That was painful to watch. I want my nine minutes back.
The guy who made the video obviously didn't understand the concepts he was attempting to critique. Not only that but the supporting material from WM42 has gone over and addressed what is said here, in great detail.
The only thing I learned is that the author of the video didn't take the time to read through everything, and didn't seem to understand the nature of the risk management involved.
I am seriously considering buying a webcam and starting to make videos simply to debunk this. I am sorry to say so, but the first argument is total bullshit, i can't even find a metaphor for the level of ignorance. Saying "this ahs always happened, therefore there are no changes" is like saying "when you jump you fall down again, therefore you can't get hurt jumping from buildings".
Dude you are a dreamer! wonderingmind42 point of view is at least doable. Your point of view is cool, but i think you came up with it after smoking to many Mary Janes! How the hell are you going to eliminate the government? Wealth= hope?! how do you know what will equal wealth when the world is on the brink of destruction. Money may not be relevant.
Greatest advancement for cleaner planet are from private sectors, but at the same time we are in this quandary because of private sectors!
will be prepare for that, what if they arent?? what if they ignored because people like you thing its better not to do anything?, and also you didnt consider the worst scene on column B you are just assuming that people will be prepare, you didnt consider the fact that it might not be anywhere to live, or do you think they will build some ships like in 2012? sorry if it sounds rude and for the terrible english
@freedomwatchnews so are you saying that its better not acting?, i agree more with wonderingmind beacuse it doesnt depend completely on goverment if you want you can walk to your job or school or ride a bike in that way you dont waste any resource, so thats one mistake, on natural eco crisis, you are looking at on the wrong way all of those extreme changes were caused for the meteor so it wasnt natural thats your second mistake, and your final mistake is that you are assuming that countries
Why do you assume that supporting reducing fosil fuels or working on eco friendly technology would cause a depression in any scenario.. there is no reason it would cause a depression of any kind
i think this video is wastfull. you can expand on a logic table as much as you want. you "could" add thousands of colums if you really wanted to. furthermore, your making very broad assumptions based on a limited understanding of economics and politics. in short, unless you want to draw a colum for every possible action that could take place, your basily relying on the special interest of the private sector to act in the best interest of the public.. i dont even trust our government, nvm corp AM
My God - when people argue in the extremes, it is just a waste of time. There are a wide spectrum of outcomes and not some small discrete set of them. In either case I hardly think that the "Government"-imposed legislature would go so far as to bankrupt the world - are you kidding me? "Senator, every person in the country is now officially starving and will die within the next week, can we please back off the legislature?" -- "No, you saw the matrix - we must continue to spend!" What a waste
Appears quite well thought of, but with all the toxins and pollution that the human race put into our water and atmosphere, it is completely obnoxious to say that there even a possibility that humans are not contributing to global warming and eco-crisis. Let's just say, even if the world was to have an eco-crisis on its own, human beings are definitely still contributing a part to global warming and the greenhouse effect.
is'nt preventive measures and preparing a safety buffert both a government action and by having no action means that no action will be taken untill the catastrophe already is on top of us, you make the same mistake as Wonderingmind42 because no one can see all the angles of this problem not me not you not Wonderingmind42. I personally wouldn't put to much trust in the free market because helping people never made anyone rich
@syntaxerror15 Helping people has always made people rich.
a) DISASTER No Food! Result new farming techniques, and better equipment result in FAR more food today than 50 years ago. Today the planet can produce food to support 20 Billion people, when I was in school only a couple decades ago, they were saying no more than 8 Billion could live here.
b) Disaster, earthquake. Home builders, and material makers win because they build newer, better homes.
@Brantoc those things i think more as people helping others to help themselves IF they can afford it, you already have to have money in order to make money. I wonder where you got the figures for how much food that is produced because some years ago i read on W.H.O that we only had enough food for about 3/4 of all people on earth and that was one of the main arguments for using genetically modified crops, my figures might be wrong and maby produced by people who had a personal agenda i dont know
@syntaxerror15 "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens." - Adam Smith from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
@Brantoc what he was speaking of is a system of trading favors (you scratch my back i scratch yours) by giving x i receive y, which means if you have nothing you will receive nothing, and some people didn't choose to one day to become a beggar but was forced by the circumstances like natural disasters, the company being down sized and no other available jobs, market crashes etc, i do realize that if not for the free market wee would still be in the stone age.
@syntaxerror15 It is through selfish individual interests that wealth is created, socially and individually. Without wealth a society can not advance, or recover from adversity. Wealth is the solution to our problem. Governments intervention in 'spreading the wealth' limits growth and hampers development, without which advancement can not take place. The Rich will always be rich, but without advancement, the poor can not join the wealth, and a multi tier social structure is created.
@syntaxerror15 Selfish individual pursuits allow entrepreneurial citizenry the opportunity to transcend social class structure, and man is only limited by his own wants and needs. There will always be people who have little or no wants, or make bad decisions. These people are examples of what not to do, and others ignore these warnings at their own peril.
@syntaxerror15 Mans own self interest is the key phrase. Self interest is what drives man, and allows him to reach his potential. Government should have rules that guide him in the proper use of this interest, but not hinder it. When government hinders self interest you have a reduction in industry and an increase in governance.
Our Government needs to be cut by 482 agencies, 2.8 million people, 1.1 Trillion Dollars. Our businesses need increasing.
That was painful to watch. I want my nine minutes back.
The guy who made the video obviously didn't understand the concepts he was attempting to critique. Not only that but the supporting material from WM42 has gone over and addressed what is said here, in great detail.
The only thing I learned is that the author of the video didn't take the time to read through everything, and didn't seem to understand the nature of the risk management involved.
bluepooh72 2 months ago
Wonderingmind42 rebutted all of your concerns. watch his index videos. all 7 hours.
HoratioCrunch 4 months ago
I am seriously considering buying a webcam and starting to make videos simply to debunk this. I am sorry to say so, but the first argument is total bullshit, i can't even find a metaphor for the level of ignorance. Saying "this ahs always happened, therefore there are no changes" is like saying "when you jump you fall down again, therefore you can't get hurt jumping from buildings".
SCALE, please
MrVolvoxFan 4 months ago
Dude you are a dreamer! wonderingmind42 point of view is at least doable. Your point of view is cool, but i think you came up with it after smoking to many Mary Janes! How the hell are you going to eliminate the government? Wealth= hope?! how do you know what will equal wealth when the world is on the brink of destruction. Money may not be relevant.
Greatest advancement for cleaner planet are from private sectors, but at the same time we are in this quandary because of private sectors!
bowler180max 8 months ago
will be prepare for that, what if they arent?? what if they ignored because people like you thing its better not to do anything?, and also you didnt consider the worst scene on column B you are just assuming that people will be prepare, you didnt consider the fact that it might not be anywhere to live, or do you think they will build some ships like in 2012? sorry if it sounds rude and for the terrible english
flakitazero77 9 months ago
@freedomwatchnews so are you saying that its better not acting?, i agree more with wonderingmind beacuse it doesnt depend completely on goverment if you want you can walk to your job or school or ride a bike in that way you dont waste any resource, so thats one mistake, on natural eco crisis, you are looking at on the wrong way all of those extreme changes were caused for the meteor so it wasnt natural thats your second mistake, and your final mistake is that you are assuming that countries
flakitazero77 9 months ago
Why do you assume that supporting reducing fosil fuels or working on eco friendly technology would cause a depression in any scenario.. there is no reason it would cause a depression of any kind
HolidayNova 11 months ago
i think this video is wastfull. you can expand on a logic table as much as you want. you "could" add thousands of colums if you really wanted to. furthermore, your making very broad assumptions based on a limited understanding of economics and politics. in short, unless you want to draw a colum for every possible action that could take place, your basily relying on the special interest of the private sector to act in the best interest of the public.. i dont even trust our government, nvm corp AM
ajs2984 1 year ago
This entire video is based in shit and your a complete idiot.
gospeedracer1826 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@gospeedracer1826: "This entire video is based in shit and your a complete idiot."
