Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Tar sands are insane. We will not quickly extract them. These are not wells they are mining at high energy costs. In a few years the top layer will be extracted. There is no current concept of how to begin extraction of the next layers. No technology gets over the cost of using a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil.
Cheap energy alone has provided our prosperity not faith, not capitalism, not work ethic
he is obviously brillant at scaming- understanding the markets but the stockmarket is a bs -fraudulent way to get rich - that is essential a zero sum game that produces nothing - for every winner theres a loser and brokers dont give a damn as long as they can drive volume up
@MrIzzyDizzy I don't think you understand how Buffet makes money. He isn't a trader in the stock market, he is a value investor that understands companies and invests in their growth potential over a long term. That isn't scamming.
@burn4you - i know hes an investor - not a broker - its all the same a zero sum game when compared to the money supply - and equities added and subtracted and the supply and demand of/for them - it produces zero worth over all - he is a wise and winning investor - still its a useless shuffle - but dont mind me i dont even believe in money - i want a rbe
@MrIzzyDizzy@MrIzzyDizzy options and derivative trading might be zero sum games, but stock investing cannot be classified as such; if I bought a stock at $10, held it for five years and then sold it to Buffett for $20, I would have doubled my money even if in the subsequent 5 years it'll go to $100. Both investors would have made money, made possible by the growing underlying value of the business. How's that zero sum? It simple isn't.
@Flashwar its true - you would make money - but only because the demand for that stock is up relative to the money in the market - owning and selling this profitable stock adds no value to society - just money shuffling. the whole of all money investment - keeps people employed -keeps most portfollios growing - still what do they produce? coming from a resource based economy perspective - they are an uneeded and obsolete activity - like advertising and banking and many others.
@MrIzzyDizzy owning the stock does add value to society, because buying into a company provides it with capital for investment (even if you're only buying out early investors; you're replacing their investment, freeing up their money for other investment/consumption). the company also adds value to society, particularly if the underlying value of their business grows....even if that added value will be available mainly for their owners/shareholders.
@Flashwar that is true of the intial stock offering - but the secondary market is mainly just a game of moving money around to parlay it. im not sure what the turn over ratio for a companys stock might be but it would be an interesting number i think - im guessing its very high becuse most want a gambling like quick profit - which is what brokers like to see as well -volume volume volume - this said we could do with real -good and service producing enterpise and less speculative investments
@MrIzzyDizzy right, and this is exactly what mr. buffett preaches; less of a casino mentality in the market and more long term investing. after all he has owned his wpo stock almost 40 years, his coke stock for almost 25. how's that for low turnover? so it seems you would agree with him after all.
@Flashwar well not realy - i dont support private ownership as such - i believe all the worlds people own all the worlds resources - i yearn for a resources based economy - we have the ability to provide education health and wealth for everyone on earth - i see the scandanavians countries as the best current model - but a resource based economy as the next step - look at somalian famine - 500,000 dead in 3 months - 290,000 of them children under 5 -in the 21stcentury? wtf is wrong with us?
@MrIzzyDizzy right, this discussion just took a whole different direction. it sounds communist and I think we've seen in the past century those systems don't work very well. anyway, I don't feel responsible for somalia at all. the outcome a society reaches is nothing more than the product of all decisions made by all people in that society past and present. a lot of african countries suffer terrible outcomes mainly because the decisions made by governments have been awful; it's self inflicted.
@Flashwar communism has never been tried it had some good ideas like state banks - publicly funded education - elimination of child labor etc - but the communst revolutions were hijacked by ruthless bloody dictators - especialy russia - the germans sent lennin in to take over and he did =he wasnt communist- that said a resource based econony has no money - its just to designed to use our capacity for abundance for everyones benifit with out tedious labor - rationed wealth -not poverty
@MrIzzyDizzy I doubt very much whether it would work. I think people are capitalist by nature, but I agree with your eduction and child labor ideas. Not so much with the state run banks though, I don't think that would work. anyway the communist ideologies did get replaced with the personal ideologies of the leaders, but perhaps is was the failure of the communist system to deliver progress to society. I think it did fail in that respect and therefore the political systems got more repressive.
@Flashwar well im not argiung for communism as such - the resource based economy is different - it is about roboric production/ computerised services - it has no money or trade or exchange at all - -1100 chapters and growing around the world in 2 years - its not a difficult concept but cant be flushed out in 500 character bits - if you want to know what the idea is read the best money cant buy -or watch zeitfiest addendum or moving forward -which explain it - better
@MrIzzyDizzy I will, thanks for the discussion. It's nice to discuss on youtube without it ending up in a name-calling exchange, even (or especially) if both sides don't agree.
@Flashwar the primary problems - that capitalism is facing - are worlwide abundant slave wage labor markets - technology that has taken us from agriculture - to industry - to services economys -inthe wealthy countries - noe service jobs are beeliminated - with no new sector emerging - as jibs drop - purchasing power drops - its been bailed out - but how many more times and for how long will it work - i hope we all at least look at other possibilities
@MrIzzyDizzy i may have been at some point - at leeast if you were not in the half of the world working for 2$ or less per day - the market economy has always been built on the backs of most people remain dirt poor - this has doubled since 1970 - this paradigm has failed though - look at national debt clock .org - ask your self if we can pay these oceans of debt - watch - jobs drop afew and social security and food stamp recipents rise a few - this reflects some very tough trends to change
@Flashwar with in the sustainable caring capacity of the earth - with massive improvements in stratgic production- recycyable - long lasting goods - much better use of technology - renewable clean energy -no exploitation - i dont blame anyone one for samalia - it is a sort of mutual irresponsiblity that abounds - further - the u.s. has indebted many nations and raped thier countries - all with fiat money - see john perkins -confession of an economic hit man - nothing happens in a vaccuum
@MrIzzyDizzy state or government run economies have always proven to be terrible in allocating resources. whether it be money or production means, I think a free market system is effective in allocating resources and therefor it is the best economic system we have been able to come up with. despite its many and obvious flaws I think it would be a mistake to discard this system in exchange for a system which has failed every time. we should work on improving the negative aspects of capitalism.
Guys like him hurt the average joe with gas prices
iranwarcom 1 week ago
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Tar sands are insane. We will not quickly extract them. These are not wells they are mining at high energy costs. In a few years the top layer will be extracted. There is no current concept of how to begin extraction of the next layers. No technology gets over the cost of using a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil.
Cheap energy alone has provided our prosperity not faith, not capitalism, not work ethic
iansuderman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi,
how to make $35 000 USD in 3 hrs in Forex I can suggest real scalper forex system.
total information you can see in the site:
lkj-h.beep.com/index.htm**(best regards)**
If you have any questions go to:
this is the best forex trading system.
may be this system will be good for you
best regards
werqta 5 months ago
he is obviously brillant at scaming- understanding the markets but the stockmarket is a bs -fraudulent way to get rich - that is essential a zero sum game that produces nothing - for every winner theres a loser and brokers dont give a damn as long as they can drive volume up
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy I don't think you understand how Buffet makes money. He isn't a trader in the stock market, he is a value investor that understands companies and invests in their growth potential over a long term. That isn't scamming.
burn4you 11 months ago
@burn4you - i know hes an investor - not a broker - its all the same a zero sum game when compared to the money supply - and equities added and subtracted and the supply and demand of/for them - it produces zero worth over all - he is a wise and winning investor - still its a useless shuffle - but dont mind me i dont even believe in money - i want a rbe
MrIzzyDizzy 11 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy @MrIzzyDizzy options and derivative trading might be zero sum games, but stock investing cannot be classified as such; if I bought a stock at $10, held it for five years and then sold it to Buffett for $20, I would have doubled my money even if in the subsequent 5 years it'll go to $100. Both investors would have made money, made possible by the growing underlying value of the business. How's that zero sum? It simple isn't.
Flashwar 7 months ago
@Flashwar its true - you would make money - but only because the demand for that stock is up relative to the money in the market - owning and selling this profitable stock adds no value to society - just money shuffling. the whole of all money investment - keeps people employed -keeps most portfollios growing - still what do they produce? coming from a resource based economy perspective - they are an uneeded and obsolete activity - like advertising and banking and many others.
MrIzzyDizzy 7 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy owning the stock does add value to society, because buying into a company provides it with capital for investment (even if you're only buying out early investors; you're replacing their investment, freeing up their money for other investment/consumption). the company also adds value to society, particularly if the underlying value of their business grows....even if that added value will be available mainly for their owners/shareholders.
Flashwar 6 months ago
@Flashwar that is true of the intial stock offering - but the secondary market is mainly just a game of moving money around to parlay it. im not sure what the turn over ratio for a companys stock might be but it would be an interesting number i think - im guessing its very high becuse most want a gambling like quick profit - which is what brokers like to see as well -volume volume volume - this said we could do with real -good and service producing enterpise and less speculative investments
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy right, and this is exactly what mr. buffett preaches; less of a casino mentality in the market and more long term investing. after all he has owned his wpo stock almost 40 years, his coke stock for almost 25. how's that for low turnover? so it seems you would agree with him after all.
Flashwar 6 months ago
@Flashwar well not realy - i dont support private ownership as such - i believe all the worlds people own all the worlds resources - i yearn for a resources based economy - we have the ability to provide education health and wealth for everyone on earth - i see the scandanavians countries as the best current model - but a resource based economy as the next step - look at somalian famine - 500,000 dead in 3 months - 290,000 of them children under 5 -in the 21stcentury? wtf is wrong with us?
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy right, this discussion just took a whole different direction. it sounds communist and I think we've seen in the past century those systems don't work very well. anyway, I don't feel responsible for somalia at all. the outcome a society reaches is nothing more than the product of all decisions made by all people in that society past and present. a lot of african countries suffer terrible outcomes mainly because the decisions made by governments have been awful; it's self inflicted.
Flashwar 6 months ago
@Flashwar communism has never been tried it had some good ideas like state banks - publicly funded education - elimination of child labor etc - but the communst revolutions were hijacked by ruthless bloody dictators - especialy russia - the germans sent lennin in to take over and he did =he wasnt communist- that said a resource based econony has no money - its just to designed to use our capacity for abundance for everyones benifit with out tedious labor - rationed wealth -not poverty
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy I doubt very much whether it would work. I think people are capitalist by nature, but I agree with your eduction and child labor ideas. Not so much with the state run banks though, I don't think that would work. anyway the communist ideologies did get replaced with the personal ideologies of the leaders, but perhaps is was the failure of the communist system to deliver progress to society. I think it did fail in that respect and therefore the political systems got more repressive.
Flashwar 6 months ago
@Flashwar well im not argiung for communism as such - the resource based economy is different - it is about roboric production/ computerised services - it has no money or trade or exchange at all - -1100 chapters and growing around the world in 2 years - its not a difficult concept but cant be flushed out in 500 character bits - if you want to know what the idea is read the best money cant buy -or watch zeitfiest addendum or moving forward -which explain it - better
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy I will, thanks for the discussion. It's nice to discuss on youtube without it ending up in a name-calling exchange, even (or especially) if both sides don't agree.
Flashwar 6 months ago
@Flashwar the primary problems - that capitalism is facing - are worlwide abundant slave wage labor markets - technology that has taken us from agriculture - to industry - to services economys -inthe wealthy countries - noe service jobs are beeliminated - with no new sector emerging - as jibs drop - purchasing power drops - its been bailed out - but how many more times and for how long will it work - i hope we all at least look at other possibilities
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy i may have been at some point - at leeast if you were not in the half of the world working for 2$ or less per day - the market economy has always been built on the backs of most people remain dirt poor - this has doubled since 1970 - this paradigm has failed though - look at national debt clock .org - ask your self if we can pay these oceans of debt - watch - jobs drop afew and social security and food stamp recipents rise a few - this reflects some very tough trends to change
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@Flashwar with in the sustainable caring capacity of the earth - with massive improvements in stratgic production- recycyable - long lasting goods - much better use of technology - renewable clean energy -no exploitation - i dont blame anyone one for samalia - it is a sort of mutual irresponsiblity that abounds - further - the u.s. has indebted many nations and raped thier countries - all with fiat money - see john perkins -confession of an economic hit man - nothing happens in a vaccuum
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy state or government run economies have always proven to be terrible in allocating resources. whether it be money or production means, I think a free market system is effective in allocating resources and therefor it is the best economic system we have been able to come up with. despite its many and obvious flaws I think it would be a mistake to discard this system in exchange for a system which has failed every time. we should work on improving the negative aspects of capitalism.
Flashwar 6 months ago