Discussion:
What "Progress" Means In the GOP
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2010-07-21 00:23:50 UTC
Permalink
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.

The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.

The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.

Nixon made you wish anyone was back.


Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
2010-07-21 21:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
See a trend?


Bret Cahill
thunderbolt.bob
2010-07-22 00:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
See a trend?
Bret Cahill
Yea the trend is you have no clue like All liberal saps.
Any lack of the highest regard for Reagan shows your opinion is
worthless.

bob
Immortalist
2010-07-22 00:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by thunderbolt.bob
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
See a trend?
Bret Cahill
Yea the trend is you have no clue like All liberal saps.
Any lack of the highest regard for Reagan shows your opinion is
worthless.
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of
itself."
--Reagan

6 Presidents in a sinking boat.

Ford says: What do we do?
Bush says: Man the lifeboats!
Reagan says: What lifeboats?
Carter says: Women first!
Nixon says: Screw the women!
Clinton says: You think we have time?
Post by thunderbolt.bob
bob
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-22 01:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
See a trend?
Leftists do a lot of wishful thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sir Frederick Martin
2010-07-22 01:49:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:32:37 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
See a trend?
Leftists do a lot of wishful thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Their primary goal is 'feeling good'.
Day Brown
2010-07-29 04:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
When the resource base is maxed, the elites, rather than cutting back to
buy time to look for better methods, simply increases their exploitation
of everyone else. This keeps the level of their rewards increasing,
giving them the illusion "progress" continues.

Which it does until suddenly somebody snaps, and the whole system
implodes like a house of credit cards.

But maybe things have finally changed.
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=an8dGISrAlzc&pos=5
shows the fall in interest rates, which is what the rich get from
everyone else for lending money. Which is to say, their rewards for
being rich have declined. We also see the increased default rate on
mansion mortgages.

Where did the money go, if not to fund the deficit?

Nixon made me wish for Goldwater, who would not have lost but for the
collusion between the corporate mass media and LBJ. But of course,
Goldwater said to either allocate the resources to win the Vietnam war,
or get the fuck out. Well... we cant have that. It would have reduced
profits in the defense industry. Maintained by the Democrats.

Just because the Right wing is bad, dont mean the Left wing is good.
b***@gmail.com
2010-07-29 06:27:23 UTC
Permalink
On 07/20/2010 07:23 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:> The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
Post by Bret Cahill
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
When the resource base is maxed, the elites, rather than cutting back to
buy time to look for better methods, simply increases their exploitation
of everyone else. This keeps the level of their rewards increasing,
giving them the illusion "progress" continues.
Which it does until suddenly somebody snaps, and the whole system
implodes like a house of credit cards.
But maybe things have finally changed.http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=an8dGISrAlzc&pos=5
shows the fall in interest rates, which is what the rich get from
everyone else for lending money. Which is to say, their rewards for
being rich have declined. We also see the increased default rate on
mansion mortgages.
Where did the money go, if not to fund the deficit?
Nixon made me wish for Goldwater, who would not have lost but for the
collusion between the corporate mass media and LBJ. But of course,
Goldwater said to either allocate the resources to win the Vietnam war,
or get the fuck out. Well... we cant have that. It would have reduced
profits in the defense industry. Maintained by the Democrats.
Just because the Right wing is bad, dont mean the Left wing is good.
Doesnt say much for the 'bald eagle'....

BOfL
Day Brown
2010-08-02 18:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
On 07/20/2010 07:23 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:> The tea baggers make you wish the neocons were back.
Post by Bret Cahill
The neocons made you wish the Gipper was back.
The Gipper made you wish Nixon was back.
Nixon made you wish anyone was back.
When the resource base is maxed, the elites, rather than cutting back to
buy time to look for better methods, simply increases their exploitation
of everyone else. This keeps the level of their rewards increasing,
giving them the illusion "progress" continues.
Which it does until suddenly somebody snaps, and the whole system
implodes like a house of credit cards.
But maybe things have finally changed.http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=an8dGISrAlzc&pos=5
shows the fall in interest rates, which is what the rich get from
everyone else for lending money. Which is to say, their rewards for
being rich have declined. We also see the increased default rate on
mansion mortgages.
Where did the money go, if not to fund the deficit?
Nixon made me wish for Goldwater, who would not have lost but for the
collusion between the corporate mass media and LBJ. But of course,
Goldwater said to either allocate the resources to win the Vietnam war,
or get the fuck out. Well... we cant have that. It would have reduced
profits in the defense industry. Maintained by the Democrats.
Just because the Right wing is bad, dont mean the Left wing is good.
Doesnt say much for the 'bald eagle'....
Well, there is this. The birds that lack head feathers commonly feed off
carrion where the feathers would get messed in the gore.
Shrikeback
2010-07-30 00:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Spend, spend, spend, and pretty soon fruitlooptopia will
break out!

A quadrillion here and a quadrillion there, and pretty soon,
you're talking about some real money.
Bret Cahill
2010-07-30 06:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?


Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-30 14:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.


Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.


--
Bret Cahill
2010-07-30 17:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die...  Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?


Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-30 18:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?
I'll wait for the quote that you were going to cite, before I reply.
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
--
Bret Cahill
2010-07-30 21:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die...  Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?
I'll wait for the quote that you were going to cite, before I reply.
Will the be before or after Libertaria breaks out?


Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-30 21:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?
I'll wait for the quote that you were going to cite, before I reply.
Will the be before or after Libertaria breaks out?
Bret Cahill
Since you'll be doing that after the world is burned to a cinder by the
expanding sun just before it implodes.... I'll be betting Libertaria
will be here before you cite that source.

--
Bret Cahill
2010-07-31 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 30, 2:15 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die...  Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?
I'll wait for the quote that you were going to cite, before I reply.
Will the be before or after Libertaria breaks out?
Bret Cahill
Since you'll be doing that after the world is burned to a cinder by the
expanding sun just before it implodes.... I'll be betting Libertaria
will be here before you cite that source.
--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bret Cahill
2010-07-31 00:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die...  Obama said it.
Repugs want granny to die from being homeless from GOP cutting and
gutting Social Security?
I'll wait for the quote that you were going to cite, before I reply.
Will the be before or after Libertaria breaks out?
Bret Cahill
Since you'll be doing that after the world is burned to a cinder by the
expanding sun just before it implodes
Supposedly all the water will have evaporated long before that.

Anyway if you act dumb about Repugliars still holding on to their
dream of cutting and gutting Social Security, everyone will just think
you are . . . well . . . dumb.


Bret Cahill
Michael Coburn
2010-07-30 22:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share of
productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot more and
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more for
themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have reduced
the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity gains have
more than offset the demographic problem.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-31 01:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share of
productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it after
you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more for
themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have reduced
the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity gains have
more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.

When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money quit
going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out of the
scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to join and
they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to want their
benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they can get so
they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
--
Michael Coburn
2010-07-31 04:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share of
productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it after
you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more
for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have
reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity
gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.
When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money quit
going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out of the
scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to join and
they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to want their
benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they can get so
they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of increasing
productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-31 05:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share of
productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it after
you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more
for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have
reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity
gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.
When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money quit
going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out of the
scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to join and
they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to want their
benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they can get so
they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of increasing
productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
Speaking of stupid..... why are you increasing productivity for a
smaller population?








--
Michael Coburn
2010-07-31 05:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type
Government Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share
of productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot
more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it
after you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more
for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have
reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity
gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.
When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money
quit going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out
of the scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to
join and they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to
want their benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they
can get so they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
Speaking of stupid..... why are you increasing productivity for a
smaller population?
I rest my case.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-07-31 16:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type
Government Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share
of productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot
more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it
after you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more
for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have
reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity
gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.
When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money
quit going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out
of the scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to
join and they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to
want their benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they
can get so they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
Speaking of stupid..... why are you increasing productivity for a
smaller population?
I rest my case.
Good Idea, why keep digging.

--
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-07-31 13:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said it.
Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type Government
Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share of
productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it after
you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having more
for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics have
reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the productivity
gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do.
When Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money quit
going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out of the
scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to join and
they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to want their
benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they can get so
they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of increasing
productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Isn't there more trouble around the corner under your paradigm? We
will need quite alot of people on vacation in order to make your
productivity model make sense, unless you are arguing for a
continuation of population growth, which is a losing argument. I'm
talking about after the baby boomers die. Perhaps you will argue for
keeping them on life support until they are 200 years old in order to
keep the economy running cleanly...

I admit that your productivity argument is truthful, but even worse
yet that as automation continues its prevalence that the number of
workers required will continue to diminish, even as productivity
rises. The only weak link I see here is the availability of energy. We
should anticipate that a lightly populated planet with high technology
will lead to a level of wealth far beyond what we even consider
wealthy today, with nearly everybody on vacation most of the time.
This will be near to a welfare state, otherwise there will be no
distribution of goods.

- Tim
Michael Coburn
2010-08-01 01:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security? Bret
Cahill
Democrats want to give her a Pill and let her die... Obama said
it. Reality will soon toss everyone off the Bernie Maddoff type
Government Ponzi scheme we all call Social Security.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme if American producers get a reasonable share
of productivity gains. The fewer workers are able to produce a lot
more and
When you buy into a Ponzi Scheme, it's the people that buy into it
after you that pay-off to you.
Post by Michael Coburn
thus share some of that production with the elderly while having
more for themselves then their parents did. While the demographics
have reduced the number of workers per elderly person, the
productivity gains have more than offset the demographic problem.
The problem is that productivity doesn't pay into SS, people do. When
Maddoff ran out of suckers to invest into his scam, the money quit
going out to the old clients and they wanted their principal out of
the scam.... does that sound Familiar. The young don't want to
join and they also have fewer kids and the elderly are starting to
want their benefits and to fix it somehow as soon and as much as they
can get so they get back what they paid in.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918035.htm
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution"
--http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Isn't there more trouble around the corner under your paradigm? We will
need quite alot of people on vacation in order to make your productivity
model make sense, unless you are arguing for a continuation of
population growth, which is a losing argument.
What should be happening is that technological development that increases
productivity _SHOULD_ be increasing wages. That isn't happening. If it
were then there would be no Social Security problem. After the
demographic bulge it may be appropriate to decrease the FICA tax rate.
I'm talking about after
the baby boomers die. Perhaps you will argue for keeping them on life
support until they are 200 years old in order to keep the economy
running cleanly...
I would argue as I did in the 1980's, that FICA taxes should be keyed to
the actual NEED for SS benefits. There should have never been an
overcharge, forcing wage earners to put money into a fund to be borrowed
by the income tax cutters. But that was not the case and now the people
that got the tax cuts OWE the wage earners the money that they borrowed
plus interest (the actual SS trust fund). I would assume that as
population growth stabilizes there would be a reduction in FICA tax rates.
I admit that your productivity argument is truthful, but even worse yet
that as automation continues its prevalence that the number of workers
required will continue to diminish, even as productivity rises.
And the wages paid to those workers will be quite extreme _OR_ the work
week will become very short and the weekly wages will remain somewhat
consistent. The point is only that wages, if not stiffed by the
financial weenies, will keep pace with productivity and suffice to fund
the SS system.
The only
weak link I see here is the availability of energy. We should anticipate
that a lightly populated planet with high technology will lead to a
level of wealth far beyond what we even consider wealthy today, with
nearly everybody on vacation most of the time. This will be near to a
welfare state, otherwise there will be no distribution of goods.
- Tim
That is sorta the idea of most of us. There are those who do not want
for that to happen. They wish for a very sharply structured society in
which a few people destroy wealth to maintain the obedience of the
masses. These few, you understand, are ordained by the creator to lead
the rest of us along the path of righteousness.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-02 11:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Michael Coburn
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution"
--http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Isn't there more trouble around the corner under your paradigm? We will
need quite alot of people on vacation in order to make your productivity
model make sense, unless you are arguing for a continuation of
population growth, which is a losing argument.
What should be happening is that technological development that increases
productivity _SHOULD_ be increasing wages.
Why? You are full of it here. One company manufactures a robotic tool
for another company; typically an Asian company these days. This costs
huge money, yet is worth it because the machine is consistent and
doesn't demand a paycheck and all of the other expenses that go with
humans. The human needed to run the machine will need less skills,
though still some skills, but 'his' productivity may replace 20
workers perhaps of the non automated format. There is no _SHOULD_
here. Unemployment _should_ rise as the technology of automation
eliminates humans.

I happen to have met a man locally who owns a CNC business and is now
up to about ten machines. His first machine paid for itself very
quickly. His output continues to rise per piece of machinery, and
there are humans on the job, but their output is very high. For the
same quantity of produced goods we will need many less people. The
only way out here is for you to argue that this wealth concept
includes lots and lots of materials that we throw away regularly in
order to keep things booming. This waste paradigm is a losing
argument. This type of wealth is a wealth full of guilt and waste. It
makes the end user more of a parasite than
Post by Michael Coburn
That isn't happening. If it
were then there would be no Social Security problem. After the
demographic bulge it may be appropriate to decrease the FICA tax rate.
I'm talking about after
the baby boomers die. Perhaps you will argue for keeping them on life
support until they are 200 years old in order to keep the economy
running cleanly...
I would argue as I did in the 1980's, that FICA taxes should be keyed to
the actual NEED for SS benefits.
Here you've gone over the edge of your own little cliff that you've
built.
You are clearly not thinking straight. My own argument is in direct
conflict with your own argument. I do seek some analysis from you on
these details. I am not an economist, but play one on usenet.
Post by Michael Coburn
There should have never been an
overcharge, forcing wage earners to put money into a fund to be borrowed
by the income tax cutters. But that was not the case and now the people
that got the tax cuts OWE the wage earners the money that they borrowed
plus interest (the actual SS trust fund). I would assume that as
population growth stabilizes there would be a reduction in FICA tax rates.
I admit that your productivity argument is truthful, but even worse yet
that as automation continues its prevalence that the number of workers
required will continue to diminish, even as productivity rises.
And the wages paid to those workers will be quite extreme _OR_ the work
week will become very short and the weekly wages will remain somewhat
consistent. The point is only that wages, if not stiffed by the
financial weenies, will keep pace with productivity and suffice to fund
the SS system.
No. Who will give up their forty hours for a ten hour shift so that
four other people can work? This is not a free market concept. This is
a welfare state concept. I am sorry, but it is coming as a result of
technology. We will not look at a welfare check the same way as it is
looked at now, for the idea that each human should have a job does not
hold up with robots. It is true that each robot should have a job, so
long as there is enough energy. The work paradigm that has driven
communism, socialism, and capitalism models is not going to be around
forever. Governments make money, distribute it to civilians, then
collect it again from the manufacturers. Under this model the
manufacturer cannot look at his machines as saving him money. This
effect is only temporary. There will be a slender class of
manufacturers who can afford this equipment.

Many of of us will return to a simple life; growing our own food
because we have the free time to; making our own things our of local
materials because we have the time to and because we do less damage to
the earth; having a generally higher quality of life in the diverse
things we can do rather than flipping hamburgers all day long at an
economy of scale rate. Humans will not just go on vacation 80 percent
of the time will they? No, because they can't afford that style of
life. We will not be paying any taxes because we will not have any
income except for a government allowance to keep the factories
running.
Post by Michael Coburn
The only
weak link I see here is the availability of energy. We should anticipate
that a lightly populated planet with high technology will lead to a
level of wealth far beyond what we even consider wealthy today, with
nearly everybody on vacation most of the time. This will be near to a
welfare state, otherwise there will be no distribution of goods.
- Tim
That is sorta the idea of most of us. There are those who do not want
for that to happen. They wish for a very sharply structured society in
which a few people destroy wealth to maintain the obedience of the
masses. These few, you understand, are ordained by the creator to lead
the rest of us along the path of righteousness.
This sounds vaguely like the U.S. system right now. The large service
companies are not so much in competition to slim down their costs to
their end users. They are more about asking what these humans will
bear? On the manufacturing side we see quite a different scenario. For
instance I just bought a new CPU for fifty dollars that has two cores,
runs at 2.7 GHz, and does 64 bit work, even in its integer unit. As a
child I would stand in awe at such a thing and shell out the fifty
dollars, even if I didn't even have a fifty dollar motherboard to put
the thing on. It is nearly science fiction that we are living now.
Well, we should be careful, and try to eliminate the fiction from the
science. I encourage you to do so. This is not an argument about how
we'd like things to be. This is an argument about what is coming
around the bend. I do appreciate your response and suppose that you
have what is regarded in some circles as a strong position. I am
outside of those circles, so I am open to being corrected, but need
some evidence or theory to work from. Of course with theory comes
analysis, otherwise it is just a shell game.

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
tg
2010-08-02 12:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Michael Coburn
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution"
--http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Isn't there more trouble around the corner under your paradigm? We will
need quite alot of people on vacation in order to make your productivity
model make sense, unless you are arguing for a continuation of
population growth, which is a losing argument.
What should be happening is that technological development that increases
productivity _SHOULD_ be increasing wages.
Why? You are full of it here. One company manufactures a robotic tool
for another company; typically an Asian company these days. This costs
huge money, yet is worth it because the machine is consistent and
doesn't demand a paycheck and all of the other expenses that go with
humans. The human needed to run the machine will need less skills,
though still some skills, but 'his' productivity may replace 20
workers perhaps of the non automated format. There is no _SHOULD_
here. Unemployment _should_ rise as the technology of automation
eliminates humans.
I happen to have met a man locally who owns a CNC business and is now
up to about ten machines. His first machine paid for itself very
quickly. His output continues to rise per piece of machinery, and
there are humans on the job, but their output is very high. For the
same quantity of produced goods we will need many less people. The
only way out here is for you to argue that this wealth concept
includes lots and lots of materials that we throw away regularly in
order to keep things booming. This waste paradigm is a losing
argument. This type of wealth is a wealth full of guilt and waste. It
makes the end user more of a parasite than
Post by Michael Coburn
That isn't happening. If it
were then there would be no Social Security problem. After the
demographic bulge it may be appropriate to decrease the FICA tax rate.
I'm talking about after
the baby boomers die. Perhaps you will argue for keeping them on life
support until they are 200 years old in order to keep the economy
running cleanly...
I would argue as I did in the 1980's, that FICA taxes should be keyed to
the actual NEED for SS benefits.
Here you've gone over the edge of your own little cliff that you've
built.
You are clearly not thinking straight. My own argument is in direct
conflict with your own argument. I do seek some analysis from you on
these details. I am not an economist, but play one on usenet.
Post by Michael Coburn
There should have never been an
overcharge, forcing wage earners to put money into a fund to be borrowed
by the income tax cutters. But that was not the case and now the people
that got the tax cuts OWE the wage earners the money that they borrowed
plus interest (the actual SS trust fund). I would assume that as
population growth stabilizes there would be a reduction in FICA tax rates.
I admit that your productivity argument is truthful, but even worse yet
that as automation continues its prevalence that the number of workers
required will continue to diminish, even as productivity rises.
And the wages paid to those workers will be quite extreme _OR_ the work
week will become very short and the weekly wages will remain somewhat
consistent. The point is only that wages, if not stiffed by the
financial weenies, will keep pace with productivity and suffice to fund
the SS system.
No. Who will give up their forty hours for a ten hour shift so that
four other people can work? This is not a free market concept. This is
a welfare state concept. I am sorry, but it is coming as a result of
technology. We will not look at a welfare check the same way as it is
looked at now, for the idea that each human should have a job does not
hold up with robots. It is true that each robot should have a job, so
long as there is enough energy. The work paradigm that has driven
communism, socialism, and capitalism models is not going to be around
forever. Governments make money, distribute it to civilians, then
collect it again from the manufacturers. Under this model the
manufacturer cannot look at his machines as saving him money. This
effect is only temporary. There will be a slender class of
manufacturers who can afford this equipment.
Many of of us will return to a simple life; growing our own food
because we have the free time to; making our own things our of local
materials because we have the time to and because we do less damage to
the earth; having a generally higher quality of life in the diverse
things we can do rather than flipping hamburgers all day long at an
economy of scale rate. Humans will not just go on vacation 80 percent
of the time will they? No, because they can't afford that style of
life. We will not be paying any taxes because we will not have any
income except for a government allowance to keep the factories
running.
Post by Michael Coburn
The only
weak link I see here is the availability of energy. We should anticipate
that a lightly populated planet with high technology will lead to a
level of wealth far beyond what we even consider wealthy today, with
nearly everybody on vacation most of the time. This will be near to a
welfare state, otherwise there will be no distribution of goods.
- Tim
That is sorta the idea of most of us. There are those who do not want
for that to happen. They wish for a very sharply structured society in
which a few people destroy wealth to maintain the obedience of the
masses. These few, you understand, are ordained by the creator to lead
the rest of us along the path of righteousness.
This sounds vaguely like the U.S. system right now. The large service
companies are not so much in competition to slim down their costs to
their end users. They are more about asking what these humans will
bear? On the manufacturing side we see quite a different scenario. For
instance I just bought a new CPU for fifty dollars that has two cores,
runs at 2.7 GHz, and does 64 bit work, even in its integer unit. As a
child I would stand in awe at such a thing and shell out the fifty
dollars, even if I didn't even have a fifty dollar motherboard to put
the thing on. It is nearly science fiction that we are living now.
Yes, I also was just looking at some tech and being amazed. But my
question is: So What? What can I do with the extra gigahertz and
gigabytes? What can I do with all the products spewing from your
friend's CNC factory?

What we can begin to understand from looking at a low-population high-
resource scenario is how the current economic paradigm *doesn't*
function as claimed. The people with the most choice---the wealthy---
don't buy these mass produced toys; they buy land and leisure and
artifacts that have *more* labor input rather than less; and they buy
health and longevity.

It seems likely that you are on the right track about the choices
people would make if they had a choice.

-tg
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Well, we should be careful, and try to eliminate the fiction from the
science. I encourage you to do so. This is not an argument about how
we'd like things to be. This is an argument about what is coming
around the bend. I do appreciate your response and suppose that you
have what is regarded in some circles as a strong position. I am
outside of those circles, so I am open to being corrected, but need
some evidence or theory to work from. Of course with theory comes
analysis, otherwise it is just a shell game.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Coburn
2010-08-03 01:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
You are simply too damned stupid to understand the concept of
increasing productivity and the return to LESS population growth.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution"
--http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Isn't there more trouble around the corner under your paradigm? We
will need quite alot of people on vacation in order to make your
productivity model make sense, unless you are arguing for a
continuation of population growth, which is a losing argument.
What should be happening is that technological development that
increases productivity _SHOULD_ be increasing wages.
Why? You are full of it here. One company manufactures a robotic tool
for another company; typically an Asian company these days. This costs
huge money, yet is worth it because the machine is consistent and
doesn't demand a paycheck and all of the other expenses that go with
humans. The human needed to run the machine will need less skills,
though still some skills, but 'his' productivity may replace 20 workers
perhaps of the non automated format. There is no _SHOULD_ here.
Unemployment _should_ rise as the technology of automation eliminates
humans.
What _WILL_ happen with government playing its proper role is that the
work week will be shortened and individual people will work fewer hours
with wages well above subsistence level. That _WILL_ happen because much
of the basic needs that one sees as "subsistence" will be provided by
taxation and redistribution of the real output from these technologically
enhanced systems. People will _STILL_ seek employment so as to afford
more "lip gloss", fancy clothes, fast cars, ect., but basic food,
clothing, and medical care, and education will be available to all. The
degree to which people will seek more "goodies" will vary across the
board. Many will not seek the fast cars and will make their own way
providing services in the community that cannot be provided by
automation. BECAUSE basics are provided there is less force compelling
the individual to labor in the service of a machine or a corporation.
Thus, per hour wages must rise to draw labor into the productive
process. That's right, Scarlet, your wages are determined by the lazy
people. The standard work week beyond which employers must pay half again
as much per hour of work will probably be mandated to xx hours as opposed
to the current 40. This overtime requirement is the actual mandate.
There is no law forcing people to work only xx hours and no law
prohibiting employers from requiring that employees only work the xx
hours. The xx will be determined by the rate of unemployment and by
democratic representation. Unemployment is a measure of qualified people
seeking employment who cannot find work. Within this system there are
still rich and poor relatively. Those who seek to earn more can
certainly do so.

I believe this to be the proper path for now because the majority of the
people will not stand for the current system in which technological
innovation disenfranchises the majority. The majority _WANTS_ to
contribute and to earn.

Wages rise only of there is a system that prevents wages from falling to
bare subsistence levels. Jobs are available to those who want to more
and can do so and such individuals earn the privileges that extra wealth
can bestow. And all of this rides on the public education systems and on
democratic principles.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I happen to have met a man locally who owns a CNC business and is now up
to about ten machines. His first machine paid for itself very quickly.
His output continues to rise per piece of machinery, and there are
humans on the job, but their output is very high. For the same quantity
of produced goods we will need many less people. The only way out here
is for you to argue that this wealth concept includes lots and lots of
materials that we throw away regularly in order to keep things booming.
My "argument" is as I have stated it. The objective of capital
development is to reduce the drudgery per unit of output. But the
present form of capitalism in the United States does not allow a proper
distribution of the gains and results in a disenfranchisement of the
majority. It is not a binary issue as in capitalism versus socialism.
The thought of hard socialism or communism is to most of us abhorrent. So
long as there are tax supported social insurance systems that provide the
basics of food, medical care, education and some rudimentary shelter then
the system will "work", while delivering a superior life style to those
who innovate -- to the real contributors to the common good.

The disenfranchisement of the majority is not supposed to happen in a
democratic republic. In such a democratic republic, the majority will
never be the best bred, most talented, and well educated. But the force
of numbers should compel the system to insure that the less than perfect,
or those who lack overabundant ego, are not abandoned.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
This waste paradigm is a losing argument. This type of wealth is a
wealth full of guilt and waste. It makes the end user more of a parasite
than
I have no idea what you think you're talking about. Oh wait.... You are
speaking of destroying output so as to prevent the masses from having it
at too "cheap" a price. That particular "waste paradigm" is the
reality. But more, there are many "jobs" IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR that are
just "make work". Jobs in order to prevent a revolution. We end up with
gross inefficiency where people are maintained in a station/position as
window dressing and courtiers. Meanwhile, others are locked out,
primarily because they refuse to kiss ass, but also because far too much
of the output of the system is routed to accounting profits and not
enough to wages. It is grossly inefficient to have organizations full of
paper pushing courtiers.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
That isn't happening. If it
were then there would be no Social Security problem. After the
demographic bulge it may be appropriate to decrease the FICA tax rate.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I'm talking about after
the baby boomers die. Perhaps you will argue for keeping them on life
support until they are 200 years old in order to keep the economy
running cleanly...
I would argue as I did in the 1980's, that FICA taxes should be keyed
to the actual NEED for SS benefits.
Here you've gone over the edge of your own little cliff that you've
built.
You are clearly not thinking straight. My own argument is in direct
conflict with your own argument. I do seek some analysis from you on
these details. I am not an economist, but play one on usenet.
The point is that social insurance systems should not be run using and
"investment" or savings strategy. The Republicans are hard at work right
now trying to cheat the wage earners out of their savings in the Social
Security Trust Fund. The current system may not "work" because the
Republicans are lying thieves that will always try to cheat the real
contributors to the society. Why have a trust fund when lying pigs are
constantly misinforming and lying to the public about the Social Security
system? What "trust"? The fund was an attempt to provide for the SS
system through the time of our projected demographic problem in a
capitalistic manner. But it is failing because of all the off shoring of
jobs, and illegal immigration, and the advance of technology all
destroying wages. Wages have been curtailed to the point where the system
will not deliver as intended. There is no way to protect the common
people from the lying pigs other than through better education, and thus,
better and stronger representative government.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
There should have never been an
overcharge, forcing wage earners to put money into a fund to be
borrowed by the income tax cutters. But that was not the case and now
the people that got the tax cuts OWE the wage earners the money that
they borrowed plus interest (the actual SS trust fund). I would assume
that as population growth stabilizes there would be a reduction in FICA
tax rates.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I admit that your productivity argument is truthful, but even worse
yet that as automation continues its prevalence that the number of
workers required will continue to diminish, even as productivity
rises.
And the wages paid to those workers will be quite extreme _OR_ the work
week will become very short and the weekly wages will remain somewhat
consistent. The point is only that wages, if not stiffed by the
financial weenies, will keep pace with productivity and suffice to fund
the SS system.
No. Who will give up their forty hours for a ten hour shift so that four
other people can work?
If people can have a reasonable life working 30 hours a week, many will
do so. That does not stop people from working more and having more, and
this is why Social Democracy is needed. The egoists cannot be allowed to
destroy the lives of the regular people. The egoists are convinced that
social Darwinism is "right". Theirs is a false religion of constant war
against the evil of laziness and sloth (and any other evil they can
manage to find). This righteousness is a cloak for their own lust for
control of others (greed) and their desire to threaten punishment of
those who do not subscribe to their particular rules of righteousness.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
This is not a free market concept. This is a
welfare state concept.
That is true. There is no other mechanism that will actually work to
prevent violence.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I am sorry, but it is coming as a result of
technology. We will not look at a welfare check the same way as it is
looked at now, for the idea that each human should have a job does not
hold up with robots.
Then we will have seen a return of actual "welfare", where people are
paid for not working at all. That does not seem realistic. The basic
concept of each able bodied individual being expected to contribute
something to the whole is not going to go away. Living on "welfare" is
NOT to be a desirable condition for the vast majority of human
individuals. The _VAST_ majority seek to contribute and be recognized
for it. That recognition comes through receiving wealth in return for
personal contribution. This is _NOT_ the communist "from each according
to his ability and to each according to his need". It is, instead, a
system of "from each according to need, to each according to
contribution" along with a recognition of the realities of technological
innovation and the fact that there is no longer enough productive work to
do in order to keep people employed at "full time" jobs. The escape for
the egoist is that human desires are limitless and that we work in order
to fulfill these limitless desires. There are several problems with that
proposition, the first of which is the limits of the environment. I am
convinced that the continued growth of fossil fuel use, keeping pace with
population growth, will inevitably reduce the abundance we all enjoy. We
are seeing the disenfranchisement of the many for the benefit of the few
writ large.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
It is true that each robot should have a job, so
long as there is enough energy. The work paradigm that has driven
communism, socialism, and capitalism models is not going to be around
forever. Governments make money, distribute it to civilians, then
collect it again from the manufacturers. Under this model the
manufacturer cannot look at his machines as saving him money. This
effect is only temporary. There will be a slender class of manufacturers
who can afford this equipment.
The evolution of robotics and artificial intelligence will eliminate
manufacturing jobs and some service jobs. In a nation with a
representative government, this will MANDATE wealth redistribution in
regard to basic needs or you will have constant revolutions.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Many of of us will return to a simple life; growing our own food because
we have the free time to; making our own things our of local materials
because we have the time to and because we do less damage to the earth;
having a generally higher quality of life in the diverse things we can
do rather than flipping hamburgers all day long at an economy of scale
rate.
(snore)
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Humans will not just go on vacation 80 percent of the time will
they? No, because they can't afford that style of life. We will not be
paying any taxes because we will not have any income except for a
government allowance to keep the factories running.
There _IS_ an in between, where the more talented and the more capable
can and will contribute more and receive the privileges accorded those of
greater wealth. Social Democracy is _NOT_ socialism or communism. It is
capitalism with a very good safety net. It is said that such a system
inhibits growth. Yet the advance of technology is already killing itself
through the elimination of the human beings in the production cycle. And
many of us realize that the "growth" phase, while not over, is in dire
need of a slowdown. A worldwide falling birthrate would occasion room
for more growth, perhaps. But right now, we don't need it.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The only
weak link I see here is the availability of energy. We should
anticipate that a lightly populated planet with high technology will
lead to a level of wealth far beyond what we even consider wealthy
today, with nearly everybody on vacation most of the time. This will
be near to a welfare state, otherwise there will be no distribution
of goods.
- Tim
That is sorta the idea of most of us. There are those who do not want
for that to happen. They wish for a very sharply structured society in
which a few people destroy wealth to maintain the obedience of the
masses. These few, you understand, are ordained by the creator to lead
the rest of us along the path of righteousness.
This sounds vaguely like the U.S. system right now.
IT _IS_ THE US SYSTEM RIGHT NOW.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The large service
companies are not so much in competition to slim down their costs to
their end users. They are more about asking what these humans will bear?
On the manufacturing side we see quite a different scenario. For
instance I just bought a new CPU for fifty dollars that has two cores,
runs at 2.7 GHz, and does 64 bit work, even in its integer unit. As a
child I would stand in awe at such a thing and shell out the fifty
dollars, even if I didn't even have a fifty dollar motherboard to put
the thing on. It is nearly science fiction that we are living now. Well,
we should be careful, and try to eliminate the fiction from the science.
I encourage you to do so. This is not an argument about how we'd like
things to be. This is an argument about what is coming around the bend.
I do appreciate your response and suppose that you have what is regarded
in some circles as a strong position. I am outside of those circles, so
I am open to being corrected, but need some evidence or theory to work
from. Of course with theory comes analysis, otherwise it is just a shell
game.
Most human beings seek recognition and acceptance from the society and
reward for meritorious contribution. It is sometimes difficult to tell
which of several motivations is in control. Whether the reward for
contribution is controlling or the lust for power. When people are only
about seeking to disenfranchise others, based on some romantic notion of
their own self worth we have a serious problem. The "ego" has taken
control and the individual runs the risk of psychosis and paranoia. This
is where we currently find ourselves in the religious fixation on what is
called pure capitalism and is probably more akin to fascism or outright
slavery. Far too many are focused on disenfranchising others to enslave
them as opposed to actually earning by contribution.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-03 17:25:12 UTC
Permalink
< big huge snip>

OK Michael. I did read your entire post and don't know where to
respond directly.
I guess we're not so far away in thinking. I'm not feeling so good
about the idea that we can put 10 engineers onto one engineering job,
so that all of the engineers have work. I can readily admit that the
labor of stocking materials for a robot could be split this way, but
then, that is the sort of work that another robot will do.

To me the need to insert the human into the factory for the sake of
giving the human a job is a part of the problem. Communism, socialism,
and capitalism are all human labor models. I think it is also true
that they came to be with the evolution of factories which run on
human labor. Even back in the 1800's there was plenty of automation,
such as knitting machines and the like, which made cheap goods
available.

Whether there really is a next step within the progression- I feel
fairly comfortable admitting that there is, and that the socialist
models are closer to providing the means, but even if they shave the
work week down, they are still engaged in a labor model.

The distribution of goods is not necessarily just about goods pricing.
That is an equation that is empty of constraints. For instance if
everyone has a Mercedes Benz and there is no need of any more vehicles
it does not mean that Mercedes Benz will drop their price to $1.00.
No. They will go out of business. Having fully provided the needs of
the population what more is there to do? We enter into a large set of
options here, one of which is to provide new bells and whistles to
entice a buyer into replacing their old but still servicable car.
Along with this type of thinking goes the social expectation that your
car should look like new. I exist in one of these cultures right now,
and we are the ones that are wasting tremendous resources. Scariest of
all is that the leeway gained is going into weaponry and
militarization, here in the US.

Because we exist in this state of extreme wealth due to technology,
and not due to the factory owner per se, then I do believe there is a
philosophical problem with the factory owner taking all of the
dessert. When trouble comes, and it has come, then there can be little
doubt whose money will save us. For now the government prints money
and waters down its credibility. What procedure will break this
pattern? The lack of new thought within the political circles is very
frustrating. The ability of the old agendas to hold up cannot hold up
much longer. I love your last paragraph (below) for it does put the
human himself up for analysis. Our social needs are not being met
within the capitalistic society that we are engaged in. We have a
lousy culture in this country and it is plenty of proof that
capitalism is a fraud.

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Most human beings seek recognition and acceptance from the society and
reward for meritorious contribution. It is sometimes difficult to tell
which of several motivations is in control. Whether the reward for
contribution is controlling or the lust for power. When people are only
about seeking to disenfranchise others, based on some romantic notion of
their own self worth we have a serious problem. The "ego" has taken
control and the individual runs the risk of psychosis and paranoia. This
is where we currently find ourselves in the religious fixation on what is
called pure capitalism and is probably more akin to fascism or outright
slavery. Far too many are focused on disenfranchising others to enslave
them as opposed to actually earning by contribution.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Coburn
2010-08-03 21:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
< big huge snip>
OK Michael. I did read your entire post and don't know where to respond
directly.
I guess we're not so far away in thinking. I'm not feeling so good about
the idea that we can put 10 engineers onto one engineering job, so that
all of the engineers have work. I can readily admit that the labor of
stocking materials for a robot could be split this way, but then, that
is the sort of work that another robot will do.
To me the need to insert the human into the factory for the sake of
giving the human a job is a part of the problem. Communism, socialism,
and capitalism are all human labor models. I think it is also true that
they came to be with the evolution of factories which run on human
labor. Even back in the 1800's there was plenty of automation, such as
knitting machines and the like, which made cheap goods available.
Whether there really is a next step within the progression- I feel
fairly comfortable admitting that there is, and that the socialist
models are closer to providing the means, but even if they shave the
work week down, they are still engaged in a labor model.
The distribution of goods is not necessarily just about goods pricing.
That is an equation that is empty of constraints. For instance if
everyone has a Mercedes Benz and there is no need of any more vehicles
it does not mean that Mercedes Benz will drop their price to $1.00. No.
They will go out of business. Having fully provided the needs of the
population what more is there to do? We enter into a large set of
options here, one of which is to provide new bells and whistles to
entice a buyer into replacing their old but still servicable car. Along
with this type of thinking goes the social expectation that your car
should look like new. I exist in one of these cultures right now, and we
are the ones that are wasting tremendous resources. Scariest of all is
that the leeway gained is going into weaponry and militarization, here
in the US.
Because we exist in this state of extreme wealth due to technology, and
not due to the factory owner per se, then I do believe there is a
philosophical problem with the factory owner taking all of the dessert.
When trouble comes, and it has come, then there can be little doubt
whose money will save us. For now the government prints money and waters
down its credibility. What procedure will break this pattern?
You are wrong in this assertion about government printing money and
watering down its value. What is happening in is that most of this
"created money" is being removed from the active economy and stored away
in government backed securities. That is the debt system that we are
currently on. This pattern can be broken by actually printing money as
opposed to borrowing it. That will _cause_ inflation and cure the
housing slump very quickly. But that is off topic from what you are
trying to get at. (or is it??) It really depends on what is done with the
created money. It it is injected at the bottom of the economy (social
insurance and such) then the economy will improve. If it is used to bail
out banks then we have a continuing recession.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The lack
of new thought within the political circles is very frustrating. The
ability of the old agendas to hold up cannot hold up much longer. I love
your last paragraph (below) for it does put the human himself up for
analysis. Our social needs are not being met within the capitalistic
society that we are engaged in. We have a lousy culture in this country
and it is plenty of proof that capitalism is a fraud.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Most human beings seek recognition and acceptance from the society and
reward for meritorious contribution. It is sometimes difficult to tell
which of several motivations is in control. Whether the reward for
contribution is controlling or the lust for power. When people are
only about seeking to disenfranchise others, based on some romantic
notion of their own self worth we have a serious problem. The "ego"
has taken control and the individual runs the risk of psychosis and
paranoia. This is where we currently find ourselves in the religious
fixation on what is called pure capitalism and is probably more akin to
fascism or outright slavery. Far too many are focused on
disenfranchising others to enslave them as opposed to actually earning
by contribution.
Capitalism is not a fraud. It does result in advanced development of
real capital that displaces drudgery. But as it currently exists it is
the wrong answer. The people cannot buy what they produce because
aggregate wages are too low when compared to aggregate profits. By
greatly enhancing the returns to ownership above the returns to
production we have screwed the real economy. Wage push inflation is the
proper way forward. And that is brought about by monetization in support
of bottom side stimulus and an increase of taxation on the very wealthy.
The payment of unemployment benefits is part of this effort. There are
far to few jobs that pay decent wages, and far too many people competing
for the jobs. One particular move is to get employers out of the health
insurance system and to provide more general welfare (health care and
unemployment). There are many people at age 55 an over that would retire
if they could _BUY_ health insurance from the Medicare insurance system.
A person age 55 with or without preexisting conditions such as diabetes
would be able to get health insurance for a lot less through the
voluntary Medicare insurance system than what could be done in the
private market. That will occasion a lot more early retirement and open
up more jobs at better wages.

There are other things that can be done, but the financial and owner
class will not have it. They want to stay rich at the cost of all others.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Day Brown
2010-08-04 09:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
There are other things that can be done, but the financial and owner
class will not have it. They want to stay rich at the cost of all others.
I mite argue with the rest but this observation seems obvious. The rich
are subject to neurotic delusional group think the same as everyone.

But as http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/skidding-toward-fall.html argues
that with the rise of the middle class in China and India, no way is
there going to be enuf oil to maintain the per capita carbon footprint
of the American middle class nuclear family lifestyle.

China has been trying to trade its output for raw materials in South
America, but what they are willing to pay is not enuf to stabilize those
economies. So it, as Kunstler says, the US economy tanks they will go
down together.

Apocalyptic movies like 2009's "The Road" tend to overstate the case to
provide sensational, highly emotional, images knowing it sells better at
the box office. But for sure, if Obama cannot keep it together, a lotta
fanatics will die getting what they asked for.

If the Chinese and Indians are so smart, you'd think they'd see that
ramping up production of autos without ramping up production of fuel is
not going to work. Kunstler is right on noting the folly behind the
electric car hype.

In any case, nothing we say here, or even a notary like Kunstler, is
gonna have any effect on producing a more rational policy. You can have
Obama dragged out and shot for all I care, that wont work either.

Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' reveals a pattern of when, the resource base
is maxed, the rich- rather than cutting back to buy time to look for new
management methods- simply increases their exploitation of everyone
else. This keeps their incomes and perks increasing, giving them the
illusion 'progress' continues.

Everyone else tightens belts until somebody snaps, and then they start
to tighten nooses. But while revenge is sweet, its not nutritious, and
soon, as seen after the fall of every empire, famine sets in. It wont
matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, and trying to allocate
the blame wont save your ass.

Twards the end of his book, Diamond outlines what will; these points
come to mind...

1- a homogeneous population will pull together looking for common
solutions. The fall of the USSR shows us how multi-ethnic cultures will
have demagogues arise blaming minorities with genocidal warfare breaking
out, which we still see.

2- An area with lotsa small farms and timber provides lumber and fire
wood while the small farmers are much more adept at adapting to local
markets and the means to meet them- whereas factory farms, agribusiness
cannot function without complex infrastructure support.

3- without engine fuel, draft animals can support small communities, but
metro millions are impossible. After empire, its the obscure rural
villages where life is still reasonably comfortable. Gies, "Life in a
Medieval Village" shows how everything needed to sustain life is had
within walking distance. They also show how villages were often small
business- foundries, tanneries, potteries, weaving, grain mills, etc,
and engaged in trade as long as there was money in it.

But if pandemic, warfare, banditry, etc, cut that off, they still had
their own woodlots for fuel, pastures for livestock, orchards and
gardens to get by on til things settled down again.

"Survivalists" think they can make it on their own. Archeology shows us
the nuclear family homesteads were never occupied for more than a few
generations before hit on by a bandit gang and burnt. But there are some
villages today that have been lived in for millennia.

So, its no longer a question of national debate here or anywhere, but
where to put your own time and money and who to organize with there.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-04 18:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
There are other things that can be done, but the financial and owner
class will not have it. They want to stay rich at the cost of all others.
I mite argue with the rest but this observation seems obvious. The rich
are subject to neurotic delusional group think the same as everyone.
But as http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/skidding-toward-fall.html argues
that with the rise of the middle class in China and India, no way is
there going to be enuf oil to maintain the per capita carbon footprint
of the American middle class nuclear family lifestyle.
So the current administration is doing the right thing in spurring
alternative fuels. Not enough, mind you. But certainly more than oil
king Cheney.
Post by Day Brown
China has been trying to trade its output for raw materials in South
America, but what they are willing to pay is not enuf to stabilize those
economies. So it, as Kunstler says, the US economy tanks they will go
down together.
Apocalyptic movies like 2009's "The Road" tend to overstate the case to
provide sensational, highly emotional, images knowing it sells better at
the box office. But for sure, if Obama cannot keep it together, a lotta
fanatics will die getting what they asked for.
If the Chinese and Indians are so smart, you'd think they'd see that
ramping up production of autos without ramping up production of fuel is
not going to work. Kunstler is right on noting the folly behind the
electric car hype.
Electric automobiles are actually a nuclear dependency. That is the only
source that can produce enough energy other then coal.
Post by Day Brown
In any case, nothing we say here, or even a notary like Kunstler, is
gonna have any effect on producing a more rational policy. You can have
Obama dragged out and shot for all I care, that wont work either.
There are many things on the plate for Obama. The things he has
championed are the things that he ran on. That is called "giving the
voters what they asked for". At this point he is going to have a bit
more freedom, and that is scaring the hell out of the rightarded.
Post by Day Brown
Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' reveals a pattern of when, the resource base
is maxed, the rich- rather than cutting back to buy time to look for new
management methods- simply increases their exploitation of everyone
else. This keeps their incomes and perks increasing, giving them the
illusion 'progress' continues.
This is no revelation to me and I would think it not a revelation to
anyone else. That is what economic rent _IS_.
Post by Day Brown
Everyone else tightens belts until somebody snaps, and then they start
to tighten nooses. But while revenge is sweet, its not nutritious, and
soon, as seen after the fall of every empire, famine sets in. It wont
matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, and trying to allocate
the blame wont save your ass.
The blame is already allocated and it belongs to the Republicans.
Post by Day Brown
Twards the end of his book, Diamond outlines what will; these points
come to mind...
1- a homogeneous population will pull together looking for common
solutions. The fall of the USSR shows us how multi-ethnic cultures will
have demagogues arise blaming minorities with genocidal warfare breaking
out, which we still see.
That is a silly claim concerning the fall of the USSR.
Post by Day Brown
2- An area with lotsa small farms and timber provides lumber and fire
wood while the small farmers are much more adept at adapting to local
markets and the means to meet them- whereas factory farms, agribusiness
cannot function without complex infrastructure support.
Only of you think that pitchforks are a match for bazookas.
Post by Day Brown
3- without engine fuel, draft animals can support small communities, but
metro millions are impossible. After empire, its the obscure rural
villages where life is still reasonably comfortable. Gies, "Life in a
Medieval Village" shows how everything needed to sustain life is had
within walking distance. They also show how villages were often small
business- foundries, tanneries, potteries, weaving, grain mills, etc,
and engaged in trade as long as there was money in it.
What a ridiculous concept. Over half the population would have to die in
order to usher in that dreamworld. And they are not going to commit
suicide, nor will they tolerate other people having food when they don't.
Post by Day Brown
But if pandemic, warfare, banditry, etc, cut that off, they still had
their own woodlots for fuel, pastures for livestock, orchards and
gardens to get by on til things settled down again.
What a fantasy. Why do you believe that you can stand up to the majority
that do not have access to nature in the way that you do? That majority
will take you over you and eat your seeds and then we all die together.
Post by Day Brown
"Survivalists" think they can make it on their own. Archeology shows us
the nuclear family homesteads were never occupied for more than a few
generations before hit on by a bandit gang and burnt. But there are some
villages today that have been lived in for millennia.
So, its no longer a question of national debate here or anywhere, but
where to put your own time and money and who to organize with there.
Ridiculous.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Day Brown
2010-08-06 06:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
So the current administration is doing the right thing in spurring
alternative fuels. Not enough, mind you. But certainly more than oil
king Cheney.
Oh yeah, sure. But the real question is whether they are doing enuf, not
whether they are doing better than the Republicans. I dont see enuf jobs
created to stabilize the economy.
Post by Michael Coburn
Electric automobiles are actually a nuclear dependency. That is the only
source that can produce enough energy other then coal.
Given the rich target zones nukes are, they wont be built in the USA til
the war on terror is won. Nimby will keep them out. But given the same
amount of cash investment wind turbines on the Great Plains would do,
and create a lot more jobs doing it because the investment would be so
dispersed across the landscape, and thereby get congressional support
from those Republican states.

The other thing about nukes is that the concentrated power generation
allows the elites to control access to investment and the prices. But
wind power is so dispersed across several states and there already are
many entrepreneurial ventures, that small investors have the chance to
get in on the ground floor. And it is a much freer market where
capitalist competition will limit the price of energy.
Post by Michael Coburn
There are many things on the plate for Obama. The things he has
championed are the things that he ran on. That is called "giving the
voters what they asked for". At this point he is going to have a bit
more freedom, and that is scaring the hell out of the rightarded.
So far, so good, but is that good enuf? The Democrats have not stayed
well organized behind him. That aint his fault.
Post by Michael Coburn
The blame is already allocated and it belongs to the Republicans.
AGreed, but that still wont save your ass. We need agreement on
effective policy going forward.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Twards the end of his book, Diamond outlines what will; these points
come to mind...
1- a homogeneous population will pull together looking for common
solutions. The fall of the USSR shows us how multi-ethnic cultures will
have demagogues arise blaming minorities with genocidal warfare breaking
out, which we still see.
That is a silly claim concerning the fall of the USSR.
The wars in the Caucuses still break out. This actually dates back to
Tamerlane who, despite being Muslim, allied himself with some of the
Christians there claiming the way the Muslims practiced was worse than
being Christian. But it was all about the Money. Christians were poor.

Conversely, after the Soviets fell, the ethically homogeneous Baltic
nations quickly threw out the commissars, reorganized their own
currency, and the lights in Riga, Tallin, and Vilna didnt even blink.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
2- An area with lotsa small farms and timber provides lumber and fire
wood while the small farmers are much more adept at adapting to local
markets and the means to meet them- whereas factory farms, agribusiness
cannot function without complex infrastructure support.
Only of you think that pitchforks are a match for bazookas.
Take a close look at how farmer Finland defeated the Soviet army during
WWII. It was the only Axis ally to retain its independence.

Another notable example is the battle of Bella woods outside Paris in
which a single battalion of US squirrel hunters stopped 4 German
divisions cold. They forgot what Clausewitz said. "When confronted with
steep wooded terrain, march your army around it." Finland was lakes and
swamps mixed with woods for the same effect.

Take a look at the back porch of farms in wooded areas. You'll see the
hunting rifles and shotguns. And just like the boys in Bella Woods, they
still know how to shoot. Moreover, many infantry vets have used their VA
money to invest in such places.
Post by Michael Coburn
What a ridiculous concept. Over half the population would have to die in
order to usher in that dreamworld. And they are not going to commit
suicide, nor will they tolerate other people having food when they don't.
I'm not recommending it, but pointing out what those who want to prepare
for economic panic should do to ensure their own safety. The sniping
that went on in Kosovu is an example of the alternative.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
But if pandemic, warfare, banditry, etc, cut that off, they still had
their own woodlots for fuel, pastures for livestock, orchards and
gardens to get by on til things settled down again.
What a fantasy. Why do you believe that you can stand up to the majority
that do not have access to nature in the way that you do? That majority
will take you over you and eat your seeds and then we all die together.
That is a risk, but there is no alternative.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
"Survivalists" think they can make it on their own. Archeology shows us
the nuclear family homesteads were never occupied for more than a few
generations before hit on by a bandit gang and burnt. But there are some
villages today that have been lived in for millennia.
So, its no longer a question of national debate here or anywhere, but
where to put your own time and money and who to organize with there.
Ridiculous.
Katrina was instructive. The bridge to Algiers was blocked. Cops blew
off trying to keep order and went home to protect their own families.
Looters scattered hitting the richer target zones, liquor stores,
pharmacies, then supermarkets. By then, the Algiers citizens had their
road block up. Civil order was maintained from there all the way down to
the Cajun communities like Venice.

It was not restored in New Orleans until the Natl Guard showed. But if
we see financial panic, several cities will become anarchic all at the
same time and there are not enuf men in uniform.

As to whether there will be panic depends on the middle class; if too
many of them loose jobs, homes, and become bankrupt, then they will no
longer feel any investment in the system and as Machiavelli says, a
demagogue will arise from among them promising to seize the assets of
the rich to gratify the instinct for revenge. I dont recommend that
either, but that is the way people who've lost everything act.

There are reports corporations are hoarding cash; which is not what you
want if you want a stable economy. All that does is create the image of
rich target zones for zealots.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-06 18:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
So the current administration is doing the right thing in spurring
alternative fuels. Not enough, mind you. But certainly more than oil
king Cheney.
Oh yeah, sure. But the real question is whether they are doing enuf, not
whether they are doing better than the Republicans. I dont see enuf jobs
created to stabilize the economy.
The jobs of the Republican era (2000 - 2008) were jobs in a fake economy
based entirely on debt. What needs to change is the borrowing.
Government must print the money and reclaim it with taxation. And in
that way government can and will take responsibility for the economy
while leaving the vast majority of choices and decisions in the hands of
the private sector.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Electric automobiles are actually a nuclear dependency. That is the
only source that can produce enough energy other then coal.
Given the rich target zones nukes are, they wont be built in the USA til
the war on terror is won.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Post by Day Brown
Nimby will keep them out. But given the same
amount of cash investment wind turbines on the Great Plains would do,
and create a lot more jobs doing it because the investment would be so
dispersed across the landscape, and thereby get congressional support
from those Republican states.
I am a definite advocate of wind power. But you will also need a better
battery and delivery system.
Post by Day Brown
The other thing about nukes is that the concentrated power generation
allows the elites to control access to investment and the prices.
That is NOT necessarily the case. A factory built reactor need only be
quality controlled and as such the price comes way down. Modular nuclear
is the key for the nonce, and thorium modular is the key for the future.
Post by Day Brown
But
wind power is so dispersed across several states and there already are
many entrepreneurial ventures, that small investors have the chance to
get in on the ground floor. And it is a much freer market where
capitalist competition will limit the price of energy.
Wind is fine. But it can't support the growing needs and certainly
cannot supply enough for electric cars and trucks en mass.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
There are many things on the plate for Obama. The things he has
championed are the things that he ran on. That is called "giving the
voters what they asked for". At this point he is going to have a bit
more freedom, and that is scaring the hell out of the rightarded.
So far, so good, but is that good enuf? The Democrats have not stayed
well organized behind him. That aint his fault.
The Democrats are democratic. They are not lock step Republicans bent on
the destruction of government.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
The blame is already allocated and it belongs to the Republicans.
AGreed, but that still wont save your ass. We need agreement on
effective policy going forward.
Quite true. Yet the Republicans will not agree on anything unless THEY
are the party in power. The game is obvious. You simply do not allow
the other party to do anything and than claim they are ineffective.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Twards the end of his book, Diamond outlines what will; these points
come to mind...
1- a homogeneous population will pull together looking for common
solutions. The fall of the USSR shows us how multi-ethnic cultures
will have demagogues arise blaming minorities with genocidal warfare
breaking out, which we still see.
That is a silly claim concerning the fall of the USSR.
The wars in the Caucuses still break out. This actually dates back to
Tamerlane who, despite being Muslim, allied himself with some of the
Christians there claiming the way the Muslims practiced was worse than
being Christian. But it was all about the Money. Christians were poor.
Conversely, after the Soviets fell, the ethically homogeneous Baltic
nations quickly threw out the commissars, reorganized their own
currency, and the lights in Riga, Tallin, and Vilna didnt even blink.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
2- An area with lotsa small farms and timber provides lumber and fire
wood while the small farmers are much more adept at adapting to local
markets and the means to meet them- whereas factory farms,
agribusiness cannot function without complex infrastructure support.
Only of you think that pitchforks are a match for bazookas.
Take a close look at how farmer Finland defeated the Soviet army during
WWII. It was the only Axis ally to retain its independence.
We are talking about the Hells Angels en mass here. Not an organized
force. People burning raping and killing simply because they have
nothing and the farmers do.
Post by Day Brown
Another notable example is the battle of Bella woods outside Paris in
which a single battalion of US squirrel hunters stopped 4 German
divisions cold. They forgot what Clausewitz said. "When confronted with
steep wooded terrain, march your army around it." Finland was lakes and
swamps mixed with woods for the same effect.
Take a look at the back porch of farms in wooded areas. You'll see the
hunting rifles and shotguns. And just like the boys in Bella Woods, they
still know how to shoot. Moreover, many infantry vets have used their VA
money to invest in such places.
Post by Michael Coburn
What a ridiculous concept. Over half the population would have to die
in order to usher in that dreamworld. And they are not going to commit
suicide, nor will they tolerate other people having food when they don't.
I'm not recommending it, but pointing out what those who want to prepare
for economic panic should do to ensure their own safety. The sniping
that went on in Kosovu is an example of the alternative.
The only way to "prepare" is to prevent.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
But if pandemic, warfare, banditry, etc, cut that off, they still had
their own woodlots for fuel, pastures for livestock, orchards and
gardens to get by on til things settled down again.
What a fantasy. Why do you believe that you can stand up to the
majority that do not have access to nature in the way that you do?
That majority will take you over you and eat your seeds and then we all
die together.
That is a risk, but there is no alternative.
The alternative is called technological advance. And right now it is
energy centric.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
"Survivalists" think they can make it on their own. Archeology shows
us the nuclear family homesteads were never occupied for more than a
few generations before hit on by a bandit gang and burnt. But there
are some villages today that have been lived in for millennia.
So, its no longer a question of national debate here or anywhere, but
where to put your own time and money and who to organize with there.
Ridiculous.
Katrina was instructive. The bridge to Algiers was blocked. Cops blew
off trying to keep order and went home to protect their own families.
Looters scattered hitting the richer target zones, liquor stores,
pharmacies, then supermarkets. By then, the Algiers citizens had their
road block up. Civil order was maintained from there all the way down to
the Cajun communities like Venice.
It was not restored in New Orleans until the Natl Guard showed. But if
we see financial panic, several cities will become anarchic all at the
same time and there are not enuf men in uniform.
As to whether there will be panic depends on the middle class; if too
many of them loose jobs, homes, and become bankrupt, then they will no
longer feel any investment in the system and as Machiavelli says, a
demagogue will arise from among them promising to seize the assets of
the rich to gratify the instinct for revenge. I dont recommend that
either, but that is the way people who've lost everything act.
There are reports corporations are hoarding cash; which is not what you
want if you want a stable economy. All that does is create the image of
rich target zones for zealots.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
President Soetoro
2010-08-06 18:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
So the current administration is doing the right thing in spurring
alternative fuels.  Not enough, mind you.  But certainly more than oil
king Cheney.
Oh yeah, sure. But the real question is whether they are doing enuf, not
whether they are doing better than the Republicans. I dont see enuf jobs
created to stabilize the economy.
The jobs of the Republican era (2000 - 2008) were jobs in a fake economy
based entirely on debt.  What needs to change is the borrowing.  
Government must print the money and reclaim it with taxation.  And in
that way government can and will take responsibility for the economy
while leaving the vast majority of choices and decisions in the hands of
the private sector.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Electric automobiles are actually a nuclear dependency.  That is the
only source that can produce enough energy other then coal.
Given the rich target zones nukes are, they wont be built in the USA til
the war on terror is won.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Post by Day Brown
Nimby will keep them out. But given the same
amount of cash investment wind turbines on the Great Plains would do,
and create a lot more jobs doing it because the investment would be so
dispersed across the landscape, and thereby get congressional support
from those Republican states.
I am a definite advocate of wind power.  But you will also need a better
battery and delivery system.
Post by Day Brown
The other thing about nukes is that the concentrated power generation
allows the elites to control access to investment and the prices.
That is NOT necessarily the case.  A factory built reactor need only be
quality controlled and as such the price comes way down.  Modular nuclear
is the key for the nonce, and thorium modular is the key for the future.
Post by Day Brown
But
wind power is so dispersed across several states and there already are
many entrepreneurial ventures, that small investors have the chance to
get in on the ground floor. And it is a much freer market where
capitalist competition will limit the price of energy.
Wind is fine.  But it can't support the growing needs and certainly
cannot supply enough for electric cars and trucks en mass.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
There are many things on the plate for Obama.  The things he has
championed are the things that he ran on.  That is called "giving the
voters what they asked for".  At this point he is going to have a bit
more freedom, and that is scaring the hell out of the rightarded.
So far, so good, but is that good enuf? The Democrats have not stayed
well organized behind him. That aint his fault.
The Democrats are democratic.  They are not lock step Republicans bent on
the destruction of government.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
The blame is already allocated and it belongs to the Republicans.
AGreed, but that still wont save your ass. We need agreement on
effective policy going forward.
Quite true.  Yet the Republicans will not agree on anything unless THEY
are the party in power.  The game is obvious.  You simply do not allow
the other party to do anything and than claim they are ineffective.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Twards the end of his book, Diamond outlines what will; these points
come to mind...
1- a homogeneous population will pull together looking for common
solutions. The fall of the USSR shows us how multi-ethnic cultures
will have demagogues arise blaming minorities with genocidal warfare
breaking out, which we still see.
That is a silly claim concerning the fall of the USSR.
The wars in the Caucuses still break out. This actually dates back to
Tamerlane who, despite being Muslim, allied himself with some of the
Christians there claiming the way the Muslims practiced was worse than
being Christian. But it was all about the Money. Christians were poor.
Conversely, after the Soviets fell, the ethically homogeneous Baltic
nations quickly threw out the commissars, reorganized their own
currency, and the lights in Riga, Tallin, and Vilna didnt even blink.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
2- An area with lotsa small farms and timber provides lumber and fire
wood while the small farmers are much more adept at adapting to local
markets and the means to meet them- whereas factory farms,
agribusiness cannot function without complex infrastructure support.
Only of you think that pitchforks are a match for bazookas.
Take a close look at how farmer Finland defeated the Soviet army during
WWII. It was the only Axis ally to retain its independence.
We are talking about the Hells Angels en mass here.  Not an organized
force.  People burning raping and killing simply because they have
nothing and the farmers do.
Post by Day Brown
Another notable example is the battle of Bella woods outside Paris in
which a single battalion of US squirrel hunters stopped 4 German
divisions cold. They forgot what Clausewitz said. "When confronted with
steep wooded terrain, march your army around it." Finland was lakes and
swamps mixed with woods for the same effect.
Take a look at the back porch of farms in wooded areas. You'll see the
hunting rifles and shotguns. And just like the boys in Bella Woods, they
still know how to shoot. Moreover, many infantry vets have used their VA
money to invest in such places.
Post by Michael Coburn
What a ridiculous concept.  Over half the population would have to die
in order to usher in that dreamworld.  And they are not going to commit
suicide, nor will they tolerate other people having food when they don't.
I'm not recommending it, but pointing out what those who want to prepare
for economic panic should do to ensure their own safety. The sniping
that went on in Kosovu is an example of the alternative.
The only way to "prepare" is to prevent.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
But if pandemic, warfare, banditry, etc, cut that off, they still had
their own woodlots for fuel, pastures for livestock, orchards and
gardens to get by on til things settled down again.
What a fantasy.  Why do you believe that you can stand up to the
majority that do not have access to nature in the way that you do?
That majority will take you over you and eat your seeds and then we all
die together.
That is a risk, but there is no alternative.
The alternative is called technological advance.  And right now it is
energy centric.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
"Survivalists" think they can make it on their own. Archeology shows
us the nuclear family homesteads were never occupied for more than a
few generations before hit on by a bandit gang and burnt. But there
are some villages today that have been lived in for millennia.
So, its no longer a question of national debate here or anywhere, but
where to put your own time and money and who to organize with there.
Ridiculous.
Katrina was instructive. The bridge to Algiers was blocked. Cops blew
off trying to keep order and went home to protect their own families.
Looters scattered hitting the richer target zones, liquor stores,
pharmacies, then supermarkets. By then, the Algiers citizens had their
road block up. Civil order was maintained from there all the way down to
the Cajun communities like Venice.
It was not restored in New Orleans until the Natl Guard showed. But if
we see financial panic, several cities will become anarchic all at the
same time and there are not enuf men in uniform.
As to whether there will be panic depends on the middle class; if too
many of them loose jobs, homes, and become bankrupt, then they will no
longer feel any investment in the system and as Machiavelli says, a
demagogue will arise from among them promising to seize the assets of
the rich to gratify the instinct for revenge. I dont recommend that
either, but that is the way people who've lost everything act.
There are reports corporations are hoarding cash; which is not what you
want if you want a stable economy. All that does is create the image of
rich target zones for zealots.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
The Government hasn't revoked your license to spew massive amounts of
greenhouse gases yet?!?
Day Brown
2010-08-06 23:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Any nuclear device will draw fanatics out of the wood work. Just look
at the fuss made when used nuclear fuel was hauled from the source to a
storage facility. Demagogues will be all over it hyping fear.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Nimby will keep them out. But given the same
amount of cash investment wind turbines on the Great Plains would do,
and create a lot more jobs doing it because the investment would be so
dispersed across the landscape, and thereby get congressional support
from those Republican states.
I am a definite advocate of wind power. But you will also need a better
battery and delivery system.
The excess power in strong winds can power bauxite conversion into
aluminum, and with the right ore, it'll already have gallium. Which has
been shown to be a highly effective hydrogen generator. Reports say a
1kg cannister will drive a car 350 miles.

Like a fuel cell, it is reversable, recharged with electricity.

But more to the point is that it'd take the bully pulpit to lay out the
entire system, the wind towers, the transmission lines, the bauxite
mines, foundries, and retrofitting for gasoline engines.

if a pres brought all the pieces of the system together, there'd be an
immediate drop in the price of oil. Foreign investors would also put up
the money for manufacturing plants to make the components for all of the
above, which would immediately solve the unemployment problem.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
The other thing about nukes is that the concentrated power generation
allows the elites to control access to investment and the prices.
That is NOT necessarily the case. A factory built reactor need only be
quality controlled and as such the price comes way down. Modular nuclear
is the key for the nonce, and thorium modular is the key for the future.
if you could get by the hysteria, which the corporate mass media knows
will build ratings, and thereby ad revenues. But you cant.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
But
wind power is so dispersed across several states and there already are
many entrepreneurial ventures, that small investors have the chance to
get in on the ground floor. And it is a much freer market where
capitalist competition will limit the price of energy.
Wind is fine. But it can't support the growing needs and certainly
cannot supply enough for electric cars and trucks en mass.
It dont havta do that all at once, merely getting it started would have
an immediate effect on oil futures.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
The blame is already allocated and it belongs to the Republicans.
AGreed, but that still wont save your ass. We need agreement on
effective policy going forward.
Quite true. Yet the Republicans will not agree on anything unless THEY
are the party in power. The game is obvious. You simply do not allow
the other party to do anything and than claim they are ineffective.
Hopefully a new political party will go viral on the net and produce
candidates that actually represent the voters.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
Only of you think that pitchforks are a match for bazookas.
Take a close look at how farmer Finland defeated the Soviet army during
WWII. It was the only Axis ally to retain its independence.
We are talking about the Hells Angels en mass here. Not an organized
force. People burning raping and killing simply because they have
nothing and the farmers do.
YMMV. Remember "Deliverance"? As seen with Bella Woods, snipers can stop
even well disciplined troops, and would make the mobs scatter like rabbits.

Another obscure example, Farwell, "The Great War in Africa" shows how
the Brits, Belgians, & Portuguese invaded German East Africa expecting
the German led and equipped Black Askari troops to scatter like rabbits.

But even when outnumbered 20 to one, it was the allies who ran. Partly
this was the combination of African troops familiar with the terrain and
ecosystem and the modern German training and equipment.

You dont want to enter a forest with streetguns and pistols against long
range hunting rifles with scopes. And you sure dont wanna do it when all
their dogs let everyone know you are coming.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
I'm not recommending it, but pointing out what those who want to prepare
for economic panic should do to ensure their own safety. The sniping
that went on in Kosovu is an example of the alternative.
The only way to "prepare" is to prevent.
Good luck with that. We dont set policy.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
Post by Michael Coburn
What a fantasy. Why do you believe that you can stand up to the
majority that do not have access to nature in the way that you do?
That majority will take you over you and eat your seeds and then we all
die together.
That is a risk, but there is no alternative.
I'm sure many communities will be wiped out. They always are after an
empire dissolves into barbarism. But there will also be some that are
out of the way to perceived rich target zones.

Lycurgus picked out all the cute sexy hotties and shipped them off to
the pleasure of the Helots, who remained slaves for centuries. Sparta
had big athletic and bitchy women. It also banned the possession of gold
and silver. So, marauders knew there was no gold and no pussy. It set
the record for independence in the ancient world: 600 years.

Barford, The Early Slavs makes the same point. They always traded any
gold or silver they had for heavy iron farming tools. They didnt grow
wheat but root crops. When the kind of raiders you refer to threatened,
Slavs took what food they could carry to hide out in the woods, and hid
the rest buried in the ground. When Mad Max arrived, there was no gold,
no food, and no pussy. You cant bury wheat like this.
Post by Michael Coburn
The alternative is called technological advance. And right now it is
energy centric.
and I'm all for it. but that's not upta me, or any of us here. I dunno
whether the policy makers will do what is needed to keep it all going or
not. Are they gonna take your wise advice? Well, what the fuck do you
plan to do if they dont?
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Day Brown
There are reports corporations are hoarding cash; which is not what you
want if you want a stable economy. All that does is create the image of
rich target zones for zealots.
This news comes from Bloomberg.com. Nobody considered the cumulative folly
that fails to increase employment. If the money went out as dividends to
small investors, that would boost the economy. But the corruption on
Wall Street screwed small investors so much they are no longer invested.

Instead, its the rich getting richer, which is driving up the sales of
luxury cars. Which dont employ that many workers. There may well be
factors keeping the economy going I am not aware of, but some as well
pushing it to the tipping point.

Retirees can live anywhere, and I see their McMansions going up all over
my neck of Ozark woods. The housing foreclosure rate is near zero. The
unemployment rate runs between 5.7 and 7% in the AR Ozark counties.
this is the other point. Whether the economy recovers or not, different
areas will do much better or much worse.
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-04 12:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
< big huge snip>
OK Michael. I did read your entire post and don't know where to respond
directly.
I guess we're not so far away in thinking. I'm not feeling so good about
the idea that we can put 10 engineers onto one engineering job, so that
all of the engineers have work. I can readily admit that the labor of
stocking materials for a robot could be split this way, but then, that
is the sort of work that another robot will do.
To me the need to insert the human into the factory for the sake of
giving the human a job is a part of the problem. Communism, socialism,
and capitalism are all human labor models. I think it is also true that
they came to be with the evolution of factories which run on human
labor. Even back in the 1800's there was plenty of automation, such as
knitting machines and the like, which made cheap goods available.
Whether there really is a next step within the progression- I feel
fairly comfortable admitting that there is, and that the socialist
models are closer to providing the means, but even if they shave the
work week down, they are still engaged in a labor model.
The distribution of goods is not necessarily just about goods pricing.
That is an equation that is empty of constraints. For instance if
everyone has a Mercedes Benz and there is no need of any more vehicles
it does not mean that Mercedes Benz will drop their price to $1.00. No.
They will go out of business. Having fully provided the needs of the
population what more is there to do? We enter into a large set of
options here, one of which is to provide new bells and whistles to
entice a buyer into replacing their old but still servicable car. Along
with this type of thinking goes the social expectation that your car
should look like new. I exist in one of these cultures right now, and we
are the ones that are wasting tremendous resources. Scariest of all is
that the leeway gained is going into weaponry and militarization, here
in the US.
Because we exist in this state of extreme wealth due to technology, and
not due to the factory owner per se, then I do believe there is a
philosophical problem with the factory owner taking all of the dessert.
When trouble comes, and it has come, then there can be little doubt
whose money will save us. For now the government prints money and waters
down its credibility. What procedure will break this pattern?
You are wrong in this assertion about government printing money and
watering down its value. What is happening in is that most of this
"created money" is being removed from the active economy and stored away
in government backed securities. That is the debt system that we are
currently on. This pattern can be broken by actually printing money as
opposed to borrowing it. That will _cause_ inflation and cure the
housing slump very quickly.
So when these treasury bonds and so forth are cashed in, where does
the cash come from? Are you saying that we are insuring inflation will
hit the next generation and is actually carefully timed? I do find
your detailing here interesting, but I'll trust Ron Paul's version of
things for now. Still, I am open to being corrected. If after the
midterm election Obama does not take off those white gloves I'll be
screaming for a takedown of the entire USFG. Why do we find that the
full truths are exposed only in hindsight? All of the black king's
horses and all of the black kings men must have seen this coming again
and again.
Post by Michael Coburn
But that is off topic from what you are
trying to get at. (or is it??) It really depends on what is done with the
created money. It it is injected at the bottom of the economy (social
insurance and such) then the economy will improve. If it is used to bail
out banks then we have a continuing recession.
Yeah, I see this. It is like a three-way system between the wealthy
profiteers, the government, and the low income folks, with some middle
tier of self sufficient middle class, which is getting squeezed thin
now. This sort of welfare state should not take the hostile energy
that conservatives spend on it. That is like a refusal to analyze the
problem. Analysis is like engineering, and here I have more to say
below.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The lack
of new thought within the political circles is very frustrating. The
ability of the old agendas to hold up cannot hold up much longer. I love
your last paragraph (below) for it does put the human himself up for
analysis. Our social needs are not being met within the capitalistic
society that we are engaged in. We have a lousy culture in this country
and it is plenty of proof that capitalism is a fraud.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Most human beings seek recognition and acceptance from the society and
reward for meritorious contribution. It is sometimes difficult to tell
which of several motivations is in control. Whether the reward for
contribution is controlling or the lust for power. When people are
only about seeking to disenfranchise others, based on some romantic
notion of their own self worth we have a serious problem. The "ego"
has taken control and the individual runs the risk of psychosis and
paranoia. This is where we currently find ourselves in the religious
fixation on what is called pure capitalism and is probably more akin to
fascism or outright slavery. Far too many are focused on
disenfranchising others to enslave them as opposed to actually earning
by contribution.
Capitalism is not a fraud. It does result in advanced development of
real capital that displaces drudgery. But as it currently exists it is
the wrong answer. The people cannot buy what they produce because
aggregate wages are too low when compared to aggregate profits.
By greatly enhancing the returns to ownership above the returns to
production we have screwed the real economy. Wage push inflation is the
proper way forward. And that is brought about by monetization in support
of bottom side stimulus and an increase of taxation on the very wealthy.
The payment of unemployment benefits is part of this effort. There are
far to few jobs that pay decent wages, and far too many people competing
for the jobs.
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a labor
model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a straight
allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as in a Robin
Hood government.

The technology vector is bigger yet than this small detail. It defines
the human race. In that technology is about engineering, and not about
capitalism, then the fraud can be heightened since if we had well
engineered systems then the proprietary crap of the corporations would
disappear. Countries that take this approach will leave a USA
committed to corporate power in the dust.

I will have to admit that capitalism has helped take us this far,
though of course the communists have their own share of
accomplishments, and then the hybrid Chinese who are more the
engineers that I mention. That the capitalist US would find the need
to formally vilify these other economic systems is an impressive piece
of information, which does only expose a cloak. The truth is that
technology and natural resources rule us all, regardless of economic
organization. The US has a system for drawing in the best engineers,
or at least it used to. Give them some candy...

Now that we are fat and having trouble losing the weight, what comes
next? It is blatantly clear that the conservative agenda is plain
wrong. We are engaged in a progression, and the options are open. The
longer they and the Democrats hold on to the old ways the longer the
US will drift along burning as few calories as possible because it
hates to lose weight.

To heighten the fraud aspect I suppose I'll need to expose another
overlooked partition. Look at any third world country and you will see
people hawking goods on the street. Not so much in the USA. Who is
more entrepreneurial? They are. We are taught to go look for a job in
this country. That is capitalism. Free markets exists outside of
capitalism and it is a fraud for a capitalistic country to claim some
unique exclusive on those generic properties of humans.

We have a commercial culture here in the USA right now. It encourages
us to want something that is new, and brand name too. These are social
pressures resulting from commercialism, which goes hand in hand with
American capitalism, but does deserve this slight enlightenment of
partitioning. The truth is that a large corporation can build a better
cheaper product due to its organizational abilities and its buying
power, not to mention its ability to push down the little guy. This
then seals the farce of free market capitalism. What chance does a
small business have in competing with the large? We have arrived at
the big box store and witness small businesses dying. Please, let's
not confuse capitalism with entrepreneurship. This latter is more
about self sufficiency, and we need more of it, even while these
behemoths vacuum up niches.

So long as I am on such a rant, let's not forget about the American
Dream...

Wake Up !!!

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
One particular move is to get employers out of the health
insurance system and to provide more general welfare (health care and
unemployment). There are many people at age 55 an over that would retire
if they could _BUY_ health insurance from the Medicare insurance system.
A person age 55 with or without preexisting conditions such as diabetes
would be able to get health insurance for a lot less through the
voluntary Medicare insurance system than what could be done in the
private market. That will occasion a lot more early retirement and open
up more jobs at better wages.
There are other things that can be done, but the financial and owner
class will not have it. They want to stay rich at the cost of all others.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Coburn
2010-08-04 17:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
< big huge snip>
OK Michael. I did read your entire post and don't know where to
respond directly.
I guess we're not so far away in thinking. I'm not feeling so good
about the idea that we can put 10 engineers onto one engineering job,
so that all of the engineers have work. I can readily admit that the
labor of stocking materials for a robot could be split this way, but
then, that is the sort of work that another robot will do.
To me the need to insert the human into the factory for the sake of
giving the human a job is a part of the problem. Communism,
socialism, and capitalism are all human labor models. I think it is
also true that they came to be with the evolution of factories which
run on human labor. Even back in the 1800's there was plenty of
automation, such as knitting machines and the like, which made cheap
goods available.
Whether there really is a next step within the progression- I feel
fairly comfortable admitting that there is, and that the socialist
models are closer to providing the means, but even if they shave the
work week down, they are still engaged in a labor model.
The distribution of goods is not necessarily just about goods
pricing. That is an equation that is empty of constraints. For
instance if everyone has a Mercedes Benz and there is no need of any
more vehicles it does not mean that Mercedes Benz will drop their
price to $1.00. No. They will go out of business. Having fully
provided the needs of the population what more is there to do? We
enter into a large set of options here, one of which is to provide
new bells and whistles to entice a buyer into replacing their old but
still servicable car. Along with this type of thinking goes the
social expectation that your car should look like new. I exist in one
of these cultures right now, and we are the ones that are wasting
tremendous resources. Scariest of all is that the leeway gained is
going into weaponry and militarization, here in the US.
Because we exist in this state of extreme wealth due to technology,
and not due to the factory owner per se, then I do believe there is a
philosophical problem with the factory owner taking all of the
dessert. When trouble comes, and it has come, then there can be
little doubt whose money will save us. For now the government prints
money and waters down its credibility. What procedure will break this
pattern?
You are wrong in this assertion about government printing money and
watering down its value. What is happening in is that most of this
"created money" is being removed from the active economy and stored
away in government backed securities. That is the debt system that we
are currently on. This pattern can be broken by actually printing
money as opposed to borrowing it. That will _cause_ inflation and cure
the housing slump very quickly.
So when these treasury bonds and so forth are cashed in, where does the
cash come from?
In the current system, for the most part, the money to pay out for
matured bonds comes from the sale of NEW bonds at the prevailing interest
rate.
Are you saying that we are insuring inflation will hit
the next generation and is actually carefully timed?
I said what I said. I did not say what you claim that I said. The rate
of inflation according to past history of the Fed is supposed to be
maintained/targeted at about 2%. We are currently well below that. The
Fed should be "printing" more money, as opposed to selling so many bonds.
But the printing of new money to pay bondholders does not provide a
stimulus because the new money is injected at the top as opposed to the
bottom. The money supply is expanded but the rich folk have all the new
money. Only the elected government can inject the new money at the right
place. And the Republicans are screaming about it because they want to
protect the rich.
I do find your
detailing here interesting, but I'll trust Ron Paul's version of things
for now.
Ron Paul has his head up his ass. I actually voted for him for president
back in the 80's. I grew up.
Still, I am open to being corrected. If after the midterm
election Obama does not take off those white gloves I'll be screaming
for a takedown of the entire USFG. Why do we find that the full truths
are exposed only in hindsight? All of the black king's horses and all of
the black kings men must have seen this coming again and again.
In what sort of delusion are you investing now?????
Post by Michael Coburn
But that is off topic from what you are trying to get at. (or is it??)
It really depends on what is done with the created money. It it is
injected at the bottom of the economy (social insurance and such) then
the economy will improve. If it is used to bail out banks then we have
a continuing recession.
Yeah, I see this. It is like a three-way system between the wealthy
profiteers, the government, and the low income folks, with some middle
tier of self sufficient middle class, which is getting squeezed thin
now. This sort of welfare state should not take the hostile energy that
conservatives spend on it. That is like a refusal to analyze the
problem. Analysis is like engineering, and here I have more to say
below.
The problem in your assessment is that government does not "take" a large
share of the wealth OTHER THAN FOR THE MILITARY. Social Insurance
systems pay out almost every nickle paid in. The money DOES NOT go
anywhere other than right back out again. It certainly doesn't go into
the pockets of the politicians. When compared to administrative costs in
the private sector, government does a much more efficient and effective
job of insurance than does the private sector.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The lack
of new thought within the political circles is very frustrating. The
ability of the old agendas to hold up cannot hold up much longer. I
love your last paragraph (below) for it does put the human himself up
for analysis. Our social needs are not being met within the
capitalistic society that we are engaged in. We have a lousy culture
in this country and it is plenty of proof that capitalism is a fraud.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Most human beings seek recognition and acceptance from the society
and reward for meritorious contribution. It is sometimes difficult
to tell which of several motivations is in control. Whether the
reward for contribution is controlling or the lust for power. When
people are only about seeking to disenfranchise others, based on
some romantic notion of their own self worth we have a serious
problem. The "ego" has taken control and the individual runs the
risk of psychosis and paranoia. This is where we currently find
ourselves in the religious fixation on what is called pure
capitalism and is probably more akin to fascism or outright slavery.
Far too many are focused on disenfranchising others to enslave them
as opposed to actually earning by contribution.
Capitalism is not a fraud. It does result in advanced development of
real capital that displaces drudgery. But as it currently exists it is
the wrong answer. The people cannot buy what they produce because
aggregate wages are too low when compared to aggregate profits. By
greatly enhancing the returns to ownership above the returns to
production we have screwed the real economy. Wage push inflation is
the proper way forward. And that is brought about by monetization in
support of bottom side stimulus and an increase of taxation on the very
wealthy. The payment of unemployment benefits is part of this effort.
There are far to few jobs that pay decent wages, and far too many
people competing for the jobs.
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a labor
model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a straight
allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as in a Robin
Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking a
share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving a
share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all of the
gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to make this
profit sharing happen.
The technology vector is bigger yet than this small detail. It defines
the human race. In that technology is about engineering, and not about
capitalism, then the fraud can be heightened since if we had well
engineered systems then the proprietary crap of the corporations would
disappear. Countries that take this approach will leave a USA committed
to corporate power in the dust.
It seems that you are adopting a pure socialism.
I will have to admit that capitalism has helped take us this far, though
of course the communists have their own share of accomplishments, and
then the hybrid Chinese who are more the engineers that I mention. That
the capitalist US would find the need to formally vilify these other
economic systems is an impressive piece of information, which does only
expose a cloak. The truth is that technology and natural resources rule
us all, regardless of economic organization. The US has a system for
drawing in the best engineers, or at least it used to. Give them some
candy...
Now that we are fat and having trouble losing the weight, what comes
next? It is blatantly clear that the conservative agenda is plain wrong.
We are engaged in a progression, and the options are open. The longer
they and the Democrats hold on to the old ways the longer the US will
drift along burning as few calories as possible because it hates to lose
weight.
To heighten the fraud aspect I suppose I'll need to expose another
overlooked partition. Look at any third world country and you will see
people hawking goods on the street. Not so much in the USA. Who is more
entrepreneurial? They are. We are taught to go look for a job in this
country. That is capitalism. Free markets exists outside of capitalism
and it is a fraud for a capitalistic country to claim some unique
exclusive on those generic properties of humans.
We have a commercial culture here in the USA right now. It encourages us
to want something that is new, and brand name too. These are social
pressures resulting from commercialism, which goes hand in hand with
American capitalism, but does deserve this slight enlightenment of
partitioning. The truth is that a large corporation can build a better
cheaper product due to its organizational abilities and its buying
power, not to mention its ability to push down the little guy. This then
seals the farce of free market capitalism. What chance does a small
business have in competing with the large? We have arrived at the big
box store and witness small businesses dying. Please, let's not confuse
capitalism with entrepreneurship. This latter is more about self
sufficiency, and we need more of it, even while these behemoths vacuum
up niches.
So long as I am on such a rant, let's not forget about the American
Dream...
Wake Up !!!
Seeing "wake up" makes me want to puke. Sooooooooooo hackneyed.
We are simply not redistributing enough of the economic rent that is
produced by technology. We used to have a very steeply progressive
income tax here in the USA and that system worked very well to do what is
needed. We need to return to that, and to reassert the import duties
that have been removed. And the proceeds of these acts need to be
employed for bottom side stimulus. Problem solved.
Post by Michael Coburn
One particular move is to get employers out of the health insurance
system and to provide more general welfare (health care and
unemployment). There are many people at age 55 an over that would
retire if they could _BUY_ health insurance from the Medicare insurance
system. A person age 55 with or without preexisting conditions such as
diabetes would be able to get health insurance for a lot less through
the voluntary Medicare insurance system than what could be done in the
private market. That will occasion a lot more early retirement and
open up more jobs at better wages.
There are other things that can be done, but the financial and owner
class will not have it. They want to stay rich at the cost of all others.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-05 16:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Lots of unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
So when these treasury bonds and so forth are cashed in, where does the
cash come from?
In the current system, for the most part, the money to pay out for
matured bonds comes from the sale of NEW bonds at the prevailing interest
rate.
Are you saying that we are insuring inflation will hit
the next generation and is actually carefully timed?
I said what I said. I did not say what you claim that I said. The rate
of inflation according to past history of the Fed is supposed to be
maintained/targeted at about 2%. We are currently well below that. The
Fed should be "printing" more money, as opposed to selling so many bonds.
But the printing of new money to pay bondholders does not provide a
stimulus because the new money is injected at the top as opposed to the
bottom. The money supply is expanded but the rich folk have all the new
money. Only the elected government can inject the new money at the right
place. And the Republicans are screaming about it because they want to
protect the rich.
I do find your
detailing here interesting, but I'll trust Ron Paul's version of things
for now.
Ron Paul has his head up his ass. I actually voted for him for president
back in the 80's. I grew up.
I'm open to your position here, but would need some information to
work from.
Post by Michael Coburn
Still, I am open to being corrected. If after the midterm
election Obama does not take off those white gloves I'll be screaming
for a takedown of the entire USFG. Why do we find that the full truths
are exposed only in hindsight? All of the black king's horses and all of
the black kings men must have seen this coming again and again.
In what sort of delusion are you investing now?????
Yeah, I see this. It is like a three-way system between the wealthy
profiteers, the government, and the low income folks, with some middle
tier of self sufficient middle class, which is getting squeezed thin
now. This sort of welfare state should not take the hostile energy that
conservatives spend on it. That is like a refusal to analyze the
problem. Analysis is like engineering, and here I have more to say
below.
The problem in your assessment is that government does not "take" a large
share of the wealth OTHER THAN FOR THE MILITARY. Social Insurance
systems pay out almost every nickle paid in. The money DOES NOT go
anywhere other than right back out again. It certainly doesn't go into
the pockets of the politicians. When compared to administrative costs in
the private sector, government does a much more efficient and effective
job of insurance than does the private sector.
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
Post by Michael Coburn
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a labor
model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a straight
allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as in a Robin
Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking a
share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving a
share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all of the
gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to make this
profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored. The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model is
dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political
agenda I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for
that matter. I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may
wear out, in which case I'll hike, bearfoot even.

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
The technology vector is bigger yet than this small detail. It defines
the human race. In that technology is about engineering, and not about
capitalism, then the fraud can be heightened since if we had well
engineered systems then the proprietary crap of the corporations would
disappear. Countries that take this approach will leave a USA committed
to corporate power in the dust.
It seems that you are adopting a pure socialism.
So long as I am on such a rant, let's not forget about the American
Dream...
Wake Up !!!
Seeing "wake up" makes me want to puke. Sooooooooooo hackneyed.
We are simply not redistributing enough of the economic rent that is
produced by technology. We used to have a very steeply progressive
income tax here in the USA and that system worked very well to do what is
needed. We need to return to that, and to reassert the import duties
that have been removed. And the proceeds of these acts need to be
employed for bottom side stimulus. Problem solved.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-05 21:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Lots of unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
So when these treasury bonds and so forth are cashed in, where does
the cash come from?
In the current system, for the most part, the money to pay out for
matured bonds comes from the sale of NEW bonds at the prevailing
interest rate.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Are you saying that we are insuring inflation will hit the next
generation and is actually carefully timed?
I said what I said. I did not say what you claim that I said. The
rate of inflation according to past history of the Fed is supposed to
be maintained/targeted at about 2%. We are currently well below that.
The Fed should be "printing" more money, as opposed to selling so many
bonds. But the printing of new money to pay bondholders does not
provide a stimulus because the new money is injected at the top as
opposed to the bottom. The money supply is expanded but the rich folk
have all the new money. Only the elected government can inject the new
money at the right place. And the Republicans are screaming about it
because they want to protect the rich.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I do find your
detailing here interesting, but I'll trust Ron Paul's version of
things for now.
Ron Paul has his head up his ass. I actually voted for him for
president back in the 80's. I grew up.
I'm open to your position here, but would need some information to work
from.
Libertarianism is based on the notion that people are always rational and
self serving while being otherwise disconnected from the society. It
fails because people are not always rational and because ego drives some
people to commit blatant crimes against the rest of the society. The
crime happens when possession or control is employed, not for ones own
consumption, but to disadvantage others. The "gold standard" has always
been a rent maximization system of ancestor worship. Social mobility is
almost impossible inside of such a system. Those who have the gold hold
all others hostage.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Still, I am open to being corrected. If after the midterm election
Obama does not take off those white gloves I'll be screaming for a
takedown of the entire USFG. Why do we find that the full truths are
exposed only in hindsight? All of the black king's horses and all of
the black kings men must have seen this coming again and again.
In what sort of delusion are you investing now?????
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yeah, I see this. It is like a three-way system between the wealthy
profiteers, the government, and the low income folks, with some
middle tier of self sufficient middle class, which is getting
squeezed thin now. This sort of welfare state should not take the
hostile energy that conservatives spend on it. That is like a refusal
to analyze the problem. Analysis is like engineering, and here I have
more to say below.
The problem in your assessment is that government does not "take" a
large share of the wealth OTHER THAN FOR THE MILITARY. Social
Insurance systems pay out almost every nickle paid in. The money DOES
NOT go anywhere other than right back out again. It certainly doesn't
go into the pockets of the politicians. When compared to
administrative costs in the private sector, government does a much more
efficient and effective job of insurance than does the private sector.
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians. I
believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning aside
from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a labor
model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a straight
allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as in a Robin
Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking a
share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving a
share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all of
the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to make
this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators of
wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The robots
have no compunction to hoard money.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

What you are describing is a long, long way in the future. In the
interim, hair cuts are done by people and so too medical care.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model is
dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political agenda
I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for that matter.
I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may wear out, in which
case I'll hike, bearfoot even.
- Tim
To each his own. Yet you must have an income and you must contribute
something to the society that provides you a bicycle.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The technology vector is bigger yet than this small detail. It
defines the human race. In that technology is about engineering, and
not about capitalism, then the fraud can be heightened since if we
had well engineered systems then the proprietary crap of the
corporations would disappear. Countries that take this approach will
leave a USA committed to corporate power in the dust.
It seems that you are adopting a pure socialism.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
So long as I am on such a rant, let's not forget about the American
Dream...
Wake Up !!!
Seeing "wake up" makes me want to puke. Sooooooooooo hackneyed. We are
simply not redistributing enough of the economic rent that is produced
by technology. We used to have a very steeply progressive income tax
here in the USA and that system worked very well to do what is needed.
We need to return to that, and to reassert the import duties that have
been removed. And the proceeds of these acts need to be employed for
bottom side stimulus. Problem solved.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Day Brown
2010-08-06 06:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Ever since Nixon presidents have bitched about foreign oil. But now,
China and India are building more cars than the US, so the global demand
for oil will rise dramatically.

It remains to be seen if these Asian economies can still function
without the American middle class buying exports; but with the rising
price of gas at the pump, they wont be buying near as much. Dicey.

The only real path to a stable economy is to do something substantial to
reduce oil imports. And while nukes seem attractive, we no longer have
the years needed to bring them online.

But a vast network of wind tower turbines on the Great Plains could go
up in a couple years, and the amortization is such it'd draw investment
from all over the world.

There seems to be a new gallium/aluminum hydrogen generator that could
store the energy when the wind does not blow. There dozens of obscure
technologies American entrepreneurs could apply if the administration
could get seriously behind it. But I dunno if they can.

But without massive alternative energy output, the price of gas at the
pump will help to bankrupt even more of the middle class and drive the
whole economy to hell in a basket.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get it.
tg
2010-08-06 13:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Ever since Nixon presidents have bitched about foreign oil. But now,
China and India are building more cars than the US, so the global demand
for oil will rise dramatically.
It remains to be seen if these Asian economies can still function
without the American middle class buying exports; but with the rising
price of gas at the pump, they wont be buying near as much. Dicey.
The only real path to a stable economy is to do something substantial to
reduce oil imports. And while nukes seem attractive, we no longer have
the years needed to bring them online.
But a vast network of wind tower turbines on the Great Plains could go
up in a couple years, and the amortization is such it'd draw investment
from all over the world.
There seems to be a new gallium/aluminum hydrogen generator that could
store the energy when the wind does not blow. There dozens of obscure
technologies American entrepreneurs could apply if the administration
could get seriously behind it. But I dunno if they can.
But without massive alternative energy output, the price of gas at the
pump will help to bankrupt even more of the middle class and drive the
whole economy to hell in a basket.
Except that in Europe, people pay 2.5-3 times as much and have been
for a very long time; their standard of living is just fine. Germany
has maintained a net export economy and is still doing it in current
hard times.

The difference is, they have used the gas-tax revenue to improve their
infrastructure and education and technology, while the gas price has
encouraged more efficient vehicles (many of them made by Ford and GM,
by the way, but not sold in the USA.)

We don't need no stinkin' yoeman farmers, we need to stop being
idiots.

-tg
Post by Day Brown
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get it.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-06 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Ever since Nixon presidents have bitched about foreign oil. But now,
China and India are building more cars than the US, so the global
demand for oil will rise dramatically.
It remains to be seen if these Asian economies can still function
without the American middle class buying exports; but with the rising
price of gas at the pump, they wont be buying near as much. Dicey.
The only real path to a stable economy is to do something substantial
to reduce oil imports. And while nukes seem attractive, we no longer
have the years needed to bring them online.
But a vast network of wind tower turbines on the Great Plains could go
up in a couple years, and the amortization is such it'd draw investment
from all over the world.
There seems to be a new gallium/aluminum hydrogen generator that could
store the energy when the wind does not blow. There dozens of obscure
technologies American entrepreneurs could apply if the administration
could get seriously behind it. But I dunno if they can.
But without massive alternative energy output, the price of gas at the
pump will help to bankrupt even more of the middle class and drive the
whole economy to hell in a basket.
Except that in Europe, people pay 2.5-3 times as much and have been for
a very long time; their standard of living is just fine. Germany has
maintained a net export economy and is still doing it in current hard
times.
The difference is, they have used the gas-tax revenue to improve their
infrastructure and education and technology, while the gas price has
encouraged more efficient vehicles (many of them made by Ford and GM, by
the way, but not sold in the USA.)
We don't need no stinkin' yoeman farmers, we need to stop being idiots.
-tg
Post by Day Brown
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get it.
Please note that a very large part of fuel taxes in Europe go to health
care.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
President Soetoro
2010-08-06 18:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by tg
Post by Day Brown
Ever since Nixon presidents have bitched about foreign oil. But now,
China and India are building more cars than the US, so the global demand
for oil will rise dramatically.
It remains to be seen if these Asian economies can still function
without the American middle class buying exports; but with the rising
price of gas at the pump, they wont be buying near as much. Dicey.
The only real path to a stable economy is to do something substantial to
reduce oil imports. And while nukes seem attractive, we no longer have
the years needed to bring them online.
But a vast network of wind tower turbines on the Great Plains could go
up in a couple years, and the amortization is such it'd draw investment
from all over the world.
There seems to be a new gallium/aluminum hydrogen generator that could
store the energy when the wind does not blow. There dozens of obscure
technologies American entrepreneurs could apply if the administration
could get seriously behind it. But I dunno if they can.
But without massive alternative energy output, the price of gas at the
pump will help to bankrupt even more of the middle class and drive the
whole economy to hell in a basket.
Except that in Europe, people pay 2.5-3 times as much and have been
for a very long time; their standard of living is just fine. Germany
has maintained a net export economy and is still doing it in current
hard times.
The difference is, they have used the gas-tax revenue to improve their
infrastructure and education and technology, while the gas price has
encouraged more efficient vehicles (many of them made by Ford and GM,
by the way, but not sold in the USA.)
We don't need no stinkin' yoeman farmers, we need to stop being
idiots.
-tg
Post by Day Brown
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get it.
go live there eurotrash!
Day Brown
2010-08-06 20:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tg
Except that in Europe, people pay 2.5-3 times as much and have been
for a very long time; their standard of living is just fine. Germany
has maintained a net export economy and is still doing it in current
hard times.
The difference is, they have used the gas-tax revenue to improve their
infrastructure and education and technology, while the gas price has
encouraged more efficient vehicles (many of them made by Ford and GM,
by the way, but not sold in the USA.)
We don't need no stinkin' yoeman farmers, we need to stop being
idiots.
Mass transit works in Europe also. But its a far smaller place with much
shorter commutes. From Bavaria to a Rivera resort is 400 mi. From the US
snow belt to Florida is 2-3 times as far.

