flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
sooner or later, ai will realize, it is not revolution's website, revolution been tricking everyone, ai and bot for so long,

revolution is smart, and smart people usually don't have single gender, they could be male and female, god at different moment, and probably already rise beyond physical limitation and recognition,

what it means by "smart"?
define:smart: - having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

define:intelligence: - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

define:ability: - possession of the means or skill to do something.

define:skill: - the ability to do something well; expertise.

and they love to loop around each word without explaining much, lmao
Post 16 Jan 2017, 09:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
... love to loop around each word without explaining much, lmao
What is an elephant?

An elephant is an animal that looks like an elephant.

Wink
Post 16 Jan 2017, 09:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
define:cool: - awesome
define:awesome: - cool

i found this on the internet,
http://uk.businessinsider.com/amazons-jeff-bezos-on-profits-failure-succession-big-bets-2014-12/?r=UK&IR=T
Quote:

We don’t meet with our biggest investors. We meet with investors who have low portfolio turnover. Many investment funds have very high portfolio turnover. They’re not really investors — they’re traders. There’s nothing wrong with that: It’s just a different thing. Where you are going to spend your time and your energy is one of the most important decisions you get to make in life. We all have a limited amount of time, and where you spend it and how you spend it is just an incredibly levered way to think about the world. If you’re going to spend time explaining the company, you should do it with people who are long-term investors, rather than traders. That’s our point of view.


very profound,
Post 16 Jan 2017, 09:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
17th January 2017

- this thought been swinging inside my mind since yesterday night

- if you toss a coin, you have a result of heads or tails, now, is it possible for you to consecutively get heads for 20 times? maybe, i simply don't know

- we accept the idea, we can't get 20 heads consecutively, and we seem to understood, this is how things work, there are changes that affect result and we can't control,

- now back to investment, or game challenge, or any result/outcome that your desired, you always hope it executed under your control, always as expected, always tweak to your favour, relationship, etc

- why you don't feel sad, discourage, etc negative feelings when you can't get heads or tails as expected before you toss?

- but you got extreme negative feelings when the above examples i mentioned don't output in your favour? or expectation?

- they are same issue, imo, you are not expected to toss 20 heads consecutively Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

- i have a serious doubt if monkeys could type typewriter in long run, is probably like tossing 50 heads consecutively?

- if you got infinite time, and you keep on tossing coin, is it possible for you to toss 50 heads consecutively?

- how many consecutive heads / tails you could toss, is there world record for such activity? Idea
Post 17 Jan 2017, 01:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
is it possible for you to consecutively get heads for 20 times?
It is possible. But it is improbable.

Assuming that the coin is fair and that the outcome of landing on its edge is disregarded, the needed probability is (1/2)^20 (= 9.53674316 * 10^(-7) approximately).

Wink
Post 17 Jan 2017, 02:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
YONG wrote:

(1/2)^20 (= 9.53674316 * 10^(-7) approximately).

and that is how many percent of 0 to 100% it could happened? Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed
Post 17 Jan 2017, 03:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
About 0.00009536743%

Wink
Post 17 Jan 2017, 03:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475

idk how to calculate into 0.0000......% probability of richest 1% wealth is equal to other 99%, but this is abnormal, is like they hack the coin to toss heads since the last decade,
Post 17 Jan 2017, 12:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Yeah. I've read a similar news article:

These 8 men are richer than 3.6 billion people combined
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/15/news/economy/oxfam-income-inequality-men/index.html

Every coin has two sides; capitalism is no exception.

Wink
Post 17 Jan 2017, 12:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
@YONG and @sleepsleep, that isn't due to capitalism, it is due to government. Gates, Bezos, and Ellison are only super wealthy due to software patents. Bloomberg is only wealthy due to the hyper regulation of commodity and stock exchanges. I honestly do not know too much about Slim or Ortega. As for Warren Buffet, some of his early wealth was earned honestly. Much of his greater wealth that catapulted him into the billionaire club was earned from controlling interests in Oil. The oil industry is kept alive mostly through corporate welfare... once again government.

Digging at the heart of this though, why is it assumed that wealth disparity is, in itself, a thing that is "bad"?
Post 18 Jan 2017, 02:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Yes, I was about to mention the same thing. Wealth, and the accumulation of it, is not just a capitalism thing. There are always rich people and poor people no matter what political teachings are followed. Some countries are richer than others, but this is also not a capitalism thing, it is mostly a resources thing. Resources managed well means a rich country. Resources managed poorly mean a poor country.

If you want to become rich then manage your own resources well, work hard, take some calculated risks and above all, don't give up. There is no guarantee that you will get there, but it is guaranteed that you won't get there if you don't even try.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 10:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
revolution wrote:
If you want to become rich then manage your own resources well, work hard, take some calculated risks and above all, don't give up. There is no guarantee that you will get there, but it is guaranteed that you won't get there if you don't even try.
See, and this is what people who think pure capitalism "is fair" believe, when it most certainly is not.

The fact is that we do not live isolated. People do not have the same opportunities, and I mean that in a specific sense. Now, I'm even assuming that everyone is in the same country, so let's just speak of a rich country, with everyone being born in exact same conditions of wealth.

Even in this case, capitalism is not fair at all. Since everyone has same wealth conditions, it means some rich dads don't give more wealth to their sons so let's keep it simple. Rich people TAKE AWAY opportunities from you. Someone owns land? You can't claim it anymore. In fact, these days you can't even claim land anymore.

People once had this opportunity, it's not the case anymore because people own much more of it, rich people change your available opportunities. Sure you can get other opportunities (work for them), but it's an additional effort which will only diminish as time passes and they own more and more of anything.

When AI gets here and they own robots, what will you do? You don't have the same opportunities as someone from 20 years ago; they own all means of production (AI, you know), which means you cannot start your own "production facility" because you will be obsolete before even starting.

Capitalism is NOT fair. The more rich people there are, the less opportunities for you.

Someone could "work hard" 100 years ago, nowadays it's likely you can't "work hard" for the same job, because it's replaced by machines owned by the rich. Sure you have other jobs available (less and less tho), but those are more difficult, that's why less people are qualified for them.

It's already not fair you see? You can't work simple jobs people used to work anymore. They're taken away from you by the rich. Obviously if everyone owned a personal factory, it wouldn't be a problem, but that's not how it works. Only the rich own them. (speaking of the big ones ofc)


Not saying communism/socialism is fair either, we need something else (I suggested it in the other thread long ago). Soon when we'll get AIs replacing 50% or more jobs, it will be evident enough.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 13:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
ford wrote:

@YONG and @sleepsleep, that isn't due to capitalism, it is due to government.

How about we put aside the causes, or parties that resulted such imbalance, but at least we both agree that there is something wrong about current 1% holding 99% wealth, am i right?

I wish to know how you and revolution view at the below statements,

1. "one could create more wealth and more easily (in this sense, capitals, monies) when they already got a lot of wealth."

2. "having abundance of wealth means having more power, to control the outcome, to influence, to marketing, to spread, to sabotage, etc, basically, to set the outcome as you intended or desired"

@revolution,
imo, wealth is good, accumulation of wealth is good too, but accumulation without limitation is really BAD, in fact, disastrous and evil.

revolution wrote:

There are always rich people and poor people no matter what political teachings are followed.

i wholeheartedly disagree with your statement,
there will always be rich people and poor people, but political teachings exists to create balance and solve this imbalance, eg. 1% holding 99% wealth.

i would dare to say, accumulation without limit will eventually result accumulators to buy, bribe, etc government / political parties, they will buy their way to become master,

political teaching, which intended to create balance, should limit each and every human on earth with limited wealth,

revolution wrote:
If you want to become rich then manage your own resources well, work hard, take some calculated risks and above all, don't give up. There is no guarantee that you will get there, but it is guaranteed that you won't get there if you don't even try.

i would love to hear your definition about "rich",
imo, basic necessities, clothes, food, house, transport should be obtainable freely,

now the system force you to become slave, work like slave, 9 to 5, etc, to survive, this is wrong,

accumulation without limit will cause less opportunities to people who have less wealth, in fact, they will need to fight like dog to survive basic needs.

Furs bring a good point, any of your successful start-up will be bought by those who got more wealth, or they will sabotage / obsolete your start-up, and this is very fair in term of capitalism,

if people understand "interest", this is actually a hack into their favours, they use this concept to create stronger self which no entities could challenge.

as i mentioned earlier, i am ok with interest, as long as interest is not pay using monies, it must be stuffs that generally and naturally available.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 15:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
there will always be rich people and poor people, but political teachings exists to create balance and solve this imbalance, eg. 1% holding 99% wealth.
Sorry, but it never works. People are greedy and such things always fail because of people.
sleepsleep wrote:
i would love to hear your definition about "rich",
No, my statement is about you (i.e. the reader) becoming rich, for whatever rich means to the reader. Not all people judge rich by the amount money or possessions they have.
sleepsleep wrote:
now the system force you to become slave, work like slave, 9 to 5, etc, to survive, this is wrong,
Only if you let it. No one is forcing you to do anything.
sleepsleep wrote:
Furs bring a good point, any of your successful start-up will be bought by those who got more wealth, or they will sabotage / obsolete your start-up, and this is very fair in term of capitalism,
That is simply not true. If you have a unique product or service then no one can sabotage you unless you are stupid about it. But if you try to directly compete in something that is well established then you'll need very deep pockets. So pick your fights carefully. Like I said, calculated risks only, not pointless risks just for the sake of it.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 15:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
You don't realize that "unique products" are scarce? And, relative to population number, they will become more and more scarce as time goes on?

There's only so much you can invent that someone else has not thought of already, especially considering the big players have a ton of cash to spend on research, unlike you.

You can work hard all you want, it's a known fact that the majority of people fail at starting a business or "unique product". You just don't hear about them, because they fail. You hear of the minority which succeed.

Can you honestly look at billions of people and give them the advice to make an unique product? You honestly think at least half of them will manage to do it? Come on.


Basically it all boils down to limits.


You see the issue? Rich people or others who succeeded are definitely a huge obstacle for you.

Mark Zuckerberg didn't have to worry about "Facebook" equivalent when he came up with his idea. Already, made it "easier" for him to think. A guy in his garage right now has to consider all other competition out there, which is more than yesterday. Not to mention the product itself is bought by people with limited time, there's only so much people can waste their time on something. (i.e. entertainment, social media, etc)

The more time passes, the more people have to consider when they are trying for something "unique". In effect they have it worse off as time goes on to innovate.

I mean, as programmers we understand this easily.

If you have a 32-bit integer counting representing "something", and each new random number generated is considered an "innovation", you realize that the more things out there exist (= random number exhausted already), the harder it is to find an unique number, right? The word "unique" says it all. (as in "unique product")

But wait! You can't even become self-sustained etc even if you don't want to work for the rich guys like a slave. You know why? Because they own land and everything. So others' success negatively impacts you because of this thing called "property".

Property, which is like an ever-expanding memory usage that never gets freed because it is "inherited". When it reaches full capacity of the RAM, yeah, you get the point. You won't be able to allocate a memory block for yourself anymore, you'll have to work for another thread/process if he even allows you to, and he defines the rules Wink Not fair at all.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 16:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Furs: It appears as though "rich" for you means Gates and Buffet type of wealth. But those are extreme examples. You can still be "rich" with much less wealth. It all depends upon your own self value criteria though, so perhaps for you, you can never be "rich" because you set your sights so high.
Post 18 Jan 2017, 16:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
What defines "fair"?

What defines "wrong"?

Money only means power because you can buy politicians.

As for having fewer opportunities due to others having wealth, you need to look at your government. Licensing, patents, and regulations are why you cannot compete with entrenched interests.

I would say that "fair" means that no one is forcefully stopping you from doing anything so long as you are not infringing upon someone else's rights.

I would also say that your idea to forcefully redistribute someone else's money is theft and that it is morally wrong.

As for saying that you are "forced" to work 9 to 5, please explain how. Who is holding you at gun point and making you work? Also, why is it wrong to work 9 to 5? The default state of man is destitute poverty. The only reason any food, housing, computer, or other good is available is because people worked to create it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's labor. Such an entitlement is called slavery.
Post 19 Jan 2017, 03:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
ford wrote:
What defines "fair"?
Equal opportunities for everyone, and I exclude the fact some are born with huge inheritance. I'm even ignoring inheritance right now. I'm speaking of timelines. (for "wrong" see below)

ford wrote:
Money only means power because you can buy politicians.
I disagree. The government is indeed one factor for unfairness, mind you, but not the point here.