Learn to spell, greentard!
prikhod 1 year ago
Wondermind42 already schooled all of this shit you just brought up.
gospeedracer1826 1 year ago 6
Man made CFCs caused ozone depleation. So we can effect our atmosphere
hombre38 1 year ago
great deception.
ash4432 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15
As I recall we need more good people in this world, not more rich people.
fierymartel94 1 year ago
dude this was his short video watch the long one where he takes into count ALL the possible scenarios.
melrobRTF 1 year ago
My God - when people argue in the extremes, it is just a waste of time. There are a wide spectrum of outcomes and not some small discrete set of them. In either case I hardly think that the "Government"-imposed legislature would go so far as to bankrupt the world - are you kidding me? "Senator, every person in the country is now officially starving and will die within the next week, can we please back off the legislature?" -- "No, you saw the matrix - we must continue to spend!" What a waste
jesticus 1 year ago
btw, i completely agree wit
syntaxerror15
B0dL3y 1 year ago
Appears quite well thought of, but with all the toxins and pollution that the human race put into our water and atmosphere, it is completely obnoxious to say that there even a possibility that humans are not contributing to global warming and eco-crisis. Let's just say, even if the world was to have an eco-crisis on its own, human beings are definitely still contributing a part to global warming and the greenhouse effect.
B0dL3y 1 year ago
is'nt preventive measures and preparing a safety buffert both a government action and by having no action means that no action will be taken untill the catastrophe already is on top of us, you make the same mistake as Wonderingmind42 because no one can see all the angles of this problem not me not you not Wonderingmind42. I personally wouldn't put to much trust in the free market because helping people never made anyone rich
syntaxerror15 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15 Helping people has always made people rich.
a) DISASTER No Food! Result new farming techniques, and better equipment result in FAR more food today than 50 years ago. Today the planet can produce food to support 20 Billion people, when I was in school only a couple decades ago, they were saying no more than 8 Billion could live here.
b) Disaster, earthquake. Home builders, and material makers win because they build newer, better homes.
etc.
Brantoc 1 year ago
@Brantoc those things i think more as people helping others to help themselves IF they can afford it, you already have to have money in order to make money. I wonder where you got the figures for how much food that is produced because some years ago i read on W.H.O that we only had enough food for about 3/4 of all people on earth and that was one of the main arguments for using genetically modified crops, my figures might be wrong and maby produced by people who had a personal agenda i dont know
syntaxerror15 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15 "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens." - Adam Smith from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Brantoc 1 year ago
@Brantoc what he was speaking of is a system of trading favors (you scratch my back i scratch yours) by giving x i receive y, which means if you have nothing you will receive nothing, and some people didn't choose to one day to become a beggar but was forced by the circumstances like natural disasters, the company being down sized and no other available jobs, market crashes etc, i do realize that if not for the free market wee would still be in the stone age.
syntaxerror15 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15 It is through selfish individual interests that wealth is created, socially and individually. Without wealth a society can not advance, or recover from adversity. Wealth is the solution to our problem. Governments intervention in 'spreading the wealth' limits growth and hampers development, without which advancement can not take place. The Rich will always be rich, but without advancement, the poor can not join the wealth, and a multi tier social structure is created.
Brantoc 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15 Selfish individual pursuits allow entrepreneurial citizenry the opportunity to transcend social class structure, and man is only limited by his own wants and needs. There will always be people who have little or no wants, or make bad decisions. These people are examples of what not to do, and others ignore these warnings at their own peril.
Brantoc 1 year ago
@syntaxerror15 Mans own self interest is the key phrase. Self interest is what drives man, and allows him to reach his potential. Government should have rules that guide him in the proper use of this interest, but not hinder it. When government hinders self interest you have a reduction in industry and an increase in governance.
Our Government needs to be cut by 482 agencies, 2.8 million people, 1.1 Trillion Dollars. Our businesses need increasing.
Brantoc 1 year ago
This is fantastic.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago