Concerns over promiscuity

Firstly my preconceived notion about sex is that it's subconscious and an evolutionary product. You'd be subconsciously compelled to be the family, helper, protector, of this particular person. 

1. Would this aggregation of personalities be a human?

2. Would this entity be able to correct you if you're wrong about him/her. There might be a risk of somebody who's not a part of that aggregation hacked into your feedback loop at the subconscious level.

3. Would this entity be an angel or a demon? Or would it attenuates?

4. Am I wrong? Am I half right?

5. Is it actually beneficial to keep track of this at the societal level? I know its also a part of the evolution of humanity, but what if we could tell it apart and made choices?

Safe deposit box insurance market application idea v.02b

So last week CNBC posted the 2023 Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. Watching this inspires me this idea:

An application for safe deposit box where by putting your assets in the safe deposit box up for insurance shares, you could obtain the income from insurance premiums from prominent insurance companies in exchange of collaterals which are contents of your safe deposit box. They could be gold, silver, property certificates etc. 

People could obtain income and insurance companies could have an alternative to allocate their risks to.

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

Additionally someone who couldn't repay their debts could probably apply to insurance companies like geico for an extention. The way it works would be, the insurance company would buy the collaterized property, let the borrowers extended their debts while they use the property as repayments of new debts. 

So the new debts would be repaid by "title to the address and everything on it" instead of cash. 

 

Practical Interest Rate for Mortgage v.06b

Pay attention to the auction price of your collateral, how much lower is it from the market price and is it consistently so. So from that number take the difference out, all of the money you paid including the principal up until now is the Practical Interest rate. It is only no longer interest, or had became the principal when it had passed that threshhold. (Still passed that threshhold it is going to be part principal and part interests ok not 100%).

If you ended up selling the property at market price then its your "profit", if things got sour and prices dropped, at least the market price would be the auction price and you've factored in your interest payments as interest payments.

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

If the tax office would acknowledge this, then one could have a setup where there's extra cost at the start of your credit, or alternatively throughout the early periods, and then if in the end the credit was successful the tax would be charged. If the credit was a fail then its not going to be taxed.

Isn't it reasonable given the income tax wanted to take a share on profit? So it shouldn't take away from non profit transactions. 

Moreover the government seems to like credit and considered it to be a part of its product or something. Its encouraged what I was trying to say. So why not this option?

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

On the other side of the credit, shouldn't the lender/bank recorded instant repayment because of the collateral, therefore revenue? No because lets say that at the end of the credit they would recorded it as cost again when they "returned" the collateral, such practice is not conservative, its contingent towards income which is uncertain. So not an option

This then gives rise to the interests losses incurred by the government out of the whole scheme. Such is the properness of it, that is the articulation of risk exposure of the whole economy when one got into debt.

Pay attention to the first paragraph about "revenue" that's wrong, the bank or lender wouldn't incur revenues at all because the difference between market and the actual proceeds of the collateral wasn't going to be a revenue for the bank / lender. Therefore it is a real risk of debt or a real cost of the economy as a whole when one got into debt. 

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

Here's the thing, is having a child easier than getting into debt? Just the nature of things that order drew from chaos while proceeding forward. Therefore the right attitude is to understand and acknowledge.

Watch: CNBC's coverage of Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting. Minute 35:55 is particularly relevant. Here Warren made a position proposition about AI and compared it to the World War, and then they answered another question about the real estate. 

A perspective for the future in avoidance of retardation v.02c

This is my view of Labor's objections. If you want more salaries because the company is doing well,

1. The company's doing well is variable to the will of the customers it's not fixed, so it's going to be bonuses instead of salaries

2. If you want the variables you should be ok to take the lows as well not just the highs

3. As owners get the last shares of the income and still they had to be responsible of the risks of the company as well, including and significantly from employment risks (all kinds including regulation-wise), the risk have to be reduced by abolishing the severance pay.

4. Stop thinking that owners look down upon you unjustly, a lot of times people are protecting their interests as you're being unsatisfied with life and sabotaging and trying to put your misery on them. 

5. Governments, this behavior is the behavior of teenage kids towards their parents, that's what you get for treating people as your children. It's not impossible to do that but with regulation that's coercion and children don't want to be worthy because of coercion they'd feel worthless. 

6. Again communism, don't let people hide behind your competence, and don't hide behind other people's competence and merged as one monster. These competence wants to be rewarded but since they're a part of this communist monster it's a bad idea to reward them. These respectable people became unsatisfied and the gremlins ride on their discontentment as if they are a part of them, and went against the investors.

Competent people, stop mixing with ruiners of assets

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

As with most things, if a regulation were to be changed the effect is going to apply to the market not instantly. But its going to happen, say the legalization of marijuana in some places; they used to not be able to set up shops, now they could. So when would the rewards be received? When its a good business sense to do so, and it will be.