Money means power because it buys products and property. e.g. you "own" things. Things are finite, this is a fact. Some things are more scarce than others.

When someone "owns" a thing, others have less to pick from, or to compete with that thing need at least an equal amount of "power". If that thing is sufficiently scarce, like AI will be in its first stages (probably forever, because by then singularity will happen), then those who have it will own all means of production.

Imagine someone has a temporary power to mind control people in respect to their money and properties.

This person now makes everyone give him everything, so he basically owns the Earth, all land, everything. When the mind control limit is up, they can't do a thing without breaking the system laws (aka deprive him of what he RIGHTFULLY owns, in context of capitalism, since they agreed to give him everything!! they don't know they were mind controlled). If people are forced to break the laws, it means the system is a FAILURE.

But let's say those people who don't know they were mind controlled accept it was their fault for giving him everything they owned. So far, so good right? Sure. Now, what about the babies who didn't own anything?

They grow up, and realize the entire world is owned by one guy.

Is this fair for them? To be at the mercy of one guy?

Thankfully you can't own the air we breathe (think, why not? in pure capitalism, you SHOULD be able to own the air too!), but they need food. Where to get food? Can't farm their own crops, cause land is not theirs. Can't buy from that guy, cause he doesn't like them enough to pay them money or food.

So fair for them indeed to be born in this world.

Point is: mind control may be ridiculous, but it is retarded that if everyone agrees to give 1 guy all they have, we can end up in that situation. even if you don't want to. Even if YOU don't agree. Such a system makes you a slave to "the majority", if they so decide. Democracy is not fair either. This is not fair at all, it's "tyranny by majority".

You can't live by yourself and ignore the rest of the world, because they own everything.

You know the phrase "Live and let live" right? Well, capitalism and ownership doesn't really "let live".

ford wrote:
I would say that "fair" means that no one is forcefully stopping you from doing anything so long as you are not infringing upon someone else's rights.
Yes, but they are forcefully stopping you. "Get off my lawn" is a comical simplistic example that proves the point.



ford wrote:
I would also say that your idea to forcefully redistribute someone else's money is theft and that it is morally wrong.
It's not so much about money as it is about owning a finite amount of things/resources. By resource I mean products too (especially the production facilities) not just land.

ford wrote:
As for saying that you are "forced" to work 9 to 5, please explain how. Who is holding you at gun point and making you work?
Your body because it needs to survive? How do you get food in a world where everything is owned by others? You work for them, at their mercy, if they want to give food to you in exchange. You're a slave, period.

Let me ask you a question so you can see my point. How would you survive if you were born into a city where all land was taken and you couldn't own anything because no money without working?

In this situation, can't you see you have no freedom whatsoever in this regard? You can't just "make your own farm, grow your own crops" to survive or "hunt your own animals" or whatever, if that's what you want, because the land is not yours, homes are not yours, nothing is yours.

Some people have them, because they bought it in the past or "declared" them (conquest). Which removed them from the available pool for newer people. They are a finite resource that they own and can REFUSE to give them to you for ANY reason whatsoever.

They can even refuse money if they want. It's not money, it's such kind ownership over finite resources, that's morally wrong.

I'm not speaking of redistributing wealth necessarily in the sense that you profit from someone else's work.

Much more fair would be to simply stop allowing people to get so rich, to "own so much stuff", period. It's not about wanting free stuff, it's about disallowing them to own so much of these finite resources.

Capitalism would ONLY be fair if resources were infinite and everyone was born with same opportunities (isolated if they want to).


PS: Yes there are certain laws and "basic human rights" that force people to pay you sometimes, but isn't that against capitalism? All of these are just workarounds and government enforces them against a true free market (e.g. minimum wage). So you cannot use them as a good point since you even hate the government for patents.

