the more entrenched injustices of the world...

[Carl G]

brokenhead wrote:

OK, OK, you win. Call it what you want. If the metaphor of wisdom being a construction requiring a foundation is important to you, have at it. To me, there is nothing particularly enlightening about understanding the law of cause and effect, as it is simply the way the world works. Deriving meaning from things takes work. Endlessly obsessing about the law of cause and effect is counter-productive to that work, IMHO. It has negative results, including bestowing a "me vs. the herd" mentality to the one doing the obsessing. I see it all over these forums. Who is and who is not a sage. Who cares, really? I flinch every time I read the word wisdom in these threads. Which makes it difficult to type the damn word with all that flinching going on. I can't help feeling that if these dialectics were finally to cease, the feathers were to stop flying, and all the dust were to settle, GF would be there, online, no TCP or UDP packets coming or going, just the occasional ICMP pinging, signifying nothing.

I see someone hasn't taken their positivity pills today.

Seriously, what's up with the over-reaction?

[Laird]

Sue, I've responded to your above post not here but rather in the "Making peace with femininity" thread because I'd like to try to accumulate this discussion with the related discussion that's going on there. I chose that thread because I had higher hopes for this thread than yet another discussion on the emotions, consciousness and femininity. At the risk of coming across as meddlesome, I'd request that you and brokenhead likewise redirect this conversation to that thread. In return, I'll let you know that I hope to - if/when I find the time and energy - make another post in this thread that follows up on my first post, and thereby try to add some alternative direction to this thread.

[brokenhead]

I see someone hasn't taken their positivity pills today.

Seriously, what's up with the over-reaction?

The pills didn't help. They just made it hard to get a stiffy.

[solitude_Within]

I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I see myself as a pursuer of truth and justice, so I decided to sign up and post in this thread.

For some time now I've found myself in the same mindset as read, wanting to make a substantial effort to decrease needless suffering in the world.

In my experience with hardships, the relief that comes from being helped by an outside influence is one of the best and most hopeful feelings. Imagine what those in other countries or social circles could feel if they knew that somewhere, some group of people cared enough to work for them and their livelihood.

For me, it's a simple case of reciprocity. If we were in their situation, wouldn't we want someone to look outside themselves and give a helping hand? And wouldn't it be the turning point of our lives? I think it would.

In this case, I say we strive for a deep well of empathy that will allow us to reach out to others. Essentially, we'll be helping ourselves too, for aren't we all a part of the same mirrored consciousness?

[brokenhead]

In this case, I say we strive for a deep well of empathy that will allow us to reach out to others. Essentially, we'll be helping ourselves too, for aren't we all a part of the same mirrored consciousness?

Welcome. And the answer is quite simply "yes."

[Sapius]

Laird: I hope that Sapius sees fit to pass comment on this thread when he returns from his trip because as I understand it he devotes his life to assisting the poverty-stricken.

No, not my life, but a significant portion of my well managed time. Time that I can extend by say sleeping 4 hours on average per 24. Imagine how much life can one extend by deciding to sleep just one hour less per day and using it resourcefully, for sleep is as good as death. We miss that one in an infinite of a chance given to us by existence by simply mismanaging our time and mostly indulging in unreasonable and irrational selfish pursuits.

Laird, you have expressed exactly what I might say about the subject, only too well, so I don't think I could add much for now.

As for my personal contribution, I do nothing more than use my common sense, (a rare commodity in my opinion but I don’t know why is it called “common”, contrary to my experience. A while back I was introduced to the word “"gezond verstand", meaning 'healthy sense” in Flemish, by Bert, which I too prefer as against “common sense”, or perhaps we could call it “rational sense”), to help up lift humanity and existence that I am a part of.

I have more than enough time to go into philosophical musing, or make a good living, or do things beyond what one generally finds excuses, (more than often helplessly genuine), for not being able to do certain things they would otherwise do, but I was told, where there is will there is a way, and I can prove to myself that that is true.

Each one of us does some “good” in their own way, and in the eyes of existence (Totality, Tao, God), one “good” could be no more profound or greater than another, otherwise, we could discuss our personal stand until kingdom come.

The point is, literally move ones ass and do something practically useful and helpful other than stimulating ones mind or perhaps may be others, which I don’t deny is equally important, but duality is the order of the day, and was and will ever be; The finger is as important as the moon that it points to, so mentally arriving at practical solutions, AND the meaningful manifestation are equally important, IMHO.

[Laird]

Laird: I hope that Sapius sees fit to pass comment on this thread when he returns from his trip because as I understand it he devotes his life to assisting the poverty-stricken.

Sapius: No, not my life, but a significant portion of my well managed time.

I only wish that you had shared publicly what you shared with me privately just recently, because your undertakings are truly inspiring and entirely related to what I brought up in my first post - a remedy if ever there was one. I know that you're not one to blow your own horn nor probably to wish for it to be blown on your behalf so I won't say more than that.

Time that I can extend by say sleeping 4 hours on average per 24. Imagine how much life can one extend by deciding to sleep just one hour less per day and using it resourcefully, for sleep is as good as death. We miss that one in an infinite of a chance given to us by existence by simply mismanaging our time and mostly indulging in unreasonable and irrational selfish pursuits.

Guilty as charged.

Laird, you have expressed exactly what I might say about the subject, only too well, so I don't think I could add much for now.

Well perhaps something will come to you later. I'm sure that I don't have the final word on this issue - for a start my grasp of economics is weak at best.

As for my personal contribution, I do nothing more than use my common sense, (a rare commodity in my opinion but I don’t know why is it called “common”, contrary to my experience. A while back I was introduced to the word “"gezond verstand", meaning 'healthy sense” in Flemish, by Bert, which I too prefer as against “common sense”, or perhaps we could call it “rational sense”), to help up lift humanity and existence that I am a part of.

Yes, that's a much better phrase.

I have more than enough time to go into philosophical musing, or make a good living, or do things beyond what one generally finds excuses, (more than often helplessly genuine), for not being able to do certain things they would otherwise do, but I was told, where there is will there is a way, and I can prove to myself that that is true.

Please continue to share that way with others because I am sure that you will inspire those others in no small measure, whether that even be just to plant a small seed in another's mind that one day blossoms.

Each one of us does some “good” in their own way, and in the eyes of existence (Totality, Tao, God), one “good” could be no more profound or greater than another, otherwise, we could discuss our personal stand until kingdom come.

There I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think that, say, creative contributions in the form of music or literature, are worthy of a lot of admiration, however I don't rate them as highly - in the world the way that it is right now - as poverty-alleviating actions.

The point is, literally move ones ass and do something practically useful and helpful other than stimulating ones mind or perhaps may be others, which I don’t deny is equally important, but duality is the order of the day, and was and will ever be; The finger is as important as the moon that it points to, so mentally arriving at practical solutions, AND the meaningful manifestation are equally important, IMHO.

My father is a businessman - a successful one at that - and he tells me that when it comes to personnel, the hardest part is finding someone who is a doer, someone who not only has ideas but who sees those ideas through to completion. Lord knows I am lacking enough in that quality, and I deeply admire people who finish what they start.

Now on to some writing that I promised a few posts back. In my first post to this thread I concluded by writing:

I would like anyway to suggest that the free market is probably too free, that it rewards inequitable behaviour, and that what we require is a global legislature that regulates the global economy such that the poor, rather than being exploited, are rewarded. I could of course be wrong that this is the right approach, but at the very least what I would like to see is a prohibition against sweat-shop labour.

I've thought about this a little more since then and I've come up with a few potential solutions. The first idea is a cooperative approach on the part of supermarkets and department stores. I first thought - well, why legislate anything globally - why not petition supermarkets and department stores to only purchase products that have been produced by fair means where overseas workers were payed first-world wages or similar, and had decent working conditions - sure, it would cost a little more for the consumer, but if all of the supermarkets and department stores banded together then the consumer would have no choice but to pay the slightly increased costs because unfairly produced goods simply wouldn't be placed on the market. The problem with this is that all stores need to be in on it together, otherwise (unthinking, bottom-line-only conscious) consumers will simply move to the store where the cheap, unfairly produced goods are still sold. So there would need to be some sort of inter-shop general agreement drafted, possibly at the facilitation of a non-profit organisation which would also help to provide lists of goods that meet the fairness criteria. Also, this would most likely need to be an international movement because multinational companies produce for many countries at the same time, and would most likely not change their production practices just because one country refuses to purchase their unfairly produced products.

Another option would be to involve governments in this scheme so that at first subsidies were paid on fairly produced goods to reduce their cost to that of the cheaper, unfairly produced goods - this would remove the need for inter-shop agreements but would spend taxpayer's money which could be used on other things.

[Laird]

I've had another idea - as well as (or instead of) subsidies, governments could institute "ethics" taxes. The more unethically a product is produced, the greater the rate of tax on it would be, with the aim of making more ethically produced products more appealing price-wise to the consumer. The set of ethics would be part of the legislation and there would be a government-sponsored body that performed the research on each product to determine how ethical it is; the final judgment would be open to public scrutiny and appeal by the producing company. The collected taxes would be used to specifically combat the relevant unethical behaviour - so for example for a company cutting down native forests to produce cheap paper, the taxes might go towards replanting trees.

[Sapius]

Laird,

I only wish that you had shared publicly what you shared with me privately just recently, because your undertakings are truly inspiring and entirely related to what I brought up in my first post - a remedy if ever there was one. I know that you're not one to blow your own horn nor probably to wish for it to be blown on your behalf so I won't say more than that.

That’s very kind and decent of you, but as I mentioned, it is not a secret really. I did mention it briefly, I think it was in one of those ‘worldly matters’ thread quite a while ago, and generally speaking, it’s not really an interesting subject for GF forumers, nor the hosts, and I respect this place as their home and try to abide by their rules, however, I am myself not that comfortable with disclosing details because I live quite a private life and prefer to keep it that way.

Please continue to share that way with others because I am sure that you will inspire those others in no small measure, whether that even be just to plant a small seed in another's mind that one day blossoms.

Indeed, you are absolutely right, but what I started doing over 25 years ago is not a new idea really, basically it means helping people to eventually help themselves; (this doesn’t include handing out a bowl of soup, Nat), that, in my opinion is the best way to somewhat guarantee a cleanup of corruption and achieve stability of livelihood from bottom up in the third-world. Once that is achieved and a relatively comfortable lifestyle emerges, self-confidence is regained, and then one gradually opens up to other serious issues and generally stops engaging in irrational and irresponsible activities.

I didn’t want to bring this up, but around early 90’s, a friend of mine introduced me to some intellectuals in London, and among other philosophical discussions that we were having over a beer in a pub, I don’t remember why but for some reason I happen to mention what I was doing in my small way, and it touched their rational as well as humanitarian sense which I knew they already had. The story was passed on I think, and my friend called me back to see some other people and I explained and discussed my “philosophy”. Result…Oxfam. I was quite involved in the initial stages before is was actually put together as it appears now, but I simply did not want to be a part of it because of the heavy responsibility that I would have to shoulder, and I wouldn’t have that much time for myself. I wish them good luck, and I see that they have progressed a lot since the early days.

However, the small communities or villages that I help bind together under an umbrella of a co-operative society or a corporate company, (as the need may be), many a times I direct them to Oxfam for further support in they need it. They too help small communities in finding the right international market for their product for which these small communities can now get a fair price, minus all the layers of commission agents and in between companies that eat up quite a bit of the profit which should really go to the people who really sweat. In your example, I mean major portion of the profits should not go to sweatshirt wholesalers, or retailers, but those that sweat making it. The big brand companies generally outsource a product and the factory that produces it is not fully or at times not even partially owned by the brand, so the factory owner makes a chunk of profit, and at times there are what we call ‘service’ providing companies in places like Hong Kong and Singapore that simply act as commission agents between the factory and the brand simply to ensure timely delivery and coordinate shipping, and enjoy first-world comfort, sweating in the sweatshirt only while a brief morning jog :D

S: Each one of us does some “good” in their own way, and in the eyes of existence (Totality, Tao, God), one “good” could be no more profound or greater than another, otherwise, we could discuss our personal stand until kingdom come.

L: There I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think that, say, creative contributions in the form of music or literature, are worthy of a lot of admiration, however I don't rate them as highly - in the world the way that it is right now - as poverty-alleviating actions.

And I respectfully agree, but those are our values speaking. Now you already know what I use a significant portion of my time for, but my values may not necessarily be the same as others, and I cannot really impose my values on to others or judge them by it; I once heard somewhere, a smile could be an act of charity, so who knows… You see, just as it is impossible to be absolutely self-less because of the self-centred nature of consciousness, it is also impossible to be absolutely selfish since it is naturally interdependent too; take the LSG of good and LSG of evil as the base line and look at existence in anyway, and you shall see that any absolute extreme is impossible. A perpetually flowing and a sawing balance is the name of the game; the middle path showing the way. I got a bit philosophical in the end, but I think you should get the picture.

My father is a businessman - a successful one at that - and he tells me that when it comes to personnel, the hardest part is finding someone who is a doer, someone who not only has ideas but who sees those ideas through to completion. Lord knows I am lacking enough in that quality, and I deeply admire people who finish what they start.

Give him my warm regards and respects; he is absolutely right. My father passed away quite early in my life, he was sort of a businessman too, and he once told me, ‘son, I have learnt it the hard way, through brut experience, and most are proud that they have learnt through their own experiences, but I consider them and myself a fool; wise is the one who learns from others experiences, and it is one of the hardest thing to do” I thought over it, and realized that hey! I’m no different than anyone else, so what makes me immune from pitfalls and disasters! One of the things that helped crush my false ego, eventually making me utterly humble in the face of existence.

L: I've thought about this a little more since then and I've come up with a few potential solutions. The first idea is a cooperative approach on the part of supermarkets and department stores. I first thought - well, why legislate anything globally - why not petition supermarkets and department stores to only purchase products that have been produced by fair means where overseas workers were payed first-world wages or similar, and had decent working conditions - sure, it would cost a little more for the consumer, but if all of the supermarkets and department stores banded together then the consumer would have no choice but to pay the slightly increased costs because unfairly produced goods simply wouldn't be placed on the market.

No, it should actually cost less to the consumer. I’m no economist either, but that is no rocket science. In my opinion it is greed disguised as inflation that is the culprit. You see, in what I explained above, one places the source directly in touch with the market, minimizing the share eaten away by the in betweens, so a product that reaches the shelf for say $ 3, can now be priced at $ 2.5. The source was earlier being paid 0.50 apiece, but now they can comfortably sell at $ 2 and take care of the shipping etc themselves since now they are a registered company with paid professional staff. And the supermarket is glad to buy at $ 2 since earlier it paid $ 2.5 for it and can now compete in the open market. Now the catch is, the supermarket should not get that greedy and say that since $ 3 is the prevailing price so let me pocket $1 rather than stick to my usual .50 profit. One of the reasons for companies striving for higher profits is to keep their shareholders comfortably happy, (or a single owner or partners), and increase their share value, while the executives draw a fat salary. I know people that complain about high cost of living, ironically, specially buy shares of companies that has the potential of some sort of monopoly, to gain better dividends, not realizing the vicious circle. They actually pay for, as consumers, what they receive as dividends being shareholders.

However, at least, in the source to market system, if the consumer eventually pays through his nose to keep the executives and shareholders happy, the source is fairly paid and their life improves significantly.

[Sapius]

I've had another idea - as well as (or instead of) subsidies, governments could institute "ethics" taxes. The more unethically a product is produced, the greater the rate of tax on it would be, with the aim of making more ethically produced products more appealing price-wise to the consumer. The set of ethics would be part of the legislation and there would be a government-sponsored body that performed the research on each product to determine how ethical it is; the final judgment would be open to public scrutiny and appeal by the producing company. The collected taxes would be used to specifically combat the relevant unethical behaviour - so for example for a company cutting down native forests to produce cheap paper, the taxes might go towards replanting trees.

Now that’s a worthwhile idea! If you do not have the resources to do it yourself, at least you can share it at TAD.

Since you are very much capable of it, you could refine it and write up a presentable paper.
I will do what I can to direct it to proper sources that may make a real difference.

No harm in trying... right?

[Laird]

Sapius,

Thanks for sharing so much in that longer post of yours - I won't respond to it beyond this but it resonated with me (inspiration for Oxfam! Way cool man!). And let me just say that if mikiel has an enlightenment-groupie in Sam, then you have an enlightenment-groupie in me. Insofar as I'm able to judge with the limited amount that I know about the members of this community, you are in my opinion the most enlightened person on this forum. Actions speak louder than words.

Now that’s a worthwhile idea! If you do not have the resources to do it yourself, at least you can share it at TAD.

Thanks for the encouragement. :-)

Hmm, I had a quick look at that site and it seems like they expect videoed speeches there - is that what you're suggesting that I do? Write up a speech on this idea and video myself delivering it and then send it in? I think that I'd prefer to stick with a written approach to be honest - I don't know that I'm really up to the task of speech delivery right now.

Since you are very much capable of it, you could refine it and write up a presentable paper.

Yes, I could do that. I'll mull it over for a while and see what I can come up with.

I will do what I can to direct it to proper sources that may make a real difference.

Thanks. I might ask for your advice on the sorts of things to cover too. Right now I'm thinking of addressing the need for this system, describing the bureaucratic mechanisms that it would involve, and detailing some of the ethics that would form the basis of determining the taxation on each product.

No harm in trying... right?

Exactly. I have another big but somewhat unrelated idea that I'm going to post to the forum in a new thread when there's a bit of a lull. Perhaps you'll comment on that one too and suggest which one you think is more deserving of my energy.

[Sapius]

you are in my opinion the most enlightened person on this forum.

Humm… Laird, if by that you mean a decent and a rational person, then fine, otherwise I don’t particularly like the word. Just as Elizabeth, I too believe it carries a huge egoistical baggage. So please…

Hmm, I had a quick look at that site and it seems like they expect videoed speeches there - is that what you're suggesting that I do? Write up a speech on this idea and video myself delivering it and then send it in?

No, it is not like YouTube that you upload (or send in) your video. You have to send in the gist of your idea on paper, and be invited for a detailed live speech in front of people that have a relative connection to the subject, and a dicsussion may follow. For example, the grandfather of a friend of mine who lives in Canada was the guy who initially coined up the idea and implemented what is now called VAT (value added tax). People like such could be invited to your talk if you incorporate a hint of what’s in it for the government, as in added revenue to run the country.

I think that I'd prefer to stick with a written approach to be honest - I don't know that I'm really up to the task of speech delivery right now.

Up to you, but I think all you may need is a mirror to practice… they wouldn’t mind the beard ;) and not that you need a professor Higgins of the My Fair Lady fame… do you?

Thanks. I might ask for your advice on the sorts of things to cover too.

I think I will start thinking on what you have proposed right away.

DND – sign is in effect.

PS: at times I might have to be a devil's advocate to really hash this out.

[Laird]

Laird: you are in my opinion the most enlightened person on this forum.

Sapius: Humm… Laird, if by that you mean a decent and a rational person, then fine, otherwise I don’t particularly like the word. Just as Elizabeth, I too believe it carries a huge egoistical baggage. So please…

Yeah, I mean something like that. Don't worry, it's home-brand enlightenment - pretty safe stuff, certainly nothing as far-fetched as "realising the non-inherent nature of reality" or "realising that the self is an illusion" or some other such abstract meaninglessness.

No, it is not like YouTube that you upload (or send in) your video. You have to send in the gist of your idea on paper, and be invited for a detailed live speech in front of people that have a relative connection to the subject, and a dicsussion may follow. For example, the grandfather of a friend of mine who lives in Canada was the guy who initially coined up the idea and implemented what is now called VAT (value added tax). People like such could be invited to your talk if you incorporate a hint of what’s in it for the government, as in added revenue to run the country.

Intriguing. I'm not sure how I'd finance a trip to the USA assuming that they even accepted my proposal but hey, it's a nice dream. Perhaps you would be a better candidate - you seem to have a fairly generous travel budget.

Laird: I think that I'd prefer to stick with a written approach to be honest - I don't know that I'm really up to the task of speech delivery right now.

Sapius: Up to you, but I think all you may need is a mirror to practice… they wouldn’t mind the beard ;) and not that you need a professor Higgins of the My Fair Lady fame… do you?

Haha, no, I'm not quite that uncouth...

I think I will start thinking on what you have proposed right away.

DND – sign is in effect.

PS: at times I might have to be a devil's advocate to really hash this out.

Excellent. I shall read Krishnamurti's biography whilst you gather your arguments.

By the way, I decided that we are in a lull and went ahead and posted the thread that I alluded to in my last post: A world without war.

[Sapius]

.

Laird’s Ethics Tax/Duty; on consumer products.

The more unethically a product is produced, the greater the rate of tax/duty on it would be, with the aim of making more ethically produced products more appealing price-wise to the consumer.

So an unethical company/product may profit as much as they like, but they would have to pay a heavier price any ways; a good deterrent already, and automatically the ethical product incurs less cost.

The set of ethics would be part of the legislation and there would be a government-sponsored body that performed the research on each product to determine how ethical it is;

Would unethical profiteering by any of the manufacturers (locally and overseas), and/or inter-mediators, and/or the importer/distributor, and/or a reseller, and/or a retailer, be included?

How and who will set the standards of ethical profits? The Buying or the Selling country? The buying country (BC) has more of a clout to dictate the terms, so I guess the SC can sign a trade agreement with the BC if they are interested in export/economic growth, which they surely are. So the SC should satisfy the BC by setting government imposed level of minimum wages for each sector of manufactured product, but not before setting similar standards in the raw-material sector, and the logistics/shipping sector.

BTW, certain countries already have a minimum wages ceiling for certain low paid sectors, but not in the third-world countries, and even if they had, it would be quite difficult to implement or monitor, due to lack of concerned department and/or staff, or the mother all problems, corruption!

the final judgment would be open to public scrutiny and appeal by the producing company.

Fair enough, that also gives a chance for the unethical company to cleanup their act, before ending up in court battles.

The collected taxes would be used to specifically combat the relevant unethical behaviour - so for example for a company cutting down native forests to produce cheap paper, the taxes might go towards replanting trees.

Right... it could also be used for subsidizing food products and/or necessary home appliances within third-world countries, with substantial or reasonable contributions from the BC.

It's a start... Your turn.

---------

Perhaps you would be a better candidate - you seem to have a fairly generous travel budget.

Nah… not a candidate, I prefer anonymity, but I could always finance your trip if it comes to that.

By the way, I decided that we are in a lull and went ahead and posted the thread that I alluded to in my last post: A world without war.

I shall look into it.

[sear]

"Love is a cause of hate." attributed to Carl

Psychologist Joy Browne says hate is not the opposite of love; indifference is the opposite of love.

If I may:

the more entrenched injustices of the world...

Perhaps many if not most of them arise from the notion that the use of coercive force or fraud in so many matters is legitimate.

I'm not an anarchist. But I'm a libertarian.

Is it really so unreasonable to base society on the noble principle of the Golden Rule?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's not sufficient as a body of secular laws.
But it's a legitimate principle, and perhaps solid enough to emplace in the foundation of a society.

From my own half century plus of experience as a U.S. citizen, much of the "entrenched injustice" I experience is either directly at the hand of U.S. governments, or is perpetrated with their knowledge and approval.

Government is substantially more the problem than the solution.

In the 18th Century, U.S. government was the People's servant.
In the 21st Century, U.S. government is the People's belligerent, judgmental, punitive master.

[Laird]

Sapius,

Thanks for your reply. I have one in progress but might crash before finishing it - it's 8.07am here and I haven't slept yet. It's quite tricky to think this thing through properly but rest assured that I'm on the job.

[sear]

"I'm a newcomer to this forum ..." solitude_Within

Hello solitude_Within. Welcome to Genius Forums.

"In my experience with hardships, the relief that comes from being helped by an outside influence is one of the best and most hopeful feelings." solitude_Within

"One of"?
Perhaps.
Rescue can be (though is not always) welcome.

In my experience I've found working my own way out of a jam is generally the more satisfying.

But in any case thanks for joining us solitude_Within.
Visit often. Post a lot.

[Shahrazad]

Sear, just fyi, posting a lot is not allowed in this forum. Ask Elizabeth Isabelle; she was chided for making too many posts.

[brokenhead]

Sear, just fyi, posting a lot is not allowed in this forum. Ask Elizabeth Isabelle; she was chided for making too many posts.

Shahrazad, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Shahrazad]

E was told she was making too many posts.

[brokenhead]

I didn't know there was any kind of limit. But lets not dredge things up. I think I understand now.

[|read|]

They actually pay for, as consumers, what they receive as dividends being shareholders. - Sapius

You know, I never thought of it that way. I'm glad I read that post. Thanks for making me think.

However, what always defeats my optimism is scale and game theory. Say I pull out of my mutual fund so as to remove some of the incentive for corporations to rape the consumer. My stake in each of the companies in the fund is minuscule, some infinitesimal fraction of 1 percent. So I've now given up whatever money I'd be making with the fund, in order to say, drop the price of milk by 10^-9 cents, or something like that? If I were the only person to do so, would I make any difference at all, or would I merely have some chance of making a difference, and some chance that my iota of a cent would get lost in some low-level economic noise (hell knows there are a whole lot of much bigger influences on the market)? Either way, hundreds of thousands or millions of other people would have to do the same thing in order to see any significant difference in the price of milk.

I know, I know, if everyone thought that way, no one would stop buying stocks, and prices would continue to be inflated. In fact, that's what's happening, in part (and in part, there are the people who don't even think about these things in the first place). But that doesn't make the preceding paragraph any less true. My personal decision to keep the fund or drop it has little or no effect on anyone else's decision to do likewise. By dropping it, I'd be putting myself at a loss and achieving essentially nothing. I don't see this as a matter of being idealistic versus caving in to pragmatism - what's so idealistic about achieving nothing?

It's like the prisoner's dilemma - we all end up at a less-than-optimal result because we can't trust each other. The only way to beat the prisoner's dilemma is if you know you can trust the other guy* - but I think my doubt is justified that people will all suddenly start pulling out of the stock market. And even if a large number of people did pull out, would this actually reduce the incentive of corporations to rape the consumer? Even if all their stocks were owned by a smaller group of people, their psychopathic nature remains the same - they're required by law to put stockholder interests above all else. (And this is all assuming making money off the stock market and paying higher prices is not the overall optimal result anyway - whether it is or not depends on how much money everyone makes and how high the prices are, and it'd be simplistic to think a priori they must be directly proportional.)

So my question is, do you invest in the stock market (or would you invest if you had the opportunity, in the case that you don't have the opportunity)? Why or why not? A tilting-at-windmills kind of reason wouldn't be enough for me.

*You can beat the iterated prisoner's dilemma with an initially-trusting, thereafter-tit-for-tat, occasionally-forgiving strategy, but I don't know how or if that applies to this situation.

[Carl G]

Visit often. Post thoughtfully.

[Sapius]

[read];

So my question is, do you invest in the stock market (or would you invest if you had the opportunity, in the case that you don't have the opportunity)? Why or why not? A tilting-at-windmills kind of reason wouldn't be enough for me.

I don’t and never have, nor do I wish, or really need as long as I can use my intelligence in a logically consistent manner. I guess I saw through that vicious circle quite early in life. I don’t know what would be a ‘windmill kind of reason’, but I can simply express my reasoning and you be the judge. I can only speak for myself.

As long as I can make a decent living (definition of which is dependant on ones desires, and that’s a real problem in my view), without getting in the game of speculation, I have no reason to amass more wealth than I comfortably need. If a Toyota pretty well serves my purpose, why do I need a Lotus for example? However, since individually tends to express itself, I currently drive a 2005 Model Verossa JZX-110 - VVTi; the 2.5 liter 295 horsepower Turbo version in all black leather interior and metallic black exterior, but at the same time I’m not emotionally attached to it either, which may be quite difficult for someone else to understand or believe. For example, I don’t very well care who drives my car, or even smashes it up; I'll get a Honda then, or whatever. How difficult could it be to pay monthly installments with the decent amount of intelligence that I have?

Most of the old folks for example have their money invested in the stock market if they have saved any, why? One of the reasons is they have not lived their lives more logically and succumbed to their desires when young. Plus, they are not being properly (another definition related point) taken care of by government or their immediate relatives in many cultures as much as it really needs. Singapore is one good example where various complex “taxes” are levied essentially keeping the well-being of old folks in mind, who get pretty good returns during working years and after retirement, including good enough savings to use as they like. In other words, the government recognizes the truth how stupid young age can generally be.

Speculation generally involves making money over someone else’s misfortune or sense of adventure; the people with the sense of adventure occupy the trading floor and those that invest for fulfilling unreasonable selfish desires, and we know who the unfortunate ones are; those that have no idea what share market really means or its vicious circle, and are simply interested in looking at what they receive rather than what leaves from the back door or is at risk.

I’m not saying that a well-balanced risk in stocks and bonds does not bring in healthy returns, but a part of it is an illusion that actually supports inflation. It would take an attempt like Laird’s ‘world without wars’ to think over a ‘world without stock-markets’, or al least a system that provides a reasonable return on investment, without high-risk speculation involved. I’m no economist, so I would urge those that are, or have the potential to think over it and do something for humanity’s well-being, cutting the crap of extreme individual selfishness that takes us down as a whole. Global warming is one such example of extreme individualistic selfishness that would eventually affect each individual negatively.

I respond better when questioned point by point, since not being a good writer, have problems giving full account at one go; and there are so may related issues to any one issue, and unless something else is not in mind, the immediate issue seems clouded.

[DHodges]

So my question is, do you invest in the stock market (or would you invest if you had the opportunity, in the case that you don't have the opportunity)?

It is possible to invest ethically.