Olivia
Online
Drito Perdoni
@DPerdoni2
Fartacus
Joined October 2022
161 Following
209 Followers
15.7K Posts
Pinned Tweet
dont take anything personally. What i say are just thoughts without the ill intention behind them. Like a dog that barks but doesn't bite (unless hit)
@missus_wormy Jump in a lorry, hide under the driver's bed and go find out.
sleeping cycles:
Why would one want to make the population collectively richer vs make the ones holding moats extract all the wealth from those don't while the gov prints excess, which goes to the moats, while they assign some mercy figures like 5-8 % salary growth per year. While the real figures might be close to 2x. Then there is the other inflation(shares of a company, or digital assets). What is the more ethical and grounded decision? Make money irrelevant for everyone, or give it all to your hero billionaires , now trillionaire.
Brits will accept that without any protests and still call Russians predisposed to dictatorship or some shit
Peak male friendship.
@ClaireFosterPHD https://t.co/iZCvQ1K2v2
To those concerned . Read my response.
A business is, at its core, simply a structure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. You sell something, you capture a margin, and that margin becomes your breathing room and your profit. A bakery making bread, a factory producing machinery, and a startup developing new software all create real goods and services.
The issue starts when that structure scales to control the absolute essentials of human life: energy, internet, housing, insurance, food distribution, and finance. When people cannot realistically opt out, pricing power stops being a byproduct of ordinary competition and becomes a mechanism of systemic extraction.
To understand how we arrived at a global economy defined by extreme concentration, we have to look at the machine from top to bottom. It is not a story of cartoon villains. It is a story of mechanics, incentives, and the rules of the game.
The Decoupling of Scale and Labor
Historically, there was a natural counterweight built into corporate growth. When massive industrial companies scaled in the 20th century, they required hundreds of thousands of workers to operate. Wealth was distributed, at least partially, by the sheer necessity of physical labor.
Today, that historical link between corporate scale and job creation has been fundamentally broken. Digital monopolies and highly financialized institutions can generate trillions in valuation with a fraction of the workforce. At the same time, we face a profound asymmetry in mobility: capital can cross borders in milliseconds to find the lowest tax rate or the cheapest labor pool. Workers, however, are bound by geography, borders, and families. Capital has options; labor largely does not.
Because of this asymmetry, costs and risks flow in opposite directions. When inflation hits or supply chains tighten, businesses pass those costs on, often stacking additional margin on top. Real median wages stagnate, while asset prices, executive compensation, and corporate profits surge. The base of the pyramid absorbs the costs and the volatility. The top captures the gains.
We are told this arrangement is fair because those at the top "take all the risk." But risk travels down the chain. When margins need protecting, it is the workers who lose hours, jobs, income, and security. Suppliers get squeezed. Consumers pay more. Without the people doing the daily work, there is no structure and no profit to defend.
The Math of Risk and Reward
The entire cultism surrounding billionaires relies on a single, powerful myth: the "infinite reward for finite risk" argument. We are told the founder deserves to capture hundreds of billions of dollars because they took the initial leap.
But a founder’s risk is mathematically finite. The absolute worst-case scenario for an entrepreneur is that their business goes bankrupt, their initial capital goes to zero, and they have to get a regular job like everyone else.
The reward, however, is structurally uncapped. Capturing a $10 million payout is a logical reward for a risky, brilliant idea. Capturing a trillion dollars is not a reward for risk- it is the extraction of monopoly power. It happens long after the initial risk has been entirely mitigated.
There is a profound difference between value creation and value capture. A founder creates value when they invent a better tool or service. They transition to value capture when they use their subsequent wealth to buy up competitors, lobby for tax loopholes, and build regulatory moats that block anyone else from competing. We mistakenly praise billionaires for the value they created decades ago, while completely ignoring the fact that their current wealth is sustained by extracting value from the rest of the economy today.
The Vacuum of Financialization
Because wages are structurally suppressed, ordinary people must rely on debt to maintain their standard of living. This feeds the next layer of the machine: the money system.
Inflation and debt act like an upward vacuum. When new money enters the economy-primarily through lending and financial channels-it does not spread evenly through wages. It reaches assets first. Housing, stocks, land, and financial portfolios inflate, while people without assets fall rapidly behind in real purchasing power.
Consider housing. Rising house prices are constantly presented to the public as "wealth creation." Yet a higher house price does not create a single square foot of new shelter. It simply increases the amount future buyers must borrow. Existing owners gain on paper, while new entrants inherit crushing debt burdens. Society appears richer on spreadsheets while becoming fundamentally poorer in real-world affordability.
This crisis is violently accelerated by the institutionalization of everyday life. Private equity firms now buy up single-family starter homes, local veterinary clinics, and nursing homes. When aggressive financial engineering is applied to essential local services, affordability collapses.
The cycle becomes a perpetual motion machine:
Governments and consumers run deficits.
Deficits lead to borrowing.
Borrowing expands money creation.
Asset prices rise.
Ownership concentrates.
New entrants require even more debt just to participate.
Each generation starts further behind the previous one. And because purchasing power is melting, everyone is forced to become a speculator. People are told to "just buy assets"-stocks, crypto, gold, real estate-merely to outrun inflation. When an entire population must gamble simply to preserve the value of their labor, the underlying architecture is broken.
The Moat of Influence
Once capital reaches a certain velocity and scale, its primary objective shifts. It no longer cares about innovating; it cares about protecting its territory.
Wealth does not only buy assets. It buys influence. Large firms can afford armies of lobbyists, legal teams, consultants, and compliance departments that smaller competitors cannot. Every new license, permit, certification, reporting requirement, and compliance process may appear entirely reasonable on its own. Often, they are sold to the public as "consumer protection."
Together, they create a hidden, impenetrable moat. Large corporations easily spread these compliance costs across millions of customers. A new startup cannot. Competition survives on paper, but concentration grows in practice. This is why telling people to "just start a business" is often hollow advice. The cost of entry matters. Most modern markets are no longer defined by who has the best ideas, but by who can survive the barriers already placed at the gates.
The Architecture of Complicity
When we label individual billionaires or trillionaires as "evil" or "predators," we actually do the system a massive favor. We reduce a sprawling, structural crisis down to personal morality. We mistakenly imply that if we just replaced the "bad" billionaires with "good" billionaires, the machine would work perfectly.
It wouldn’t. If a game is designed so that the only way to win is to suppress wages, externalize costs, and monopolize essentials, then even a saint would have to operate ruthlessly to reach the top. The system rewards leverage, ownership, scale, and strategic positioning. People simply respond rationally to those incentives.
A healthier loop requires us to change the physics of the game:
Shift the Tax Burden: Move taxation away from productive labor (income) and toward unproductive rent-seeking or borrowing tax-free against massive stock portfolios.
Restore Market Mechanics: Enforce strict antitrust laws to break up essential monopolies, and restrict stock buybacks to force corporate capital back into R&D and real wages.
Democratize Ownership: Normalize mandatory profit-sharing and broad equity distribution so that the workers who build the company generate wealth alongside the founders.
This is not an argument against capitalism or profit. Markets drive innovation, and entrepreneurship creates immense value. The question is whether a system is sustainable when the gains become permanently concentrated while the costs become infinitely distributed.
If wealth concentration is the mathematically predictable outcome of our current rules, the debate is no longer about the personalities of the rich. If each economic cycle consolidates more essential infrastructure into fewer hands, at what point does that stop being a coincidence and start being the design?
Many billionaires did not personally design this system. They worked hard, took risks, and played by the rules available to them. But there is a profound difference between creating a system and benefiting from it. If your wealth depends on asset inflation, debt expansion, regulatory barriers, and rising costs that the working class must absorb, neutrality is an illusion.
Benefiting from a harmful outcome does not make someone evil. But knowing the outcome, possessing the power to alter it, and choosing instead to preserve it because it serves your personal interest-that is where complicity begins.
@ClaireFosterPHD It's because you are not a predator, and did everything as you were told. To reach a rich person status you genuinely need to be a bad person, or one devoid of morals.
Perfect. No notes.
And I still missed some key points.
I got insulted by people who lack depth about 100 times today and I blocked only 1. After a whole day of working, I applaud my self-restraint.
I guess that's how it feels to be hated. It's not bad.
@Kehinde20211 @ClaireFosterPHD https://t.co/FfZUSY0Q4T I am probably still missing something but that's the gist of it.
A business is, at its core, simply a structure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. You sell something, you capture a margin, and that margin becomes your breathing room and your profit. A bakery making bread, a factory producing machinery, and a startup developing new software all create real goods and services.
The issue starts when that structure scales to control the absolute essentials of human life: energy, internet, housing, insurance, food distribution, and finance. When people cannot realistically opt out, pricing power stops being a byproduct of ordinary competition and becomes a mechanism of systemic extraction.
To understand how we arrived at a global economy defined by extreme concentration, we have to look at the machine from top to bottom. It is not a story of cartoon villains. It is a story of mechanics, incentives, and the rules of the game.
The Decoupling of Scale and Labor
Historically, there was a natural counterweight built into corporate growth. When massive industrial companies scaled in the 20th century, they required hundreds of thousands of workers to operate. Wealth was distributed, at least partially, by the sheer necessity of physical labor.
Today, that historical link between corporate scale and job creation has been fundamentally broken. Digital monopolies and highly financialized institutions can generate trillions in valuation with a fraction of the workforce. At the same time, we face a profound asymmetry in mobility: capital can cross borders in milliseconds to find the lowest tax rate or the cheapest labor pool. Workers, however, are bound by geography, borders, and families. Capital has options; labor largely does not.
Because of this asymmetry, costs and risks flow in opposite directions. When inflation hits or supply chains tighten, businesses pass those costs on, often stacking additional margin on top. Real median wages stagnate, while asset prices, executive compensation, and corporate profits surge. The base of the pyramid absorbs the costs and the volatility. The top captures the gains.
We are told this arrangement is fair because those at the top "take all the risk." But risk travels down the chain. When margins need protecting, it is the workers who lose hours, jobs, income, and security. Suppliers get squeezed. Consumers pay more. Without the people doing the daily work, there is no structure and no profit to defend.
The Math of Risk and Reward
The entire cultism surrounding billionaires relies on a single, powerful myth: the "infinite reward for finite risk" argument. We are told the founder deserves to capture hundreds of billions of dollars because they took the initial leap.
But a founder’s risk is mathematically finite. The absolute worst-case scenario for an entrepreneur is that their business goes bankrupt, their initial capital goes to zero, and they have to get a regular job like everyone else.
The reward, however, is structurally uncapped. Capturing a $10 million payout is a logical reward for a risky, brilliant idea. Capturing a trillion dollars is not a reward for risk- it is the extraction of monopoly power. It happens long after the initial risk has been entirely mitigated.
There is a profound difference between value creation and value capture. A founder creates value when they invent a better tool or service. They transition to value capture when they use their subsequent wealth to buy up competitors, lobby for tax loopholes, and build regulatory moats that block anyone else from competing. We mistakenly praise billionaires for the value they created decades ago, while completely ignoring the fact that their current wealth is sustained by extracting value from the rest of the economy today.
The Vacuum of Financialization
Because wages are structurally suppressed, ordinary people must rely on debt to maintain their standard of living. This feeds the next layer of the machine: the money system.
Inflation and debt act like an upward vacuum. When new money enters the economy-primarily through lending and financial channels-it does not spread evenly through wages. It reaches assets first. Housing, stocks, land, and financial portfolios inflate, while people without assets fall rapidly behind in real purchasing power.
Consider housing. Rising house prices are constantly presented to the public as "wealth creation." Yet a higher house price does not create a single square foot of new shelter. It simply increases the amount future buyers must borrow. Existing owners gain on paper, while new entrants inherit crushing debt burdens. Society appears richer on spreadsheets while becoming fundamentally poorer in real-world affordability.
This crisis is violently accelerated by the institutionalization of everyday life. Private equity firms now buy up single-family starter homes, local veterinary clinics, and nursing homes. When aggressive financial engineering is applied to essential local services, affordability collapses.
The cycle becomes a perpetual motion machine:
Governments and consumers run deficits.
Deficits lead to borrowing.
Borrowing expands money creation.
Asset prices rise.
Ownership concentrates.
New entrants require even more debt just to participate.
Each generation starts further behind the previous one. And because purchasing power is melting, everyone is forced to become a speculator. People are told to "just buy assets"-stocks, crypto, gold, real estate-merely to outrun inflation. When an entire population must gamble simply to preserve the value of their labor, the underlying architecture is broken.
The Moat of Influence
Once capital reaches a certain velocity and scale, its primary objective shifts. It no longer cares about innovating; it cares about protecting its territory.
Wealth does not only buy assets. It buys influence. Large firms can afford armies of lobbyists, legal teams, consultants, and compliance departments that smaller competitors cannot. Every new license, permit, certification, reporting requirement, and compliance process may appear entirely reasonable on its own. Often, they are sold to the public as "consumer protection."
Together, they create a hidden, impenetrable moat. Large corporations easily spread these compliance costs across millions of customers. A new startup cannot. Competition survives on paper, but concentration grows in practice. This is why telling people to "just start a business" is often hollow advice. The cost of entry matters. Most modern markets are no longer defined by who has the best ideas, but by who can survive the barriers already placed at the gates.
The Architecture of Complicity
When we label individual billionaires or trillionaires as "evil" or "predators," we actually do the system a massive favor. We reduce a sprawling, structural crisis down to personal morality. We mistakenly imply that if we just replaced the "bad" billionaires with "good" billionaires, the machine would work perfectly.
It wouldn’t. If a game is designed so that the only way to win is to suppress wages, externalize costs, and monopolize essentials, then even a saint would have to operate ruthlessly to reach the top. The system rewards leverage, ownership, scale, and strategic positioning. People simply respond rationally to those incentives.
A healthier loop requires us to change the physics of the game:
Shift the Tax Burden: Move taxation away from productive labor (income) and toward unproductive rent-seeking or borrowing tax-free against massive stock portfolios.
Restore Market Mechanics: Enforce strict antitrust laws to break up essential monopolies, and restrict stock buybacks to force corporate capital back into R&D and real wages.
Democratize Ownership: Normalize mandatory profit-sharing and broad equity distribution so that the workers who build the company generate wealth alongside the founders.
This is not an argument against capitalism or profit. Markets drive innovation, and entrepreneurship creates immense value. The question is whether a system is sustainable when the gains become permanently concentrated while the costs become infinitely distributed.
If wealth concentration is the mathematically predictable outcome of our current rules, the debate is no longer about the personalities of the rich. If each economic cycle consolidates more essential infrastructure into fewer hands, at what point does that stop being a coincidence and start being the design?
Many billionaires did not personally design this system. They worked hard, took risks, and played by the rules available to them. But there is a profound difference between creating a system and benefiting from it. If your wealth depends on asset inflation, debt expansion, regulatory barriers, and rising costs that the working class must absorb, neutrality is an illusion.
Benefiting from a harmful outcome does not make someone evil. But knowing the outcome, possessing the power to alter it, and choosing instead to preserve it because it serves your personal interest-that is where complicity begins.
Somebody saw my post, either and admin or somebody higher and changed my name for few minutes. Not nice. F you.
A business is, at its core, simply a structure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. You sell something, you capture a margin, and that margin becomes your breathing room and your profit. A bakery making bread, a factory producing machinery, and a startup developing new software all create real goods and services.
The issue starts when that structure scales to control the absolute essentials of human life: energy, internet, housing, insurance, food distribution, and finance. When people cannot realistically opt out, pricing power stops being a byproduct of ordinary competition and becomes a mechanism of systemic extraction.
To understand how we arrived at a global economy defined by extreme concentration, we have to look at the machine from top to bottom. It is not a story of cartoon villains. It is a story of mechanics, incentives, and the rules of the game.
The Decoupling of Scale and Labor
Historically, there was a natural counterweight built into corporate growth. When massive industrial companies scaled in the 20th century, they required hundreds of thousands of workers to operate. Wealth was distributed, at least partially, by the sheer necessity of physical labor.
Today, that historical link between corporate scale and job creation has been fundamentally broken. Digital monopolies and highly financialized institutions can generate trillions in valuation with a fraction of the workforce. At the same time, we face a profound asymmetry in mobility: capital can cross borders in milliseconds to find the lowest tax rate or the cheapest labor pool. Workers, however, are bound by geography, borders, and families. Capital has options; labor largely does not.
Because of this asymmetry, costs and risks flow in opposite directions. When inflation hits or supply chains tighten, businesses pass those costs on, often stacking additional margin on top. Real median wages stagnate, while asset prices, executive compensation, and corporate profits surge. The base of the pyramid absorbs the costs and the volatility. The top captures the gains.
We are told this arrangement is fair because those at the top "take all the risk." But risk travels down the chain. When margins need protecting, it is the workers who lose hours, jobs, income, and security. Suppliers get squeezed. Consumers pay more. Without the people doing the daily work, there is no structure and no profit to defend.
The Math of Risk and Reward
The entire cultism surrounding billionaires relies on a single, powerful myth: the "infinite reward for finite risk" argument. We are told the founder deserves to capture hundreds of billions of dollars because they took the initial leap.
But a founder’s risk is mathematically finite. The absolute worst-case scenario for an entrepreneur is that their business goes bankrupt, their initial capital goes to zero, and they have to get a regular job like everyone else.
The reward, however, is structurally uncapped. Capturing a $10 million payout is a logical reward for a risky, brilliant idea. Capturing a trillion dollars is not a reward for risk- it is the extraction of monopoly power. It happens long after the initial risk has been entirely mitigated.
There is a profound difference between value creation and value capture. A founder creates value when they invent a better tool or service. They transition to value capture when they use their subsequent wealth to buy up competitors, lobby for tax loopholes, and build regulatory moats that block anyone else from competing. We mistakenly praise billionaires for the value they created decades ago, while completely ignoring the fact that their current wealth is sustained by extracting value from the rest of the economy today.
The Vacuum of Financialization
Because wages are structurally suppressed, ordinary people must rely on debt to maintain their standard of living. This feeds the next layer of the machine: the money system.
Inflation and debt act like an upward vacuum. When new money enters the economy-primarily through lending and financial channels-it does not spread evenly through wages. It reaches assets first. Housing, stocks, land, and financial portfolios inflate, while people without assets fall rapidly behind in real purchasing power.
Consider housing. Rising house prices are constantly presented to the public as "wealth creation." Yet a higher house price does not create a single square foot of new shelter. It simply increases the amount future buyers must borrow. Existing owners gain on paper, while new entrants inherit crushing debt burdens. Society appears richer on spreadsheets while becoming fundamentally poorer in real-world affordability.
This crisis is violently accelerated by the institutionalization of everyday life. Private equity firms now buy up single-family starter homes, local veterinary clinics, and nursing homes. When aggressive financial engineering is applied to essential local services, affordability collapses.
The cycle becomes a perpetual motion machine:
Governments and consumers run deficits.
Deficits lead to borrowing.
Borrowing expands money creation.
Asset prices rise.
Ownership concentrates.
New entrants require even more debt just to participate.
Each generation starts further behind the previous one. And because purchasing power is melting, everyone is forced to become a speculator. People are told to "just buy assets"-stocks, crypto, gold, real estate-merely to outrun inflation. When an entire population must gamble simply to preserve the value of their labor, the underlying architecture is broken.
The Moat of Influence
Once capital reaches a certain velocity and scale, its primary objective shifts. It no longer cares about innovating; it cares about protecting its territory.
Wealth does not only buy assets. It buys influence. Large firms can afford armies of lobbyists, legal teams, consultants, and compliance departments that smaller competitors cannot. Every new license, permit, certification, reporting requirement, and compliance process may appear entirely reasonable on its own. Often, they are sold to the public as "consumer protection."
Together, they create a hidden, impenetrable moat. Large corporations easily spread these compliance costs across millions of customers. A new startup cannot. Competition survives on paper, but concentration grows in practice. This is why telling people to "just start a business" is often hollow advice. The cost of entry matters. Most modern markets are no longer defined by who has the best ideas, but by who can survive the barriers already placed at the gates.
The Architecture of Complicity
When we label individual billionaires or trillionaires as "evil" or "predators," we actually do the system a massive favor. We reduce a sprawling, structural crisis down to personal morality. We mistakenly imply that if we just replaced the "bad" billionaires with "good" billionaires, the machine would work perfectly.
It wouldn’t. If a game is designed so that the only way to win is to suppress wages, externalize costs, and monopolize essentials, then even a saint would have to operate ruthlessly to reach the top. The system rewards leverage, ownership, scale, and strategic positioning. People simply respond rationally to those incentives.
A healthier loop requires us to change the physics of the game:
Shift the Tax Burden: Move taxation away from productive labor (income) and toward unproductive rent-seeking or borrowing tax-free against massive stock portfolios.
Restore Market Mechanics: Enforce strict antitrust laws to break up essential monopolies, and restrict stock buybacks to force corporate capital back into R&D and real wages.
Democratize Ownership: Normalize mandatory profit-sharing and broad equity distribution so that the workers who build the company generate wealth alongside the founders.
This is not an argument against capitalism or profit. Markets drive innovation, and entrepreneurship creates immense value. The question is whether a system is sustainable when the gains become permanently concentrated while the costs become infinitely distributed.
If wealth concentration is the mathematically predictable outcome of our current rules, the debate is no longer about the personalities of the rich. If each economic cycle consolidates more essential infrastructure into fewer hands, at what point does that stop being a coincidence and start being the design?
Many billionaires did not personally design this system. They worked hard, took risks, and played by the rules available to them. But there is a profound difference between creating a system and benefiting from it. If your wealth depends on asset inflation, debt expansion, regulatory barriers, and rising costs that the working class must absorb, neutrality is an illusion.
Benefiting from a harmful outcome does not make someone evil. But knowing the outcome, possessing the power to alter it, and choosing instead to preserve it because it serves your personal interest-that is where complicity begins.
I'm making a coffee, popping a zyn, and I am going to dispel the cultism of capitalism.
Seems I inflamed a lot of opinions. I'll throw a detailed post later why I believe what I believe in.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Every Gays Fantasies
Seen from Turkey
PECANDU STW
Seen from Indonesia
OnlyFans.com/TheMiaIsabella
Seen from United States
Indo bokep 18+
Seen from Indonesia
Trai Thẳng nhẹ
Seen from Vietnam
Ilham
Seen from Malaysia
sex Arabic
Seen from Indonesia
Seha Demir Sert
Seen from Turkey
ผุ้ชาย หุ่นหมี
Seen from Thailand
Hatice35
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.3M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109.6M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
106.9M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.4M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.7M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.2M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.6M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.3M followers