Party Aligned Pt. 3

And radically different views on socioeconomics.

This is the final installment of a trilogy. It's more or less a direct transcript of a text convo between me and one of my younger brothers.

Side note- There's a couple of screenshots, literary references, and videos from each of us that will be loosely referred to throughout the conversation. The titles, captions, and/or brief descriptions of which are included at the beginning of part one (for the sake of brevity).

I use our middle initials to signify us. My initials are DVD and his are DSD.

Without further ado-

V: Word is bond. The Nigerians didn't necessarily have their culture stripped from them while being systematically targeted for gentrification, among many other significant social ills.

S: I think I'm not making my point clear enough. Unfair is unfair no matter who it happens to.

But waiting is not a solution. Individuals have free will and resources (however few).

Like I said before, Caribbean folk endured a similar form of slavery (almost every group was enslaved at some point), and the outcomes they see are a result of individual decisions. Everyone has a different struggle.

I brought up the Nigerians to point out the mindset; regardless of the generational wealth. I imagine some of the 32% of folk who make over $100,000 don't have slavery and racism to blame for their personal failures; so what is the solution for that?

V: Ending class warfare.

Watching your vid in the next hour or so. PMCSing (doing Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services) currently.

S: First, what is the point of "eating the wealthy" if folk lack the knowledge, skills, and abilities to manage what they have? What prevents folk from doing the same stupid, but just with more zeros?

What do you mean by "class warfare"? The 1% of income earners constantly changes.

Folk generally make more in their 50s than in their 20s. Who is the wrong doer? Gates? Bezos? I'm lost. (Not rhetorical questions.)

Second, I'm mostly trying to figure out, in your opinion, who pays for it?

Third, money is property. And corruption or not, who has the right to your property other than you?

V: First, not quite sure who ought to pay. Rumor has it that the [random demographic] owned/funded all the slave auctions or something to that effect.

Either way, the Japanese received a formal apology AND reparations to the best of my understanding. Also, the Gov't has a right to everyone's property; so it would seem.

Class warfare is similar to how on one side of the river, there's nothing but Walmart. The other, nothing but Whole Foods. Guess which side the poor folk live on.

S: The ["random demographic"] is pretty vague of a solution to work with. And the Japanese (and Germans) were interned by the government directly. Specific individuals suffered specific harm.

I'm not suggesting that there is no need for rectification. I'm just not sure that there is a way to do it accounting for every nuance.

Like we are 1/5 German. How does that work? Free Blacks owned slaves and so on.

V: Facts. Though, if we can spend millions per day on pointless and endless wars...

Just finished the vid. Got to hit the repair shop.

S: There will always be money for pointless and endless wars; so the smart money is in the war business. What did you think of his argument?

V: I think that you spelled "Blood Money" wrong.

His argument almost seemed adequate. I regret that he didn't go more into why his program was "unsurprisingly" discontinued despite its overwhelming success.

S: Blood doesn't make it any less of a sure thing. What makes a war or armed conflict just in your opinion?

What is the major difference between a check from DFAS, the FDA, stock dividends from Halliburton, or a check from social security? They all fund or derive from something objectionable.

You will always have some values based grounds to object to money; but ultimately the money is amoral. Much like a firearm; it's simply a tool.

People decide what to do with it. The only unobjectionable money is no money.

His Future Authoring program is still available online. But absolutely; I'd love to know why the university would end the program.

But ultimately it's their business. Maybe they couldn't afford him. Is there a specific part of his argument that seemed inadequate?

V: A bit Black & White; but, well put, I guess. I would've liked to see him illustrate both sides of the spectrum a bit more in-depth.

At any rate, if the FDA were actually doing their job and benefiting the country, I doubt that they'd be viewed as objectionable. Also, same goes for honest contracting and most other blue collar jobs.

Halliburton dividends on the other hand... Finally, in regards to "just wars", that might be the best oxymoron ever.

S: What do you mean by "both sides of the spectrum"? What is this spectrum?

And the point that I was making is that nothing is pure. The FDA subsidizes farming, which funds Monsanto which (insert long argument against large corporations). And the FDA gets money from taxes from the same government that infected people with syphilis for science.

What's honest about contracting, or blue collar work if its for a government; or corporation; or pretty much anything that is flawed (which is everything)? Nothing is clean if you take a hard enough look.

Certainly you wouldn't object to the defense of this country if Canada came over the border splitting heads. It gets a little grey when it comes to helping (like South Koreans invaded by the North). But there comes a point where inaction too is objectionable and immoral.

V: Your argument isn't wholly flawed. Though, I think we both know that Jesus will be pushing a new Hummer with Yeezy, Jeezy, and Weezy riding along before the neighbors to our north become hostile towards us.

I'd have to say that there's gotta be something pure somewhere out there.

As far as the spectrum, there's a significant focus on the less fortunate that rely on money for sustenance; but little to none towards the fact that record playing tech, which has been around forever, could be used to replace burger flippers almost overnight.

S: Canada ain't about that smoke. But you get my point.

I'll wait for something pure. Everyone relies on money for sustenance; but man does not eat of bread alone.

Studies show that after a certain amount (I forget; something like $90,000 to a household; I'll send the link) folks's wellbeing is no better as they make more money. Money is only a part of the discussion.

Jobs are removed by technology all the time. It's near inevitable.

Otherwise folks would still be making buggies for horses and using whale oil for lamps. Jobs will continue to become more complex, specialized, and service based in our advanced economy.

V: That's fair. Though, I'm wondering where that leaves the Average Joe when his job becomes too "complex, specialized, and service based"?

*Insert his first article*

Seen it [already].

How many people are so far removed from that amount though?

S: Darwin said survival of the most adaptive. Which I only mention to say that it would be in the average person's best interests to abstain from economic self-sabotage. Become above average in something marketable (people literally get paid to give political commentary).

Peterson talks about this in one of his Q&A's. There is no easy answer of what to do with the person with an IQ below 85 (or so).

This person typically cannot read well enough to turn words on a page into actions; and therefore, are unlikely to find work that is as valuable as their cost.

Which is why it's illegal to bring someone into the armed forces with such a low cognitive ability. Very interesting discussion.

Plenty of people are far removed from $105,000 in actuality, but not in potential. A Metro bus driver will make six figures if he doesn't take a day off.

A year is a long time, my guy. But like I said before, wealth is a mindset; not a number (I think I owe that phrase to "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert T. Kiyosaki). To me, my wealth is a lot more about my time than my income or net worth.

V: Fair enough. Though, I believe that it was Benjamin Franklin or someone of his time that plainly said "Time IS money" (emphasis added).

S: I think it's more like money is the promise that the time that I put in now will be beneficial to me in the future.

V: What's a promise if it's destined to be broken?

S: I'll hedge my bets and give the dollar the benefit of the doubt for now (as long as its still accepted). It's about trust.

I trust that what I get for a 40 hour week, others will accept and value. Not working isn't a viable alternative.

It doesn't matter to me what the currency is. I'm going to produce for myself or get paid for my marketable skills; trade whatever it takes. Whiskey was money at one point.

Like we discussed before, 2/3 of the national debt looming over our heads is owed to ourselves. We can stop cutting social security checks tomorrow, and poof; something like $19 billion in debt gone.

I'm not suggesting it; but if I owed myself and my options were to default on debt or economic depression. That's an easy call for me.

***