#ThePeoplesBailout, Is Protesting for Profit Ethical?

First let’s start with #ThePeoplesBailOut (The People’s Bailout). Possibly the first profitable protest. It consists of two purchases individually or as a group of one stock and one derivative.

A derivative is a casino like bet placed on a stock. If you place a bet that IBM is going to increase by five points tomorrow. That’s a derivative. You don’t need to own the actual stock, to be clear. Derivatives are typically at great odds, for example at a 10 or 20 to 1 ratio.

Protesters would buy a Bank Acme stock, and a derivative that Bank Acme stock will drop in (n) days.

Basic rule of supply and demand when demand increases the stock goes up; when demand decreases the stock price drops.

On the (n)th day everyone sells the stock. Decreasing demand and resulting in a drop in stock price.

The dropping value of Bank Acme stocks will result in the derivative to win its bet that Bank Acme dropped in price.

Although you will lose money on selling Bank Acme stock, but you would be compensated greatly on your 10 to 1 derivative.

A Protest directly involving the Banks Power of Invisible Money.

I call it…The People’s Bailout!! What do you think?

People would be grouped in apx $100 circles as most bank stocks are around the $50.00 and another $50.00 for your derivative.

This is not insider trading because I made my stock choices based on a trend. Protest with our dollars in a way that has never been done before.

The People’s Bailout, if we can’t have one let’
s create one.  #ThePeoplesBailOut (twitter)

This plan according to some on social media is too destructive. To quote one user “let’s screw over the bank because banks are bad, and make a quick buck doing it” and ““You’re still more likely to seriously hurt the people who do business with the bank than the owners/investors, which is why I consider it a kind of scummy way of going about protesting.”

The moral dogma, is playing a market with a strategy that has demised our lives in general a good idea? Regardless of the dogma the harsh reality is this if you do the math this is actually a win and here is why.

If you take the argument that playing markets this way could crash companies, and since we’re talking about “To Big to Fail” banks, it would need to be taken seriously.  This kind of action could trigger a domino bank collapse, ironically leading to more derivatives and increasing profits for participating protesters.

For every dollar earned this way which is given to a debt, removes $0.35 of influence the bank has ($0.65 is interest). I do think protest profiteers would be responsible, considering how people are saving their money, and buying much less. Multiplied by the fact the people will not support another bailout, increasing pressure exponentially to nationalize the bank.

There’s the argument this could lead to restrictive barriers into playing the market to that I’d say to restrict any trading in order to protect the economy would be the end of wall street. Supply and demand dictate any obstacles you place on demand will be reflected by stock value.

Leaving the only option. Don’t allow derivatives. The only barrier that could be put up is not to allow this kind of practice, which would have to include Banks and Investors in turn, is a good thing for everyone!!

Considering all the Gold, Silver, fixing that has come out especially lately, and that’s just what we know. The Stocks is riddled with corruption right down to the regulators. Mitt Romney was in the business of destroying business for short term profits.

What is suggested here is to use that same fire against the source, distinguishing both fires. The very companies that are destroying our lives, forcing them in strategic position to abolish those laws once and for all, while helping people get out of debt.

Side Notes: To view or participate in the debate (Reddit) http://redd.it/2h2mgs

Twitter: #ThePeoplesBailout

#NotRedOrBlue (Not Red or Blue)

When there is only one party. The bank sponsored party that comes in two flavours, who do you vote for? Taste Great or Less Filling? I propose it doesn’t matter…but Vote! Not voting declares Red / Blue party the default winner. Just follow one rule. Don’t Vote Blue or Red.

To be clear I am advocating any party that is simply not red or blue. It’s not a secret anymore that Banks are working as one single machine. There are even mathematical models that prove it. If the bank is one party why are they supporting both sides? To create a win – win situation while placeing one of their own securing a position of influence.

If everyone simply voted for a third party. A independent senate / congress would grow and mature in 4 years. Two voting cycles.

One could even argue the statistical probability of getting someone good at a random guess versus the bankers party which has brought 13 years of War. With one you have a chance at the dice, go for it 😉

But how does the message get spread?

A #NotRedOrBlue grass roots party with a very strong online presence. People vote for a candidate per territory. History teaches us with Ralph Nader you need 15% of the popularity poll to be on a televised debate. The number could easily reach 20% considering the Bank Monopoly over the media should this take place.

If 20% of the popularity poll participate in the process of an official #NotRedOrBlue party with registered voters, like any other party alongside with donations to the party and Not candidates.

The candidates would use a given budget decided by the party voters. The Budget would be displayed with 100% transparency through the #NotRedOrBlue website.

The purpose of each candidate budget would be to invest in budget plans they believed in for their campaign, but Not the actual campaign. Donations from corporations could be strictly forbidden.

This party works differently. The campaign is run by the party voters. They set the stage. Rules of the party are set by its registers voters and candidates have absolutely no say.

Candidates focus on plans, policy, and choosing president/vice president. Candidates are strictly forbidden to invest in buttons, posters, media, etc. They are free to speak to as many people as they like of course, but ALL campaigning is managed by the registers voters and NOT candidates. Posters and all.

They are free to choose the own media company but budgets are decided by party voters. Direct donations to any specific candidate is Forbidden.

What kind of stage could the voters set? I would imagine the obvious political debates, but there is an opportunity for real world scenarios test (the 3am call Mr. President).

Check for response time, attitude, they should be devil advocate based scenarios. Candidates cannot see the other candidates’ response but perhaps that’s going too far.

Does Free Choice apply to Quantum Mechanics?

The same way nothingness becomes space once observed, science tells us every possibility exist.

Is it possible the one made by free choice are exclusively what is quantified or calculated. The choices not made remain equivalent to the nothingness beyond space.

Could that be the power of free choice?

Are you Incorporation? How about you over there? What if we all were? What would happen?

How hard is it to become incorporated?

To become INC, simply follow the instrunctions http://tinyurl.com/qx4n9hr and become a corporation.

I’ve gone through it, and basically you’re filling a form which you download. Every state /province has its own version, and you have to inform the appropriate department and your done… now what?

I propose a merger. An actual merger along with everyone else. If you not sure what your company is, then you’re a consultant.

As a  solidified corporation it might just be easier to fight on the same legal playing field, since we can argue as an INC. We would be on the same playing field.

It would also open up a venue of tax loop holes to the general public or “shareholders” being a pro profit organization.

Forcing the powers that be to close these loop hole or share them. Any alternative could very seriously be committing political suicide.

This also creates a bee hive of small companies into a single force.

Taking advantage of one company can have a serious repercussions from all the others, like any bee hive.

It’s is absolutely critical to remember you are a company now, a member of the INC.

Congratulations.

If a cell phone company screws you, there messing with a company which happens to be a subsidiary of mega corporation.

Giving a whole new set of recourse based on loss of profit. Your time is now money or a fee.

Different set of rules as an INC.

Existing open-source softwares could build transparent government? Blender + Cryptocurrency

I believe by using two already created open-source programs a Transparent Government Protocol could be made easily, quickly, cheaply, and securely.

Firstly, Blender (www.blender.org) is a free open-source 3D Modeling / Animation program. Within the program is a section called “Nodes”. Nodes is basically excel on steroids and a small module of the program. You can visually see a pipeline or familytree of how things are connected. Everything is grouped and sub-grouped in boxes making for a user friendly interface.

Second, cryptocurrency, Bitcoin is the most commonly known of cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are basically a peer-to-peer virtual banking system. It’s decentralized, so no one party can control it.Think of it as “Utorrent” for banking. Instead of music and videos, you’re transferring and receiving funds and in certain cases mining (creating) virtual currencies.

Merging these two technologies will give you an open government where one can watch their government as if an organism under a microscope. Where the custom cryptocurrency would be the blood. Making all transaction public.

Where the flow started, where its flowing, how much, where it ends, with a ledger of all transaction… all in real time like a tweeter feed. You could watch each pulse.

The custom cryptocurrency would be a substitute for actual dollars on a 1:1 ratio. The reason for this is if money is stolen or allocated unjustly the custom cryptocurrency has no value except at certain junctures in the “Family Tree” node system. The custom cryptocurrency could only be “cashed out” at certain points.

Also this gives the power to the custom cryptocurrency community. If an “official” should decide to spend moneys on a project the public does not approve of they can simply not allow the transfer as an online social community similarly to how the Bitcoin community might vote against a 50-50 attack, which is an attempt to steal.

Most importantly there is a opportunity for any user to download the Government Template “Family Tree” and improve the “flow” publicly. The improvement could be calculated by the software and viewed by the public for verifying its legitimacy and accuracy.

Algorithms that the public submit could also search for corruption as bots (automated programs).

The work has been done in two halves. The challenge would be putting them together.

Mixing Software & Freedom Rights

Before we get started, we need to understand what OCR technology is. To put it simply its the technology / software used to read forms, letters, and numbers. For example when you scan a hand written document into digital text or take a picture of a check for a deposit.

Now imagine an app for civil rights and fairness that asks you to go to city hall and take a picture of a specific public document. As the picture is taken of the document the information is put into a database using OCR software.

An algorithm looks for anomalies aka corruption using the database and makes request for specific files. Anyone using the app can go to City Hall and request the document.

The app would also have user input. As documents are scanned they will be fragmented and displayed to random users. For example, the app could displays $30 for 2 hammers from Bills Hardware Store from Department of Road Maintenance. The user would have a  hot or not style choice except in this case it would be corrupt or not.

Based on the corrupt flags document requests would be made. The data could be viewable online as well as through the app.

Should we be reinventing Protesting in a 21st Century? (Rev 3)

Should Protesting in a digital age include digital tools? I don’t mean social media, but more twofold. Firstly, you have a situation where a large group of people are protesting getting the word out, with their cellphones at hand. What are the cellphones doing in the background? Nothing but the usual…

Were all walking around with supercomputers in our pockets, more power the all of Nasa had in the 60’s in our pockets. I can’t help but feel were all missing something here. I believe the answer is a massive super computer that compliments the Protest. If that’s the answer what’s the Question? Isn’t that what we should be asking? Since we already know the answer?

Second, should Protects be more strategic in nature. You want to protest McDonalds block there supply route. Protest a specific bank policy put stickers on ATM screens disabling their use.

Companies have profit margin. How much loss in profit margin should an offending company lose. Is there a goal? Why is it not discussed? How much do they have to lose before the protest stops. Is $100 million or $72 million?

How does one figure this out. I would base it on history. How much profit did the offending company lose the last time before it changed a policy.

Once you know these numbers you can then structure a protest to achieve a specific goal. Based on these figures, taking into account the loss of profit per day, gives you an analytical & tactical form of protest. Adding business planning to protesting.

With money or loss of it changes attitudes when dealing with the INC.

Could an accounting of protesters skills Not names be a standard practice, real time think tanks on the fly. Bring your laptop if its tear gas free be a standard for all protests. Dare I say should there be a pinch of business planning…in protesting, expect to do some work, not just yell. Two fold.

Now you have a goal, and resources (skills, and people). Based on how much time and money volunteers are willing to give, one can determine the chance of success.

If the goal is out of reach due to resources, then a Plan B can take place which either stalls the offending company or perhaps bring the cause a step closer to actual goal. A strategy where you take a step forward to you initial goal and fortify, due to the fact there are not enough resources.

A protest typically is always at the location of the people you want to protest. Buy why? Shouldn’t it be at the location that hurts their profit margin the most for example a shipping route, or blocking access in order to disrupt or stop business.

It was reported by CNN in Hong Kong where protesters blocked and surrounded police peacefully, using protesters as bait and a group of cars to make blockade.

When you stop and think about the level of organization that was involved, it’s very impressive. The technology used were social media, and a live feed. In others words a smart phone with 2 apps.

We have the tools, but the understanding and organization of it all is what is lacking. This has to be admitted and a focal point issue instead of the tidal wave of rants, although rightfully deserved it is simply the feeling of being constructive as opposed to the strategy of being constructive. Our emotions are supposed to fuel us, our minds are supposed to lead us.

But when there are only protesters with signs, and no laptops opens, along with no building a strategic plan.

Could it be argued that protesting without strategy is the same as a Government without strategy.

At a certain point we have to take responsibility at the fact we have inadvertently made it difficult for ourselves by wasting resources, by not accounting for them nor managing them.

Should we be reinventing Protesting in a 21st Century?

Two Birds One Stone, Bank & Pharma

I see the world in a very different way, after the research I’ve done. I pay attention to the news to what is being said, but mostly to whats not being said or passed over. I don’t know what to make of it, but things are clearly piculer.

From my understanding, there is an interlock between banks,  pharma, media, and military.

And if things are really this way, might I propose outlandish but plausible idea using compartments already built and in use.

Before I continue this isn’t a pro bitcoin, but an idea based on the concept of cryptocurrency that already exist and is freely available. Infact I’m not really a fan of Bitcoin.

To make a very long story short what makes cryptocurrency so great is it’s a currency that is Not centralized. It’s closer to peer-peer downloads, no one controls it. It’s needs no managers, ceos, etc, which makes it the biggest threat to all banks. A threat in its early infancy.

There’s a voting system to resolve disputes. Ecuador is the first nation to be seriously considering creating a cryptocurrency as its official currency.

What I suggest is to have a cryptocurrency that looks for multiple cures. Hitting two branches of this infrastructure (Bank, Pharma). How a cryptocurrency looks for a cure is with each transaction a few x million calculation is done towards a cure. The very process of these calculation is part of the DNA of the transaction and would not be valid without it.

Also when a cryptocurrency is created commonly referred to as “mined” it would require much higher amount of calculations.

Some may argue that a cure already exist, to that I would say this is about perception. A cure discovered publicly can not be denied, a “new” rediscovery.

The diseases that should be cured should be based on already established open-source software that look for cures. It is important to utilize existing software.

The issues is one of marketing not technology. One would need an Ice Bucket style campaign. Every transaction of a donation would be converted into the curing cryptocurrency. Perhaps “The Water Balloon Challenge”, the color of the balloon could represent a specific disease.

This provides an opportunity to market a “habit” of the cryptocurrency a second time by conceiving the donor to break the donation into chunks and make Multiple transactions.

Each transaction represent a few million calculations. The same amount can do a varied amount depending on how many times you break it up. Marketing the “habit of cryptocurrency” and getting familiar with a “digital wallet” a common concept of cryptocurrency.

Part of the campaign would be posting on social media how many calculations you’ve donated or “points”. Making someone who donated $50.00 at $0.25 at a time would consist of 200 transactions.
Since transactions are percentage based (about $0.06/$million) it comes at no additional cost.

Compared to another donor who gave $500 in one shot, would only have one transaction scoring less points, but a bigger donation.

The charity restocks the cryptocurrency into cash, but it gives the option to buy a cryptocurrency dollar, which retailers can accept at least in portion since its curing for a cause.

Also a second marketing opportunity appears. Junk for cryptocurrency dollars. Sell you junk for a cryptocurrency dollar towards a cure. A Ice Bucket within a Ice Bucket.

This turns the charity into an exchange…for good.

If Corporations are “People”, could you sue under the Civil Rights Act 1964, that you’re being discriminated against by a group of “People”?

I’m asking you to put common sense aside, and think like a lawyer. It’s a game
with rules. Every geography has it’s rules. In some places Corporations even have religious rights I hear. Now in this game where…

Corporations are “People”, could you sue under the Civil Rights Act 1964, that you’re being discriminated against by a group of “People”, because you’re a Person of non-incorporation.

Also that special privileges in society that we both live in are given to one group of people over another? Is segregation by class still not segregation. When “Tax Loops”, “Inc People Need Only Apply” is status quo does one not have a case?

The CRA outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Wouldn’t color apply in this instance. Considering the fact that “People” (Inc’s) do apply discrimination based on color.

Everyone with a “color” is in fact being discriminated against, and any “Person”(Inc) who doesn’t have a “color” do get privileges. Thus isn’t it a fair to say we are being discriminated based on “color”?

Remember this isn’t about common sense, but about legality. if one were to use same legal logic that legitimizes a company to have religious rights, could that very same “logic” be used for discrimination.

Let me make another point…

Brown v. Board ­of Education of Topeka, the 1954 ruling that struck down the concept of “separate but equal” and declared racially segregated public schools unconstitutional. Here we have a very clear separation based on the fact you have a “color” and/or you’re not an “inc.” Person.

The “discrimination” is color. Everyone of color, any color, is being discriminated against by tax collectors. There’s one set of cheaper taxes for non-color/people(s) of paper (inc’s), and another higher rate for people of any all-color (actual people), and to add insult to injury part of the taxes paid by People of colors go to the People of paper.

As we are well aware “Corporations are People My Friends.”

I would say this form of physical discrimination is rampant today, although it may not be racial in nature it’s evolved to anyone one with a physical form, while maintaining it’s discrimination. You could even call it “Body-ism.”

discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

key phrase : categories of people,

Granted Congress was trying to address racial discrimination, but I do feel if you did statics on how Inc People are treated versus People of Body, especially in punishments in courts the sentences are very different.

Take murder for profit, theft, fraud, depending on the type of Person you are (Inc vs Body), you get a different punishment for that same crime!?!

That by definition is Discrimination! Is it not?

And when “Inc” now have religious rights? How could there not be a case here? or are we applying too much common sense that we can not see in the legality of our reality.

Possible Solution: Hiring a lawyer through crowdfunding?