The end of private ownership in the means of production
- Thread starter Matt Houston
- Start date
Don't worry, if money fails, even the rich will not make it this time, since they have nothing left then. I often smile at those who reading the tea leaves to come, talk about having guns and a hide away. What happens to one, happens to all of us. That is the broader meaning of environment I think. The true survivors will likely be the people considered really backwards today. Those independent of the monetary system today and considered poor.
One irony of the "Tragedy of the Commons" is that we will all get fair portions of what is coming to us in environment, government, and society. None of us (not even the rich) are Gods separate from this world or each other.
BTW, at this point, an apology wouldn't help out much. These things have hysteresis or today's word - tipping points.
Since it is the UN that is directly involved in causing these things, it is odd that one would expect them to fix the problems that justify their existence.
For further research the documents on the report from iron mountain, the 1933 coup attempt on the US that FDR supposedly stopped, the ozone hole issue (which we all fixed remember thanks to the world coming together), the admission in a UN document that they are behind the environmental and green movement along with the reason behind it. There are dozens of threads to read if you can evaluate probabilities and think for yourself.
Of course, it is easier to think that the government will always care for you for most people. Government is wonderful in theory, but in practice funny things happen.
I seem to remember reading that in Canada and the US, the supreme lawmaker is now the UN and not our governments. What would the benefit to use be in that, given that we have no direct say in the UN's antics?
"
"do you really think the population is not rising rapidly"
prove it with numbers. western europe, japan and the US have a fertility rate below the replacement rate.
"I try to get uncaring chumps like you to care before it's irreversible."
but what do actually do for your cause? the answer is nothing. u have been called out and you came up with a "chump" answer.
Most of today's economists when talking about the financial crisis around the world try to promote growth of GDP. This they say should be done by greater consumer spending. I say go for OPTIMUM size and hold it there. The industrialised countries are probably near their OPTIMUM sizes. Promoting growth all the time means more and more resources are used. Advance technology by investment.
BTW Bill Gates is a man I admire because he donates huge sums to good causes.
BTW Bill Gates is a man I admire because he donates huge sums to good causes.
While I agree with you in theory, I think that holding a constant GDP is impossible because of our peculiar fractional banking system. Growth is needed to keep the ponzi economics going because of fringe effects like interest used to keep people using paper over hard assets. A constant GDP implies a wealth savings system that does not tax it away, inflate it away, or change its value no matter how many years the savings extend over.
No problem for the retired but if I was 21 I would be worrying about it.
Droids are certainly going to take over more and more jobs imho BUT they have no compassion, humility etc and that will be another major problem. Will the militaries around the world say no to Azimo with a gun to replace troops ? Obviously not.
This is what is true. You can't maintain a flat growth curve or else the whole system goes backward until all debts are unpaid and less money is in existence since money = debt. But can't take away interest or the Bankers ability to create debt money because they want to hold onto control.
The first post in this thread really isn't a huge concern because there just isn't enough energy to generate the GDP to make robots take over all jobs. There may be many jobs replaced by robots, but many will sit idle because the economics of what they produce will not make it worth it to turn them on or produce whatever junk they make. It's all going to go backwards.
Wow, I am genuinely surprised you guys don't see this coming, I guess maybe because I work in technology it's so obvious to me.
15 years ago a big project in my field would have a team of about 100 people, now that same project would have about 15, and the projects are getting fewer if anything. I see the trend continuing.
How many of you guys have iphones? What do you think of Siri? Can you imagine what Siri will be like in 10 years? Can you not see call centres replaced with a servers one day? (just an example off the top of my head)
And again I am not saying this is good or bad, maybe people need to be freed from those soul destroying call centre jobs, but I see a centrally controlled economy as the obvious outcome which does make me feel quite uneasy.
15 years ago a big project in my field would have a team of about 100 people, now that same project would have about 15, and the projects are getting fewer if anything. I see the trend continuing.
How many of you guys have iphones? What do you think of Siri? Can you imagine what Siri will be like in 10 years? Can you not see call centres replaced with a servers one day? (just an example off the top of my head)
And again I am not saying this is good or bad, maybe people need to be freed from those soul destroying call centre jobs, but I see a centrally controlled economy as the obvious outcome which does make me feel quite uneasy.