all logos will be encased in casing,.. a circle or shap tht flows with mind,.. has color of purpouse involved,.. invisable strings of wealth flow forth from these kind of small things,.. oh yeah btw ,.. give this bitch anything she wants,.. and treat er as if you were speaking to me in respect ,.but nopt rigid,.. like caprpenter talks friendly
nice shot at the puritans.... this had to do with english and dutch support in the colonies. And other indian tribes where allied with the english...and accompanied the troops that burned the village. Its a shot at christianity..and skips the actual details of those events. All the tribes where warring against eachother, and the pequots where killing settlers as well. Granted this was a horrible act against innocents. no excuse. Leave Christianity out of it
@aaronready1 I don't think Natives were never a society that had Wars all the time...That was Europeans...If Natives were so War Mongers, than you wouldn't be here in America today...Don't start this and make me get deeper into the dark history of America...Christianity and the Government did much of the damage to Native Americans, actually most Whites and Natives lived in peace together and have learned from eachother.
The greener we get, the less competitive we are in the global economy. The Green movement is just another "religion" and millions of fools are following it. It's rather odd that it's so cold and snowy this early in December....wake up, people.
Free energy is finaly here!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Check this free energy magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
I wonder at the great thoughts in response to Ms. LaDuke's presentation. I wonder more how many who have commented here garden to feed themselves or have actually been a part of saving a strain of seeds or plants? I wonder, if I teach a million people to cook with solar energy in the upper 50 states as I do in Michigan will it matter? Hard to say, but I hope so. I hope so.
Solar energy is not energy from nothing; you can't NOT make an impact on the universe. If you take and utilize radiation from the sun as energy, you're taking that radiation from something else that would have received it. What's more, having your own garden can be a satisfying hobby for some and a decent insurance policy on sustenance, but trying to divy up society into "self-sustaining" little communes will only shrink the division of labor and, thereby, diminish the standard
of living. The free market has a rational way of organizing and conducting the maintenance of society and its advancement--you just have to let it, not have gov't twist it.
It's not even that a free market is one way you can protect the environment; it's that it's the ONLY way you can. If you seek gov't to protect it, you will only get special interest control over it. Did you really think all the BP spills and other environmental disasters were just extreme rarities on gov'ts studious watch or that BP did well to grease the palms of the politicians?
Anarchist as libertarian ideas are fantastic - literally. They're fun to explore in the same way it's fun to read Superman comics. Get rid of the government and everything will be great. How did that work on -- what planet did you come from?
You're entirely missing the point. It's like saying "because it is fantastically impossible to be a good person all the time, the endeavor is not worthwhile." What anarchists can tell regular people is that "insofar as you have an absence of gov't, you will have an abundance of freedom and prosperity." That's nothing to scoff at nor utilize as a reason to go running to your wolf in sheep's clothing to protect (fleece) you.
I'm a realist in the sense that I know how the human race functions and what to expect. But, perhaps, your notion of Anarchism is misconstrued. What Anarcho-Capitalists say is not that there won't be courts, laws, or security personnel. It's just that they will all be privatized and subject to competition. You're welcome to read more into it.
All economys have begun from nutritious agriculture by working with nature,now this has turned into nonfood stuff that sends you to the hospital,our fastest growing economic industry.Experimenting or risking our 'Natural Security' should never have let 'freedom to do what i want' define freedom.If we could have one honest language that exactly defines the meaning it could change so much.
For yrs the most important cure's have been repressed by big biz that uses our land,air,water and us.
The only sane way a green economy can be built is by privatizing the environment, enforcing private property rights, and reducing gov't regulations. Further gov't regulations, further public control over the environment, and further fake demand created for fake "green" jobs will further distort the market and systematically reduce future wealth creation and destruction of existent wealth.
@selfrealizedexile What about the destruction of life by people who think they own everything?This is the same dogma that caused the gulf tragedy..own that.
There could be green instead of all this pollution and ill health,unwilling people have forced the laws to be created to protect from unregulated faith that people will do whats best for everyone and not just their bank account..
You cant eat, drink or breath money, our clean alternatives have been here..
I fully agree that whenever something is "publicly-owned," you have tragedy of the commons. There have been numerous historical examples.
Pollution today is mostly an instance of violation of private property rights and should be criminally prosecuted like any other invasion of rights. Pollution isn't an example of a free economy of the environment, but, rather, an absence of one. I realize this sounds counter-intuitive, but watch this video and you'll see where I'm coming
knowing the history of the government projects(good&bad) of the past, forced spraying of ddt on farms,now biogenetics,all the military industrial,
u235,coal,oil,pcb's,cfc's,bph,ect..Its people who think they own the land that did this.The teeth removed from epa,instead of protect our nature,seems to stand for,'economic protection agency' for the mega money lobby.Yes,they should be prosecuted as you say by enforcing our natural law.
When a society is truly free and I mean truly free from the coercion of all parties (including the state), profit is one and the same as serving society.
@selfrealizedexile Sorry, but thats not right. Both Marx and Adam Smith agreed on the notion that capitalism, and a free economy require growth. Growth requires growing use of energy. You cant have infinate growth in a world of finite resources. Privatising something means that you will have people trying to exploit it. This is counter to preservation. Often things that are bad for the planet are good for economic growth. Regulation is needed to stop the exploitation of nature.
Except that Adam Smith was a classical economist and not a pure, free market economist.The problem with your (and the Venus Project's) analysis is that you guys only seem to grasp linear relationships; you don't seem to realize that efficient use of resources is governed through the price system and that technological advances are funded by such an increase in price (scarcity) of a resource.Watch this video to get all that nonsense obliterated out of your head: watch?v=FtXzFy_Edpo
@selfrealizedexile It was the idea of perpetual growth, and the FREE lending, and borrowing practices by banks that lead to the start of the GFC. It is the governments role, to moderate the economy. Not doing so results in extremes within the economy. The fact is, some things that are healthy, and healthy for the environment are not profitable. Clean water, public transport, clean air, lower car dependency. These things dont generate profit. Peak oil means resiliance rather then efficiency also.
Did you even watch the recent video I suggested and, perhaps, the one I listed before that one, "Free Market Environmentalism"?
How can you hope to critique the other side when you don't understand it? The worldview you subscribe to is a false dichotomy, period! You need to do A LOT more reading, sir.
I find it hilarious you think technology can't solve supply issues fast enough. It's not about whether technology can solve supply issues fast enough, but, rather, the functioning of the price system. As goods become more scarce, their price goes up, limiting their consumption. "Scientists" have been talking about the end of food, energy, and water since the beginning of time.
I've read the relevant literature on global warming and actually talked face-to-face with a few
@selfrealizedexile I dont disagree that as goods become more scarce their price goes up, fine, and yes, as the price gets high enough technically resources can be infinite in that their use will decline potentiall faster then the rate of depletion. Fine.
BUT
Their is no reasonable susbstitute for oil, that is capable of maintaining our current transport system. Currently oil consumption is also growing. Reducing energy consumption also means lower growth.
Well, speaking from an energy density point of view, nuclear energy is far and away superior to oil. Ofc, this entails a restructuring of our transportation industry, which is completely fine and reasonable. Markets restructure daily after scientific advancements. Reducing oil consumption does not necessarily entail a decrease in energy consumption nor does economic growth necessarily require an increase in energy consumption, although they usually follow each other.
@selfrealizedexile Furthermore, the video you suggested that I watch suggested that the automobile improves our environment, a blatant lie!!! How do cars improve our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Don't you think that companies such as GM have a vested interest in promoting cities designed around car transport. It is self evident that the profit motive goes against environmental concerns.
He means from a human perspective. I really enjoyed the video and the man's unique take on the environmentalism conversation. One of the things you need to realize however is that Nature doesn't play nice. To survive, you have to take resources. If we went back to the early days, 95% of us would be wiped out as there wouldn't be enough food and medicine for all of us. Species compete and kill each other daily. This is the sweet Mother Nature we're "raping"?
@selfrealizedexile Since when does having a culture built more around human transport eg The Dutch, Denmark, where the bicycle is considered a valid form of transport and promoted for the health benefits, and the benefits to the economy, and reduced congestion, anything to do with living in caves? When did I say we should go back to the stone age? What I contend is that we have a responsibility to use resources wisely and reduce pollution, part of the govts role is to implement this.
@selfrealizedexile OK, so you believe that technology can solve the peak oil problem for you. To replace 10 000 000 barells a day of imports you would need 750 nuclear reactors.. How long would it take to build them? The US currently imports around 10 000 000 barells for consumption a day. Technology, will not solve the comming problem of peak oil. Only reduced consumption!
climatologists. The scientific consenus is nothing like you think. The issue is SO MUCH more nuanced than you're letting on. It's not a debate about temperature increases or even changing climates itself. It's a debate about man's impact, the potential cyclical nature of climate, and the rigor of the scientific data and extrapolation itself. You're not dealing with a scientific or intellectual lightweight here. I have a degree in Applied Mathematics wherein I studied
@selfrealizedexile I am aware that there is debate over the impacts of climate change, but I am also aware that there is consensus that human caused climate change is real. Again, when you recommend a video that suggests that the car has improved our environment, and that it is a product of the free market, I tend to switch off. If you are a Mathematician, and an engineer, you will know that the most efficient vehicle is the bicycle, it seems that the not so free market Dutch have it right.
Not in the sense that you're implying. Scientists aren't sure yet the exact degree human's impact. My breathing in air right now, converting oxygen into CO2 obviously affects the environment and, conceivably, "climate change." The vast ocean for example emits its own carbon dioxide that dwarfs human production by a factor of 6,233, not even including land vegetation.
If you want to listen to a very entertaining video excerpted from Jurassic Park regarding the natural balance
Earth (and various sections of the Universe) is constantly changing. The "equilibrium" we have in our minds is only a local equilibrium. The actual phenomena we're observing is so much more complicated than our models. We forget that Earth is physically tied to the rest of the system which is, in turn, tied to the rest of the galaxy. Humans are not some exogenous element magically introduced. We are just as much a part of Nature as anything else.
Efficient in what manner? We have to still consume energy to physically *power* the motion produced by the cycle through muscle glycogen. We transfer one good into another to satisfy our purposes. Scientists put faith in the axiom that matter is neither destroyed nor created. What great crime is being committed (you also have to realize that the waste industry is not a free market)? Anyways, burning gasoline and moving 5-6 times
faster than a bicycle while not expending as much personal energy and, thus, being physically tired is of greater value to humans. If it wasn't, then the market wouldn't have arrived upon such a technological solution.
No, that's false. What you meant to say is you know LITTLE ENOUGH about the free market to buy such gov't propaganda as the New Deal solving the Great Depression. How learned are you even on the details of the New Deal? Do you even know the various,
@selfrealizedexile Crap, travel commutes around the world are similar, wether they be in bicycle friendly locations or CAR orientated cities, like found in the USA, and here in Australia. Car culture did nothing for your cities except sprawl them out and require people to burn more fuel. Bicycles have a drive train that is 95% efficient. A car is only 25% efficient at best. Additionally a car weighs over 1000 kg and transports a person who weighs 100 kg
@KrunchyJD Furthermore a bicycle weighs under 20kg and can transport a person who weighs 100kg, thereby most of the effort transports the person NOT the vehicle. In countries where they design cities around people with people scale the bicycle is faster.
Secondly I do not condone WAR, it is a fact though that here in Australia and to some extent the US between 1940-1975 unemployment was under 2% on average. When we had free market economics unemployment was much higher before 1940 & after 1975.
Stop saying when we had free markets and when we didn't. You DO NOT even know what a free market is. Therefore, you can't come to such a conclusion. You are an intellectual lightweight and an amateur. I've tried to clarify to you the flaws in your position but you don't seem to want to do the cognitive work in even seeing where I'm coming from and a proper definition of the relevant subject. Until you put the effort in to researching the issue, you will remain misinformed.
@selfrealizedexile Stop calling me an intellectual lightweight mate, or I will not even bother with you. There are flaws in your position too. When I speak of free markets Vs not, I am talking about the difference between the idea that the govt should have more Vs Less regulation of the economy, we have always had free markets of sorts, but it is the degree to which the market is free. I assumed you would have known that.
America has had a significantly regulated economy since 1913. Investments live and die based on the interest rate set by the Fed. That is not a free market. Our money is also monopolized through legal tender laws. These are two EXTREMELY important areas of an economy. You can have free markets in the Lemonade industry insofar as the end game production and distribution is concerned. But, investment is NOT free. We have the equivalent of a Soviet commissar in Bernanke.
@selfrealizedexile There is no such thing as a completely free market, and no such thing as a completely regulated market, there never has been. What I am talking about is the idea, that markets should be more or less left to work by themselves with no interference.
@selfrealizedexile When you have completely free markets you have social darwanism, where those that are less fortunate suffer. Aside from any economic arguments I believe this to be a morally bankrupt position. This is a moral judgement.
No, that's false. When you have completely free markets, you have abundant production which drives prices lower. Even if you have one of the lowest incomes, your purchasing power is greatly increased in an economy where goods are cheaper. Insofar as you deviate from this optimal wealth creation, you will have poorer individuals, especially those near the bottom who may end up starving.
If you want to talk about moral judgements, I'd like to know how you stealing money from
@selfrealizedexile Then what happens to the poor, and the sick. In order to produce a profit business must pay their employee's less then their effective productivity. Some people will always be poor, and people will get sick. I stand by what I said.
What are you a Marxist? Factories can't pay employees wages for a product that isn't sold yet--they can only pay them present wages. This is the genesis of the interest rate; you can't ignore intertemporal relationships. All an employer is doing is offering the employee a choice. He can save like the capitalist did and start his own investment or he doesn't have to and can work for a man who did save. Either way, humanity is benefited by an individual saving through capital
@selfrealizedexile No, i'm not a marxist. Both marxist, idea's and your utopian free market ideas only work great in theory, that is why few if any societies are completely free market. Your concept of choice is a liberal (libertarian one) only. Some things are only true from a certain point of view. It is equally true to suggest that a person who is starving and offered a job that is almost slavery, is not really free to say no, because of the condition they are in.
The free market being "only theory" is no grounds to claim it is evil or not worth it. It's like saying because being a perfectly good person is impossible, attempting to be as good as you can be is not worth it.
Few if any societies are completely free because of the collectivistic nature of Man, because of men like you. It's really as absurd as Goodness is impossible so let me run to Evilness as the solution.
Some things being only true from a certain point of view is
@selfrealizedexile Crap, again. You are equating a completely free market as goodness, when it is only good, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Everything is tempered with a degree of moderation for a reason. Stop telling me I am a fool. You are a fool, if you think some kind of utopian (in your mind) idea of completely free markets, and user pays society will work, and provide the best solution.
Often freedom and equality cannot co-exist. You choose freedom over equality, I choose a balance.
Inequality is the nature of reality. I choose to recognize it instead of falling prey to a half-assed attempt and, ultimately, ponzi scheme.
I also find it comical you think moderation to an absolute is equatable to goodness or happiness, which is, in itself, a contradiction. Through such logic, am I not to moderate moderation or this goodness or happiness we're talking about?
You really are a fool and you denying it as many times as you want isn't going to change reality
@selfrealizedexile NO, you choose to see things from a one sided perspective. I accept that some people dont have equal opportunities and view that in a civilised world they are helped. If the US, and your idea of Libertarianism is so great how is it that Copenhagen in Denmark is said to be one of the happiest cities in the world, where they have both high taxation and social welfare. The evidence suggests egalitarianism creates happiness. You are the fool, and are one sided.
similar to how you seek to imagine a benevolent, just gov't. Talk about utopian.
When you say you're afraid of free markets, what you're really saying is "I'm afraid of individual freedom; I prefer to have my life and others' lives controlled by a select few. I don't know how those select few will come to possess such a right or how it will be kept from being abused, but it is just, moral, and certainly superior to free will and personal responsibility."
@selfrealizedexile It is not about having your life controlled by a select few, it is about democracy. Libertarianism ultimately means that your life gets controlled by a few, because in every society that creates a system closer to pure free markets the difference between the rich and poor gets bigger. Your hardly free if your poor. I am all for social freedom, where it does not hurt others, but economic freedom must be curtailed to a degree to promote some equity. My view is just as valid.
for this and anyone in their right mind would agree with me. By the looks of what's rumbling in America at the moment, it would appear I have many on my side. Your ideology is dying; we've seen the fruits of gov't intervention, its depravity, and its destruction. It's a sanity check to finally say enough and it is people like myself who will ultimately rebuild the future prosperity while people like you condemn me as evil, even while I make what feeds you.
@selfrealizedexile Crap, most modern capitalist countries in Europe, as well as Canada, Great Britain, and to some extent, here in Australia, have socialised medicine, and quite frankly most are in favour of it. The free market makes what is profitable, not what feeds people best, if it profitable to turn the air into pollution, then the free market will do it. Also, meat production, which is profitable reduces the amount of grain available at a disproportianate amount.
relativistic and contradictory.You are a fool if you believe in wage slavery. If you still can't grasp the matter despite how clear I made it,then there's nothing more I can do other than label you as a fool.No, every single second you would not be handing out money. What do you think a parking permit is, you dumbass? How about you speculate and fail epicly some more? This isn't even just my opinion. If someoneelsecamearoundhereandreadwhatyouwrote,they'dagreeyou're a charlatan.
@selfrealizedexile It is your opinion. If you belkieve that totally free market economy is the answer then plenty of people will disagree. How is a starving man free to take or not take a lowly paid job. He is literally free, but only in so much as that he has the option to starve. Realistically though there is no option, and I say, he is not really free. You say, by your belief in Libertarianism that he is. There is no right answer, just a different perspective.
I find this paragraph extremely comical and the apex of nonsense so far. Starving because you don't eat has been the way of things since the beginning of Man. Crying about it as long as you can isn't going to change your biochemical requirements to sustain life. If you want to call that enslavement, fine. But, that's not enslavement to a factory, but, rather, enslavement to REALITY! Okay, let's pretend that factory doesn't exist. Poof! The worker is still "enslaved" to his
stomach and needs to find some way to acquire food. He can become a farmer and eat what he (hopefully) produces or a forager in a hand-to-mouth existence. In either situation, the economy and each individual is poorer due to the evaporation of previously formed capital goods.
The truth of the matter is my ideology holds up to deductive logic while you must scurry away into relativism to escape cognitive dissonance.I habitually try not to be rude, but truth is my last casualty.
@selfrealizedexile Thats, again crap. People can only produce goods, with the material and energy that is available to them. A poor person, by definition has less material and energy available to them. By definition also, exploiting material and energy inexorably leads to more waste and pollution, since these are the by-products of the exploitation of resources. The profit motive means, that unless you introduce a pollution tax (gvt intervention), then the most profitable use of goods ->Polltion
formation. Watch this video for a succinct and obliterating critique of Marx: watch?v=UGbxjiTjhQY
To call gov't "society" is disgusting. Gov't is anti-social. It is free trade that is pro-society. Through free trade, men are encouraged to arrange peaceful, mutually beneficial interactions. It is through gov't where you have a zero-sums, steal-from-you-before-you-steal-from-me tragedy of the commons. What's more, gov't is almost always ruled by the power elite who
manipulate the mob through class warfare propaganda.
You switch off (and not thoroughly refute) because you don't want to open your mind and put the intellectual work into building an informed opinion. Your knowledge of free markets is irrefutable proof.
@selfrealizedexile NO, you state things which work in theory, but in practice would be unworkable. Classical free market theory was found wanting prior to the great depression, that is true. Besides, to have a completely free user pays market would involve people paying to sit in a park, people paying to walk on the pavement, every single second you would be handing out and collecting money. So much so that you couldnt do anything else, we would have a world of accountants. In a total free mrkt.
@selfrealizedexile You are the one who cant see, that, you live in a fantasy world, because there must be some order to the way things are run. Libertarianism, not only creates vast differences between haves and have not's, but it also, because of its semi anarchistic financial nature, means complexity in goods and services trading possibly beyond any productive benefit. IE a World of accountants, since everything is user pays, and hard to keep track of.
Also, Marx was an anarchist. He believed the gov't maintained the capitalists' stranglehold on the poor and that it should be abolished. He was what we would call today an Anarcho-Communist--not a gov't socialist like Stalin.
others has NOT being "morally bankrupt." It's one thing to believe the rich should give more to charity, it's another to rationalize theft.
The fact that you think a free market leads to an unoptimal amount of pollution demonstrates to me two things; 1) you don't understand what a free market really looks like and 2) you didn't watch the video "Free Market Environmentalism." What's more, road carnage and traffic congestion is a symptom of socialized raods. I could bury you
@selfrealizedexile Taxation is not theft, if that is where you are going. You obviously do not believe that people must contribute to society. Further, to have a completely user pays society would be a logistical nightmare.
2) After I heard the so called expert suggest that cars were good for our environment I quite rightly switched off. Further, I am not some kid, and have a uni degree. That is not the point though. The point is that I will not convince you and you will not convince me.
Quite frankly I have better things to do then argue with a person who believes the free market is the answer. Keynes's policies were dominant between 1940-1975, the personal debt buble mainly grew after 1975. It is free market policies that create instability. I am not a socialist, I just believe it is the govts role to moderate the extremes in the economy.
You cant deny that it was a lack of regulation of lending that lead to banks and financial institutions making "dodgy" loans to people who could not pay them back that was at least in part responsible for the GFC.
Furthermore, from a moral point of view, I dont want to live in a society of social darwanism, where it is survival of the financialy fitest. I believe that society should take care of the less fortunate, that is only humane.
You're still not looking at it from the right angle. The driver as an individual looks at the price of gasoline, a car, its maintenance, its utility and compares it to riding a bicycle. He then comes to make a decision. There are some who decide to ride a bike, but that is based off a seperate criteria. If the user is primarily concerned with time conservation, he picks the car. Cars will continue to increase in efficiency as the market demands it.
@selfrealizedexile Your notion that the car saves time is often false. Around London a bicycle is quicker, yet most people still drive cars. Cities are often designed around cars, so that cars are quicker. If cities are designed properly then bicycles are quicker. Furthermore, when you take into account the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car the car is usually NOT quicker. Cars are not selected because of free market choice at all. People drive cars because they are lazy/ subsidized
Another variable is the ease of parking. In urban cities, it's common to not own a car and instead use a subway, taxi, motorcycle, or bicycle. The automobile makes perfect sense to the majority of Americans who commute 15-45 miles to work. Traveling 60 mph vs 12 is a big deal over that kind of distance. So big that Americans are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars more for the advantage. You need to learn to keep your value judgements in check.
@selfrealizedexile That is only true when you design cities based around the car. To be truely fair you should compare average commute times in cities that are not car dominated, vs cities that are. You will find then that it is faster to commute on a bicycle in some places, because they are designed far more intelligently then poorly automobile centred American and Australian cities. In many cities traffic grinds to a halt, and only goes 60 Mph in the most ideal situation.
Most Americans do not live in cities. The 15-45 mile commute is not going to all take place within a city. Another fact you need to comprehend is that our roads are socialized--not privatized. What's more, you are infact utilizing your own value judgements versus what consumers desire in a market. If consumers desire something you don't, they're not as "intelligent."
I wasn't talking about 60 mph in a city, you dumbass. The speed limit in cities is like 10-15 mph.
@selfrealizedexile Mate, it is you who are the dumbass, if you cat see what I am talking about. Americans DO mostly use cars as transport even in cities. And no I am not talking here about rural areas. If your non regulated free market leads to everyone driving cars as transport, creating pollution, road carnage, traffic congestion, then I will not support it. It may be peoples RIGHT to drive, but what about my right to breathe clean air, and not be run over by some idiot in a car!
@selfrealizedexile Secondly, I was initially talking about cities, and that is what you responded to.. Quite frankly if you believe that America's car dominated culture is the way to go then you would disagree with most urban planners around the world.. One thing you fail to comprehend obviously, is that one persons freedoms sometimes impinge on other people's rights. Like their right to breathe clean air, not be run over.
in essays, dissertations, and studies on just this one topic. It's instances like this why I call you an intellectual lightweight--you are NOT well-read; you don't even know what it is you're critiquing.
Kid, I've read dozens of volumes on Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Economics in addition to spending hundreds of hours listening to lectures. You seek to educate me on John Locke and pollution like I didn't already consider it? How many times do I have to tell you pollution
@selfrealizedexile Suggesting, im an idiot will not get you far. Often things are great in theory but dont work in practice. Quite frankly I will not convince you, and you will not convince me, so what is the point. That seems obvious to me.
is a result of an ABSENCE of a market in waste and American roads are NOT "unregulated."
What's funny is here you really demonstrate how novice your economic history is. Nuclear energy has been repeatedly lobbied against and hampered from becoming America's next main energy source by oil companies. We should have made this transition already during the '70s and we're still behind. And, yet, you seek to tell me this was a free market??
@selfrealizedexile You obviously are the one who cant get what I am saying. The replacement of the energy of the oil imports for the US, is 750 Nuclear reactors worth. It is not relevant when, or how many Nuclear reactors the US has. The relavent point here is that the US is car dominated, and that trechnology alone cant solve the problem.
@selfrealizedexile Further here, my point, is that you were suggesting I listen to a person who proclaims that the Automobile improves our lives. Americans may think the Automobile is a great thing for cities, but I do not. It creates pollution, death, and congestion, and that is a fact. The only thing I agree with you on MAYBE, is that automobile use is actually unfortunately subsidizied. You also cant see limits to growth, on a finite planet!
Not only is it extremely dubious and problematic to claim Copenhagen as the "happiest cities in the world," your reasoning justifies stealing (it is stealing when you're taking from someone who doesn't want to give that amount) in the same scenario. Why can't the redistributive society you desire be completely voluntary? Why do you have to take from and include in those who don't hold your same values? Why can't you leave alone people like myself? Why do you have to
steal from us with the threat of force (just ask "tax evaders" in jail cells under what conditions they found themselves there) and then insult us after by claiming we're happier this way?
What's more, you're wanting to play the perspective card. Why can't I take my perspective and exempt myself from your society? I'm not forcing you to do anything other than leave me alone. You say essentially that loving freedom is just a matter of opinion and then in the same breadth
than me, what makes me truly happy, and have the right to take a portion of what I've earned by the sweat of my brow. How is this not two-faced? You need to man up and concede I've trapped you. The only just socialistic society is an anarcho-socialist society, where all participants are voluntary.
In truth, it is YOU who are one-sided. It is I who is tolerant of multiple opinions. If you want to be in a socialist commune in a free society, I won't stop you and shove
capitalistic values down your throat, but you won't grant me my private plot of land free of your gigantic gov't. You won't let me lead the life I want even if I'm not hurting anyone. That is truly abominable.
You need to actually study Democracy. In practice, it has always been an oligarchy. In theory, it cannot determine Justice. A lynch mob is democratic. This alone refutes the ideology. The American founding fathers rightly condemned democracy and established instead
How would Libertarianism make me *controlled* by a select few? I am Sovereign and have full control over my life.
The difference is greater, but the poor are richer than if you have egalitarianism where EVERYONE is poor and there are massive shortages. Study history for Christ's sake; there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating it. You insult my intelligence with this rubbish.
There has never been a society where you can seperate economic freedom
and social freedom--they are intertwined. There has never been a gov't that granted one and not the other; they have always eroded both simultaneously. You would benefit greatly from an education in Economic History.
Those are one and the same in a free society--what feeds best and what is most profitable. You are probably just as illiterate in American Medical History. The healthcare market has been regulated and distorted since the late 1800s through the AMA.
Whether they were excluding blacks and females, putting rival hospitals out of business, or limiting professional entry to keep wages up, they have always been a force of distortion. I'm willing to bet the house you don't know a lick of what I'm talking about, and yet you seek to tell me how the free healthcare market would be?! We need a third party here so you can see how ridiculously uninformed you are.
How many times are you gonna opine on pollution without looking
at the "Free Market Environmentalism" video? I really have better things to do than put time into thoughtful rebuttals of a man who has the critical thinking capacity of a high school student. It's come down to "nuh uhs" even though I've provided a wealth of material elucidating my beliefs (which you blatantly ignore or misrepresent time and again).
People don't have to own the inputs of what they produce. Sheesh, how economicly illiterate can you get? We were just talking
about wage earners at a factory; do you think they own the capital stock?!
You have no idea what a true free market would look like and we have reason to not believe you after you thought a Federal Reserve-controlled interest rate was a free market. Dude, you're a toddler to me in economic education. How about you at least respect that and not insult me with this drivel? If you type one more set of responses along these lines, don't expect a reply.
about free markets was true (which I vehemently disagree with and have adequately refuted), we have no reason to believe a gov't could perform the "needed" function a la Hayek's 'local knowledge problem' for which he won a Nobel prize. You probably aren't even familiar with it. It's amazing, hilarious, and pitiful how your head simultaneously contains within it so large a mouth and, yet, so tiny a brain. What's more, we have little to no way of keeping the gov't's new,
privileged control over the economy from being abused. Infact, given how greedy businesses are and, especially, how much you despise and mistrust them, why would the big companies not just buy out the gov't regulators? It'd be a lot easier than having to outcompete other businessmen. This is what we see all around us today and throughout economic history. And, yet, here you are saying we need to increase the degree to which the gov't regulates the economy (which is already
quite large) and, by extension, the degree to which the various sections of the economy can be lobbied into oligopolies and monopolies. If you still haven't absorbed any of this, then you really are a blind ideologue and enemy of logic.
@selfrealizedexile Since you are a Libertarian, I suggest you check out what John Locke had to say (the original libertarian). The fact is that one persons freedoms often have a negative effect on someone elses freedom. I am no fool, and your interpritation of things strikes me as the interpritation that is born out of self interest!
The fact is one persons freedom often impinges on the freedom of others! All societies restrict freedoms to a point, because of this fact!
@selfrealizedexile If most Americans don';t live in cities and have to commute 45 miles to go to work, how unintelligent is that. It locks in car dependency,, If you want something intelligent to watch why dont you check out "the end of suburbia".
@selfrealizedexile It is not a value judgement, it is based on fact. At few times do people in cities travel at 60mph. The average speed in London for example is as low as 5 kph. The problem with cars is that they require so much space. So much that car dominated cities donate 50% of their space to car's NOT people. In order for car trips to be fast, you have to spread people out, so that while cars go faster, distances increase so no tangible benefit is derived. Hardly efficient or sensible.
the relevant meterologic nonlinear differential equations. The heart of that issue is so enormously over the head of an Al Gore-type. I'm also finishing up a Computer Engineering degree and, at some point, going back to grad school for a PhD in Physics and/or Chemistry. I am so far from being a "typical economist against 'scientific analysis' or 'consensus'."
The real net difference between you and me is not that one understands science and the other economics. But, that I
understand both and you don't understand economics. Again, don't you think it's rather common sensical to at least first study that which you seek to criticize? If you don't understand your enemy, you first of all don't even know if they're a true enemy and, if they are, how to appropriately counter them. It's equivalent to a child stumbling in the dark.
Anyways, not only will prices go up when goods become more scarce, but the increase in price ITSELF will signal to
@selfrealizedexile I understand enough about economics to know that the free market is not the solution you make it out to be. It was FDR's Govt intervention with the New Deal, and WW2 that lead both the USA, and similarly here in Australia our govt that lead us out of the Great Depression. It was the belief in free markets that preceeded both the great depression and the GFC. It was the lack of regulation of banks and financial institutions that created the debt bubble, not govt intervention.
individual programs that comprised what we call the "New Deal"? Do you know how they slaughtered pregnant cows, pigs, burned crops, reduced domestic crop acres, and brought foreign trade to a near-standstill? Do you even know the accompanying abysmal economic data of the '30s? Do you know what Keynesians thought was going to happen to the economy after WW2 and how hopelessly wrong they were? Just save face and admit that you don't know it that well.
in free markets that preceeded the crash of '29. It was the discoordinating inflation injected by the Fed in the '20s that inevitably resulted in an overpriced stock market that needed a correction (where prices would crash and there would be an accompanying deflation of the inflation). And it was the further gov't intervention of the '30s which exacerbated the initially wasted resources in the misallocation of the '20s. The problem with you here is you have no idea what the
@selfrealizedexile What you dont seem to grasp is that just as there are people who are well read, and intelligent who proclaim that Libertarinism is not the only idea.
to producers to increase quantity supplied (reducing scarcity) and such increases in profits will fund promising explorations and scientific advances in efficient resource utilization. As the good becomes more abundant, the market shifts its attention to a different, more pressing need. This is an aspect of the self-ordering beauty of the market. There is no way you're going to get anything remotely as beneficial from a technocracy.
Keynesian economics which emphasises govt intervention persisted in both the USA, and in Australia, produced low unemployment, and a stable economy. Liazee fair free market systems created the great depression, and the GFC.
In Aust the during the Keynsian period average unemployment was under 2%. During the free market period unemployment hit up to 11%. Which is better?
Keynesian economics is what has lead to the US' current depression and its bleeding of productive jobs. Keynesian economics entails only capital consumption. Do you even know what that term means? And you seek to opine on economics??
Unemployment crashed during WW2 because the war itself employed many of those out of work. That is not an actual solution. Wars do not PRODUCE anything; wars DESTROY wealth. They kill men who could have led productive lives, they destroy
materials that could have gone into producing something actually valued instead of a bomb or bullets or a tank. War is the equivalent of me going over to your house and burning it down and then you coming over to mine to get revenge by burning mine down, too. And this makes us RICHER?? No wonder not a SINGLE Keynesian saw the housing bubble coming (the same people you want watching over our "unregulated" economy).
Economics video, I suggest you finish the "Free Market Environmentalism" video at: watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI
One last thing I should mention about resource consumption is that, mathematically speaking, it is impossible to have effectively infinite, say, oil within a 3 galloon bucket. This is a basic Calculus 3 summation series problem. So long as each extraction from the bucket becomes less and less, it is possible to never run out. This is provable; the consumption curve
@selfrealizedexile I suggest you watch the series of video's begining with "watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY", they are under 10 mins each. I suggest you look into peak oil. Economic theory cant change scientific fact!
I've actually already seen that video series. Exponential functions are constantly at play around us and in markets. You'd be surprised how well markets turn on dimes (they do it every second every day).
"Scientific fact" is actually not at odds with Economics; they both reinforce each other--Economics gives the scientific community the necessary investment in research and Science gives back the fruits of further capital accumulation and a higher standard of living.
Infantile.
jkovert 2 weeks ago
interesting and informative
muhammadzahmad 1 month ago
BLABLABLABLAAAAAAAAAA idiots
sooty3000 7 months ago
all logos will be encased in casing,.. a circle or shap tht flows with mind,.. has color of purpouse involved,.. invisable strings of wealth flow forth from these kind of small things,.. oh yeah btw ,.. give this bitch anything she wants,.. and treat er as if you were speaking to me in respect ,.but nopt rigid,.. like caprpenter talks friendly
MrMentalflossed 8 months ago
missouri state ,.. logo is enough of intro ,.. school system is not broken just miss managed and underapreciated
MrMentalflossed 8 months ago
i woke up and fell asleep again ,.. i hope i didnt miss a earth saving idea,.. perhaps less is more
MrMentalflossed 8 months ago
Awesome stance. Thanks for your work.
GreenVirginProducts 8 months ago
@GreenVirginProducts aha
MrZiom2010 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Enough of your current 9 TO 5 situation? Check out roulettecash, org and make approximately Thirty Three Hundred $ month monthly on the web!
Austina0947 9 months ago
and destroying..100,000 ov other jobs...sorry winona..go cry 2 india and china....
chadberry75 9 months ago
Ahneen drunk rude boi in tha heezy:P
Reddoggystyle 1 year ago
nice shot at the puritans.... this had to do with english and dutch support in the colonies. And other indian tribes where allied with the english...and accompanied the troops that burned the village. Its a shot at christianity..and skips the actual details of those events. All the tribes where warring against eachother, and the pequots where killing settlers as well. Granted this was a horrible act against innocents. no excuse. Leave Christianity out of it
aaronready1 1 year ago
@aaronready1 I don't think Natives were never a society that had Wars all the time...That was Europeans...If Natives were so War Mongers, than you wouldn't be here in America today...Don't start this and make me get deeper into the dark history of America...Christianity and the Government did much of the damage to Native Americans, actually most Whites and Natives lived in peace together and have learned from eachother.
TheNativeHistorian 1 year ago
This video.. cool. See my home energy stuffif you like WIND POWER. Merry Christmas Y'ol!
WindPowerKits 1 year ago
The greener we get, the less competitive we are in the global economy. The Green movement is just another "religion" and millions of fools are following it. It's rather odd that it's so cold and snowy this early in December....wake up, people.
ReachDeep1 1 year ago
@ReachDeep1
You need to do your research.Conference of the Parties16
plan101 1 year ago
ill tap that...
Sulfhur1k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy is finaly here!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Check this free energy magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
slanderousndgs 1 year ago
What's her native Indian name? Little Big Chip on Shoulder? What an arrogant beeatch.
zapholynun 1 year ago
I wonder at the great thoughts in response to Ms. LaDuke's presentation. I wonder more how many who have commented here garden to feed themselves or have actually been a part of saving a strain of seeds or plants? I wonder, if I teach a million people to cook with solar energy in the upper 50 states as I do in Michigan will it matter? Hard to say, but I hope so. I hope so.
c33r0k33 1 year ago
@c33r0k33
Solar energy is not energy from nothing; you can't NOT make an impact on the universe. If you take and utilize radiation from the sun as energy, you're taking that radiation from something else that would have received it. What's more, having your own garden can be a satisfying hobby for some and a decent insurance policy on sustenance, but trying to divy up society into "self-sustaining" little communes will only shrink the division of labor and, thereby, diminish the standard
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@c33r0k33
of living. The free market has a rational way of organizing and conducting the maintenance of society and its advancement--you just have to let it, not have gov't twist it.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
It's not even that a free market is one way you can protect the environment; it's that it's the ONLY way you can. If you seek gov't to protect it, you will only get special interest control over it. Did you really think all the BP spills and other environmental disasters were just extreme rarities on gov'ts studious watch or that BP did well to grease the palms of the politicians?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Anarchist as libertarian ideas are fantastic - literally. They're fun to explore in the same way it's fun to read Superman comics. Get rid of the government and everything will be great. How did that work on -- what planet did you come from?
KennyBlue51 1 year ago
@KennyBlue51
You're entirely missing the point. It's like saying "because it is fantastically impossible to be a good person all the time, the endeavor is not worthwhile." What anarchists can tell regular people is that "insofar as you have an absence of gov't, you will have an abundance of freedom and prosperity." That's nothing to scoff at nor utilize as a reason to go running to your wolf in sheep's clothing to protect (fleece) you.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KennyBlue51
I'm a realist in the sense that I know how the human race functions and what to expect. But, perhaps, your notion of Anarchism is misconstrued. What Anarcho-Capitalists say is not that there won't be courts, laws, or security personnel. It's just that they will all be privatized and subject to competition. You're welcome to read more into it.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
All economys have begun from nutritious agriculture by working with nature,now this has turned into nonfood stuff that sends you to the hospital,our fastest growing economic industry.Experimenting or risking our 'Natural Security' should never have let 'freedom to do what i want' define freedom.If we could have one honest language that exactly defines the meaning it could change so much.
For yrs the most important cure's have been repressed by big biz that uses our land,air,water and us.
zyx645 1 year ago
interesting,slow to get to the point
herrfilm 1 year ago
The only sane way a green economy can be built is by privatizing the environment, enforcing private property rights, and reducing gov't regulations. Further gov't regulations, further public control over the environment, and further fake demand created for fake "green" jobs will further distort the market and systematically reduce future wealth creation and destruction of existent wealth.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile What about the destruction of life by people who think they own everything?This is the same dogma that caused the gulf tragedy..own that.
There could be green instead of all this pollution and ill health,unwilling people have forced the laws to be created to protect from unregulated faith that people will do whats best for everyone and not just their bank account..
You cant eat, drink or breath money, our clean alternatives have been here..
Thats no fake.
zyx645 1 year ago
@zyx645
I fully agree that whenever something is "publicly-owned," you have tragedy of the commons. There have been numerous historical examples.
Pollution today is mostly an instance of violation of private property rights and should be criminally prosecuted like any other invasion of rights. Pollution isn't an example of a free economy of the environment, but, rather, an absence of one. I realize this sounds counter-intuitive, but watch this video and you'll see where I'm coming
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I understand how this may be defined.
knowing the history of the government projects(good&bad) of the past, forced spraying of ddt on farms,now biogenetics,all the military industrial,
u235,coal,oil,pcb's,cfc's,bph,ect..Its people who think they own the land that did this.The teeth removed from epa,instead of protect our nature,seems to stand for,'economic protection agency' for the mega money lobby.Yes,they should be prosecuted as you say by enforcing our natural law.
zyx645 1 year ago
@zyx645
from: watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI
When a society is truly free and I mean truly free from the coercion of all parties (including the state), profit is one and the same as serving society.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Sorry, but thats not right. Both Marx and Adam Smith agreed on the notion that capitalism, and a free economy require growth. Growth requires growing use of energy. You cant have infinate growth in a world of finite resources. Privatising something means that you will have people trying to exploit it. This is counter to preservation. Often things that are bad for the planet are good for economic growth. Regulation is needed to stop the exploitation of nature.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Except that Adam Smith was a classical economist and not a pure, free market economist.The problem with your (and the Venus Project's) analysis is that you guys only seem to grasp linear relationships; you don't seem to realize that efficient use of resources is governed through the price system and that technological advances are funded by such an increase in price (scarcity) of a resource.Watch this video to get all that nonsense obliterated out of your head: watch?v=FtXzFy_Edpo
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile It was the idea of perpetual growth, and the FREE lending, and borrowing practices by banks that lead to the start of the GFC. It is the governments role, to moderate the economy. Not doing so results in extremes within the economy. The fact is, some things that are healthy, and healthy for the environment are not profitable. Clean water, public transport, clean air, lower car dependency. These things dont generate profit. Peak oil means resiliance rather then efficiency also.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Did you even watch the recent video I suggested and, perhaps, the one I listed before that one, "Free Market Environmentalism"?
How can you hope to critique the other side when you don't understand it? The worldview you subscribe to is a false dichotomy, period! You need to do A LOT more reading, sir.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I watched "watch?v=FtXzFy_Edpo", and can see that the bloke is NOT a scientist, he is an economist and makes stupid assumptions:
Namely cars are good for the environment: wrong
Exploiting resources is good and limitless: WRONG
He obviously does not believe in climate change, which the vast majority of SCIENTISTS DO.
He tries to say that we can get material from space, and ignores the fact that technology cant solve supply issues fast enough..
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
I find it hilarious you think technology can't solve supply issues fast enough. It's not about whether technology can solve supply issues fast enough, but, rather, the functioning of the price system. As goods become more scarce, their price goes up, limiting their consumption. "Scientists" have been talking about the end of food, energy, and water since the beginning of time.
I've read the relevant literature on global warming and actually talked face-to-face with a few
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I dont disagree that as goods become more scarce their price goes up, fine, and yes, as the price gets high enough technically resources can be infinite in that their use will decline potentiall faster then the rate of depletion. Fine.
BUT
Their is no reasonable susbstitute for oil, that is capable of maintaining our current transport system. Currently oil consumption is also growing. Reducing energy consumption also means lower growth.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Well, speaking from an energy density point of view, nuclear energy is far and away superior to oil. Ofc, this entails a restructuring of our transportation industry, which is completely fine and reasonable. Markets restructure daily after scientific advancements. Reducing oil consumption does not necessarily entail a decrease in energy consumption nor does economic growth necessarily require an increase in energy consumption, although they usually follow each other.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Furthermore, the video you suggested that I watch suggested that the automobile improves our environment, a blatant lie!!! How do cars improve our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Don't you think that companies such as GM have a vested interest in promoting cities designed around car transport. It is self evident that the profit motive goes against environmental concerns.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
He means from a human perspective. I really enjoyed the video and the man's unique take on the environmentalism conversation. One of the things you need to realize however is that Nature doesn't play nice. To survive, you have to take resources. If we went back to the early days, 95% of us would be wiped out as there wouldn't be enough food and medicine for all of us. Species compete and kill each other daily. This is the sweet Mother Nature we're "raping"?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Since when does having a culture built more around human transport eg The Dutch, Denmark, where the bicycle is considered a valid form of transport and promoted for the health benefits, and the benefits to the economy, and reduced congestion, anything to do with living in caves? When did I say we should go back to the stone age? What I contend is that we have a responsibility to use resources wisely and reduce pollution, part of the govts role is to implement this.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile OK, so you believe that technology can solve the peak oil problem for you. To replace 10 000 000 barells a day of imports you would need 750 nuclear reactors.. How long would it take to build them? The US currently imports around 10 000 000 barells for consumption a day. Technology, will not solve the comming problem of peak oil. Only reduced consumption!
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
climatologists. The scientific consenus is nothing like you think. The issue is SO MUCH more nuanced than you're letting on. It's not a debate about temperature increases or even changing climates itself. It's a debate about man's impact, the potential cyclical nature of climate, and the rigor of the scientific data and extrapolation itself. You're not dealing with a scientific or intellectual lightweight here. I have a degree in Applied Mathematics wherein I studied
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I am aware that there is debate over the impacts of climate change, but I am also aware that there is consensus that human caused climate change is real. Again, when you recommend a video that suggests that the car has improved our environment, and that it is a product of the free market, I tend to switch off. If you are a Mathematician, and an engineer, you will know that the most efficient vehicle is the bicycle, it seems that the not so free market Dutch have it right.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Not in the sense that you're implying. Scientists aren't sure yet the exact degree human's impact. My breathing in air right now, converting oxygen into CO2 obviously affects the environment and, conceivably, "climate change." The vast ocean for example emits its own carbon dioxide that dwarfs human production by a factor of 6,233, not even including land vegetation.
If you want to listen to a very entertaining video excerpted from Jurassic Park regarding the natural balance
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
watch?v=Ni6ZALg2BeQ
Earth (and various sections of the Universe) is constantly changing. The "equilibrium" we have in our minds is only a local equilibrium. The actual phenomena we're observing is so much more complicated than our models. We forget that Earth is physically tied to the rest of the system which is, in turn, tied to the rest of the galaxy. Humans are not some exogenous element magically introduced. We are just as much a part of Nature as anything else.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
I think what Crichton wrote is spot on.
Efficient in what manner? We have to still consume energy to physically *power* the motion produced by the cycle through muscle glycogen. We transfer one good into another to satisfy our purposes. Scientists put faith in the axiom that matter is neither destroyed nor created. What great crime is being committed (you also have to realize that the waste industry is not a free market)? Anyways, burning gasoline and moving 5-6 times
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
faster than a bicycle while not expending as much personal energy and, thus, being physically tired is of greater value to humans. If it wasn't, then the market wouldn't have arrived upon such a technological solution.
No, that's false. What you meant to say is you know LITTLE ENOUGH about the free market to buy such gov't propaganda as the New Deal solving the Great Depression. How learned are you even on the details of the New Deal? Do you even know the various,
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Crap, travel commutes around the world are similar, wether they be in bicycle friendly locations or CAR orientated cities, like found in the USA, and here in Australia. Car culture did nothing for your cities except sprawl them out and require people to burn more fuel. Bicycles have a drive train that is 95% efficient. A car is only 25% efficient at best. Additionally a car weighs over 1000 kg and transports a person who weighs 100 kg
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD Furthermore a bicycle weighs under 20kg and can transport a person who weighs 100kg, thereby most of the effort transports the person NOT the vehicle. In countries where they design cities around people with people scale the bicycle is faster.
Secondly I do not condone WAR, it is a fact though that here in Australia and to some extent the US between 1940-1975 unemployment was under 2% on average. When we had free market economics unemployment was much higher before 1940 & after 1975.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Stop saying when we had free markets and when we didn't. You DO NOT even know what a free market is. Therefore, you can't come to such a conclusion. You are an intellectual lightweight and an amateur. I've tried to clarify to you the flaws in your position but you don't seem to want to do the cognitive work in even seeing where I'm coming from and a proper definition of the relevant subject. Until you put the effort in to researching the issue, you will remain misinformed.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Stop calling me an intellectual lightweight mate, or I will not even bother with you. There are flaws in your position too. When I speak of free markets Vs not, I am talking about the difference between the idea that the govt should have more Vs Less regulation of the economy, we have always had free markets of sorts, but it is the degree to which the market is free. I assumed you would have known that.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
America has had a significantly regulated economy since 1913. Investments live and die based on the interest rate set by the Fed. That is not a free market. Our money is also monopolized through legal tender laws. These are two EXTREMELY important areas of an economy. You can have free markets in the Lemonade industry insofar as the end game production and distribution is concerned. But, investment is NOT free. We have the equivalent of a Soviet commissar in Bernanke.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile There is no such thing as a completely free market, and no such thing as a completely regulated market, there never has been. What I am talking about is the idea, that markets should be more or less left to work by themselves with no interference.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
...which is called a free market. Advocates of free markets want regulations lifted. Hence a freer market. I know this is rocket science, but...
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile When you have completely free markets you have social darwanism, where those that are less fortunate suffer. Aside from any economic arguments I believe this to be a morally bankrupt position. This is a moral judgement.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
No, that's false. When you have completely free markets, you have abundant production which drives prices lower. Even if you have one of the lowest incomes, your purchasing power is greatly increased in an economy where goods are cheaper. Insofar as you deviate from this optimal wealth creation, you will have poorer individuals, especially those near the bottom who may end up starving.
If you want to talk about moral judgements, I'd like to know how you stealing money from
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Then what happens to the poor, and the sick. In order to produce a profit business must pay their employee's less then their effective productivity. Some people will always be poor, and people will get sick. I stand by what I said.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
What are you a Marxist? Factories can't pay employees wages for a product that isn't sold yet--they can only pay them present wages. This is the genesis of the interest rate; you can't ignore intertemporal relationships. All an employer is doing is offering the employee a choice. He can save like the capitalist did and start his own investment or he doesn't have to and can work for a man who did save. Either way, humanity is benefited by an individual saving through capital
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile No, i'm not a marxist. Both marxist, idea's and your utopian free market ideas only work great in theory, that is why few if any societies are completely free market. Your concept of choice is a liberal (libertarian one) only. Some things are only true from a certain point of view. It is equally true to suggest that a person who is starving and offered a job that is almost slavery, is not really free to say no, because of the condition they are in.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
The free market being "only theory" is no grounds to claim it is evil or not worth it. It's like saying because being a perfectly good person is impossible, attempting to be as good as you can be is not worth it.
Few if any societies are completely free because of the collectivistic nature of Man, because of men like you. It's really as absurd as Goodness is impossible so let me run to Evilness as the solution.
Some things being only true from a certain point of view is
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Crap, again. You are equating a completely free market as goodness, when it is only good, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Everything is tempered with a degree of moderation for a reason. Stop telling me I am a fool. You are a fool, if you think some kind of utopian (in your mind) idea of completely free markets, and user pays society will work, and provide the best solution.
Often freedom and equality cannot co-exist. You choose freedom over equality, I choose a balance.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Inequality is the nature of reality. I choose to recognize it instead of falling prey to a half-assed attempt and, ultimately, ponzi scheme.
I also find it comical you think moderation to an absolute is equatable to goodness or happiness, which is, in itself, a contradiction. Through such logic, am I not to moderate moderation or this goodness or happiness we're talking about?
You really are a fool and you denying it as many times as you want isn't going to change reality
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile NO, you choose to see things from a one sided perspective. I accept that some people dont have equal opportunities and view that in a civilised world they are helped. If the US, and your idea of Libertarianism is so great how is it that Copenhagen in Denmark is said to be one of the happiest cities in the world, where they have both high taxation and social welfare. The evidence suggests egalitarianism creates happiness. You are the fool, and are one sided.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
similar to how you seek to imagine a benevolent, just gov't. Talk about utopian.
When you say you're afraid of free markets, what you're really saying is "I'm afraid of individual freedom; I prefer to have my life and others' lives controlled by a select few. I don't know how those select few will come to possess such a right or how it will be kept from being abused, but it is just, moral, and certainly superior to free will and personal responsibility."
I call you a fool
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile It is not about having your life controlled by a select few, it is about democracy. Libertarianism ultimately means that your life gets controlled by a few, because in every society that creates a system closer to pure free markets the difference between the rich and poor gets bigger. Your hardly free if your poor. I am all for social freedom, where it does not hurt others, but economic freedom must be curtailed to a degree to promote some equity. My view is just as valid.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
for this and anyone in their right mind would agree with me. By the looks of what's rumbling in America at the moment, it would appear I have many on my side. Your ideology is dying; we've seen the fruits of gov't intervention, its depravity, and its destruction. It's a sanity check to finally say enough and it is people like myself who will ultimately rebuild the future prosperity while people like you condemn me as evil, even while I make what feeds you.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Crap, most modern capitalist countries in Europe, as well as Canada, Great Britain, and to some extent, here in Australia, have socialised medicine, and quite frankly most are in favour of it. The free market makes what is profitable, not what feeds people best, if it profitable to turn the air into pollution, then the free market will do it. Also, meat production, which is profitable reduces the amount of grain available at a disproportianate amount.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
relativistic and contradictory.You are a fool if you believe in wage slavery. If you still can't grasp the matter despite how clear I made it,then there's nothing more I can do other than label you as a fool.No, every single second you would not be handing out money. What do you think a parking permit is, you dumbass? How about you speculate and fail epicly some more? This isn't even just my opinion. If someoneelsecamearoundhereandreadwhatyouwrote,they'dagreeyou're a charlatan.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile It is your opinion. If you belkieve that totally free market economy is the answer then plenty of people will disagree. How is a starving man free to take or not take a lowly paid job. He is literally free, but only in so much as that he has the option to starve. Realistically though there is no option, and I say, he is not really free. You say, by your belief in Libertarianism that he is. There is no right answer, just a different perspective.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
I find this paragraph extremely comical and the apex of nonsense so far. Starving because you don't eat has been the way of things since the beginning of Man. Crying about it as long as you can isn't going to change your biochemical requirements to sustain life. If you want to call that enslavement, fine. But, that's not enslavement to a factory, but, rather, enslavement to REALITY! Okay, let's pretend that factory doesn't exist. Poof! The worker is still "enslaved" to his
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
stomach and needs to find some way to acquire food. He can become a farmer and eat what he (hopefully) produces or a forager in a hand-to-mouth existence. In either situation, the economy and each individual is poorer due to the evaporation of previously formed capital goods.
The truth of the matter is my ideology holds up to deductive logic while you must scurry away into relativism to escape cognitive dissonance.I habitually try not to be rude, but truth is my last casualty.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Thats, again crap. People can only produce goods, with the material and energy that is available to them. A poor person, by definition has less material and energy available to them. By definition also, exploiting material and energy inexorably leads to more waste and pollution, since these are the by-products of the exploitation of resources. The profit motive means, that unless you introduce a pollution tax (gvt intervention), then the most profitable use of goods ->Polltion
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
formation. Watch this video for a succinct and obliterating critique of Marx: watch?v=UGbxjiTjhQY
To call gov't "society" is disgusting. Gov't is anti-social. It is free trade that is pro-society. Through free trade, men are encouraged to arrange peaceful, mutually beneficial interactions. It is through gov't where you have a zero-sums, steal-from-you-before-you-steal-from-me tragedy of the commons. What's more, gov't is almost always ruled by the power elite who
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
manipulate the mob through class warfare propaganda.
You switch off (and not thoroughly refute) because you don't want to open your mind and put the intellectual work into building an informed opinion. Your knowledge of free markets is irrefutable proof.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile NO, you state things which work in theory, but in practice would be unworkable. Classical free market theory was found wanting prior to the great depression, that is true. Besides, to have a completely free user pays market would involve people paying to sit in a park, people paying to walk on the pavement, every single second you would be handing out and collecting money. So much so that you couldnt do anything else, we would have a world of accountants. In a total free mrkt.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You are the one who cant see, that, you live in a fantasy world, because there must be some order to the way things are run. Libertarianism, not only creates vast differences between haves and have not's, but it also, because of its semi anarchistic financial nature, means complexity in goods and services trading possibly beyond any productive benefit. IE a World of accountants, since everything is user pays, and hard to keep track of.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Also, Marx was an anarchist. He believed the gov't maintained the capitalists' stranglehold on the poor and that it should be abolished. He was what we would call today an Anarcho-Communist--not a gov't socialist like Stalin.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
others has NOT being "morally bankrupt." It's one thing to believe the rich should give more to charity, it's another to rationalize theft.
The fact that you think a free market leads to an unoptimal amount of pollution demonstrates to me two things; 1) you don't understand what a free market really looks like and 2) you didn't watch the video "Free Market Environmentalism." What's more, road carnage and traffic congestion is a symptom of socialized raods. I could bury you
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Taxation is not theft, if that is where you are going. You obviously do not believe that people must contribute to society. Further, to have a completely user pays society would be a logistical nightmare.
2) After I heard the so called expert suggest that cars were good for our environment I quite rightly switched off. Further, I am not some kid, and have a uni degree. That is not the point though. The point is that I will not convince you and you will not convince me.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD wonder if this means oil and gas will just disapper forever and have clean fuel
mquiroz90 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD Part 3...
Quite frankly I have better things to do then argue with a person who believes the free market is the answer. Keynes's policies were dominant between 1940-1975, the personal debt buble mainly grew after 1975. It is free market policies that create instability. I am not a socialist, I just believe it is the govts role to moderate the extremes in the economy.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD Part 4
You cant deny that it was a lack of regulation of lending that lead to banks and financial institutions making "dodgy" loans to people who could not pay them back that was at least in part responsible for the GFC.
Furthermore, from a moral point of view, I dont want to live in a society of social darwanism, where it is survival of the financialy fitest. I believe that society should take care of the less fortunate, that is only humane.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
You're still not looking at it from the right angle. The driver as an individual looks at the price of gasoline, a car, its maintenance, its utility and compares it to riding a bicycle. He then comes to make a decision. There are some who decide to ride a bike, but that is based off a seperate criteria. If the user is primarily concerned with time conservation, he picks the car. Cars will continue to increase in efficiency as the market demands it.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Your notion that the car saves time is often false. Around London a bicycle is quicker, yet most people still drive cars. Cities are often designed around cars, so that cars are quicker. If cities are designed properly then bicycles are quicker. Furthermore, when you take into account the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car the car is usually NOT quicker. Cars are not selected because of free market choice at all. People drive cars because they are lazy/ subsidized
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Another variable is the ease of parking. In urban cities, it's common to not own a car and instead use a subway, taxi, motorcycle, or bicycle. The automobile makes perfect sense to the majority of Americans who commute 15-45 miles to work. Traveling 60 mph vs 12 is a big deal over that kind of distance. So big that Americans are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars more for the advantage. You need to learn to keep your value judgements in check.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile That is only true when you design cities based around the car. To be truely fair you should compare average commute times in cities that are not car dominated, vs cities that are. You will find then that it is faster to commute on a bicycle in some places, because they are designed far more intelligently then poorly automobile centred American and Australian cities. In many cities traffic grinds to a halt, and only goes 60 Mph in the most ideal situation.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Most Americans do not live in cities. The 15-45 mile commute is not going to all take place within a city. Another fact you need to comprehend is that our roads are socialized--not privatized. What's more, you are infact utilizing your own value judgements versus what consumers desire in a market. If consumers desire something you don't, they're not as "intelligent."
I wasn't talking about 60 mph in a city, you dumbass. The speed limit in cities is like 10-15 mph.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Mate, it is you who are the dumbass, if you cat see what I am talking about. Americans DO mostly use cars as transport even in cities. And no I am not talking here about rural areas. If your non regulated free market leads to everyone driving cars as transport, creating pollution, road carnage, traffic congestion, then I will not support it. It may be peoples RIGHT to drive, but what about my right to breathe clean air, and not be run over by some idiot in a car!
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Secondly, I was initially talking about cities, and that is what you responded to.. Quite frankly if you believe that America's car dominated culture is the way to go then you would disagree with most urban planners around the world.. One thing you fail to comprehend obviously, is that one persons freedoms sometimes impinge on other people's rights. Like their right to breathe clean air, not be run over.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
in essays, dissertations, and studies on just this one topic. It's instances like this why I call you an intellectual lightweight--you are NOT well-read; you don't even know what it is you're critiquing.
Kid, I've read dozens of volumes on Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Economics in addition to spending hundreds of hours listening to lectures. You seek to educate me on John Locke and pollution like I didn't already consider it? How many times do I have to tell you pollution
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Suggesting, im an idiot will not get you far. Often things are great in theory but dont work in practice. Quite frankly I will not convince you, and you will not convince me, so what is the point. That seems obvious to me.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
is a result of an ABSENCE of a market in waste and American roads are NOT "unregulated."
What's funny is here you really demonstrate how novice your economic history is. Nuclear energy has been repeatedly lobbied against and hampered from becoming America's next main energy source by oil companies. We should have made this transition already during the '70s and we're still behind. And, yet, you seek to tell me this was a free market??
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You obviously are the one who cant get what I am saying. The replacement of the energy of the oil imports for the US, is 750 Nuclear reactors worth. It is not relevant when, or how many Nuclear reactors the US has. The relavent point here is that the US is car dominated, and that trechnology alone cant solve the problem.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Further here, my point, is that you were suggesting I listen to a person who proclaims that the Automobile improves our lives. Americans may think the Automobile is a great thing for cities, but I do not. It creates pollution, death, and congestion, and that is a fact. The only thing I agree with you on MAYBE, is that automobile use is actually unfortunately subsidizied. You also cant see limits to growth, on a finite planet!
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Not only is it extremely dubious and problematic to claim Copenhagen as the "happiest cities in the world," your reasoning justifies stealing (it is stealing when you're taking from someone who doesn't want to give that amount) in the same scenario. Why can't the redistributive society you desire be completely voluntary? Why do you have to take from and include in those who don't hold your same values? Why can't you leave alone people like myself? Why do you have to
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
steal from us with the threat of force (just ask "tax evaders" in jail cells under what conditions they found themselves there) and then insult us after by claiming we're happier this way?
What's more, you're wanting to play the perspective card. Why can't I take my perspective and exempt myself from your society? I'm not forcing you to do anything other than leave me alone. You say essentially that loving freedom is just a matter of opinion and then in the same breadth
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
than me, what makes me truly happy, and have the right to take a portion of what I've earned by the sweat of my brow. How is this not two-faced? You need to man up and concede I've trapped you. The only just socialistic society is an anarcho-socialist society, where all participants are voluntary.
In truth, it is YOU who are one-sided. It is I who is tolerant of multiple opinions. If you want to be in a socialist commune in a free society, I won't stop you and shove
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
capitalistic values down your throat, but you won't grant me my private plot of land free of your gigantic gov't. You won't let me lead the life I want even if I'm not hurting anyone. That is truly abominable.
You need to actually study Democracy. In practice, it has always been an oligarchy. In theory, it cannot determine Justice. A lynch mob is democratic. This alone refutes the ideology. The American founding fathers rightly condemned democracy and established instead
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
a Republic.
How would Libertarianism make me *controlled* by a select few? I am Sovereign and have full control over my life.
The difference is greater, but the poor are richer than if you have egalitarianism where EVERYONE is poor and there are massive shortages. Study history for Christ's sake; there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating it. You insult my intelligence with this rubbish.
There has never been a society where you can seperate economic freedom
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
and social freedom--they are intertwined. There has never been a gov't that granted one and not the other; they have always eroded both simultaneously. You would benefit greatly from an education in Economic History.
Those are one and the same in a free society--what feeds best and what is most profitable. You are probably just as illiterate in American Medical History. The healthcare market has been regulated and distorted since the late 1800s through the AMA.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Whether they were excluding blacks and females, putting rival hospitals out of business, or limiting professional entry to keep wages up, they have always been a force of distortion. I'm willing to bet the house you don't know a lick of what I'm talking about, and yet you seek to tell me how the free healthcare market would be?! We need a third party here so you can see how ridiculously uninformed you are.
How many times are you gonna opine on pollution without looking
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
at the "Free Market Environmentalism" video? I really have better things to do than put time into thoughtful rebuttals of a man who has the critical thinking capacity of a high school student. It's come down to "nuh uhs" even though I've provided a wealth of material elucidating my beliefs (which you blatantly ignore or misrepresent time and again).
People don't have to own the inputs of what they produce. Sheesh, how economicly illiterate can you get? We were just talking
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
about wage earners at a factory; do you think they own the capital stock?!
You have no idea what a true free market would look like and we have reason to not believe you after you thought a Federal Reserve-controlled interest rate was a free market. Dude, you're a toddler to me in economic education. How about you at least respect that and not insult me with this drivel? If you type one more set of responses along these lines, don't expect a reply.
Even if all you believe
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
about free markets was true (which I vehemently disagree with and have adequately refuted), we have no reason to believe a gov't could perform the "needed" function a la Hayek's 'local knowledge problem' for which he won a Nobel prize. You probably aren't even familiar with it. It's amazing, hilarious, and pitiful how your head simultaneously contains within it so large a mouth and, yet, so tiny a brain. What's more, we have little to no way of keeping the gov't's new,
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
privileged control over the economy from being abused. Infact, given how greedy businesses are and, especially, how much you despise and mistrust them, why would the big companies not just buy out the gov't regulators? It'd be a lot easier than having to outcompete other businessmen. This is what we see all around us today and throughout economic history. And, yet, here you are saying we need to increase the degree to which the gov't regulates the economy (which is already
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
quite large) and, by extension, the degree to which the various sections of the economy can be lobbied into oligopolies and monopolies. If you still haven't absorbed any of this, then you really are a blind ideologue and enemy of logic.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
Reddoggystyle 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Since you are a Libertarian, I suggest you check out what John Locke had to say (the original libertarian). The fact is that one persons freedoms often have a negative effect on someone elses freedom. I am no fool, and your interpritation of things strikes me as the interpritation that is born out of self interest!
The fact is one persons freedom often impinges on the freedom of others! All societies restrict freedoms to a point, because of this fact!
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile If most Americans don';t live in cities and have to commute 45 miles to go to work, how unintelligent is that. It locks in car dependency,, If you want something intelligent to watch why dont you check out "the end of suburbia".
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile It is not a value judgement, it is based on fact. At few times do people in cities travel at 60mph. The average speed in London for example is as low as 5 kph. The problem with cars is that they require so much space. So much that car dominated cities donate 50% of their space to car's NOT people. In order for car trips to be fast, you have to spread people out, so that while cars go faster, distances increase so no tangible benefit is derived. Hardly efficient or sensible.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
the relevant meterologic nonlinear differential equations. The heart of that issue is so enormously over the head of an Al Gore-type. I'm also finishing up a Computer Engineering degree and, at some point, going back to grad school for a PhD in Physics and/or Chemistry. I am so far from being a "typical economist against 'scientific analysis' or 'consensus'."
The real net difference between you and me is not that one understands science and the other economics. But, that I
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
understand both and you don't understand economics. Again, don't you think it's rather common sensical to at least first study that which you seek to criticize? If you don't understand your enemy, you first of all don't even know if they're a true enemy and, if they are, how to appropriately counter them. It's equivalent to a child stumbling in the dark.
Anyways, not only will prices go up when goods become more scarce, but the increase in price ITSELF will signal to
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I understand enough about economics to know that the free market is not the solution you make it out to be. It was FDR's Govt intervention with the New Deal, and WW2 that lead both the USA, and similarly here in Australia our govt that lead us out of the Great Depression. It was the belief in free markets that preceeded both the great depression and the GFC. It was the lack of regulation of banks and financial institutions that created the debt bubble, not govt intervention.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
individual programs that comprised what we call the "New Deal"? Do you know how they slaughtered pregnant cows, pigs, burned crops, reduced domestic crop acres, and brought foreign trade to a near-standstill? Do you even know the accompanying abysmal economic data of the '30s? Do you know what Keynesians thought was going to happen to the economy after WW2 and how hopelessly wrong they were? Just save face and admit that you don't know it that well.
It was not the belief
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
in free markets that preceeded the crash of '29. It was the discoordinating inflation injected by the Fed in the '20s that inevitably resulted in an overpriced stock market that needed a correction (where prices would crash and there would be an accompanying deflation of the inflation). And it was the further gov't intervention of the '30s which exacerbated the initially wasted resources in the misallocation of the '20s. The problem with you here is you have no idea what the
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Fed does, what is a free market and what is not.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile What you dont seem to grasp is that just as there are people who are well read, and intelligent who proclaim that Libertarinism is not the only idea.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
to producers to increase quantity supplied (reducing scarcity) and such increases in profits will fund promising explorations and scientific advances in efficient resource utilization. As the good becomes more abundant, the market shifts its attention to a different, more pressing need. This is an aspect of the self-ordering beauty of the market. There is no way you're going to get anything remotely as beneficial from a technocracy.
If you completely finished the Resource
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I am afraid you have too much faith in free markets!
Keynesian economics which emphasises govt intervention persisted in both the USA, and in Australia, produced low unemployment, and a stable economy. Liazee fair free market systems created the great depression, and the GFC.
In Aust the during the Keynsian period average unemployment was under 2%. During the free market period unemployment hit up to 11%. Which is better?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Keynesian economics is what has lead to the US' current depression and its bleeding of productive jobs. Keynesian economics entails only capital consumption. Do you even know what that term means? And you seek to opine on economics??
Unemployment crashed during WW2 because the war itself employed many of those out of work. That is not an actual solution. Wars do not PRODUCE anything; wars DESTROY wealth. They kill men who could have led productive lives, they destroy
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
materials that could have gone into producing something actually valued instead of a bomb or bullets or a tank. War is the equivalent of me going over to your house and burning it down and then you coming over to mine to get revenge by burning mine down, too. And this makes us RICHER?? No wonder not a SINGLE Keynesian saw the housing bubble coming (the same people you want watching over our "unregulated" economy).
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
Economics video, I suggest you finish the "Free Market Environmentalism" video at: watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI
One last thing I should mention about resource consumption is that, mathematically speaking, it is impossible to have effectively infinite, say, oil within a 3 galloon bucket. This is a basic Calculus 3 summation series problem. So long as each extraction from the bucket becomes less and less, it is possible to never run out. This is provable; the consumption curve
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Sorry, I mean "it is *possible* to have effectively infinite..."
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
eventually becomes essentially a straight line. This is a simple illustration of a much larger bucket (the Universe).
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile So you envisage us very soon getting energy from pluto?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I suggest you watch the series of video's begining with "watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY", they are under 10 mins each. I suggest you look into peak oil. Economic theory cant change scientific fact!
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
I've actually already seen that video series. Exponential functions are constantly at play around us and in markets. You'd be surprised how well markets turn on dimes (they do it every second every day).
"Scientific fact" is actually not at odds with Economics; they both reinforce each other--Economics gives the scientific community the necessary investment in research and Science gives back the fruits of further capital accumulation and a higher standard of living.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago