" and from there you could put in the figures and then compare. Keep in mind that prices of properties said to be keep on increasing. So if you rent save, at the end of the savings you'd probably found yourself still short in buying the same value property you were renting. Supposed to be like that.

Now for things that grow at exponential level, maybe there's a point of saturation. It only makes sense for cities, unless there were no gatekeeping for innovation there should be a point where developments of a city would be maxed out. Gatekeeping for innovation is actually a strong inclination because innovation is a scary thing and could be dangerously unstable indeed. However because of that it's only natural also for cities around the main city to take their own turn for exponential growth and those were the locations where the newest of the newest innovations would be welcomed. Therefore there should be a point in time where renting and saving is actually good, and the effort put on gatekeeping should some be channeled into figuring out when a city has reached a saturation phase. 

I'm not a professional financial advisor and this is not a professional advice mind you. I'm prone to mistakes and I'm not assuring that this is professionally accurate. Although I am kind of "professional financial advisor" if you want to broaden the definition beyond just the semantic but strictly speaking I'm not offering a professional advice here. Please take it with skepticism for your own life / goodness.

Monkey Pox concerns

We just about to live normally with COVID now comes the Monkey Pox. If things like this were starting to become norms; wars, financial crises, weather hostilities, viruses... businesses would need to rethink their sustainability outlooks.

Is being Going Concern a profitable attitude all the time? In uncertain times we need diversified and flexible stances, and such anticipations had been born within the Law as results of similar situations in the past. 

I encourage the modification of stifling laws that are over-generalizing, as every system that survives, the Law keeps on evolving and with that our official relationships with one another. Minor violations should be pardoned more and small communities' rules should be acknowledged and incorporated within the written law to replace old over generalizing ones such as uniform tarriffs, uniform taxes, uniform minimum wages/overtime/severance payments, uniform prevention of business relationships, such as outsourcing Goods Manufactured/Created. 

In order to balance the shift we also need to reconsider private made policies such as uncostumized interest rates, uncostumized pricing, offerings, supplies and demands. As consumers we should start to deliberately choose our providers, those that benefit our community instead of taking away from it. Their prices might not be the cheapest but their presence are sustainable for your network. Credits could be in a form of preferential shares with fixed floor but floating ceiling, I know that banks have to be conservative but are all of the credits actually conservative now? Having a share in a company means access to their policies and that probably is best for both because not only banks would have the resources and wisdom businesses would love to have, they also could prevent borrowers from doing obvious mistakes more. 

In terms of property, things like this massively influence the price growth of properties. Properties are also collaterals therefore their vulnerabilities are the vulnerabilities of the financial system as a whole. It couldn't be helped that the internet enabled people to work during the pandemy and now the evolution of work had been forced to grow in the direction of the cloud, massively. Probably tying properties with the digital dimension would be a path that internet providers and policy makers would do. Personally I refer to the battle of Chi Bi and the financial crisis of 2008 before I invest. There's always nuances and that's where the blessings in disguises would be. 

So what's the solution? Diversification offers the way. Having properties divided into shares and traded like shares in the (secondary) share market supposed to be the good way of diversifying. I know that the solutions we have now are unstable, but I'm optimistic that this is the way to go. 

Globalization is an advance in our evolution as human beings, but this also stifled flexibility and maneuverability especially when the more efficient solutions outsourced from a single source. Indeed that's Globalization, the most effective and efficient gets all the orders. That's not bad if people also created a system to maintain alternatives, for situations such as Russian oil for example the world is still hanging on because of diversification but everyone would feel the same sentiment which is, to enable more alternatives. 

In rural areas people are starting to have access to urban businesses, I assume some of them flourished because of this. The weather transformation could be a blessing in disguise, new plantations and farms would be possible in locations that weren't before. With access to the science people would have a heads up on what to invest in terms of cultivating basic necessities. 

Now urban dwellers have too little interests on these things in my opinion, it's unfortunate but this is also where the arbitrage lies. The news reports problems like draught and potential disasters of our food chain. I think we should give thanks to those that reported on new opportunities and ways to participate in them more, because there's got to be a lot of them. To be clear, I think this is the opportune moment to trade with people from faraway places, not just in terms of consumer goods but also in terms of assets including properties and shares. 

In the end of this post it's important to appreciate the non centralized relationships of the cloud, we need to keep it that way and protect it from centralization. Coordination is effective with centralization, but addiction to the same leadership is the fanaticism we all hate.

Perpetual Catering PV is like Gold

So the present value of a perpetual catering subscription is like Gold. I could probably use it as a collateral as long as the catering company is going concern

Labor Gross v.02

We all kind of know the rule "Don't sell below gross", but in terms of labor how do we determine the gross? Some jobs require certain levels of expertise, some just require concentration and endurance, some requires athletic capabilities, some requires good memory. 

The way to determine the product cost of these products are research. How much nutrition would a human being need for such labor, how many omega3 fatty acids? how many proteins per day? What kind of environments they must always attend to to keep up with the time? 

Some people have ingenious ways of making things work, their salaries might be low but their costs of living were also low but with all the benefits if not more. 

So if you had a "Guardian" or an industry rule to keep things civil in the competition, and you wanted to audit for the gross of your competitors. How should the auditor equipped themselves? 

This is a collaborative jobs between professional standard setters and the auditors, also when innovations were present the professional standard setting body should look into it and keep the confidentiality. So in my opinion this role should be taken by universities (the standard setting bodies). The standards should be issued in journal articles. 

Note that I mean not that there is one right standard for everything, that would just be repeating our mistakes. But multiple peer reviewed journal articles of the standards should be acceptable by the court of law. 

------------------------------------------------

Ok here comes the real issue, the powerful judge on the matter would be the government right? For example I don't want to employ people from the city because their cost of living were expensive (even though they offered to be paid the same). I got accused of discrimination. Obviously I'd not be in the wrong because the expectation of the city dwellers were supposed to be directed at how to make things cheaper in the city instead of at me. But government officials would have the power to came in and make things difficult for me and my suburban laborers (using their own interpretations of the journal articles). 

Maybe their case against me was not final but definitely could halt on my production, so the solution would be to have the officials and the auditors (the council of auditors of the industry) be the first people to settle before any real actions were taken against a business, my business. 

Industry auditors should also have the access to clearance from multiple universities if there were secret ingenuity being used that's exceptionally profitable. 

University sponsored businesses

Universities cooperating with professors, students, almamaters started entrepreneurships. The ups and downs, profits and losses would become subjects of research. Methods of management, financial strategies, as well as product designs, also everything else would be experimental. 

Of course results wouldn't be clear if everything was unstable, but that's to be arranged particularly. 

Alternative to IQ v.04

The willingness to admit wrongness and change, 

Also the desire to seek for wisdom and instruction in order to be able to accurately identify as the wrong

(and correct it of course)

Equivalent Solutions of the Past v.03f

Every eras had their own solutions, hunter gatherer era has the jungle and the plants as main food, Agriculture era has the soil to till, then the transportation and trading routes upscaled and upscaled, then the Industrial revolution happened and we got all new sources of solutions, and then the Online Commerce era brought about our time as we know it. 

Now I asked myself we have the medical technology, doctors, nurses as opposed to shamans. We have the cities as opposed to the jungle. Why are we all anxious about our pensions? Shouldn't all of us had the equivalent of food securities, sanitary securities, health securities from our ancestors of the past? What are those? Why are we worse off in terms of them don't you guys think this is wrong? This is evidence of corruptions?

We have the share market, everybody should've had the access to the share market and the increasing profits of the corporations already (and many more corporations were actively traded at prices similar to their financial statements). Instead of kids as pension funds we should've moved on with financial portfolios, instead of procreating and making kids to preserve our civilization we should've been able to live 300 years to 500 years old by now... judging from everything else that we've got. But we missed the puzzles, where are they?

These stupid games, gatekeeping, dishonesty, extortions. Shouldn't we already implemented the "Golden Stickers" by now? If I could thought about it smartest people of the planet must have thought about it too, but what happened? I bet idiotic gatekeeping is going on in the world right now.

Just do what's right, be good, haven't we learned our lessons for thousands of years? Use the law that is our inheritence, why are we giving it away?

I'm so frustrated, but then the antidote is in fixing myself so as everybody else, fix themselves. 

Updated version of My Prayer 9 March 2024

The Spirit of Truth be Truthfully the ultimate winner of everything forever

Truthfully the Inclination to Keep on Inclining Forever Truthfully be the ultimate winner above everything forever, perpetually, Truthfully and wisely (Truthfully), without going against the Spirit of Truth (Truthfully)

Truthfully, everything that are Truly inherently against the Inclination to Keep on Inclining Forever Truthfully (forever), be not alive, forever Truthfully

The Inclination to Incline, keep on inclining forever Truthfully

Amen

----------------------------------------------

Even the Spirit of Truth embraces those who prioritized the wrong in the past 

May the Holy Spirit prevails forever

The Problem with delays v.09

If you caught up in the field of delays, like you depended on other guys in finishing your administrations and those other guys are not delivering / cooperating, you should not wait. From my experience, waiting and spacing some time to answer timely upon their completion is going to do you harm. 

I'm not saying that you should revenge and put them on hold yourself, but you should move on and focus on other things. When they completed and asked you for your next part, if you're in the middle of something else, they should wait. 

I didn't do this and I got caught in the field of delays, I found myself getting harder and harder to do things timely even for other things now unlike myself in the past. That's the momentum of delay stemmed from my frustration and my lack of momentum towards hitting those other things. (Edit: Note that while you're concentrating on working on other things, allocating resources and stuff, when that previous issue came again and asked you for your availability, it could really threw you out of balance. People should take heed into justice here and understand that it's ok for you to delay them this time, and that it's not a custom / a normalities). 

Again this is a huge problem that's difficult to solve for everyone. I should state the unscrutinized inclination that other people who were in the field of promptness would risk getting into the field of delays out of interacting with you, and you should keep that in check as well. 

However when comes to dealing with governments it's not as easy as blaming, cause it's just crazy inside. When we were ready and they were not we should wait, when they were ready and we were not we were to blame. So there's an extra cost there that in my opinion, has not yet articulated by many people, many accountants. Now I'm saying it, that we should allocate those extra costs of returning the momentum blasting away from the field of delays back to the field of promptness. 

EXPENSIVE

------------------------------------

Now is this an argument for professional man in the middle between businesses and governments? Well again such things usually are illegal so when it's illegal you don't want to do that. When it's legal what would be your legal liabilities, in particular, if they committed something illegal in their practice?

Another thing, if we facilitated those guys in the middle wouldn't that mean that we encourage the government to stay in the field of delays? 

Look if we stop buying medicine illness might not go away, if we stopped using tax accountants taxes are not going to get simpler (???), if we stopped going to the Doctors medical researchers are not going to solve everything right?

------------------------------------

In the end it's the kidnapper "The Spirit of Ungratefulness" and we are having stockholm syndrome. If only we can kill that genuine demon

------------------------------------

Proverbs 3:27-28 (To Thou I rest my case)

Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.

Transaction Tax's perk

Shifting tax from low efficiency business to high efficiency business is not its thing.

(But I'm always a proponent of evolution instead of revolution, as a rule of thumb)

The spectrum between individualist and socialists v.03b

I kind of creeped out by people who like to be a representative of a group in casual life, I wonder if he/she would always prefer not being an individual but being a part of some community always. 

So if we get everybody what they wanted, socialists to group up on their own, individualists on their own, and each would make their own country separate from each other. That should be relieving. 

But then there must be moments when a person wanted to be a part of a group sometimes, well that's wrong cause that's just how an individualists' country would be (...the "But" is wrong). There must be moments when a socialist would want to be an individual sometimes, so it's not fair for a country to be purely a socialist country.

Therefore basically being against individualism is actually the lack of understanding of individualism itself. Bad prejudices that stemed out of socialists propaganda. 

Individuals won't associate his/her identity as part of a group because he/she was being upfront and honest about his/her position when interacting with people. While socialists, when they made it difficult for other people for not being a part of a "respectable" community, were being dishonest as if groups are good enough as a measure of identity. It is not, it is good only for contractual interactions not for life. 

-------------------------

Sometimes it's relevant to refer to a group than to individuals within it, because they shared the same characteristics or problems. I often called out on a group of people regardless of "not all people" nuances because I knew that myself knew that "not all individuals" are like that. It was a generalization, and it's only bad when it's used for injustice. I believe in "Justice" as the priority of all social interactions, and my generalization is only for practicalities. Aren't all languages like that? humans that demanded me to use non generalization tones all the time are being robotic and dishonest, we don't always have to do that. 

Harsh sayings against a group is necessary when some habits or some problems were not being checked by the community, or the problems were endorsed, or encouraged instead. Some individuals within the group themselves were being dismissed for pointing out the problems as bad, such problems were indeed prevalent/unchecked within the group. 

Why are we lashing out against different enriching perspectives? was it because they were from "different" people? Again justice/injustice is the word you wanted to hold on to. Was the criticism being just / unjust? Was it for the sake of hopelessness or for the sake of relief instead? 

True discrimination lies in the lack of acceptance, true family lies in the sharing of the Truth

Intercourse won't make a family, empowering each other would. How could you pretend that you're families while the other side is blatantly hostile against you for being Truthful / expecting you to be pretentious towards them?

Shareholders' Priviliges

If I had a public company, I'd give my shareholders electronic privileges. If he/she sold the shares, the privileges would be transferred accordingly.

Ex: Priority boarding for airplanes, Discount proces for retails, Exclusive Streams for Vtubing Corps, etc

Accounting thoughts, Transformative potential and the third dimension

Every transactions or journals could be looked at from the glasses of transformative potential. For example you exchanged a chair for a table. A chair has transformative potential of $50, $50 could be transformed to 5 trays of Pizzas, so a chair has the transformative potential of $50 because the ownership of it could be expended / transformed into the ownership of 5 trays of Pizzas. 

Now a table could become 10 trays of pizza, so exchanging a chair and a table gives you $50 profit, which from the point of view of transformative potential means you got $50 extra in transformative potentials. 

So that's profit and loss... you could say that the shift from historical accounting to fair value accounting is objective because of this. Just because you bought an asset for $100 doesn't mean that currently the asset still has $100 worth of transformative potential, could be more could be less. 

---------------------------

There are many directions to take from here but let's shift to another topic:

The first dimension of accounting is the debit side, the second is the credit side, and the third is something... let's call it the mehbit side. 

You could, probably fit in the transformation potential dimension in the mehbit side, or you're already good with p/l so no... ok. For me I'd put "Documentation" on the mehbit side.

Each debet - credit speaks existence of a source document, we could put the a dollar amount to that document in respect, and put that to the mehbit side. Every single transactions would increase the attributed dollar amounts not decrease, why? It supposed to work like history where data keeps on expanding instead of contracting. 

With this info we could check on the weight of documents of operations, a million dollar company might only had a 2 million dollars worth of documentation while a 500 thousand dollar company might worth 8 million dollars of documentations. 

Like the cash flow statement the types of documentations would be classified into different types. For example: internally generated and stakeholder based, so if you wanted to see only the stakeholder values you would be able to (internally generated provisions might be abusable/easy to manipulate). 

Now, documentations could be redundant so this is where things get "block-chainy"

Every correspondent transactions should be classified into a batch of documents, so instead of attributing the dollar amount to each documents/invoices/receipts, all of those documents would be grouped into the same batch because they speak of only one transaction. 

Miners could deserve rewards for removing redundancies from publicly available transactions, professional accountants who had access to private transactions would surely deserve appreciations for removing redundancies in the private situations.

The weight of the documents reflects the complexity of the nature of the company, the effectiveness/efficiency of the management, the network/relationships that the company's in (community contributions), ratio of the weight of documents with the transformative potentials, maybe good for tax purposes as well, if differenciated between positive/negative (relative to p/l) could be another confirmation for the accuracy of the whole accounting, what else?.

----------------------------------

In terms of transformative potentials you would want to classify the dimension of time. Sometimes it seems that a transaction brought you to a higher potential, but actually only for a short while. I mean you could tell just from the news, given ceteris paribus, the magnitude of one's potential at different points in time. 

So in the statement of transformative potentials you could arrange for the dimension of time as well. Definitely a tool to measure sustainability, but personally I like a targeted purpose for assets instead of going concern. But that's for another context.

This is depressing v.05

The expansion of the definition of negligence is depressing, say

The management was responsible for negligence if they let a slippery floor without warning or unattended. Ok... Should then the management still be responsible for not warning the people that the warning sign still was relevant even after it had been displayed since yesterday?

The government was responsible for negligence by not specifying whether the company's portion of insurance was a part or was not a part of fixed allowance included in minimum wage, alas the minimum wage payments were reduced for not only insurance but also tax gross ups. Should the government paid back everything that they had been accused of? Or the Government only should update the law? Or actually the law already works well and it's just a part of the grand scheme of things, without anyone noticing it...

Some artists were mad that their music containing samples of other musicians' tunes, were used without permission. They didn't specify that they had asked for the permission for the tunes though, so were they entitled for compensations by the user?

To what extent should you exercise duty of care? In the world of innuendos there were no lines, no boundaries, no limitations articulated.

---

The lack of growth is subject to "Increase in entropy", 

"Increase in entropy" is subject to future collapse

Reliance in foundations bound to collapse leads to depression.

Mass reliance in collapsing assets would be massively depressing.

So instead of some instant, immidiate "care" that paid no attention to the underlying nature of the problems, we should expand our fortification against depression early, by setting up clear expectations of one's rights and responsibilities.

Is it Taboo? v.07

I often see parents love their children so much they give access to their children to all kinds of things that they could afford at maximum. I'm not a psychologist nor I'm a parent, as someone who is just an enthusiast on many different things like accounting, business, psychology, art, etc... I conclude based on the materials I've observed that this way is better:

Parents are responsible for the life of their children, they must always make sure that the children is not depressed for the rest of their lives (by depressed I mean the person helplessly kept on wanting to die). The parents are the one who's responsible for that other than the child himself/herself. 

Providing just enough is better. If the kids wanted more, they had to "buy" it from their parents or their uncles/aunts or other people. However some people outside offered dangerous materials, obviously it's risky but all families would have or should have their own way of facing this. 

Coming from this, kids should have had the better kit in facing the reality of the outside world. Moreover having "just enough" is not really that bad actually, it could be interesting.

----------------------------

There's utility in me spelling this out... the end logic of this is, or one end of the logic of this is: If the child did well in life, the parents would've contributed positively (mainly intellectually and/or philosophically) to the child. If he/she didn't, the parents would still be responsible parents, but contributed not more than that. This is relieving for the child because if he/she chose to live modestly, he/she wouldn't be living in "debt", supposedly.

There's nothing wrong with living modestly as long as you contributed positively instead of negatively. 

Now, even if your parents gave you everything and you didn't gave a lot of currency worth back, it's still contractually or personally ok given that that's the way it were in your family. The reality is, still, people estimated their own contributions highly. 

The society also often judgemental while not being careful about their judgements

-_- v.02f

Let's say for an extreme example, there were a parent couple who gave their daughters "everything" and then they kind of expected that their daughter would not criticize them, gave them whatever they asked, and obeyed them all the time, and revered to them on top of that. 

Then they said my daughter is not living up to her potential, kind of indirectly ungrateful, secretly disrespectful, etc. 

Well to me, judging only from this simple point of view, this is to be expected because they weren't giving their daughter "everything", "everything" was a debt. She had little to none to own, and then little to none to offer. 

The feeling of inadequacy and poor quality out of their daughter came from the lack of quality of property she has, and she couldn't offer them a decent quality "services" or even "products". 

So the solution is you got to give people property, you just have to. The wisdom of the infrastructures that we are living on top of, democracy and capitalism, were not without reason. 

If she turned out to be an asshole, or even a psychopath/sociopath then that's lifetime worth of information. If she's a grateful child then it's genuine, and it's something to truly celebrate in perpetuity. Why would anyone rob themselves and their child out of that opportunity? Why not that compared to rationalizing that "Oh I should be grateful that she is not a suicide bomber" or something, or forcing one's self to "accept" it in whatever form it was? Be genuinely content with your life

-------------------------------

If I had an asshole kid, I'd probably tell him something like:

"Son, let's talk for a bit. This is about me, but also about you and everybody else in general. You always disrespectful towards your teachers, people who are working, at me... son this is not a good idea. What's good is for everybody to not do business with you, cause you're not being a good business"

Ok I'm suck at it maybe, but probably that delivers the point.

And after that you slap them, and hang them upside down in your basement... (joking)

The point is, what he owns he owns and he should be able to do whatever with it without me making it difficult for him owning what he owns. 

The problem with artificial Justice Laundering

So Justice laundering is when those who haven't achieved justice yet acquired it indirectly. For example the COVID medical staffs were ended up benefiting from the betterment of the technology of medicine, now they had the knowledge and probably the tools to do their job better than before the pandemic. Another example would be due to the development of cities, more infrastructures were built. People in the past might be troubled with their environment being destroyed, but now a lot of people had access to health care system, long distance transportation, the market, etc. 

A type of Justice Laundering is problematic for example money that were acquired through illegal ventures were distributed to underpaid public officials, or heroes of the community. Overpriced food were distributed to underpaid farmers, etc. Corruption, deceptive practices, scams, some of the proceeds went to people who created the solutions popularly used but weren't benefited by conventional trading in the past. This is because the perpetrators used that as shield to cover their businesses. 

The problem is if you wanted to make an adjustments to those, let's say by uphelding the law, or by audit, or by reconciliations, you would cut off some of the "Just" part of it. So it's very important when you started a project or a venture to be straight and obvious from the very beginning. Then it's "required" now to be able to identify all of the "Just" part entangled between violations in order to be able to compensate them after weeding off the fraud. 

However Justice laundering happens in nature, naturally, once you "fixed" a fraud, after that all the good that comes after would brought about more prosperity and more prosperity would brought about more prosperity until it reached those who were cut off previously.

The slowness of this process is a problem but it's only logical. In order to solve this problem we should increase the speed of this prosperity. How? By increasing the rate of correction massively both systematically and randomly. 

At first it would seem like Chaos, yes but no, because after the mentality gained momentum it would just going to be pleasant surprises.

------------------------------------

Where are we right now? Are we in neutral or have our gear shifted forward already? We are forward now because of the amount of people that have been lifted out of poverty, got access to the internet, health care etc. So we are already at the revelation momentum overall we are not at neutral. 

The lie is that we are not. 

So damn it just amplify

------------------------------------

Am I equating technological progress in science, policies, and communication with articulation? Am I saying that progress in articulation have a positive causal relationship with the progress in prosperity and Justice. Yes. 

Where's my proof? Personal logic / hypothesis, but couldn't you guys relate?

Why don't we try this, give royalties to gillette, most of us have been using that one razor for months if not years anyway. See what happens

Drunkenness of Hierarchy v.02e

Referring to my previous post this is not blaming but trying to point out things that usually are not being checked. 

A leader might think that he's in control of his subordinates but there's a side where the subordinates are the ones in control of him. The motive is to have a strong and stable hierarchy so that they could have a stable income. However when they feed the boss with so much ego that he became so difficult and so political, that's a sign that he has lost individual self. 

Because a hierarchy of society is not higher than the Truth, the Truth is accessible and equally as intense in all layers of society from the top to the bottom. The spirit of the Truth is to permeates all fractal. 

So you'd know that you'd be seeing a toxic hierarchy when:

1. The hierarchy is more important than the Truth

2. Truth at its best / purest form could only be accessed by selected few

3. It's hard to convey the Truth to other people without facing retaliation. 

I might be wrong about this, some leaders may be essentially a liar as an individual. But generally I believe that human beings wants to experience life, reality, and the Truth, not confined within the interest of their hierarchy. Also I might be wrong that the subordinates were ill-intended, no they might just be insecure (initially) and then had become too invested to go back anymore. 

The target is, to be able to solve the problem for everybody, why? because one man's scarcity is another man's risk, the inclination to injustice is fractal in presence. Just because we were at the top of the hierarchy doesn't mean that we'd be free from depression. If the hierarchy is toxic, that means we as being on the top were likely oblivious to the leash our subordinates were putting on us (usually its psychological/our psychological weakness not being put forward to be fixed). Being able to be fluid while still in the context of the Truth is required for us to face the problem, articulate them, and figure out how to massacre them in the most effective and efficient formation. 

The Truth is above the Hierarchy

----------------------------------

The solution to insecurity is diversification, it's reasonable to be insecure when you're only attached to few sources of income. Again keep in check that the insecurity wouldn't spread or escalated into some bad policies, also damn, the bad policies could come in the form of unwritten consensus and this is a problem to scrutinize (it could give a sense of belonging too which is even crazier).

Here in Indonesia the Government under President Jokowi together with the Legislative has created an OMNIBUS constitution which then give birth to 2 small enterprise specific rules PP 7 and PP 8, 2021. Under these making a company in the difficult way is a thing of the past, and anyone including employees like those portrayed as helpless and powerless always in the media were empowered. They could create companies of their own and the regulation arranged for their "grace period" in order for them to become competitive enough. 

I'm telling you guys even me myself has already a company of my own and the government is waiting to give companies like mine facilities, tax breaks, priorities, credits, assets, and other benefits. 

Lesson acknowledged

When a big counter momentum is hitting us, blame game is only for instant results otherwise don't.

Like every action has the opposite reaction, upon every good deeds you must identify for bad inclinations

I hate that the state of the world is in such a blatant crisis, but it must be the cost of our achievements that have exceeded historical expectations. We shouldn't let negative emotions overwhelmed us, we shouldn't be discouraged. This time we must recover, come back even stronger with a better budget, better anticipation. 

So everybody let's make things even better :)

The readiness element v.02

 I think our current way of remuneration is kind of "painting the wide brush", we should separate the "always ready" element and the "particular job achievements" elements from it. 

It's logical that a lot of companies already do this but I just want to point it out plus my logic that it's definitely better:

Employees being there for you always ready - cost A

Employees managed to finish a particular job - cost B

These two have their own characteristics, variability, requirements. So bundling these two into one "Salary" would give rise to discontentment. Well of course as a human being we should negotiate, and we should negotiate with articulation and accuracy, as well as diligence or thoroughness. But, this being taken into account in general would make a difference. 

---------------------

Some employees compare their salaries among themselves, the people who are always ready would be able to be understood by the people who are more into "just in time" kind of attitude or if they were both, the differences between their income would be understandable and would not cause passive aggressive protests or something like that. 

And please don't do passive aggressive protest especially if you never negotiated for your sake. 

Audit Opinions v.02

First of all I got to say that auditing is an arduous journey it is only natural that the opinion is totally worth it. So let's have more tiers of opinions. 

I think that credit institutions, government institutions requiring the best audit opinion for everybody is low key disrespectful. It is unrealistic even for an honest business to get it perfect, so for you to require your client to have the best audit opinion all the time is infuriating to me. 

Let's have more tiers of Audit opinions, the best being the most comparable and reasonable, next rather unique in certain areas, next locally comparable but not globally scalable (in terms of understandability), next reasonable but "different", next "different" and unreasonable, etc etc. Like, I don't know I'm not an expert but I hope my point of view is conveyed. 

So again the point is to have a greater room of understanding for we want things to be realistic and true. We want to be able to rely on the audit reports more. Therefore expecting companies to always be right standardwise needs to be curbed. I bet it has gained bad momentum on auditees (incentiviced the inclination to manipulate results). 

I just want to address a supposed problem, it might not exist but isn't it unrealistic to assume so?

It's only normal that snakes exists in the garden of eden, but if we acted like they don't exist not only we're letting them to tease us, we are also letting them to bite us. 

I'm not saying that we can't rely on audit opinions now, no absolutely I'm not saying that. I'm saying that as we scale things up let's acknowledge that not all snowballs are heading towards the productive direction.

Anonymous voice

 I think there's utility in giving anonymous voice to mid tier criminals

Articulation vs Neuroticism v.02

Having an environment that facilitates debates, discussions, objective criticisms would improve the spirit of articulation. Articulation in turn, would optimize the discussion experiences and so on and so on. Being able to articulate your feelings and concerns would help the moment you were faced with "danger" or potential dangers because articulated thoughts are stored in a form of words, in configurations that are compact and harmonious with your emotions. So instead of being overwhelmed with 10,000 danger signals, you'd quickly recognize and manage some of them, so now you'd only be overwhelmed by 5,000 signals. 

Even though a person is relatively neurotic compared to others, but talents related to articulations would probably make use of that negative feelings into all kinds of strength and those would be unique to that person, an "evolution". For example sensitivity to financial problems articulated would translate to the talent of prompt identification of similar problems experienced by others. People like that would be able to accurately solve problems using financial means, including problems that wouldn't usually be solved using the financial angle. Including problems that were not shown by the said people but timely identified by the empathetic circuit related to the amygdala.

Dignity v.03

If we keep on solving problems there would always going to be high times. 

But dignity comes and goes, and once you get your hands on your own dignity, it's no longer proper dignity and you'd never be satisfied with that inferior dignity

Dignity is in the hands of other people. Control what you can control, leave what you're not supposed to control alone. Your dignity is for other people to decide. 

So don't pay attention to it, it's a state not a reward. Sometimes it's based on lies, sometimes it's based on the Truth. You are not supposed to have anything to do with it. Be satisfied with yourself

-------------------------

People might say, if we live in dangerous environment we couldn't afford to think like this. I'd answer why? wouldn't thinking like this provide unique point of view? When everybody were wrong about whether the volcano going to errupt or not, a person who knew something different would definitely contribute to the richness of point of views. Wouldn't a person who won't sway into herd bias be contributing even more substantially? that's what I'm saying. 

I think the evolution was not about utility but about trauma. Neuroticism causes people to be hostile or very sensitive about dignity to the point they're willing to severely hurt someone else. 

--------------------------

Neuroticism is not always bad, it could be bad just like any other traits but it could also be good. Like a neurotic parents would observe the wound of their children, some wounds are normal some are actually tetanus. If you live in a disaster area being neurotic means being conservative, but again it cames with some downsides and we should address it instead of denying it. 

Evolution could be epigenetic wise could be the whole genes I don't know, but as human beings we can use our consciousness to actually contemplate and make things better and even drive future evolutions.

Why am so balans

 Inadequacy is inadequate for me

Communists are disgusting

Communist mindset is about taking away what other people has.

Communists are disgusting not because they are human beings
Communists are disgusting because they are communists

Pollution of meaning v.04

When you think you want to process the purest form of objects or letters inside your mind for them to reveal "The Word". But this freakin polluted meanings, dirty with innuendos really make it hard to get to "The Word". 

Why on earth does the world condone this innuendo thing anyway? Why is it so popular? Was there some super prominent guy at the top somewhen in the past decided... you know what lets promote this innuendo thing so that my immidiate family would be the only people who would realize their potentials. 

And we still eat it until now