Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  16    18    20  ..  44
Author: Subject: Exploitation of the global economy, the coming collapse
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
*****




Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 13:56


Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
stop playing god and telling everyone that industrialization is the promised land.


I have to strongly agree with Rosco on this point.
Industrialisation and actual work that is truely productive to economic activity is important.

I believe economists and policy-makers have been derailed by falsely thinking that information and technology is becoming the new economy. Consumers need more manufactured and constructed products. The problem is that most of them do not have the purchasing power to "demand" it. Lower income people can only afford the basics, and this includes mostly low-cost services. High income people are also big consumers of services- maids to clean their houses, expensive restaurants, luxury tourism.

The increasing income inequality is shifting the economy into a mainly service economy. This is not necessarily a good thing. Just the opposite can be seen in other developing countries that are seeing rapid growth of their middle classes.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 14:07


Any argument for continued insustrialization/centralization is resulting from a deep fear of change. It is only natural, and everyone profiting has strongly encouraged fear of change/the unknown. Anyone attempting a rational viewpoint will see overwhelming evidence in favor of deindustrialization, now that we are reaching the technological capability. And who knows how far it could get since so little R&D had actually been directed toward it?

More centralization = greater inequality and lower overall standard of living, for a multitude of reasons. A few years ago there were not many viable ways to decentralize society and maintain an acceptable percieved "standard of living." New technology and ideas are changing the situation rapidly, but people haven't realized yet.

It looks like many different factors are in the process of rapidly "coming together." I'm just trying to speed things up and get people thinking...

One seemingly obvious solution to our problems, or at least major improvement to homo sapiens, is the "open" movement. The ideas devoloped for open source software/intelectual property have now been applied to many other areas of human life. Will anyone disagree on this after reading the following?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_knowledge
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_communication
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Can someone please explain why these concepts should not be widely applied?

If one assumes these concepts are indeed worth spreading, then the question becomes how to inform people most effectively?

The bitcoin currency has some real potential for changing the playing field.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Tor has already allowed communication to be possible for rebels in many arab contries. Exciting possibilities here too.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)


[Edited on 5-3-2012 by 497]




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 14:15


Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
I have to strongly agree with Rosco on this point.
Industrialisation and actual work that is truely productive to economic activity is important.


Who wouldn't - we all want to keep our big trucks and big screen tvs forever. But what is it important to? Maintaining what we have and want.

Like 497 said. Expanding, growth, and constructing a "good economy" is simply another way of saying you fear change. There is no absolute "good" in an expanding economy, only short term reward systems, such as a bigger pay check, a bigger grill, a faster car, etc. There is an absolute good in understanding and learning. All materialistic "growth" is not fundamental to happiness. The simple act of gaining is what is fundamental to happiness, which is fundamentally important. Not a growing economy. Its not sustainable, and nobody in the news media will ever admit it.

It isn't going to go on like this forever. There is only so much materials and resources on this planet. And viewing the planet as a resource itself is fundamentally suicidal.




ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 14:38


Quote: Originally posted by 497  
Anyone attempting a rational viewpoint will see overwhelming evidence in favor of deindustrialization,....(snipped irrelevant precedent and subsequent commentary)


What evidence? You are psychobabbling ideological garbage which has no real world basis. Robotics have not replaced human workers. And even in the future when such a substantial proportionality change could conceivably occur, only the nature of the workers achieving and performing the tasks within an environment of industrialization will change, evolving to what is more technologically advanced.....and that will not represent at all any "deindustrialization" but rather will only be a metamorphosis for the mix of human and mechanized in differing proportionality. Machines gradually do more of what humans did previously. But the world is a long way from not needing human workers and
the world will never be beyond some sort of industrialization, unless genetically engineered algae will be producing hard manufactured durable goods any time soon. I don't see refrigerators or tractors being produced by genetically engineered vines and harvested as field grown crops any time in the near future, although such things may be built by industrial robots. And something must supply energy for those robots operation ......except of course in distant future world where all robots will be self-powered.

Curious isn't it how this "evolution" would proceed with humanity ultimately becoming obsolete or maybe we all become "operators" of "surrogates" ?????
Something gets lost in that bargain don't you think?
(something called humanity)

View user's profile View All Posts By User
madscientist
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 957
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 14:45


Industrialization has been the greatest development in all of human history. Our standard of living is far higher than ever before. The greatest problems are those pertaining to corrupt administration of the economic and political spheres of our lives. This can be dealt with without a return to 12th century economics and the starvation of billions that would accompany it.

Rosco, Marx was very supportive of industrialization. You obviously haven't read a single word of his works, as is so very typical of those criticizing him. I have never seen so many misconceptions and lies propagated about the ideas and actions of any other economist or philosopher.His name is tossed around as a slur, and he is accused of supporting those things which he most deeply opposed (utopian socialism, for one). If popular understanding is to be respected, he was both a liberal pushover and a ruthless dictator, among endless other absurd contradictions.

This is a science forum; we are not supposed to only think scientifically when discussing chemistry. It is helpful to educate oneself and not spread lies out of ignorance, no matter the subject.




I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 12 years of madness
*********




Posts: 2984
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 14:50


Pre-industrial societies could not support current population densities. If you believe that most people should not live, you go first.



PGP Key and corresponding e-mail
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 15:33


Oh, but that my bicycle had wings to fly .......
and then along came Wilbur and Orville
to make it so

You fellows should have some clue that I am absolutely
an advocate of science and technology and industrialization

People who want to ride a bicycle are welcome to pedal ......
It may even have a horn with a rubber bulb they can give a squeeze sometimes
to salute a pretty girl and maybe get a smile

That doesn't mean we should shut down the Boeing plant just yet :D
Besides, that pretty girl may be a stewardess who needs her real job in the real world.

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
It isn't going to go on like this forever. There is only so much materials and resources on this planet. And viewing the planet as a resource itself is fundamentally suicidal.


You are late to the party announcing an idea that the status quo will not continue forever ...for that idea is old news, and by a few thousand years it is old news. And it is for not correctly viewing the planet earth as a stepping stone, or as a launch facility perhaps, for expeditions even to the stars, where is found the error which is "fundamentally suicidal" for the human race. Do you have sufficient depth to understand that truth and why "industrialization" and the technology it requires is essential for any expeditions required for utilizing the resources of other worlds? Even more realistic is the valid probability that a catastrophic impact from an asteroid or comet would bring extinction to humanity long before consumption of all natural resources, which would be far more certain to occur for a humanity defenseless and powerless to intervene, because it had devolved into a deindustrialized society having no spaceflight capability.
No intercept or intervention would be feasible using a bicycle.

http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/

http://news.discovery.com/space/wide-angle-project-icarus-11...



[Edited on 6-3-2012 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 18:19


I might not have made things as clear as I should have... At no point did I advocate going back to preindustrialized society. You are all reacting to what you think I'm saying, little of what I actually wanted to say was even addressed... Robots replacing humans is not at all what I'm talking about, so you're wasting your breath replying to things nobody is discussing. Yes human workers are needed. But did anyone ever question how many of the things we're manufacturing actually need to be? The point is that if people changed their buying habits (priorities) a little, many of those workers could be out of a job and maybe start doing something that benefits them rather than the rich. What if people worked for themselves? We do not need to have everything provided to us to be happy. Is it maybe even possible that people are happier with the things they create for themselves?

Does the man building something for himself not do it better and more happily than the man being payed a wage?

Reading, or at least opening the links I posted might help.

Just because industrialization happens to have looked kindly on your clan does not mean everyone loves it. Do you have any proof the whole world actually benefited so greatly? By what measure? Does the western world seem content to you guys? And how are we to solve this corruption that has plagued us since agriculture began. I have traveled in parts of the world that are very much unindustrialized, and people were just as happy overall, even without being able to buy anything they can imagine.

Deindustrialization is maybe a misleading term. I never meant it in a "return to 12th century" fashion. I can't really blame people for misunderstanding. It wasn't really the main point of what I was trying to say.

Hypothetically what if the average small community could have a simple, cheap system to produce their heat, fuel, livestock feed and recycle their wastewater to potable water, all without a large capital investment or many manufactured components? What kind of changes could you expect. Additionally, what if that community could be free to transfer currency securely worldwide without government scrutiny, and taxes?

[Edited on 6-3-2012 by 497]




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 19:33


The market does not determine what sells and what doesn't sell in the market, people's basic needs and desires for comforts and conveniences determine what sells and does not sell. The buyers determine and define the market and the producers supply that demand in a reciprocally beneficial arrangement called trade. That is business. That is how the world economy more or less operates.

Let me make sure I understand you completely about deindustrialization. You want the entire world to adopt a more spartan, closer to subsistence lifestyle in order to live less luxuriously, or to be more accurate, you want other people to view what is needed and necessary for their own happiness not according to their own desires or needs, but rather in compliance with what you specify ..."obeying" what you qualify as being necessary or "deserved" for them (according to you who are an elite more knowledgeable directorate of such complex matters) and what is luxurious would likewise also be subject to your definition and regulation. Do you have any particular preference for the color uniforms that Chairman 497's devoted followers should wear to affirm their loyalty to his imperious majesty Director 497 ?

Suppose people by and large have no inclination whatsoever to "obey" what the "elite directorate" orders ? Then what, reeducation camps, gulags for the "ignorant" ? Will you become the shoppers chaperone to tell them what are and are not "authorized" and "sensible" purchases....or do you think most people would say they have the right to spend their own money as they may see fit? Ultimately you are advocating collectivism, the needs of the many are superior to the needs of the individual so sacrifices by all individuals must be made to serve the greater good of the collective.

It is very evident the only people advocating how it is that others money should be wisely spent, are those who are not spending their own money for such things but are definitely spending others money in a way that benefits themselves at the cost of others who get nothing in return but the good feeling they are doing their fair share for the collective. The problem there is there comes a point where there is no more of other peoples money to spend to make the world how you think it should be, because you run out of other people's money to spend very quickly. Then you have to resort to corrupt government freeprinting of money to steal every dime of others money that may be in their savings as well, like is the situation which exists now. Where is the ethical basis for that fraud? Benjamin Franklin said a penny saved is a penny earned ....but adjusted for currency devaluation
what do you really have in the final analysis if you don't convert currency just as fast you can into some tangible asset, since the currency itself has become completely and utterly an arbitrarily intangible confidence game? How can legitimate business operate predictably and remain stable and plan for the long term in a monopoly game environment kept in continual capricious flux by corrupt governments and banks perpetuating a fiat currency scam?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKPBzaFkAEM Krauthammer assesses the Lear Jet tax (humor) yet pointedly serious and to the point
View user's profile View All Posts By User
franklyn
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2484
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 22:03


This was starting to turn into my blog , good to hear from you all.

Industrialization only became possible with fractional deposit banking
and joint stock companies , both dutch inventions. This soon created
the bubble , the first ever was about tulips.

Credit ( lending ) expands to fill the demand. Since available dollars
are in finite supply and therefore subject to being bid up in value
( supply & demand ) , it is up to the Fed to provide and maintain the
needed liquidity ( availability of dollars for investment ) to obviate
a credit crunch which is only good for aristocracy and nobility.

In 1974, Hyman Minsky explained the unfolding of credit cycles
with his Financial Instability Hypothesis. It identifies three types
of debt financing:

Hedge ( borrowers can pay principal and interest from income,
so risk is minimal );

Speculative ( borrowers can pay interest from income, but need
liquid financial markets to refinance the principal at maturity, so
defaults rise when liquidity is impaired );

Ponzi ( borrowers can’t pay either interest or principal out of
income, so need the price of the asset to rise to service their
debts and defaults soar when asset prices stop rising ).

Confidence rises over a prolonged period of prosperity, so a
capitalist economy moves from Hedge finance dominating its
financial structure to increasing domination by Speculative and
Ponzi finance. The paradox of this trend is that as economic
circumstances appear to be more prosperous the financial
basis of this prosperity is perversely increasingly precarious
and vulnerable for not making allowance for market adversity.
Exuberance cyclically brings collapse of the credit pyramid.


Meantime back at the trading floor


Okay , who else wants to chime in to musical chairs ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-japan-now-anot...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/411411-the-french-wildcard-f...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9124815/D...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/...

The following is excerpted from here
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/aaa-shortage-drives...

Shortage of AAA rated U.S. Treasuries driven by International demand

[file]17828[/file]

For all the concern that the $10 trillion market for Treasuries is dependent on
Federal Reserve purchases to absorb a continually expanding supply of debt,
the amount held by investors outside the U.S. has grown even more.

Shrinking Supply
Net U.S. fixed-income issuance, including everything from Treasuries to corporate
bonds to mortgage-backed securities, is forecast to fall to $520 billion this year
from $1.2 trillion last year and $2 trillion in 2010, according to a Jan. 6 , 2012
Credit Suisse report.
“ Treasuries represent the ultimate safe-haven asset, particularly at a time when
investors have been concerned about the dynamics in Europe,” Mark Dowding,
a senior money manager at Bluebay Asset Management Ltd. in London, which
manages $39 billion in fixed-income assets, said in March 2 telephone interview.
“ We would argue that Treasuries offer a safer haven than German bunds, for
example, in as much as if Europe really does hit the skids, Germany will end up
paying.”

Quantitative Easing
The Fed said Sept. 21 , 2011 that it would replace $400 billion of shorter-maturity
Treasuries in its holdings with longer-term debt to contain borrowing costs. The
central bank has made $226.2 billion of those purchases, termed " Operation
twist" or QE2 , which are scheduled to run through June 2012
“ The driver of low yields today is more Fed action and policy than foreign investing,”
Krishna Memani, director of fixed income at OppenheimerFunds Inc. in New York,
who helps manage $70 billion, said in a Feb. 29 telephone interview. “ That’s really
the primary driver of yields rather than what China is doing.”
After buying $2.3 trillion in bonds including $900 billion of Treasuries in two stages
of so-called quantitative easing ending in June 2012, the Fed has kept its holdings
steady at $1.65 trillion.
The central bank said in its Jan. 25 , 2012 statement that the economy is “ likely to
warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.”
Foreign ownership of all public U.S. government debt has held above 50 percent since
September, according to the Treasury’s data , at 50.3 percent as of December, 2011.
Foreign buyers have “clung on to purchasing Treasuries even as the Fed bought most
of them out,” Dominic Konstam, head of interest-rate strategy at primary dealer
Deutsche Bank AG in New York, said in a Feb. 27 telephone interview. “ Everyone’s
getting crowded out to some extent, including foreign officials.”

P.S.
I'm long deep out of the money with 20 - 30 yr bonds
If I'm right I look forward to a return 8 to 12 times
my bet , maybe twice that , either that or I'll blow up
before Europe does.

.

[Edited on 6-3-2012 by franklyn]

U.S. Treasury holdings.gif - 19kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 5-3-2012 at 23:22


Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
This was starting to turn into my blog , good to hear from you all.

Any time
Quote:

Industrialization only became possible with fractional deposit banking
and joint stock companies , both dutch inventions.

The Dutch invented the bronze age ? Greshams Law has sure put a world of hurt on Holland since now all our pennies are plated zinc .....gee I wonder how that happened
Quote:

This soon created
the bubble , the first ever was about tulips.

Stocks are not real money, and they are not secure investments, but rather they are shares in a gamble, which is the collective bet of the holders of those shares who have a hope that their pooled resources combined in joint shared ownership speculation in an enterprise will be profitable not just numerically, but in real and tangible returns. Essentially it is a capital cooperative venture.
Quote:

Credit ( lending ) expands to fill the demand. Since available dollars
are in finite supply

Since when? Not since the gold and silver backing for dollars was abolished. Dollars are only limited in quantity by the ink and paper supply and the speed of printing presses to "create" them and their value is established only by the confidence placed in them that those dollars have worth as an intangible. No paper other than a bearer bond readily redeemable for a tangible asset specifically allocated to that bearer bond has any actual value...all paper is speculative, especially paper that is not a bearer bond type of security associated like a unique "property deed" to an identifiable unique property which cannot be counterfeited.

That there is global demand for dollars at all is actually a huge vote of confidence by the global community that all of us mad mad materialistic Americans must be having some sort of "master plan" in the works to fetch the world's butt out of the fire ......and I hope their confidence is not misplaced.....but looking at where things seem to be going is not filling me with enthusiasm on that score. Yankee ingenuity seems to have taken the train for the coast leaving progressive ideology and the "workers unite" hammer and sickle crowd in charge of running the shipyard :D

The Federal Reserve is like Paul Atreides teaching the inhabitants of earth / Fremen? the weirding way of weird money.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQeP6GWU0e4 Dune - The Weirding Way

ah.... but the people still must have their spice .....

Don't it make my brown eyes blue :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEZ_JjNz4E

View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 6-3-2012 at 06:33


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
Curious isn't it how this "evolution" would proceed with humanity ultimately becoming obsolete or maybe we all become "operators" of "surrogates" ?????
Something gets lost in that bargain don't you think?
(something called humanity)



A blatant statement showing you don't fully understand evolution. Evolution is not humanity, they are not in any way related. Humanity came up by random chance that we were formed from the crap shoot roll of quantum mechanics to chemistry to biology to speciation. To assume that evolution's eventual end is to place humanity on top is far from an intelligent insight, it is very ... human of you ;)

PS your vocabulary isn't impressive Rosco, and you're message is getting muttled as you ponder new words to use.




ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Jimbo Jones
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 92
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-3-2012 at 06:51


The tragedy is that the main ingredient for all important things in our lives (the big ass trucks, the huge TV’s, the iPad, iPod, iShit and all this nice looking plastic garbage, which cover our “natural” food) soon will be magically disappear. Petrol IS the building block of this last industrial revolution, along with the “air” made moneys, which make it possible by the power of “free” consummation. A whole system based on one little 1, 5 V battery.

The “benefits” from this process are endless. We soaked our soil with poisons, dig any voluble recourse to produce things WE DON'T NEED and to make thing even better started to grow vegetables, which after some years may require shotguns for more easily catching. Everyone with something between the ears is now running to the hills, with the hope that is not too late to learn how to proper grow food and produce meat. Those are the facts. The other part of the people will continue to ride their cars on blood (Stay tuned. Democracy in Iran, just after the breaks) and when the whole system collapse they will look around with full of tears eyes, whispering – Why lord, why? For them and for all industrial fans who think we could still make it by producing useless garbage in the big cities I just found the ultimate how to manual…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpBqYcGqaaw
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 12 years of madness
*********




Posts: 2984
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-3-2012 at 07:34


Hi GreenD, take a break from this thread for a week. It doesn't need an exciting derail about biology.



PGP Key and corresponding e-mail
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 12 years of madness
*********




Posts: 2984
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-3-2012 at 07:49


Quote: Originally posted by Jimbo Jones  
The tragedy is that the main ingredient for all important things in our lives (the big ass trucks, the huge TV’s, the iPad, iPod, iShit and all this nice looking plastic garbage, which cover our “natural” food) soon will be magically disappear. Petrol IS the building block of this last industrial revolution, along with the “air” made moneys, which make it possible by the power of “free” consummation. A whole system based on one little 1, 5 V battery.

The “benefits” from this process are endless. We soaked our soil with poisons, dig any voluble recourse to produce things WE DON'T NEED and to make thing even better started to grow vegetables, which after some years may require shotguns for more easily catching. Everyone with something between the ears is now running to the hills, with the hope that is not too late to learn how to proper grow food and produce meat. Those are the facts. The other part of the people will continue to ride their cars on blood (Stay tuned. Democracy in Iran, just after the breaks) and when the whole system collapse they will look around with full of tears eyes, whispering – Why lord, why? For them and for all industrial fans who think we could still make it by producing useless garbage in the big cities I just found the ultimate how to manual…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpBqYcGqaaw


The industrial revolution precedes widespread use of oil for energy by about a century and industrialization can long outlast the downslope of oil production. Oil accounts for about 38% of primary energy production in the OECD. That is a large hole to fill should it all disappear. But it won't all disappear at once, and even if it weren't replaced, the remaining energy availability per capita would remain well above pre-industrial levels.

On other forums, there's usually some hysteria about plastics, pesticides, drugs, and fertilizers only coming from oil. Since this is a chemistry forum, you probably realize that's bunk: the key to nitrogen fertilizers is hydrogen, which can be derived from many fossil and non-fossil sources, and any hydrocarbon made from oil can also be made from synthesis gas, albeit at greater expense. Apart from liquid fuels there is no chemical product derived from oil in such quantity that it seriously strains the imagination to plan its derivation from non-oil sources.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
franklyn
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2484
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-3-2012 at 18:49


http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-facts-...

" total student loan debt in the United States will surpass the 1 trillion dollar mark in early 2012 "

.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-3-2012 at 05:09


Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  
Industrialization has been the greatest development in all of human history.
Quite true, but not in an entirely unqualified way.
Quote:
Our standard of living is far higher than ever before.
Again generally true, but not completely true in an unqualified way. That would depend upon what criteria you would use as the measure of exactly what is the standard of living, and who exactly enjoys what they regard as having been an ever improving standard of living, by what measures is the life experience of a person better or worse is somewhat subjective, and is a thing that the data may not accurately reflect. What is regarded as "progress" too often tends to throw out the baby with the bath water while discarding the older for change to something new and "improved" that may be no true advancement. Incremental perfecting of things can lead to desired results with greater predictability and less upheaval. Many good things which are not quite perfect are destroyed through the efforts of obsessive perfectionists who can never be satisfied with what works only reasonably well, since anything short of perfect isn't good enough for them, and what cannot be perfected is then better destroyed according to their own fine madness. Fictitious and fraudulent obsolescence being effected for things which actually are very useful or even unique is something which truly infuriates me as an arbitrary expression of "fashion" and "stylishness" which is ruthlessly impractical and capricious. Some things that are antiquated and traditional need no improvement and need no abolition, but are just fine being left alone. If it aint broke please don't fix it. There have been way too many things that did not ever need fixing that have been fixed right out of existence already.
Quote:
The greatest problems are those pertaining to corrupt administration of the economic and political spheres of our lives.
Yes, I concur completely on that. Dishonesty is at the heart of that issue.
Quote:
This can be dealt with without a return to 12th century economics and the starvation of billions that would accompany it.
On this I agree also but in a qualified way, that would involve a return to the better aspects of 18th century economics which are consistent with the revolutionary ambitions of the American revolution and its contemporaneously published principles and aims, with
abandonment of all the counter American revolutionary dogma which propagandists and the masters whom they serve have used to deceive the American population about their true heritage and the nobility of the founding fathers aims. The true sin of treason which I regard as "counter revolutionary" is viewed by me and correctly through the lens of the American revolution. There is an honesty and integrity there which is not so revolutionary in concept, and at its heart is the resolve of the individual who asserts that their natural human rights are a birthright conveyed to the individual as the blessing of God, a principle and belief and assertion rightly defensible by any force necessary including lethal force in opposition to any tyrant or despot on earth who would assert otherwise. Anyone who doesn't understand what are the "revolutionary" principles embodied in that concept of "Americanism" should reread the the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and reacquaint themselves with what is "revolutionary" and what is "counter-revolutionary" ....not as some mob psychologist and rabble rouser propagandist like Karl Marx
would define revolutionary and counter-revolutionary as found in the dictionary and play book of a Bolshevik like Stalin. The bona fide meaning of what is revolutionary and counter revolutionary is more honestly understood through the definition of Thomas Jefferson and referenced to the aims and declaration of the American revolution. I am an american so that is my perspective on the matter of what is revolutionary and counter revolutionary. I reject entirely the Bolshevik definition as a subversive lie and distortion of the honest and purist definition of what is revolutionary and counter revolutionary.
Quote:

Rosco, Marx was very supportive of industrialization. You obviously haven't read a single word of his works, as is so very typical of those criticizing him.
There has been no assertion by me to the contrary. Even the emblem of the Soviet interpretation of Marxism-Leninism was the hammer and sickle which represented the industry and agriculture emphasis on productivity. I get that completely. Extensive textbook studies of Marx and similar others was required reading for me in high school, but that has been a few decades ago and I am not going to reread and review all of it again, however I did get the gist of it a long time ago. The communist manifesto and das kapital were material I regarded as subversive and counter-revolutionary guides and handbooks for gangsters, thieves, murderers, godless atheists, and statists who in general would find like minded "philosophy and economics" there. The entire labor theory of value fraud, I had forgotten about, which is an ultimate specious lie Karl Marx constructed for propaganda usage for its particular appeal to uneducated laborers he wished to stir to an uprising.
Quote:
I have never seen so many misconceptions and lies propagated about the ideas and actions of any other economist or philosopher.
One mans economist and philosopher is another mans propagandist gangster and "community organizer".
Quote:
His name is tossed around as a slur, and he is accused of supporting those things which he most deeply opposed (utopian socialism, for one). If popular understanding is to be respected, he was both a liberal pushover and a ruthless dictator, among endless other absurd contradictions.
You may be a happy apologist for Karl Marx and consider that to be some intellectually enlightened view, but in my perception Marx is a counter revolutionary and gangster beyond rehabilitation
and quite criminally insane. Mobster eminent domain meet private property protected by a few Pinkerton or Wells Fargo men, or one, is my simplest reply to Karl Marx and ilk. Come as a thief and a small "revolution" will decide the matter.
Quote:

This is a science forum; we are not supposed to only think scientifically when discussing chemistry. It is helpful to educate oneself and not spread lies out of ignorance, no matter the subject.

Spreading lies out of ignorance is not my agenda or purpose.
I do try to toe the line and be only scientific and factual in my technical commentary and analysis. However, it sometimes becomes clear that philosophy cannot be entirely divorced from the circumstances when a technical matter is being discussed and the full scope of the issue is not simply mathematical. How a person brings their brain to the party
but leaves their intellect at the door is a neat trick the mastery of which escapes me. I noticed in the new rules
for forum posting a profoundly overreaching concept that
somehow all knowledge could be reconstituted in a couple of hundred years but the scientific method had required millenia to develop. Friar Bacon would differ. We all have
our interpretation .....method / knowledge .....revolutionary / counter-revolutionary .....what is reality there can surely depend on which "side" one is found for reason of bias,
no matter how "unbiased" and "scientific" one may assert ones own view to be. I make no assertion of being unbiased or indiscriminate for I am neither and I know it well, but I would also argue that truth is not entirely subjective either and that truth is both actual and perceived reality and when that conjunction occurs .....the conclusive result may be called scientifically valid. Not all valid reasoning is constrained to some arbitrary scientific model. Science is simply a tool and not the man in whose hand the tool is found. Anyone can pick up a hammer, that doesn't make them a carpenter.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 7-3-2012 at 08:08


Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
Hi GreenD, take a break from this thread for a week. It doesn't need an exciting derail about biology.


All I'm doing is continually pointing out Rosco's failure at logical analysis - directly discussing any subject matter is futile, as was apparent after a few back-and-forths with him. It is very easy for him to lose the forest through the trees.

MORE ON TOPIC (for polverone):

The idea of industrialization is a fine one. Create many things very efficiently. But it comes at a cost, and when there is no democratic view on what can and cannot be made, than our environment and many of its people will suffer. Although the concept is very simple, the byproducts, and repurcussions are not. When the automobile first came out it allowed people to live farther from work and commute, thus creating larger factories to facilitate more people to be even more productive for work. This also created the freeway, the highway, and eventually suburbia.

It is actually a direct consequence of industrialization (as we know it) that inner-cities are poor with high crime rates. It was also a direct consequence of industrialization that people near highways began getting intense lead poisoning - from the leaded gasoline. Suburbia, a product of the automotice, a product of industrialization has caused one of the largest individual pollutants - fertilizers for lawns, as well as CO2 emissions from extensive commuting.

All pollution, is in fact, due to industrialization. A good definition of pollution is simply increasing concentration of a certain analyte beyond a threshold - which is exactly what industrialization does.

There are little to no lakes any more in my country that have not been over fished and polluted to such a degree that they can "naturally" replace their fish stock. The pollution is so high from fertilizers that the algae literally chokes out the fish.

There is almost zero land that has not been logged in the United states, aside from the national parks (even some of them were logged at one point), distrubing the original ecosystem. They have recovered to some degree, but the older-growth such as oaks and elms are very much depleted.

Certain areas of industrialized factories, especially plastic manufacturers and oil refineries have exceedingly high rates of cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475172/pdf/envh...

The increased rate of cancer (1 in 2 men 1 in 3 women will get cancer) can only be explained by our increased usage of industrialized products. Or the lowering of nature?

"A high tide raises all boats" is relevant to this discussion - as that is exactly what Rosco is implying. The greater our industrialization (the tide) the better off we will all be (the boats) but contrary to this idea, is what actually happens. Industrializing the United States is in direct conflict with many other nations of the world. We have created dead zones of pollution, towns littered with trasha round the world, cities and countries that have been polluted, and dead zones in the ocean. These do not directly affect us Americans because we live here, and export waste elsewhere to the lowest bidder.

The imbalance of industrialization throughtout the world further creates problems with health and safety. While we have a great deal of money, and we are in direct cahoots with the IMF and other world banks, we indirectly can decide the fate of entire nations, hence why Africa is now growing GMO corn and Brazil is one of the leading meat producers. Of course, some nations have resisted this type of globalization and industrialization - South american countries have revolted against IMF attempts to privatize water, while other countries have taxed Oil companies 85% of their profit for drilling in their country.

Yet, we as Americans and more or less Europeans, do not identify ourselves as connected with nature. We purchase without knowing (or caring) the by products, we buy our iPhones and electronics at the cost of the Congo's rainforest and while their women and children get murdered and raped, the ever decreasing FoxConn industrialization conditions (simply google apple suicides) and the death of thousands of Chinese and Indian workers who sift through our (toxic) trash. To simply say that industrialization "good" is severely lacking in thought.





ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
madscientist
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 957
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 7-3-2012 at 11:10


Rosco, those textbooks you read that discussed Marxism were written during the Cold War by those ideologically opposed to it. Do you really think they gave you an unbiased assessment? When I was in high school, I was appalled by how many factual inaccuracies I found, having grown up in a house full of history books.

I read a translation of a Soviet high school history book some years ago. It was amazing how similar it sounded to our own, only with the names reversed. The Soviets beat back the Germans from the Eastern Front, and in the early days strategically retreated many times to achieve great victories, and then magically Japan just fell. Not too far off from what I "learned" from our history books - the Eastern Front was glossed over, the American role emphasized. Bias is everywhere - you must remain skeptical if you are to find the truth.

With statements like this:

Quote:
Do everyone a favor in this thread and don't troll this thread with your drivel about what you view as some Marxist utopian wet dream of a world you conceived through the aid of an LSD experience hobbling your mind of a vegetarian bicyclist ....


It is clear that you have not read a word of his works. Utopian wet dream? The very reason he began writing was frustration with the "utopian socialists" of his day. Marx never mentioned vegetarianism, bicycles, or psychedelics, either. Hippies are not Marxists. Marxists are not hippies.

Many of his ideas are accepted as fact today. The best example is the business cycle, which he recognized in the 19th century, but wasn't accepted as inevitable by the West until Keynesian policies failed to revive the economy during the stagflation years of the 1970s. Now everyone knows it is unavoidable, but no one gives him credit. He was not the person most think he was, and his ideas were not what most think they were. He laid the groundwork for much of modern sociology and economics. Things you believe and have never considered "gangsterism."

You don't get a good perspective by only listening to one side of a debate. The truth cannot be found when you simply accept the first argument you heard in your lifetime and refuse to consider any others as heresy. Feel free to disagree with him - but disagree with what he actually said. I challenge you to find a single direct quote from Marx that backs what you claim he agitated for.

I don't care if it's chemistry or another topic - baseless, unsupportable statements have no place on a science forum.




I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 7-3-2012 at 13:47


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
The market does not determine what sells and what doesn't sell in the market, people's basic needs and desires for comforts and conveniences determine what sells and does not sell. The buyers determine and define the market and the producers supply that demand in a reciprocally beneficial arrangement called trade. That is business. That is how the world economy more or less operates.

Let me make sure I understand you completely about deindustrialization. You want the entire world to adopt a more spartan, closer to subsistence lifestyle in order to live less luxuriously, or to be more accurate, you want other people to view what is needed and necessary for their own happiness not according to their own desires or needs, but rather in compliance with what you specify ..."obeying" what you qualify as being necessary or "deserved" for them (according to you who are an elite more knowledgeable directorate of such complex matters) and what is luxurious would likewise also be subject to your definition and regulation. Do you have any particular preference for the color uniforms that Chairman 497's devoted followers should wear to affirm their loyalty to his imperious majesty Director 497 ?

Suppose people by and large have no inclination whatsoever to "obey" what the "elite directorate" orders ? Then what, reeducation camps, gulags for the "ignorant" ? Will you become the shoppers chaperone to tell them what are and are not "authorized" and "sensible" purchases....or do you think most people would say they have the right to spend their own money as they may see fit? Ultimately you are advocating collectivism, the needs of the many are superior to the needs of the individual so sacrifices by all individuals must be made to serve the greater good of the collective.

It is very evident the only people advocating how it is that others money should be wisely spent, are those who are not spending their own money for such things but are definitely spending others money in a way that benefits themselves at the cost of others who get nothing in return but the good feeling they are doing their fair share for the collective. The problem there is there comes a point where there is no more of other peoples money to spend to make the world how you think it should be, because you run out of other people's money to spend very quickly. Then you have to resort to corrupt government freeprinting of money to steal every dime of others money that may be in their savings as well, like is the situation which exists now. Where is the ethical basis for that fraud? Benjamin Franklin said a penny saved is a penny earned ....but adjusted for currency devaluation
what do you really have in the final analysis if you don't convert currency just as fast you can into some tangible asset, since the currency itself has become completely and utterly an arbitrarily intangible confidence game? How can legitimate business operate predictably and remain stable and plan for the long term in a monopoly game environment kept in continual capricious flux by corrupt governments and banks perpetuating a fiat currency


Okay you are almost completely misunderstanding me... I don't really know where you're coming up with that. Not that I did the best job of explaining, the hydrocodone for my recent wisdom tooth extraction had more of an effect than I realized...

Elite directorate? Wtf are you thinking man? Why would I bother to talk about something that would take me having an elite directorate?. I might be a little dim sometimes, but I'm not retarded, give me a little credit. I'm only interested in options that could be implemented by the general population, not forced on to them by a government. Yes I realize that would require people to start caring about the big picture first, which would be a challenge... I don't really have time to go into it further right now.





A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-3-2012 at 15:23


@497, Hope you feel better soon. I am way past the whole "deindustrialization" environmental intervention
strategy recognized as being a non sequitur. Ringmastering societies like a lion tamer won't work as effective interventionism, since there is no "consumers gone wild" rampage or stampede to be averted. People cannot be policed into being accepting of deception they are wasteful sinners against the earth when they simply are not. Most of us have planted more trees than we have cut, and the whole list of things that could be done won't reduce the global population which is the real issue. It takes honest salesmanship for the product, offered as the "problem solution" that succeeds on its merits. That works and all the other stuff fails, including all the half measures. On a practical timeline the only thing as a full measure solution that is going to possibly work is nuclear. That's it ...ta da :D

@madscientist

Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  
Rosco, those textbooks you read that discussed Marxism were written during the Cold War by those ideologically opposed to it. Do you really think they gave you an unbiased assessment? When I was in high school, I was appalled by how many factual inaccuracies I found, having grown up in a house full of history books.

More depth is mine than you think regarding propaganda of both the foreign and certainly the domestic consumption variety especially textbooks. Especially I found it glaring propagandizing omission that there was the fact that the U.S. was already in a de facto state of war in China with Japan long before Pearl Harbor got attacked. That little fact never seemed to get mentioned in the U.S. history books. It is like the dirty little secret nobody ever mentions even to this day. John Birch Society may have more to say on this. And I have speculated there is probably a similar untold story associated with 9/11 as well, although it doesn't seem like a speculation the truthers would want to accept, because they are looking more for placing blame directly than for making observation a more simple explanation could exist like for example it being a personal vendetta which was subverted and adopted by muslim fanatics as their own allied cause.
Quote:
I read a translation of a Soviet high school history book some years ago. It was amazing how similar it sounded to our own, only with the names reversed. The Soviets beat back the Germans from the Eastern Front, and in the early days strategically retreated many times to achieve great victories, and then magically Japan just fell. Not too far off from what I "learned" from our history books - the Eastern Front was glossed over, the American role emphasized. Bias is everywhere - you must remain skeptical if you are to find the truth.
Yeah I would guess that crediting lend-lease and praising the combined allied effort got eclipsed by displaying the magnificent performance of heroes of the motherland :D Don't think I am so naive or have no idea how propaganda works. I am very good at sorting through fluff and recognizing propaganda. The quality of propaganda has suffered due to so much mass production of it in recent decades. It all becomes Baghdad Bob comical after a point.
All news and radio and other media is propagandized heavily. Even more sadly many actual laws are propaganda and their violators become de facto political prisoners who are no real criminals but are treated as such. That is the way it has been for a very very long time and it's getting worse.
Amnesty international should have a branch in the U.S. since the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than anywhere else on earth several times over, even six times as much as say Canada for example. There is suspicious arithmetic for that statistic, a metric which declares clearly a corrupt police state is in operation. How's that for truth ?
Quote:

With statements like this:
Quote:
Do everyone a favor in this thread and don't troll this thread with your drivel about what you view as some Marxist utopian wet dream of a world you conceived through the aid of an LSD experience hobbling your mind of a vegetarian bicyclist ....


It is clear that you have not read a word of his works.
That is your impression misunderstanding my meaning, but it isn't my intended meaning. My words were correct in aspects applicable to GreenD but not to Marx
Quote:
Utopian wet dream? The very reason he began writing was frustration with the "utopian socialists" of his day.

Precisely, socialists were not hardcore communists and Marx wanted to "improve" on that situation, leading eventually whether or not it was fulfillment of the vision of Marx to the Bolshevik revolution. Maybe one day Marx will be exonerated from any association of his theories with the
subsequent bloodletting of a "proletariat dictatorship" and
the saintly fellow and gentleman scholar Marx truly was will be better understood and acknowledged, after the recent unpleasantness of those many murdered is less pertinent.
Quote:

Marx never mentioned vegetarianism, bicycles, or psychedelics, either.

I haven't said that Marx was vegetarian and frankly I don't know and that isn't the point I was trying to make.
Quote:

Hippies are not Marxists. Marxists are not hippies.

Never made that equivalency there either, nor did I equate environmentalism with communism. What I did say is that communists have largely hijacked the environmentalist cause and have subverted its nobler purposes to collectivism, class struggle, and other aspects which I call Marxist. That's my observation.....that's what I see.
Quote:

Many of his ideas are accepted as fact today.

Even a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day.
Quote:
The best example is the business cycle, which he recognized in the 19th century, but wasn't accepted as inevitable by the West until Keynesian policies failed to revive the economy during the stagflation years of the 1970s. Now everyone knows it is unavoidable, but no one gives him credit. He was not the person most think he was, and his ideas were not what most think they were. He laid the groundwork for much of modern sociology and economics. Things you believe and have never considered "gangsterism."
Allocation of resources becomes a proletariat owns the world proposition because anybody who differed with that view got put into the cemetary when what was theirs "prerevolution" was "nationalized" and that is nothing else but eminent domain of a mob storming and looting a castle, every castle actually. It is a worker revolt plain and simple. You can candy coat it with all kinds of intellectualizing and theory but
it comes down to theft and gangsterism and seizure.
This is like a strike turned into a riot and looting by a mob
who then set up their "revolutionary government" to adminster a thieves kingdom, a pirates republic. And murder incorporated is what those communists are. This is an old story really. Rome had its slave rebellion counterparts to what might be analogous to a "wage slave" rebellion and that is all a "communist revolution" actually is, a revolt of an "oppressed class" or "exploited class" against their actual or perceived "oppressors". There is no "genius" involved in characterizing in some lofty social theory like communism which seeks to sell that pirate kingdom as the desirable or ethical evolution of history .....either socially or economically.
Life is not a zero sum game, and the premise that professes that view is propaganda.
Quote:

You don't get a good perspective by only listening to one side of a debate. The truth cannot be found when you simply accept the first argument you heard in your lifetime and refuse to consider any others as heresy.
My thinking process is not that simpleminded. That isn't at all what I do and it isn't how my my mind works. We are all born a blank slate, but I am not a programmed machine and I am not some stereotyped or profiled "boxed quantity" sort of indoctrinated robot like a manufactured standard part of certain fixed specifications. I am not a cylon starring on battlestar galactica. I think outside the box and that makes some folks want to put me in a box so I don't step on any toes as I go walking about.
Quote:
Feel free to disagree with him - but disagree with what he actually said. I challenge you to find a single direct quote from Marx that backs what you claim he agitated for.
That's not really a fair challenge. A person doesn't have to quote verbatim from the communist manifesto or das kapital for what they say to be fairly and accurately characterizable as being Marxist. If the shoe fits.....
Quote:

I don't care if it's chemistry or another topic - baseless, unsupportable statements have no place on a science forum.

Respectfully I would submit that I have not made baseless unsupportable statements. There are aspects of collectivism and class struggle for which GreenD is and has been an advocate, not only in this thread but others, as well as being condescending and insulting and trying to psychoanalyze me. You quoted me out of context and took issue with me about Marx and how does Marx fit into all of this, and Marx is relevant in several aspects involving class struggle and collectivism which GreenD advocates. This issue was made a personal conflict by GreenD trolling and insulting me in another thread until it was locked, which was precisely the mission of sabotaging a narrative which little soldiers of liberalism perform and is being revisited again here. I'm not a subscriber to the class struggle / proletariat vs burgeoise school of Marxist philosophy or the social philosophy or economics of Marx. GreenD has brought that issue along with advocacy of usage of hallucinogens to this forum which frankly should be telling about where the problem with realism does reside. He was asked to take a week away from this thread...so as not to hijack it with OT discussion of "evolution", (which trolls love to do) but GreenD felt compelled to insert himself again just after I replied to your earlier post, making insulting remarks towards me upon arrival. I am not trying to be disruptive. GreenD is the person having precisely such an agenda. Confirm by the following:
Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
Hi GreenD, take a break from this thread for a week. It doesn't need an exciting derail about biology.


All I'm doing is continually pointing out Rosco's failure at logical analysis - directly discussing any subject matter is futile, as was apparent after a few back-and-forths with him. It is very easy for him to lose the forest through the trees.


[Edited on 8-3-2012 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 8-3-2012 at 07:40


I've got some questions Rosco, please answer them without falling into a conspiracy theorist pit;

If we are not wasteful - can we be? Is there a point where you would acknowledge people as being wasteful?

What exactly is your definition of wasteful, and why is it that it does not pertain to a larger portion of americans today?

If we can get along without all these material values, and still maintain happiness - why should we continue to gain more resources - what exactly is the point? (since it is proven that you can be happy with very little).

When does pollution become a problem? You yourself have admitted that global warming is a real consequence of our actions - is this not a problem? Is it not due to wastefulness, of inefficiencies? You advocate for Nuclear power - but why? Oil and natural gas are abundant and very energy dense, so why even switch o nuclear power - if what you are saying is correct?

Are the dead zones created by mass pollution also not a problem? Is the exporting of toxic heavy metals and carcinogenic organics to other countries not seen by you as a problem? A direct result of industrialization?

And when have I ever supported collectivism, or marx, or anything that you have said I have? You are putting words into my mouth to make it easier for you to disagree with me.

All I have read so far from you is very small amounts of supporting information, mostly clouded by trying to group everyone that disagrees with you into a marxist utopian brigade. Can you please refrain from doing this to clear up the discussion, thank you.

Quote:
Quote:
Feel free to disagree with him - but disagree with what he actually said. I challenge you to find a single direct quote from Marx that backs what you claim he agitated for.
That's not really a fair challenge. A person doesn't have to quote verbatim from the communist manifesto or das kapital for what they say to be fairly and accurately characterizable as being Marxist. If the shoe fits.....


Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

All I'm doing is continually pointing out Rosco's failure at logical analysis - directly discussing any subject matter is futile, as was apparent after a few back-and-forths with him. It is very easy for him to lose the forest through the trees.



Or if you could respond to anything [else] in my previous post that would be great too.

[Edited on 8-3-2012 by GreenD]




ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5181
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 9-3-2012 at 02:34


No, not at all as in I can't, but No as in I choose to refuse to answer what you dubiously represent to be your "questions"

A week is seven days not one day. When you learn to count maybe you can
more cogently present better "questions"
View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 9-3-2012 at 06:53


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
No, not at all as in I can't, but No as in I choose to refuse to answer what you dubiously represent to be your "questions"

A week is seven days not one day. When you learn to count maybe you can
more cogently present better "questions"


As always, your inability to form any rational argument shows brightly.




ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
franklyn
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2484
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 11-3-2012 at 02:25


http://www.bloomberg.com/video/88024552
" Good luck to any less than AAA rated sovereign who wants to issue debt from
now on out. That contracts can now be unilaterally abrogated with retro-CACs,
as Greek bonds have been, bodes ill for attractive pricing from here on out.
CDS buyers will have to sweat bullets, and be forced to jump through hoops,
but they might end up getting something for all their trouble, provided their
counterparty is solvent and that counterparty itself is not heavily exposed to
an insolvent party."
Sacrificial cows come and go , but the bull around here goes on forever.
Given the known fundamentals , the new swapped Greek bonds face immediate
80% loss in market valuation, and virtual certainty of re-default. Most will likely
never come to market , destined to be pledged as collateral to the ECB.
Examining the massive expansion in the ECB's balance sheet, " it is clear to anyone
that the ECB will accept used candy bar wrappers as collateral, and the balance
sheet of the euro system, isn't only gigantic in size but also shocking in quality."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/424941-prior-week-market-mov...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/425071-greek-default-and-the...

It ain't over till it's over and the fat lady sings
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-10/black-swan-n...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/10/us-china-economy-t...
China now has a trade deficit , motivating it to expand it's money supply
to devalue it's currency, raising domestic prices of it's foreign imports.

.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  16    18    20  ..  44

  Go To Top