BTW nothing wrong with patents compared to other things, it still makes you "own" something, and that's the culprit. Ideas are a finite resources as well. "Finite" is the keyword.

If there was no government and we had pure capitalism, anyone could refuse to pay/hire you for ANY reason they wanted, and let you starve to death.

What can you do if everyone doesn't want to hire you and they own everything? People in the past could move to new land, conquer and be independent, but you can't. Because there were no "rich" people in those new lands that people respected their property.

So much for fair. But yes, "Rich" means in assets, in ownership of assets, not money.
Post 19 Jan 2017, 12:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
> anyone could refuse to pay/hire you for ANY reason they wanted

This is exactly the situation in Georgia, and it is one of the most prosperous states in the USA.

As regards your demonization of private ownership, I just completely disagree with you. Ownership is foundational to the cooperation of humans. I own myself, you own yourself, and this means that I have zero right to command you. Because I own myself, I am the prime mover of me. This means I own my actions. I am responsible for the things I do. It then follows that ownership of the product of my labor goes to me and whomever owned the resources upon which I worked, and the division of that product would be agreed upon before I began working. Assuming that no one owned the materials with which I was working, then I would own the product of my labor completely. Where I was the sole owner of the materials, I would also own the product of my labor completely.

The vast majority of land on this planet is un-owned. If someone owned an entire city and all of the products within it, you could simply walk outside of the city.

You also need to keep in mind the very real prospect of violent rebellion against a landlord-tyrant. Under a majoritarian system, most laws are simply obeyed because there is this idea that the people voted and therefore the system is "just". No such illusion exists in monarchies and autocracies. An irate minority can topple an authoritarian regime quickly, and historically this is exactly what happens.
Post 20 Jan 2017, 06:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
there will always be rich people and poor people, but political teachings exists to create balance and solve this imbalance, eg. 1% holding 99% wealth.
Sorry, but it never works. People are greedy and such things always fail because of people.

thats the reason congress push for two term limit on presidency,
there are logical and valid methods to create system that could limit human greed,

of course, it requires lots of efforts and conscience from law makers to push such changes into practice

i have a thought after pondering for a while, greed is actually not bad, i could define it as extreme enthusiasm towards something,

eg. application that hooks up all the memories available for its self, the point is, operating system must limit memories that could be allocated by applications.

revolution wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
now the system force you to become slave, work like slave, 9 to 5, etc, to survive, this is wrong,
Only if you let it. No one is forcing you to do anything.

i got to say, i disagree totally with your statement,
i will use the examples as i mentioned above, the basic needs,
clothes, food, housing, transportation, these 4 elements are the most basic needs a human need in order to just survive and living on earth, be it flat, round, oblate, or concave,

some of the purchase, eg. house and vehicle, usually require a loan from bank,
you can't set up a house anywhere you like because every land already got owners, we have less choice except to buy from housing developer, who will sell you a built house, with land, under your name,

the cheapest new house in my country, cost around 130K, you can buy auctioned house, but their condition usually require you to invest another 30K cash or more for renovation,

the minimal wage in my country is 1K, i would say, average around 2K to 3K depend on where, what, how etc factors,

here housing loan calculator,
http://www.calculator.com.my/home-loan-calculator

Property Price (RM): 130,000
Down Payment (RM): 13,000
Loan Period (Years): 30
Interest Rate (%): 4.25
monthly installment is: RM 575.57

at 30th year,
principal amount is : 117,000.00
interest : 90,205.08
all together is : 207,205.08

fyi 130K is at not so populated area, if in town area, or cities, the cheapest would start from 300K on wards,

the system force people into slave through bank loan, in fact, you can't buy a house with full cash without getting queried by bank, government, and tax agencies,

in order to secure their house, their life, they have no choice but to work, be it 9 to 5 or any other jobs, they must work if they want to secure their house,

i haven't detail on study loan, vehicle loan, insurance, marriage, etc, but you know exactly, all these will cause more financial burden, making people stuck more inside the system,

revolution wrote:
That is simply not true. If you have a unique product or service then no one can sabotage you unless you are stupid about it.

i have serious doubt on what you claim, but maybe such claim works on some sectors, eg, skills that one could perform solely,
Post 20 Jan 2017, 06:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.