Lowyat.NET: Latest topics by rampoknegara

change government

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 07:30:00 +0800

crime is not wrong

rampoknegara — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:44:28 +0800

Back in thousands of years ago before industrial revolution/invention of electricity, all human and society live in hunter and gatherer type of society, they don’t use money yet. The strong and usually man will go into jungle and hunt for food. At that era, there are no police and no law or courts, a man living in his own village doesn’t need to steal from his friend /brothers or someone in order to survive, the food supply stored in the granaries are more than enough. When the time comes, the man will go out hunt for more foods and stored it for winter supply. The society never lacked of anything, they thrived.

Now we look at why our current society has so many problem, depression, suicide, brutal crime, pervert, peeping toms, etc.. if you ever wondered where did we go wrong? Why there are people steal? In nature stealing doesn’t make any sense, a tiger hunting for deer is simply for survival, there are no higher authority in natural world that will punish the tiger for killing that deer. Living species in nature world simply evolve and themselves is part of the change process.

But it is very different in human society, we often put people in jail because we define them as ‘bad’ people. But we never try to understand where does bad people come from? For example, why does ppl steal? In order to find out the answers, lets look at the society and economy aspect, we have businesses able to choose who can work with least salary at the same time highest productivity possible. In our economy, capital and means of production like factory, office, is privately owned. Many people might not understand the consequences of this, but eventually when only a group of people owned up all the rest of the land in this world, the rest of the people will not have choice but keep paying rent to certain landowners.

Even newborn babies will automatically subject to such ruling and need to adapt in this environment. Nobody can deny the fact that earth has land size limit and everyone live under same planet. We’ve agreed that ownership in modern day is essential, you have to own a house so that able to keep others from interfering, but some people own 100 house and targeting others which doesn’t have house to pay the rent. There are even more rich people owned the massive land around the world.

Now we look at the medium of exchange we used these day, which is money or usually also known as capital. Why it is so valuable? Because it is “privately owned” as well.. there is no other way.. you cannot let the “capital” become public or commonly owned. Because if there is, there are no more cheap Indonesian/bangla working here, if money is commonly owned.. those worker doesn’t need to come here for money and job because they have their own money.

So all these are privately owned, what does it really mean?.. it is drawing a clear concise line in your society values and economical rules. Ownership only make sense when other doesn’t have it, period. A man doesn’t need to claim ownership if hes the only one in the world. When theres ownership applies.. it makes the world scarce instead abundant. That’s why we see some ppl can live in million dollar worth of property today, while others is out there steal to survive. Only 10% of world population live in luxury, that they own almost all the land… and as mention previously we all live under same planet and earth has finite land and resources, theres no way out.. The rest of the 90% need to fight for everything, and those who cant get anything have no choice but involved in crime to survive. It is you and the rich because of owning all these finite land and resource on earth have to force others to steal and commit crime, period.

… pls give constructive criticism only, thanks for reading.

the man who forced the government

rampoknegara — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:16:17 +0800

The man who changed Iceland - The message for Greece

The man who forced the government of Iceland to resign and kicked out the IMF representatives from his country, Hordur Torfarson, is now teaching meta-modern democracy throughout Europe. The rest of the world would benefit from following the example set by Iceland: Arresting the corrupt bankers who are responsible for the current economic turmoil.

http://youtu.be/YH0_JQW--gc

[youtube]YH0_JQW--gc[/youtube]

Iceland's president explained how his country recovered so quickly from the recession: “The government bailed out the people and imprisoned the banksters — the opposite of what America and the rest of Europe did.”

http://youtu.be/51-Jfh6ADH0

[youtube]51-Jfh6ADH0[/youtube]

The true measure of the leader is not how many follower he has, but how many leaders he creates. Too many people hold the idea that psychopaths are essentially killers or convicts. The general public hasn't been educated to see beyond the social stereotypes to understand that psychopaths can be entrepreneurs, politicians, CEOs and other successful individuals who may never see the inside of a prison. The difference between bankers and the mafia is becoming increasingly indistinguishable.

Control Your Money or Your Money Will Control You Change your attitude toward debt. Every time you use credit for a purchase think, “Debt is slavery; I am making myself a slave.”

“Manipulators rarely advise you to seek new and diverse information or to 'learn and research for yourself,' it tends to be safer for exploitative and irresponsible leaders to keep their citizens in the dark; in their view less independent thought is better. Independent thought leads to an inquiring mind, a mindset that eventually leads to the questioning of authority figures, and that is the one thing that inadequate leaders do not want.”

Governments have never existed to solve problems domestic or international. Governments and their institutions exist merely to further and secure the interests of favored groups, but We the People are never the favored group.

http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/09/th...essage-for.html

there is no government

rampoknegara — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:56:28 +0800

pls be reminded this is not election thread, do not close it. this thread is to discuss/debunking why there is no government, only corporation.

1.) we always regard our gov as leader, it applies for both businessman and employee

2.) when we asked gov to change for the better, it includes..public transport, healthcare, education, public utilities, housing, etc..

3.) first we look at public transport, be it train, buses or taxi.. if you ever wondered.. company that produce car,bus, train is from private company, the fuel used by those transport is also supplied by private company..

4.) healthcare, brick that build the hospital is supplied by private corporation, equipment that use in hospital is supplied by private company, medicine also produced by private company, ..

5.) education, schools, university building material, build by private corporation, books printed by private corporation, projector used in classroom supplied by private corporation, every chair and tables in classroom also supplied by private corporation

6.) public utilities, water tank supplied by private corporation, sanitation system build by private corporation, electricity cable/grid supplied by private corporation, telephone pole build by private company, internet infrastructure manufactured by private company

7.) housing, every brick used to build the house is supplied by private company, every tiles and cement used in the house is supplied by private company, every pipe and cabling in the house build by private company

the question for you all here is... you expect gov to provide cheap and quality public transport, healthcare, education, etc... but all of these is supplied by private company as illustrated above..it is FACT! u cant deny it. read again if you dont understand, so therefore why do you think it is possible you all expect voting or election will be able to change all of us toward better future? you all want cheap and affordable, but all of these is supplied by private company, and inside these private company, there is employee like you and me... is that mean you are willing to take a pay cut ? reduce your own company profit?... i know the answer, majority wont be able to accept pay cut.. the root cause of these issue and what everyone suppose need to fight for is evil monetary mechanism used in our economy system must be removed at once.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

u must..

rampoknegara — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:21:22 +0800

u must become kroni if want to change

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

you want change, vote kroni party.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

we often says..vote will change the direction of your country. that would mean by changing/shape the education policy for our children, better healthcare system, public transportation, better economic growth, etc.. and overall it should mean better living standard for the people and everyone.

however, before typical folks like you vote for this party or that party.. lets describe a bit what is it suppose to mean for you a better living standard provided by the people you had vote, as it translated from which gov you voted and you given them power to rule your environment, income growth, power spending, etc..

suppose in our current standard, a better living standard generally can categorized into 2 type. which is for male and female.. suppose from male point of view, good living standard is owning decent banglo house, with swimming pool, with nice little backyard garden, an alphard family mpv, a weekend sports car, a beautiful wife and 2 kids. while your jobs works only 24 - 32 hours per week, with ability to travel oversea twice a year for family vacation, send ur kids to good education which cost around RM500k upon finished studying, then yourself only works until 40 - 50 years old and able to retire without reducing any standard from ur previous lifestyle

while for the female, good living standard could be nearly the same, live in a decent banglo house, with swimming pool, and nice little backyard garden, your own personal cute car in garage, drive to shopping during weekend, buy new clothes at least once a month, visit hairstylist, manicure, spa every fortnight, oversea vacation with family twice a year, a handsome husband with 2 lovely kids, work only 24 - 32 hours per week, then yourself only works until 40 - 50 years old and able to retire without reducing any standard from ur previous lifestyle

after done some research, suppose ppl in malaysia from age from 20 - 40 probably has around 14 million total, which consist of 7 million male and 7 million female. so lets calculate the target needed for this political party to provide to all those 7 million family. a banglo described should take around 1600 square feet max, total land mass needed is 84,983 hectare.. unfortunately.. the total land in malaysia has only 329,847 square kilometres (refer here). which is 32,900 hectare.. so we still have 52,083 unmet demand from due to lack of land (84,983 - 32,900 = missing 52,083 hectare)

we are not even calculate how much consumption/resource it would take to provide those alphard, weekend sports car, house/building material, to 7million family etc etc.. you have to realize all this is impossible to provide for everyone. this is math! do some calculation yourself, you'll know it is impossible to provide such living standard to 7 million family, somebody must suffer and prepare to be sacrificed.

if you have done all those calculation, finally, you will realize doesnt matter what political party A or B says.. whatever they promise is not possible to materialized because they forgot to calculate how much resource it would take, they have no idea how big is malaysia and can build how many house to family only, it is limited. thus, the purpose of this thread i created is i want tell everyone it is time to wake up.. so it is logical why we should start a kroni party, which supporter/people are same category as kroni only in today's standard. the reason why need of the kroni name for the party is because for those who is not sure, suppose political party A promise abcxyz good for their supporter, the very first thing whats gonna happen is the people inside political party A, which is kroni will get the goodies for themselves first, upon got the mandate and support from majority... which is usually thru after vote.