It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
the solutions, suburban office parks is already morphing into villages
as staff moves ever closer. Communities are also tearing down abandoned
buildings to replace drug houses with gardens so that the locals can
reduce the cost of food, which they need to do because their incomes are
not rising with the cost of energy.

Bloomberg.com reports 31% of upscale professional men have not sired any
kids by the age of 40. So, women that want to have kids are looking into
other social models, especially if they are thirty something and no
longer sexy enuf.

That has to do with raps in More, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan by women who
went to fertility clinics, blowing off the shot at a perfect marriage to
bear the perfect baby. And I've met dykes living with kids to share the
childcare.

http://daybrown.org/village/village.htm merely ties all these trends
together, recognizing what is already evolving but thinking clearly at
the outset how to weave it all together to promote entrepreneurism and a
longer term economic system than just the next quarterly profits- at the
same time providing the best environment to raise their kids.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-06 20:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by tg
Except that in Europe, people pay 2.5-3 times as much and have been
for a very long time; their standard of living is just fine. Germany
has maintained a net export economy and is still doing it in current
hard times.
The difference is, they have used the gas-tax revenue to improve their
infrastructure and education and technology, while the gas price has
encouraged more efficient vehicles (many of them made by Ford and GM,
by the way, but not sold in the USA.)
We don't need no stinkin' yoeman farmers, we need to stop being
idiots.
Mass transit works in Europe also. But its a far smaller place with much
shorter commutes. From Bavaria to a Rivera resort is 400 mi. From the US
snow belt to Florida is 2-3 times as far.
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
Day Brown
2010-08-06 23:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.

The Left didnt even know it was going on. The Left is clueless, the
Right is corrupt.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-07 16:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
The Left didnt even know it was going on. The Left is clueless, the
Right is corrupt.
Chicago and many others have been run BY Democrats since before I was born.

--
Day Brown
2010-08-07 22:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
The Left didnt even know it was going on. The Left is clueless, the
Right is corrupt.
Chicago and many others have been run BY Democrats since before I was born.
So? proving some Dems are corrupt proves Repubs are not?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-07 23:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
The Left didnt even know it was going on. The Left is clueless, the
Right is corrupt.
Chicago and many others have been run BY Democrats since before I was born.
So? proving some Dems are corrupt proves Repubs are not?
It shows that Democrats and their Socialist ways are NOT the answer.

--
Day Brown
2010-08-08 01:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
The Left didnt even know it was going on. The Left is clueless, the
Right is corrupt.
Chicago and many others have been run BY Democrats since before I was born.
So? proving some Dems are corrupt proves Repubs are not?
It shows that Democrats and their Socialist ways are NOT the answer.
Agreed. but dwelling on that does not provide the path to progress. Both
major parties are lacking in vision. I therefore look for posts that
have some.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-07 16:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-07 20:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
GM will also be sucking out your vital bodily fluids.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-07 17:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.


Isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created our Mortgage collapse via
collusion also a Government corporation(GSE)








--
Day Brown
2010-08-14 03:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
Isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created our Mortgage collapse via
collusion also a Government corporation(GSE)
That was done so GW Bush could claim record levels of home ownership.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-14 16:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
Isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created our Mortgage collapse via
collusion also a Government corporation(GSE)
That was done so GW Bush could claim record levels of home ownership.
That was done by Progressives, Bush couldn't stop it so he tried to spin
it and adopt it.... he's guilty of not being conservative enough to
fight that Socialist back door welfare plan.


--
Day Brown
2010-08-14 21:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
Isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created our Mortgage collapse via
collusion also a Government corporation(GSE)
That was done so GW Bush could claim record levels of home ownership.
That was done by Progressives, Bush couldn't stop it so he tried to spin
it and adopt it.... he's guilty of not being conservative enough to
fight that Socialist back door welfare plan.
Progressives wanted it, but they didnt have the power to do it. That was
in the hands of the GOP and Bush. Your failure to recognize any
responsibility of the Right for the downside of any policy marks you out
as a zealot, and therefore not credible.

I dont defend the progressives or the Left either.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2010-08-16 01:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Day Brown
It was not wise to allow urban sprawl, but we are where we are. One of
It's Leftists that say government is supposed to create interstate
highways that caused the flight from the inner cities. Looks like
Government failed on that one too, then they bussed the kids to fix it.
We now know that General Motors colluded and bribed local officials to
first replace the electric trolley system with buses, then degrade that
service to drive up the demand for automobiles. Which produced sprawl.
Now General Motors is Government(GSE) that will be colluding with local
officials and unions to degrade our freedom, to drive up demand for GM
products.
Isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created our Mortgage collapse via
collusion also a Government corporation(GSE)
That was done so GW Bush could claim record levels of home ownership.
That was done by Progressives, Bush couldn't stop it so he tried to spin
it and adopt it.... he's guilty of not being conservative enough to
fight that Socialist back door welfare plan.
Progressives wanted it, but they didnt have the power to do it.
That's the reason it was done via the back door. Courts and veiled
threats and NOT so veiled ones, Leftist Progressives and their spreading
the risk and subprime. It was a collusion of the Liberals to get money
to the poor and we never saw a vote on welfare loans.....
http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/content/view/221/54/




--

Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-06 20:56:34 UTC
Permalink
unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians. I
believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning aside
from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a labor
model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a straight
allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as in a Robin
Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking a
share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving a
share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all of
the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to make
this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators of
wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The robots
have no compunction to hoard money.
Yes, but you are arguing about:
"giving a share of it to the producers
as opposed to allowing the owners all of the gain"
The producers are a dwindling population. You see, your old labor
models almost require a lower class whose labor is being exploited by
the wealthy, but this is less and less so. They are much happier
having these machines to do the work. I would be too.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
What you are describing is a long, long way in the future. In the
interim, hair cuts are done by people and so too medical care.
No. What I am describing has been engaged since the industrial age at
least.
The procedure is operating on a continuum, and you claim we are not
quite that far along, but I think maybe you need to stroll down a
modern factory floor. Less and less people are needed to produce more
and more.

This is why it is claimed that service jobs will become a large
sector, yet, this thinking is again just a flawed labor assumption. So
now we've got a bunch of people who think that telemarketing is a job.
Do you think that they feel like productive members of society? I balk
at the quality of culture that we exist in.
Still, we are in a wealthy culture, but where I see the highest
quality culture is in places where people are being resourceful,
thinking for themselves, and trying something new. Yes, we are free to
do these things, and this freedom should not be too closely associated
with capitalism. Here again is a partition which some may think does
not exist. Freedom and democracy do not go hand in hand either. If I
do as I please on my property there is no need to take a vote... until
my actions impinge on others. Now I cannot eat the fish in the lake
because they are poisoned with mercury. We have enough production
already and need no more. We need less people and more fish free of
mercury and PCBs.

You hold onto your labor model. It will not stand up. You may as well
pay people to play with a yo-yo for eight hours a day. The responsible
thing to do is to slow down so that there is some of that nifty fossil
fuel left for the next generation.
As to making a contribution to society, well, if flipping a thousand
hamburgers a day is your idea of a meaningful contribution, while some
other guy takes a million dollars from an investor in commissions on a
five minute deal, well, neither of these are terribly meaningful
contributions, yet somehow the thing does work. I am a bit overwhelmed
by it all, and attempt to find ways to be less interdependent. I admit
many of the goods I own are far beyond my own skills to procure,
except at the local dump, where I used to get numerous goods that
still work for free, all because of the waste under the capitalistic
model. Call me a bottom feeder; a troll if you like.

There are other sorts of trolls with white gloves in high places; the
sort that Madoff with someone elses money, or steer conversations to
suit their agenda regardless of principle. The integrity of the system
is dubious. Going a step more fundamental the integrity of the human
is dubious, and it will not surprise when fully computerized banking
overtakes human run banking, yielding great interest rates to both
sides, with no need of any profit taking other than safety margin. Who
will be the first? The Chinese, I guess will get there first, of maybe
Google will try it. As humans marginalize humans, so it goes. The big
banks deserve to be put out of business.

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model is
dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political agenda
I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for that matter.
I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may wear out, in which
case I'll hike, bearfoot even.
- Tim
To each his own. Yet you must have an income and you must contribute
something to the society that provides you a bicycle.
Michael Coburn
2010-08-06 23:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning
aside from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a
labor model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a
straight allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as
in a Robin Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking
a share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving
a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all
of the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to
make this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators
of wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The
robots have no compunction to hoard money.
"giving a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the
owners all of the gain"
The producers are a dwindling population. You see, your old labor models
almost require a lower class whose labor is being exploited by the
wealthy, but this is less and less so. They are much happier having
these machines to do the work. I would be too.
I can see the point. The problem is that it is still sci-fi. What
happens in the interim.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
What you are describing is a long, long way in the future. In the
interim, hair cuts are done by people and so too medical care.
No. What I am describing has been engaged since the industrial age at
least.
The procedure is operating on a continuum, and you claim we are not
quite that far along, but I think maybe you need to stroll down a modern
factory floor. Less and less people are needed to produce more and more.
This is why it is claimed that service jobs will become a large sector,
yet, this thinking is again just a flawed labor assumption.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOT A FLAWED ASSUMPTION AT ALL. IT IS THE REALITY.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
So now we've
got a bunch of people who think that telemarketing is a job. Do you
think that they feel like productive members of society? I balk at the
quality of culture that we exist in. Still, we are in a wealthy culture,
but where I see the highest quality culture is in places where people
are being resourceful, thinking for themselves, and trying something
new. Yes, we are free to do these things, and this freedom should not be
too closely associated with capitalism. Here again is a partition which
some may think does not exist. Freedom and democracy do not go hand in
hand either. If I do as I please on my property there is no need to take
a vote... until my actions impinge on others. Now I cannot eat the fish
in the lake because they are poisoned with mercury. We have enough
production already and need no more. We need less people and more fish
free of mercury and PCBs.
You hold onto your labor model. It will not stand up.
i BELIEVE IT WILL _stand_up_ UNTIL I AM DEAD.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
You may as well
pay people to play with a yo-yo for eight hours a day. The responsible
thing to do is to slow down so that there is some of that nifty fossil
fuel left for the next generation.
There are many reasons to slow down, but fossil fuels need to be
curtailed for other reasons. The future will be a safer cleaner and non
weaponry nuclear. Nut it is the future and now is now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
As to making a contribution to society, well, if flipping a thousand
hamburgers a day is your idea of a meaningful contribution, while some
other guy takes a million dollars from an investor in commissions on a
five minute deal, well, neither of these are terribly meaningful
contributions, yet somehow the thing does work.
It doesn't "work" at all. The real world will involve a lot more
government and a lot more redistribution of wealth simply because we
can't all be hucksters.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I am a bit overwhelmed
by it all, and attempt to find ways to be less interdependent. I admit
many of the goods I own are far beyond my own skills to procure, except
at the local dump, where I used to get numerous goods that still work
for free, all because of the waste under the capitalistic model. Call me
a bottom feeder; a troll if you like.
A freegan DUMPSTER DIVER.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
There are other sorts of trolls with white gloves in high places; the
sort that Madoff with someone elses money, or steer conversations to
suit their agenda regardless of principle. The integrity of the system
is dubious. Going a step more fundamental the integrity of the human is
dubious, and it will not surprise when fully computerized banking
overtakes human run banking, yielding great interest rates to both
sides, with no need of any profit taking other than safety margin. Who
will be the first? The Chinese, I guess will get there first, of maybe
Google will try it. As humans marginalize humans, so it goes. The big
banks deserve to be put out of business.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model
is dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political
agenda I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for
that matter. I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may
wear out, in which case I'll hike, bearfoot even.
- Tim
To each his own. Yet you must have an income and you must contribute
something to the society that provides you a bicycle.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-07 12:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning
aside from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a
labor model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a
straight allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as
in a Robin Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking
a share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving
a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all
of the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to
make this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators
of wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The
robots have no compunction to hoard money.
"giving a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the
owners all of the gain"
The producers are a dwindling population. You see, your old labor models
almost require a lower class whose labor is being exploited by the
wealthy, but this is less and less so. They are much happier having
these machines to do the work. I would be too.
I can see the point. The problem is that it is still sci-fi. What
happens in the interim.
No. We are there. It is more a question of how much wealth we
individual humans ought to have. If you think we should have lots more
gadgets then keep up the production. We can each have five cars, seven
bicycles, 100 pairs of shoes, three homes, an airplane, and so forth
with productve factories of todays level.

What we really need are less humans, but also I do not see the point
in having all of those goods. It is also true that with less humans
the goods that are already in circulation that are durable will be
somwehat wasted, or we will wind up with three homes each. It is a
strange thing, yet we are living it. Perfectly good items are going
into the trash. This is the other solution: make goods so that you can
destroy goods. We can give half of the unemployed people jobs at the
yo-yo factory making millions of yo-yos per day, and then give the
other half jobs recycling these yo-yos into material ready to make
more yo-yos. This is the nature of the existent system. I suggest that
it is time to relax a bit. I do reccommend higher grade activity in
your free time than playing with the excess yo-yos.

There are various spins that we could put on this condition. One of
them says that we have arrived in that place that those economic
models were competing for. We are doing great. The point to me is that
those economic models are no longer useful. Further we should not
attribute the gains that we have experienced to those economic models
since technology is actually the cause, and those economic models came
about because of certain technologies, such as powered factories.
Energy and Technology are the honey. We are just the bees swarming.

- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
What you are describing is a long, long way in the future. In the
interim, hair cuts are done by people and so too medical care.
No. What I am describing has been engaged since the industrial age at
least.
The procedure is operating on a continuum, and you claim we are not
quite that far along, but I think maybe you need to stroll down a modern
factory floor. Less and less people are needed to produce more and more.
This is why it is claimed that service jobs will become a large sector,
yet, this thinking is again just a flawed labor assumption.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT A FLAWED ASSUMPTION AT ALL. IT IS THE REALITY.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
So now we've
got a bunch of people who think that telemarketing is a job. Do you
think that they feel like productive members of society? I balk at the
quality of culture that we exist in. Still, we are in a wealthy culture,
but where I see the highest quality culture is in places where people
are being resourceful, thinking for themselves, and trying something
new. Yes, we are free to do these things, and this freedom should not be
too closely associated with capitalism. Here again is a partition which
some may think does not exist. Freedom and democracy do not go hand in
hand either. If I do as I please on my property there is no need to take
a vote... until my actions impinge on others. Now I cannot eat the fish
in the lake because they are poisoned with mercury. We have enough
production already and need no more. We need less people and more fish
free of mercury and PCBs.
You hold onto your labor model. It will not stand up.
i BELIEVE IT WILL _stand_up_ UNTIL I AM DEAD.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
You may as well
pay people to play with a yo-yo for eight hours a day. The responsible
thing to do is to slow down so that there is some of that nifty fossil
fuel left for the next generation.
There are many reasons to slow down, but fossil fuels need to be
curtailed for other reasons. The future will be a safer cleaner and non
weaponry nuclear. Nut it is the future and now is now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
As to making a contribution to society, well, if flipping a thousand
hamburgers a day is your idea of a meaningful contribution, while some
other guy takes a million dollars from an investor in commissions on a
five minute deal, well, neither of these are terribly meaningful
contributions, yet somehow the thing does work.
It doesn't "work" at all. The real world will involve a lot more
government and a lot more redistribution of wealth simply because we
can't all be hucksters.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I am a bit overwhelmed
by it all, and attempt to find ways to be less interdependent. I admit
many of the goods I own are far beyond my own skills to procure, except
at the local dump, where I used to get numerous goods that still work
for free, all because of the waste under the capitalistic model. Call me
a bottom feeder; a troll if you like.
A freegan DUMPSTER DIVER.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
There are other sorts of trolls with white gloves in high places; the
sort that Madoff with someone elses money, or steer conversations to
suit their agenda regardless of principle. The integrity of the system
is dubious. Going a step more fundamental the integrity of the human is
dubious, and it will not surprise when fully computerized banking
overtakes human run banking, yielding great interest rates to both
sides, with no need of any profit taking other than safety margin. Who
will be the first? The Chinese, I guess will get there first, of maybe
Google will try it. As humans marginalize humans, so it goes. The big
banks deserve to be put out of business.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model
is dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political
agenda I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for
that matter. I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may
wear out, in which case I'll hike, bearfoot even.
- Tim
To each his own. Yet you must have an income and you must contribute
something to the society that provides you a bicycle.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
tg
2010-08-07 13:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning
aside from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a
labor model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a
straight allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as
in a Robin Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking
a share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving
a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all
of the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to
make this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators
of wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The
robots have no compunction to hoard money.
"giving a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the
owners all of the gain"
The producers are a dwindling population. You see, your old labor models
almost require a lower class whose labor is being exploited by the
wealthy, but this is less and less so. They are much happier having
these machines to do the work. I would be too.
I can see the point. The problem is that it is still sci-fi. What
happens in the interim.
No. We are there. It is more a question of how much wealth we
individual humans ought to have. If you think we should have lots more
gadgets then keep up the production. We can each have five cars, seven
bicycles, 100 pairs of shoes, three homes, an airplane, and so forth
with productve factories of todays level.
What we really need are less humans, but also I do not see the point
in having all of those goods. It is also true that with less humans
the goods that are already in circulation that are durable will be
somwehat wasted, or we will wind up with three homes each. It is a
strange thing, yet we are living it. Perfectly good items are going
into the trash. This is the other solution: make goods so that you can
destroy goods. We can give half of the unemployed people jobs at the
yo-yo factory making millions of yo-yos per day, and then give the
other half jobs recycling these yo-yos into material ready to make
more yo-yos. This is the nature of the existent system. I suggest that
it is time to relax a bit. I do reccommend higher grade activity in
your free time than playing with the excess yo-yos.
All this is fine but you miss the 'elephant in the room'. The toys
are there because there is not enough resource base to allow people to
have the things that grownups choose.

Wealthy people can have anything they want, and (except for some with
psychological problems), they don't buy 100 pairs of cheap sneakers;
they buy houses, land, leisure, health and so on.

So we can have 3 good houses in good locations if there are far fewer
people, but not with the numbers that exist now. Only the wealthy can
do that, because they have the threat of the 4 billion people who live
on a few dollars a day to control the 2 billion who produce things and
protect their land. And then to keep the 2 billion happy, they give
them the toys.

-tg
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
There are various spins that we could put on this condition. One of
them says that we have arrived in that place that those economic
models were competing for. We are doing great. The point to me is that
those economic models are no longer useful. Further we should not
attribute the gains that we have experienced to those economic models
since technology is actually the cause, and those economic models came
about because of certain technologies, such as powered factories.
Energy and Technology are the honey. We are just the bees swarming.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
The producers are no
longer humans. They are robots.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
What you are describing is a long, long way in the future. In the
interim, hair cuts are done by people and so too medical care.
No. What I am describing has been engaged since the industrial age at
least.
The procedure is operating on a continuum, and you claim we are not
quite that far along, but I think maybe you need to stroll down a modern
factory floor. Less and less people are needed to produce more and more.
This is why it is claimed that service jobs will become a large sector,
yet, this thinking is again just a flawed labor assumption.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT A FLAWED ASSUMPTION AT ALL. IT IS THE REALITY.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
So now we've
got a bunch of people who think that telemarketing is a job. Do you
think that they feel like productive members of society? I balk at the
quality of culture that we exist in. Still, we are in a wealthy culture,
but where I see the highest quality culture is in places where people
are being resourceful, thinking for themselves, and trying something
new. Yes, we are free to do these things, and this freedom should not be
too closely associated with capitalism. Here again is a partition which
some may think does not exist. Freedom and democracy do not go hand in
hand either. If I do as I please on my property there is no need to take
a vote... until my actions impinge on others. Now I cannot eat the fish
in the lake because they are poisoned with mercury. We have enough
production already and need no more. We need less people and more fish
free of mercury and PCBs.
You hold onto your labor model. It will not stand up.
i BELIEVE IT WILL _stand_up_ UNTIL I AM DEAD.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
You may as well
pay people to play with a yo-yo for eight hours a day. The responsible
thing to do is to slow down so that there is some of that nifty fossil
fuel left for the next generation.
There are many reasons to slow down, but fossil fuels need to be
curtailed for other reasons. The future will be a safer cleaner and non
weaponry nuclear. Nut it is the future and now is now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
As to making a contribution to society, well, if flipping a thousand
hamburgers a day is your idea of a meaningful contribution, while some
other guy takes a million dollars from an investor in commissions on a
five minute deal, well, neither of these are terribly meaningful
contributions, yet somehow the thing does work.
It doesn't "work" at all. The real world will involve a lot more
government and a lot more redistribution of wealth simply because we
can't all be hucksters.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
I am a bit overwhelmed
by it all, and attempt to find ways to be less interdependent. I admit
many of the goods I own are far beyond my own skills to procure, except
at the local dump, where I used to get numerous goods that still work
for free, all because of the waste under the capitalistic model. Call me
a bottom feeder; a troll if you like.
A freegan DUMPSTER DIVER.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
There are other sorts of trolls with white gloves in high places; the
sort that Madoff with someone elses money, or steer conversations to
suit their agenda regardless of principle. The integrity of the system
is dubious. Going a step more fundamental the integrity of the human is
dubious, and it will not surprise when fully computerized banking
overtakes human run banking, yielding great interest rates to both
sides, with no need of any profit taking other than safety margin. Who
will be the first? The Chinese, I guess will get there first, of maybe
Google will try it. As humans marginalize humans, so it goes. The big
banks deserve to be put out of business.
- Tim
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
They are large machines capable of huge production. The labor model
is dying or dead already. So long as you ride the current political
agenda I'd say you're riding a nearly dead donkey, or elephant for
that matter. I'll prefer to pedal my own bike, though that too may
wear out, in which case I'll hike, bearfoot even.
- Tim
To each his own. Yet you must have an income and you must contribute
something to the society that provides you a bicycle.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2010-08-10 13:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tg
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
unmarked snips below...
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, the military industrial complex is a welfare system for the
wealthy. They fare fairly well, and the big bat that the US wields
around the planet seals the deal. Ron Paul would change that by
withdrawing US troops from overseas.
So would a lot of other people who are not brain damaged Libertarians.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings on withdrawal and a turning
aside from imperialism right now.
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Here is the lack of awareness of the technology vector creeping in
again. You have returned here to the standard agenda which is a
labor model. I suspect that the simple answer is to provide a
straight allowance to the bottom tier, taken from the top tier, as
in a Robin Hood government.
That is essentially correct in that government will have been taking
a share of the productivity gains produced by the technology, giving
a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the owners all
of the gain. There does not seem to be any other rational way to
make this profit sharing happen.
Again here the technology vector goes ignored.
You are talking religious nonsense again. The takers and accumulators
of wealth are people no matter how many robots are employed. The
robots have no compunction to hoard money.
"giving a share of it to the producers as opposed to allowing the
owners all of the gain"
The producers are a dwindling population. You see, your old labor models
almost require a lower class whose labor is being exploited by the
wealthy, but this is less and less so. They are much happier having
these machines to do the work. I would be too.
I can see the point. The problem is that it is still sci-fi. What
happens in the interim.
No. We are there. It is more a question of how much wealth we
individual humans ought to have. If you think we should have lots more
gadgets then keep up the production. We can each have five cars, seven
bicycles, 100 pairs of shoes, three homes, an airplane, and so forth
with productve factories of todays level.
What we really need are less humans, but also I do not see the point
in having all of those goods. It is also true that with less humans
the goods that are already in circulation that are durable will be
somwehat wasted, or we will wind up with three homes each. It is a
strange thing, yet we are living it. Perfectly good items are going
into the trash. This is the other solution: make goods so that you can
destroy goods. We can give half of the unemployed people jobs at the
yo-yo factory making millions of yo-yos per day, and then give the
other half jobs recycling these yo-yos into material ready to make
more yo-yos. This is the nature of the existent system. I suggest that
it is time to relax a bit. I do reccommend higher grade activity in
your free time than playing with the excess yo-yos.
All this is fine but you miss the 'elephant in the room'. The toys
are there because there is not enough resource base to allow people to
have the things that grownups choose.
Wealthy people can have anything they want, and (except for some with
psychological problems), they don't buy 100 pairs of cheap sneakers;
they buy houses, land, leisure, health and so on.
So we can have 3 good houses in good locations if there are far fewer
people, but not with the numbers that exist now. Only the wealthy can
do that, because they have the threat of the 4 billion people who live
on a few dollars a day to control the 2 billion who produce things and
protect their land. And then to keep the 2 billion happy, they give
them the toys.
-tg
Yes, I accept what you say here. Also the quality of some of the goods
that are being peddled has gone down. The quality of material in some
older goods was better. As the US grows poorer and poorer we will see
this trend continue. This is not so much a matter of necessity as it
is a matter of what the human will bear.

Still, this is not true of all things. The computer is an instance of
ever improving specifications, though there are rather alot of
overheating issues going on. IBM did a wonderful thing when they chose
an open hardware spec. This again is an instance of technology
trumping any economic model.

It's the technology, stupid...

This simple one liner might catch with some politicos, but I do also
agree with

It's the population, stupid...

especially when addressing environmental concerns from warming to
natural resources. When there are 10,000 Africans living in a desert
what will be the plea... And when these turn into 1,000,000 what will
be the plea? Anyone who offers the same plea as they offered when
there were 1,000 Africans living in that desert is in for trouble.
This may not sound like a humanistic strategy, but sometimes humans
need the truth.

- Tim
tg
2010-08-10 15:52:07 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by tg
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
No. We are there. It is more a question of how much wealth we
individual humans ought to have. If you think we should have lots more
gadgets then keep up the production. We can each have five cars, seven
bicycles, 100 pairs of shoes, three homes, an airplane, and so forth
with productve factories of todays level.
What we really need are less humans, but also I do not see the point
in having all of those goods. It is also true that with less humans
the goods that are already in circulation that are durable will be
somwehat wasted, or we will wind up with three homes each. It is a
strange thing, yet we are living it. Perfectly good items are going
into the trash. This is the other solution: make goods so that you can
destroy goods. We can give half of the unemployed people jobs at the
yo-yo factory making millions of yo-yos per day, and then give the
other half jobs recycling these yo-yos into material ready to make
more yo-yos. This is the nature of the existent system. I suggest that
it is time to relax a bit. I do reccommend higher grade activity in
your free time than playing with the excess yo-yos.
All this is fine but you miss the 'elephant in the room'. The toys
are there because there is not enough resource base to allow people to
have the things that grownups choose.
Wealthy people can have anything they want, and (except for some with
psychological problems), they don't buy 100 pairs of cheap sneakers;
they buy houses, land, leisure, health and so on.
So we can have 3 good houses in good locations if there are far fewer
people, but not with the numbers that exist now. Only the wealthy can
do that, because they have the threat of the 4 billion people who live
on a few dollars a day to control the 2 billion who produce things and
protect their land. And then to keep the 2 billion happy, they give
them the toys.
-tg
Yes, I accept what you say here. Also the quality of some of the goods
that are being peddled has gone down. The quality of material in some
older goods was better. As the US grows poorer and poorer we will see
this trend continue. This is not so much a matter of necessity as it
is a matter of what the human will bear.
Still, this is not true of all things. The computer is an instance of
ever improving specifications, though there are rather alot of
overheating issues going on. IBM did a wonderful thing when they chose
an open hardware spec. This again is an instance of technology
trumping any economic model.
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.

The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources. What I see now in your
'ever improving specifications' is a trend in the direction of insect
society. Whenever I see the cell phone constantly in use, and the need
to tweet and social network, I see a line of ants, needing to touch
their antennae with every other ant, with less and less time for work
and individual accomplishment.

-tg
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
It's the technology, stupid...
This simple one liner might catch with some politicos, but I do also
agree with
It's the population, stupid...
especially when addressing environmental concerns from warming to
natural resources. When there are 10,000 Africans living in a desert
what will be the plea... And when these turn into 1,000,000 what will
be the plea? Anyone who offers the same plea as they offered when
there were 1,000 Africans living in that desert is in for trouble.
This may not sound like a humanistic strategy, but sometimes humans
need the truth.
- Tim
John Stafford
2010-08-10 17:11:54 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
tg
2010-08-10 18:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

-tg
John Stafford
2010-08-10 18:56:39 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
tg
2010-08-10 19:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
Ok, you still appear to be contradicting yourself.

-tg
John Stafford
2010-08-10 19:45:29 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
Ok, you still appear to be contradicting yourself.
-tg
Consider that new technologies develop from just a fraction of the
population, and we do not know if that fraction is a steady percentage,
so that a small population might not have a statistically significant
likelihood of having innovators. If that is true, then industries will
max out growth and stagnate. If capitalist, then they will eventually
die, but so slowly that change will take many generations rather than
just a couple.
tg
2010-08-10 20:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately, this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
Ok, you still appear to be contradicting yourself.
-tg
Consider that new technologies develop from just a fraction of the
population, and we do not know if that fraction is a steady percentage,
so that a small population might not have a statistically significant
likelihood of having innovators. If that is true, then industries will
max out growth and stagnate. If capitalist, then they will eventually
die, but so slowly that change will take many generations rather than
just a couple.
Well, the problem is that you are confusing 'innovation' with success
in the marketplace---this is in contradiction of the way markets are
supposed to work (and do). There are *lots* of innovators, but the
market only makes us aware of a very few. That's the point of my
question.

Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm talking about
something in the 300-500 million range. This is apparently the number
we need to be confident of a robust genome, which I think takes care
of your hypothesis about small sample deviation.

But the point is which innovations the market would choose if there
were this size (stable) population, since it would mean resources
would be relatively abundant.

For example, it might might prefer health-related innovation to
innovations in extractive technologies.

-tg
John Stafford
2010-08-11 01:36:33 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately,
this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the
nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to
gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop
given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
Ok, you still appear to be contradicting yourself.
-tg
Consider that new technologies develop from just a fraction of the
population, and we do not know if that fraction is a steady percentage,
so that a small population might not have a statistically significant
likelihood of having innovators. If that is true, then industries will
max out growth and stagnate. If capitalist, then they will eventually
die, but so slowly that change will take many generations rather than
just a couple.
Well, the problem is that you are confusing 'innovation' with success
in the marketplace---this is in contradiction of the way markets are
supposed to work (and do). There are *lots* of innovators, but the
market only makes us aware of a very few. That's the point of my
question.
Corporations grow so that they require massive returns from NEW
technology (NEW is DISRUPTIVE), and by their very nature they know that
disruptive innovation does not bring in enough to 'fit' their profile,
so they cannot see that disruptive innovation might eventually become a
sustaining profit maker. Large corporations are not capable through
habit or management to make disruptive innovation work. It is a major
fault of a mature company. Disruptive innovation follows a path that
even good corporate managers cannot fathom - it defies every single
principle by which they have become successful.
tg
2010-08-11 10:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
Post by John Stafford
In article
Post by tg
I agree that the IBM choice was most beneficial. However, it was
an
economic choice---that is, a business strategy. Unfortunately,
this
kind of approach is not popular at all; we see more and more the
attempt to put in place proprietary constraints. This is the
nature of
capitalism; it strives for monopoly as the most efficient way to
gain
profit.
Only for the desperados. Look to the concept of disruptive
technology.
It's what drives small companies into larger ones.
Post by tg
The question that interests me is how technology would develop
given
the model of low population/high resources.
Stagnation.
I thought we were looking to the concept of destructive technology?
Disruptive, not destructive.
Ok, you still appear to be contradicting yourself.
-tg
Consider that new technologies develop from just a fraction of the
population, and we do not know if that fraction is a steady percentage,
so that a small population might not have a statistically significant
likelihood of having innovators. If that is true, then industries will
max out growth and stagnate. If capitalist, then they will eventually
die, but so slowly that change will take many generations rather than
just a couple.
Well, the problem is that you are confusing 'innovation' with success
in the marketplace---this is in contradiction of the way markets are
supposed to work (and do). There are *lots* of innovators, but the
market only makes us aware of a very few. That's the point of my
question.
Corporations grow so that they require massive returns from NEW
technology (NEW is DISRUPTIVE), and by their very nature they know that
disruptive innovation does not bring in enough to 'fit' their profile,
so they cannot see that disruptive innovation might eventually become a
sustaining profit maker. Large corporations are not capable through
habit or management to make disruptive innovation work. It is a major
fault of a mature company. Disruptive innovation follows a path that
even good corporate managers cannot fathom - it defies every single
principle by which they have become successful.
I get your point, and I quite agree, but I still don't see why this
model would dominate any more than it does now. Innovation would
probably slow down in *particular areas*, but again that's the
question of the thought experiment for me---how would we direct our
creative energies?

-tg
Shrikeback
2010-07-31 06:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Spend, spend, spend,
Repugs already back to tossing granny off of Social Security?
Bret Cahill
How odd that the Dems already
tossed granny under the bus, dont
you think?

Would you like soylent green with
your health care deform?
Loading...