when majority has given mandate/power to kroni, what usually happen is kroni will automatically create & secure their own position as much as possible for themselves first. why? cant kroni be honest? kroni cant fullfill what they promise to supporter? no cannot.. you have to understand this is not merely will power or wishful thinking, what kroni wont tell you is resource and land is actually limited, this basically translate into wealth ownership or whatever wawasan 2020 development project is actually limited to their own kroni members and family close tie.. this is science and math, it wont lie. refer example calculation above

so thats why the logic of this thread, and this is serious discussion, not for attacking political party A or B, pls dont bring the attack and ad-hominem here. this thread is for discussing possible idea of planning a kroni party. pls give your further idea and comments. thank you

Reply here : http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2689255

Questions : i dont expect to stay in bungalow with swimming pool when voting >.> . you want good life obviously have to earn it?

answer :

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Planning/vote kroni party

rampoknegara — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:49:14 +0800

smartphone rm200 rebate cannot?

rampoknegara — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:32:50 +0800

why cannot open https://komunikasibelia.skmm.gov.my/

any alternative link i can visit to register?

Lowyat Malaysia Development Plan

rampoknegara — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:21:53 +0800

Lowyat Malaysia Development Plan

- ok.. either this is some sort of serious hard trolling or nay... you decide

the purpose of this thread is lay down the very essential criteria as a sucessful country, before i elaborate further.. lets define what does it
mean by being a sucessful country

generally we often relate our country with others in terms of economy power, social & political stability, purchasing power etc etc.. but in this
thread we are going to examine each of it and how to achieve it

before we continue, we starts by defining what essentialy is a country.. first of all. it is made up of several entities.. which as gov dept,
administration ruling, laws, governance system, political structure etc etc.. but does all of these really matter? anyone of you ever ask if gov
has anything to do with increasing living standard of everyone? probably or otherwise.. but since when gov know anything about building your house?
fix your broken car? provide better healthcare? better education?... all ive seen is gov is more of like landlord and proposing tender and give
the money for those has chance to make most of money out of it. its more of like business, but as you know.. business require cyclical consumption
and how does it able to provide its product and services for good once it is immediately inferior to its previous product/services?

in business, if i give you medicine that cures the disease how is it possible my future business will be able to survive when theres less and less
patient? if this is true.. the logical way in such paradigm is the more problems we have eventually we will be able to increase the gdp and bookeeping
numbers.. because if in our society have more problems.. eventually there is more business popping out ready to offer their 'solutions'.. of course
if genuine solution that will solve the problem for once and for all wont be able to exist because eventually no more 'income' to survive..

ironically if we think about it.. dont you think higher living standard for all suppose to mean less problem of pollution, ecological, bankruptcy,
social ilness, crime rate..etc etc? if this is true.. then many opportunity to make money eventually will dissapeared.. thus we have
lost a lot of potential earning income lol

first thing we all need to understand here is money could be the cause of such behavior in our society. 2nd would be the ownership issues, which
includes.. property, patents, copyright issues.. msia isnt running out of place / land to build everyone a house, malaysia isnt running out of resource
to provide product/services to everyone.. yet there are people become criminal

think about it fellas..

to be continue..

Survival of Fittest

rampoknegara — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:21:28 +0800

Evolution myths: 'Survival of the fittest' justifies 'everyone for themselves'

The "fittest" can be the most loving and selfless, not the most aggressive and violent. In any case, what happens in nature does not justify people behaving in the same way

The phrase "survival of the fittest", which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood.

For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness - variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.

What's more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word "fittest" seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.

What we see in the wild is not every animal for itself. Cooperation is an incredibly successful survival strategy. Indeed it has been the basis of all the most dramatic steps in the history of life. Complex cells evolved from cooperating simple cells. Multicellular organisms are made up of cooperating complex cells. Superorganisms such as bee or ant colonies consist of cooperating individuals.

Suicidal cells

When cooperation breaks down, the results can be disastrous. When cells in our bodies turn rogue, for instance, the result is cancer. So elaborate mechanisms have evolved to maintain cooperation and suppress selfishness, such as cellular "surveillance" programmes that trigger cell suicide if they start to turn cancerous.

Looked at from this point of view, the concept of the survival of the fittest could be used to justify socialism rather than laissez-faire capitalism. Then again, the success of social insects could be used to argue for totalitarianism. Which illustrates another point: it is nonsense to appeal to the "survival of the fittest" to justify any economic or political ideology, especially on the basis that it is "natural".

Is cannibalism fine because polar bears do it? Is killing your brother or sister fine because nestlings of many bird species do it? Is murdering your children fine because mice sometimes eat their own pups? Is paedophilia fine because bonobo adults have sex with juveniles?

Powerful grip

Just about every kindMovie Camera of behaviour that most of us regard as "unnatural" turns out to be perfectly natural in some nook or cranny of the animal kingdom. No one can plausibly argue that this justifies humans behaving in the same way.

Yet even though such examples expose the utter absurdity of appealing to what is "natural" to judge right from wrong - the naturalistic fallacy - we seem to have a strange blind spot when it comes to evolution. Survival of the fittest has been claimed to justify all kinds of things, from free markets to eugenics. Such notions still have a powerful grip in some circles.

However, natural selection is simply a description of what happens in the living world. It does not tell us how we should behave.

Reference : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1367...true&print=true

Modern Banking System

rampoknegara — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:11:49 +0800

The Mechanics of Fractional Reserve Banking (1/6)

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. — Lord Acton

Ryan published Frackin’ Reserve!, a fractional reserve banking simulator (desktop version here, web version here), with the promise to follow-up with another article explaining it.

Part 1 explains the basic mechanics of fractional reserve banking in very simple terms with examples.

Part 2 answers “What is Money?” for the purposes of the discussion.

Part 3 illustrates how and why fractional reserve banking is fraudulent.

Part 4 shows how the system can fall apart, and two attacks that the banksters can use to steal wealth from people.

Part 5 examines usury and compound interest as forms of invisible slavery.

Part 6 is a quick summary with links to other resources.

Each part builds on the previous, so it is strongly recommended to read through in order. Even if you have a solid understanding of fractional reserve banking, there are a few new twists that I add to the traditional understanding of it that could be missed.

The 3 Factors in Fractional Reserve Banking
Frackin’ Reserve!

If you haven’t already, download the Frackin’ Reserve! simulator program, visit the web edition page, or click here for a pop-up with the web edition

While fractional reserve banking mechanics are surprisingly simple, the implications of the system are not. Mechanically, fractional reserve banking depends on 3 factors:

Initial deposit: The amount of the initial deposit.
Reserve requirement: The fractional reserve requirement (also called ‘reserve requirement’, ‘cash reserve requirement’, or ‘reserve ratio’) is a number between 0 and 1.
Iterations: The number of times that money is deposited or cycled through the system.

The initial deposit into the fractional reserve banking system comes from the government when they issue bonds and deliver them to the bank. These bonds are I.O.U.s from the government as a promise to pay the amount of the bond back with interest.

The reserve requirement is a number between 0 and 1, and sets the ratio of the amount of money that they bank can “print” to loan out. For example, if the reserve requirement is 0.1 (10%), and the bank receives $100 in government bonds, then the bank can loan out $100 × (1 − 0.1) = $100 × 0.9 = $90.

So the basic mathematics of the system are extremely simple. Stated in general:

Loan = Deposit × (1 − Reserve Requirement) e.g. $90 = $100 × (1 − 0.1)

Or, in terms of what the bank must keep in reserves, i.e. the amount of money that it cannot loan out: Reserve = Deposit × Reserve Requirement e.g. $10 = $100 × 0.1

But it doesn’t stop there. Once a loan is made, the person that receives the loaned money goes out and spends it to obtain some form of wealth in the real world. That could be a house, a car, a guitar, groceries, a meal at a restaurant, or anything that can be purchased. The seller of the product or service then takes that money, goes back to the bank, and deposits it. That deposit is then subject to the same reserve requirement with the remainder being made available for the bank to loan out again.

The Fractional Reserve Banking Cycle

Breaking the whole thing down into a simple ordered list, fractional reserve banking follows this pattern:

The government issues bonds to the bank.
The bank loans out 90% of the money.
The borrower spends the money.
The seller deposits the money into the bank.
Go to point 2 where the bank then lends out the money again.

Step 1 kick-starts the system the same way that you would kick-start a motorcycle. The government can always inject more money into the system, but every time it does, it starts this fractional reserve banking process over again with that money.

Step 2 is where the “magic” of fractional reserve banking happens. The legal requirement to keep only a small portion of a deposit gives the bank the “right” to print money out of nothing. This is explained in detail in Part 3.

Step 5 is nothing more than running through steps 2-4 again for the entire cycle to start over. This is the second “magic” of fractional reserve banking because it creates a an iterative feedback loop for money to multiply itself. Aristotle called the process of money multiplying itself “the most unnatural”.

"For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural. — Aristotle"

While he was speaking of interest, and not fractional reserve banking, the principle “the birth of money from money” is still the same.

If you view the bank’s keeping a reserve as an independent step in the process, then the cycle looks like this:

The people spend and deposit, while the bank loans out the money, less the reserve requirement.
The following graphic illustrates the process of fractional reserve banking as described above. (Click to zoom.)

Putting that into a table so that you can visualize it differently:
Iteration # Deposited = Reserves + Available to Lend Bank
Lends to
1. Adam 1,000.00 = 100.00 + 900.00 Anne
2. Brian 900.00 = 90.00 + 810.00 Brenda
3. Chris 810.00 = 81.00 + 729.00 Cathy
4. David 729.00 = 72.90 + 656.10 Dale
And the cycle continues

Fractional Reserve Banking Limits

As the cycle continues, the amount of money that the bank has loaned out approaches a limit:

Loans = (Initial Deposit ÷ Reserve Requirement) − Initial Deposit $9,000 = ( $1,000 ÷ 0.1 ) − $1,000 = $10,000 − $1,000

Also, the total amount of money that people have deposited into the bank approaches a limit (this is formally called the “money multiplier“):

Deposits = (Initial Deposit ÷ Reserve Requirement) $10,000 = ($1,000 ÷ 0.1)

And, the amount of money that the bank holds in reserve approaches a limit:

Reserves = Initial Deposit $1,000 = $1,000

The following table illustrates how this happens over many iterations in the fractional reserve banking system:

Iteration # Deposited Held
in Reserve Loan from Deposit Loans Reserves Deposits
1 1,000.00 100.00 900.00 0.00 100.00 1,000.00
2 900.00 90.00 810.00 900.00 190.00 1,900.00
3 810.00 81.00 729.00 1,710.00 271.00 2,710.00
4 729.00 72.90 656.10 2,439.00 343.90 3,439.00

And a little while later (87% there)…
19 150.09 15.01 135.09 7,649.15 864.91 8,649.15
20 135.09 13.51 121.58 7,784.23 878.42 8,784.23

Closer towards those limits (97.5% there)…
34 30.90 3.09 27.81 8,721.87 972.19 9,721.87
35 27.81 2.78 25.03 8,749.68 974.97 9,749.68
36 25.03 2.50 22.53 8,774.72 977.47 9,774.72

And closer towards those limits…
115 0.01 0.00 0.01 8,999.95 999.99 9,999.95
116 0.01 0.00 0.00 8,999.95 1,000.00 9,999.95

And we hit those limits!
137 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,999.99 1,000.00 9,999.99
138 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 1,000.00 10,000.00

2 decimal places displayed — accurate to 28 decimal places

The examples above all use a 0.1 (10%) reserve requirement, but different countries can have different reserve requirements.

Looking at some of the equations above again:

Loans = ( Initial Deposit ÷ Reserve Requirement ) − Initial Deposit
Deposits = ( Initial Deposit ÷ Reserve Requirement )

The second equation there is formally called the “money multiplier”. As the reserve requirement approaches zero, “Deposits” approaches infinity. Here’s a graph that shows reserve requirements from 0.1 up to 1:

Notice that as the reserve requirement becomes lower, the amount of money that a deposit can generate becomes higher and higher.

And remembering back to what the “Reserve Requirement” is: A number between 0 and 1.

What happens when the reserve requirement is zero? Any idiot can tell you that you cannot divide by zero. Dividing by zero results in an infinity, which is absurd (for mathematical purposes like this). You just cannot do it.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire"

You cannot divide by zero… Unless you live in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Sweden where the reserve requirements are all ZERO! Apparently the Canucks, Ozzies, Kiwis, and Swedes have all forgotten about this little thing we call sanity. (Hmmm… Perhaps that explains me…)

Frackin’ Reserve! only allows very low values for reserve requirements because no computer can process “1 ÷ 0″.

The Speed of Fractional Reserve Banking

The last thing to mention about fractional reserve banking mechanics is that it only happens when money is deposited into a bank. That is if I buy a guitar pedal from Adam for $100, and he uses that money to buy $100 of marijuana from Brian, who buys $100 of raw milk from Chris, the fractional reserve system never comes into play, and the banks cannot fabricate any money out of thin air.

HOWEVER… If all money is made digital, and all transactions are electronic, such as through NFC (Near Field Communications) (read my article on “How You Are Being Indoctrinated for NFC” here), then ALL money for ALL transactions goes through the banks and thus through the fractional reserve banking system. This accelerates the pace of fractional reserve banking far above the state that it is in now. It is a massive power transfer to the banks.

Is it any wonder the bankster criminals, corrupt politicians, and corporatists are urging us towards electronic money? (The objection to this is that a money transfer also transfers reserve requirements. However, this is quite beside the point when it comes to the digital velocity of money.)

So there are the mechanics of fractional reserve banking in a nutshell.

"Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon. — Robert H. Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta"

richest people

rampoknegara — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:51:59 +0800

"The richest people in the world own their own businesses. Massive wealth comes from massive leverage – of other people's time and other people's money." - anonymous

Young people with depression problems growing — Dr

rampoknegara — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:16:40 +0800

QUOTE

]There used to be a time when depression typically only happened to those aged 40 years and above, but modernity has altered the equation.

Statistics now show that those in their early 20s or 30s are no longer immune to this mental illness.

Studies have shown that people with depression problems are getting younger, said Dr Lau Kim Kah, chairman of Mental Health Association of Sarawak (MHAS) Kuching branch.

He lamented that although most mental illnesses were “highly treatable with medication and counselling”, many patients never dared to seek help due to the social stigma.

“The longer the illness is left untreated, the more damage it could do to the person as well as to the society,” cautioned Dr Lau, who is also director of Hospital Sentosa.

“The earlier the illness is detected, the higher the chances of recovery.”

Dr Lau shared these views with staff of Cahya Mata Sarawak Bhd (CMSB) at the temporary premises of MHAS in Jalan Stakan, Kota Sentosa, here yesterday.

A total of 117 CMSB staff had gathered at the centre to help to clean the centre. The company also donated a metric tonne of cement for maintenance purposes.

Dr Lau described mental illness as “quite common thing” in the world, and that depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were the top three

One in every six individuals in the world has mental problems, Dr Lau said, citing reports from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

On MHAS’s dream of having a building of their own for mental patients, Dr Lau hoped that CMSB could lend a helping hand.

He said association had thus far raised about RM500,000, but the proposed project needed between RM2 million and RM3 million.

“The government has given us a piece of land, but it is too small. A land of three acres in size would be nice,” he said.

“We will submit our request to the government to have bigger land. We will submit our proposal sometime this month.”

Dr Lau said new home would not only be used to accommodate mental patients but would also be used as a training centre to arm the residents with skills to help them gain employment.

“We hope to have a drop-in centre at the new home as well so that people with mental illness would have a place to interact. It would also be a resource centre to complement existing service provided by the government.”

Dr Lau opined that the current location in Jalan Stakan was ideal because it was near to a polyclinic and there were shophouses nearby. In addition, there was a bus service.

“I hope the government could find us a bigger place in this location.”

MHAS has three branches in the state. Besides the Kuching branch, the other two are in Sibu and Miri. The association was established in 1968, gets an annual grant of RM30,000 from the state government, but its annual expenses are about RM80,000.

For more information, MHAS Kuching branch could be reached at 082-615387.

Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/10/08/yo.../#ixzz283jv9DdN

why on earth there wont be increase of depression because of this?

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

need help translate

rampoknegara — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:12:40 +0800

can someone pls help translate this into simple mandarin?

"the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers - thomas jefferson"

thx in advance

Poorest President in the world

rampoknegara — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:17:37 +0800

Uruguayan President José Mujica, has earned the nickname of the “poorest,” or the “most generous,” president in the world

By LARA FERNANDEZ

Usually presidents are not associated with poverty. Some, like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, are even linked to big spending and generous welfare programs.

But the President of Uruguay, José Mujica, has earned the nickname of the “poorest,” or the “most generous,” president in the world — depending on how you see things— after revealing that he donates 90 percent of his earnings, to charitable causes.

In a recent interview, Mujica told Spain’s El Mundo that he earns a salary of $12,500 a month, but only keeps $1,250 for himself, donating the rest to charity.

The president said that the only big item he owns is his VW car, valued at $1,945 dollars. The farmhouse in which he lives in Montevideo is under his wife’s name, Lucía Topolansky, a Senator, who also donates part of her salary.

“I do fine with that amount; I have to do fine because there are many Uruguayans who live with much less,” the president told El Mundo.

The 77-year-old Mujica is a former guerilla leader, who fought against Uruguay’s military regimes in the 1970s. He was also Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries from 2005 to 2008 and afterwards, served as a senator.

Later on, as presidential candidate for the Broad Front, the left-wing coalition, Mujica won the 2009 election becoming Uruguay’s president on March 1, 2010.

Uruguay is the second smallest nation in South America by area, after Suriname. However it is one of the most developed countries on the continent, with a GDP per capita of $15,656. That’s less than half of United States’ GDP per capita, but it triples earnings in Honduras which has a GDP per capita of just $4,345.

Under Mujica’s stewardship, Uruguay has become known for low levels of corruption. The South American country ranks as the second least corrupt country in Latin America in Transparency International’s global corruption index.

Uruguay also made it to the world cup 2010 semi-finals while Mujica was in office, and the country won the South American Soccer championships in 2011, stunning tournament hosts Argentina, in a memorable performance by striker Diego Forlan.

It seems therefore, that it’s a good time to be Jose Mujica.

Without bank accounts, and with few debts, Mujica told El Mundo that he sleeps peacefully. When his term is over, the President hopes to rest even more peacefully in his farmhouse, along with his wife and his inseparable dog, Manuela.

http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/24490...orest-president

Attack on Capitalism

rampoknegara — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:40:16 +0800

we often say money is not a meaningless construct. It represents the amount of work a person has done, how much effort they have expended, or how difficult their life is.” This claim is one of many largely false claims about Capitalism which are obscured by glimmers of truth; the idea that someone with more money 'worked harder', or has had a more 'difficult'life than someone with less money. Admittedly, there are numerous cases where this assumption holds true. Many business owners begin with a small amount of capital, and are able to vastly increase their wealth over time through hard work and dedication. This claim probably also holds true when we are looking at very small income brackets. For example, if you were to compare your life with everyone around you whose annual income is within 5-10 thousand dollars a year of your own, it actually makes sense that those who put in more effort would have more money that those who expended less effort.

However, as soon as we begin to extrapolate this concept across wider income levels, it immediately falls apart. For example, a construction worker performing 12 hours of back-breaking labour for 5 days a week will likely make a fraction of the money made by a manager at that company who never has to put in more than 40 hours a week. Of course, you might argue that the manager exerts more 'mental effort' than the construction worker. However, even in terms of mental effort, the link between money and effort is still difficult to prove. A hardworking CEO with an advanced education will have a salary this is literally hundreds of times greater than a hardworking scientist with an advanced education, even if both individuals are working essentially around the clock. You might argue that the scientist is not under as much pressure as the CEO, who maintains a company that must be accountable to hundreds of thousands of workers and shareholders (even if said scientist is attempting to solve a societal problem that affects the lives of a billion people). However, if being under pressure should equate to higher pay, then why does the average CEO in America make more than twice as much money as the President of the United States (10,11)? Does running a large company really entail more mental strain than running a country with a population of over 300 million?

And of course, we haven't even touched on the ludicrous paychecks of professional athletes and entertainers. Granted, many athletes spend long hours training and preparing for their chosen sport. However, the level of pay an athlete receive varies wildly depending on which sport they're playing and where it is being played; often factors completely independent of how much 'effort' is being expended. As for the pay of Hollywood actors, does the craft of acting require so much effort that they must be rewarded millions of dollars? If so, then why are there so many struggling actors who work just as hard, but might never see enough money to make a living from their craft? The entertainment industry as a whole is an excellent example of how the link between money and effort is shaky, at best. Why do some recording artists rake in millions of dollars from their music, while other artists who work just as hard will not even make enough money to pay their rent? The reason for this mostly falls on things like 'marketing' and 'popularity', but neither of these are necessarily reflective of the effort expended by the artists themselves.

You might then argue that it is a question of skill; the people who make the most money are simply more skilled at their craft than others. If this were the case, then why is 'pop' the most profitable type of music, despite being notorious for the lack of skill required to create it? If you are still not convinced of the questionable link between money and effort, there is still one last case that displays this fallacy more than any other case: being born into wealth. There are vast numbers of people who are simply born into wealthy families, never expending any substantial amount of effort in order to 'earn' their affluence. They grow up with every advantage required for them to retain their affluence into adulthood, completely independent of how much 'effort' they expend in comparison to their less fortunate counterparts. Indeed, I would say that this category contains the most numerous examples of the shaky link between money and the difficulty of one's life.

Ultimately, unless we are measuring and comparing the amount of calories burned per hour between two individuals with different jobs, the entire notion of 'effort' is largely subjective. There are instances in which the link between effort and money is very clear, instances where it is difficult to discern, and instances in which it is completely non-existent. That last case is perhaps best seen when we examine the relationship on a global scale, comparing the very richest people in the world to the very poorest. The idea that the wealthiest people in the world work harder, and have more difficult lives than the highly impoverished is pretty laughable. In fact, I hereby state an open challenge to the CEO of any Fortune 500 company who wants to prove me wrong: Go to an impoverished African village with an interpreter, walk up to a malnourished child, and deliver the following communication to them: “The reason I am one of the richest people in the world and you are struggling to meet your most basic needs is because my life is so much harder than yours”. I think the sheer ridiculousness of that last statement pretty much sums up my whole argument.

While reading my response to this particular query, you might think that I'm simply being bitter towards a class of people who live a lifestyle that I envy. If that is the case, then allow me to tell you a little bit more about myself. I am one of the aforementioned people who was born into above-average wealth. I consumed far more than I needed, all while expending hardly any 'effort' of my own. During my short adulthood, I spent some time living a life of material wealth and affluence, and I learned firsthand just how empty and meaningless this lifestyle is. Most importantly, I have witnessed the ugly side of this kind of life. When I said that a materialistic person can never achieve lasting happiness, I wasn't just guessing; I was speaking from experience and direct observation. It is commonly thought that anyone who complains about Capitalism is doing so because they have been a victim of it. However, I am not a victim of this system. I come from the part of society that is doing the victimizing. I have personally lived the kind of lifestyle which I am now speaking out against; the kind of lifestyle that is signing the death warrant for our species. Capitalism may have been very kind to me, but I cannot overlook the fact that it has been nothing but cruel to majority of the world, and completely ineffective at managing society.

we often says... theres no other way, or “The ability to own private property is a fundamental human right.” In a certain sense, I actually agree with this statement. I think every human has the right to safely possess the things they need to survive, without fear of these things being damaged or taken away by someone else. However, this is not necessarily the same as private property. 'Private property' is a means to secure access to resources when resources are scarce. That is, by claiming an object or resource as my 'property', I can access it at will and prevent others from accessing it without my permission. But this entire enterprise becomes largely pointless once we overcome scarcity. There is no longer any reason for me to hoard resources in order to secure access when everything I need access to is abundantly available. In essence, the right to own 'private property' is superseded by a much more fundamental right: Every person has the right to have their needs met without worry. By providing abundant access to all of the necessities of life, there would be no need, or logical reason, for anyone to desire or steal your personal goods. Just because there are no 'laws' specific to the concept of property, that does not mean that people would not still respect the goods being used by another person. After all, everyone else has everything they need to survive, so there would be no reason for them to want to take anything of 'yours'. By creating this kind of environment, we ensure that the right to have one's needs met is always respected. That being said, the assertion of private property as a fundamental human right within the

Capitalist system is seriously flawed. If 'property' is a universal human right, why are there so many people in the world who don't own a single thing to their name? Why do so many people have their property forcibly taken away from them if they cannot afford to pay for it? Clearly, our Capitalist system does not treat property as a right at all; we treat it as a privilege. If you are fortunate enough to possess enough fancy pieces of paper to secure your property, your rights will be respected. If you lack these pieces of paper, you suddenly lose any and all rights you supposedly possessed. Some might argue that the ability to possess money has 'earned' them the right to that property. However, a fundamental human right is, by definition, not something that needs to be 'earned'; it is owed to all humans by default. That's why it's called a fundamental human right . As for the notion that money represents the 'work' that someone does, well...

singapore successful because

rampoknegara — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:12:56 +0800

because they practice full dictatorship in economy

mainstream media is 100% owned by gov

citizen being feed with whatever gov tells u to do

singapore gov decides whats best for you

local born people is around 50%, another 50% is foreigner, total around 5million citizen

singapore gov sold all their people to corporation in exchange for money

sg people values money more than anything else

sg people fight for family inheritance

brother and sisters are enemy

dying father and mother watch hopelessly their kids fight against each other for inheritance

sg people will eventually die fighting for money..

sg people value their life by fighting

sg people doesnt enjoy the process of living the life

Worldwide tube transportation

rampoknegara — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:38:07 +0800

[YOUTUBE]51HbmuKhRbk[/YOUTUBE]

why house and car not cheap

rampoknegara — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:12:27 +0800

you are the problem

i am the problem

you dont want to listen

you submit to capitalism

you want to win over others

you refuse to cooperate with each other

you want to compete

the person who make bricks for house want profit

the person who produce steel for house want profit

the developer who build house want profit

the person who bought house want his/her house value to increase

everyone wants to maximize self-preserving, then who is still gonna provide cheap house and cheap car?

iphone 5 $199 only?

rampoknegara — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:57:33 +0800

why in USA cheapest iphone 5 starts from US$199 only?

ive checked apple msia website, iphone4s cost RM1799. after converted to US dollar, it is US$583.74

How I would control property speculation

rampoknegara — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:48:57 +0800

1.) build an ocean platform, picture as example

why need an ocean platform? because ocean is much bigger than land. land also already have owners and cost money if need to buy land. while ocean literally has no value. at the same time also preserve the forest on land, save trees, saves environment.

then build a highway linked from the ocean city to landed city. so that people can work at city, then also travel back daily live in the ocean house.

2.) use this to build the house.

more info :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...e-24-hours.html

3.) after done building the ocean city, implement following rules

each name of msia citizen only can have 1 house in the ocean city.

by doing this, rich people also can buy the house but the rules only allow one name for each house. no such thing many houses can belong to one person name

4.) over time, more people move from landed city to this new ocean city. then those landlord or rich people with many houses will start seeing value of their property drops because there is no buyer

5.) the automated machine then expand the ocean platform and more houses continue to build. this will push down the value in the landed city much further

6.) there is more house supply than demand, and indirectly will control the house speculation. goal achieved.