Conspiracy Theory

[Yesterday]

Someone please tell me again why we live the way we do.

We fight wars in foreign countries for monetary purposes and we wonder why people hate us.

We force people to live in poverty or on the streets and wonder why there is so much crime.

We give gangs monopolies over drugs and wonder why there is so much street violence.

Different economic or trade policies won't solve our problems.

Hi Maple, I can understand why you would ask that. Periodically I do too. Especially when watching news or certain documentaries too often. One thing I can tell you, which you probably already know, is that media survives on horror. Media doesn't just allow us to be informed of injustice, it pelts us with slanted views and propaganda at the same time.

If you think about it, we could have the same volumes of media if it's purpose was to pass on only good news and stories of justice along side of the slanted views and propaganda.

The bad can be really bad, but the good can be really good.

Perhaps economic and trade policies won't fix everything but they are a help. Whatever our personal views, we live in a world where these policies are needed. It is not international co-operation with agreements coordinating behavior and expectations at the fault of these policies current inefficiency but rather the motivations behind their current use. In terms of social change, lasting social change, think in 100 year allotments of time. For the most part, I look at a 100 year segment that starts in the 1980s. This is when I personally begin to see major changes in global thought regarding market share and business. The biggest change in motion that I can see on this front is the clean-up of Wall Street and investor education both of which are forcing a shift of thought in international relationships and future economic growth for developing nations.

Trade and the desire to do so has the potential to be the biggest, most effective non-sword ever wielded by man to achieve peace and prosperity. Much better than war if you ask me.

We are what we are. You can see what you want to see. It is good to focus on the bad sometimes to be able to keep in mind the nature of needed change but sometimes a person should come up for air and focus solely on the beauty of this world and it's inhabitants so as to remember the importance of the realized need for said change.

[Yesterday]

Unlimited, unrestricted of what - existing resources? Of course we need to find other resources if we continue our population expansion. WE need to find alternative energies, etc. Our population growth is slowing down. We need to bring some cultures to higher living standards so they do not have to depend upon the safety of numbers for survival.

Well, I was just referring to China's enormous export of useless trinkets in the original post. A subject that touches heavily on many environmental fronts such as landfill to being a situation socially where the Chinese people are pimped to create this crap because regardless of volume the quality of the products reduces the value far beyond reasonable thus the quality of the worker's wages/environment producing this stuff has been really quite dismal. This is changing thankfully, however slowly. Back to the domestic strength over export. Yes, China's resources would be better spent on producing anything more environmental including better quality daily use products with better value thus allowing for a smaller market share while still being productive and expansive.

Many people do not want war not too many know how to avoid it and I don't believe it can be avoided entirely. A productive country or society will be subject to the envy of less productive societies.

And someone has said that the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it.

I agree with you but from a standpoint of development. I see the tools needed just not the appropriate use or widespread understanding of principle. In a twisted sort of respect, it was the advent of nuclear arms that forced, in part, the world to try and sit at the table to try and negotiate peace and acceptable behaviors amongst the countries of this world. Trade has been the single most least-explosive set of negotiations in comparison so far IMO. Not to say there has not been war and starvation caused by abuse and all forms of negative motivation regarding trade...for all of that most of the globe today works just fine within trade agreements and does so without fear of war breaking out on home soil. Of the rest of the countries on this globe, most if not all are in the birthing throws of major social change. International trade is demanding that change and will continue to do so and will continue to evolve and shed outdated and/or corrupt versions of itself. Like the potential of fine wine, give it time to age against our current global landscape. There is no reason why things can't get better. Even if it has to get a little worse first. Right?

While you are checking look into the Food for Oil program and the sanctions imposed upon Iraq. Quite a UN scandal.

Thanks, I will.

Trade sanctions are already after the fact. And are a tool of war without declaring such.

Yes, I can see how they are being used as such but I can also see other scenarios which have worthwhile potential.

[Pliny]

Someone please tell me again why we live the way we do.

We fight wars in foreign countries for monetary purposes and we wonder why people hate us.

What monetary purposes?

We force people to live in poverty or on the streets and wonder why there is so much crime.

We do? There are well over a hundred agencies in Vancouver to aid those on the streets.

We give gangs monopolies over drugs and wonder why there is so much street violence.

There seems to be some competition among drug gangs. The government will eventually try and hold the monopoly.

Different economic or trade policies won't solve our problems.

I agree but less policies probably will.

[Pliny]

Well, I was just referring to China's enormous export of useless trinkets in the original post. A subject that touches heavily on many environmental fronts such as landfill to being a situation socially where the Chinese people are pimped to create this crap because regardless of volume the quality of the products reduces the value far beyond reasonable thus the quality of the worker's wages/environment producing this stuff has been really quite dismal. This is changing thankfully, however slowly. Back to the domestic strength over export. Yes, China's resources would be better spent on producing anything more environmental including better quality daily use products with better value thus allowing for a smaller market share while still being productive and expansive.

Of course it is changing. It can't start out being the best.

I agree with you but from a standpoint of development. I see the tools needed just not the appropriate use or widespread understanding of principle. In a twisted sort of respect, it was the advent of nuclear arms that forced, in part, the world to try and sit at the table to try and negotiate peace and acceptable behaviors amongst the countries of this world. Trade has been the single most least-explosive set of negotiations in comparison so far IMO. Not to say there has not been war and starvation caused by abuse and all forms of negative motivation regarding trade...for all of that most of the globe today works just fine within trade agreements and does so without fear of war breaking out on home soil. Of the rest of the countries on this globe, most if not all are in the birthing throws of major social change. International trade is demanding that change and will continue to do so and will continue to evolve and shed outdated and/or corrupt versions of itself. Like the potential of fine wine, give it time to age against our current global landscape. There is no reason why things can't get better. Even if it has to get a little worse first. Right?

Right.

Yes, I can see how they are being used as such but I can also see other scenarios which have worthwhile potential.

So do many politicians but my only point is that sanctions are an after the fact tool.

[maple_leafs182]

Perhaps economic and trade policies won't fix everything but they are a help. Whatever our personal views, we live in a world where these policies are needed.

I get what you are saying and I do understand that trading between nations helps build relationships.

Trade and the desire to do so has the potential to be the biggest, most effective non-sword ever wielded by man to achieve peace and prosperity. Much better than war if you ask me.

I'll agree with you somewhat but I think if we got rid of trade and the monetary based economy and just worked simply on helping each other and trying to benefit society as a whole, that would be far superior in achieving a peaceful and prosperous world.

What monetary purposes?

When I say 'we', I don't mean just Canada, i mean humanity as a whole. The wars in the middle east are over resources.

We do? There are well over a hundred agencies in Vancouver to aid those on the streets.

They may aid some but they do not solve the problem of poverty.

We live in a world now where we don't need everyone to work in order to maintain a functioning society. With the technology and knowledge we have now we could create a world with abundance and eliminate things like poverty. Money and the economy are just walls set up in our brain stopping us from reaching our full potential.

[bush_cheney2004]

We live in a world now where we don't need everyone to work in order to maintain a functioning society. With the technology and knowledge we have now we could create a world with abundance and eliminate things like poverty. Money and the economy are just walls set up in our brain stopping us from reaching our full potential.

OK....I want to be one of the people that doesn't have to work...where do I sign up for that?

[jbg]

Hi, this is what I had heard as well but what does it mean. How does keeping the Yuan undervalued make it less expensive? How does this process work?

Because if the price of an item is 100 yuan, and the yuan is at 100 yuan = $1CDN, then the item costs $1CDN. If it's at 50 yuan = $1CDN, then the same item costs $2CDN.

[Yesterday]

Because if the price of an item is 100 yuan, and the yuan is at 100 yuan = $1CDN, then the item costs $1CDN. If it's at 50 yuan = $1CDN, then the same item costs $2CDN.

Oh my goodness, how simple is that. It's almost laughable I think. OK so right off the bat the market manipulation allegation could be obvious but what factors allowed them to value their money so low?

Thanks for the answer.

[Yesterday]

So do many politicians but my only point is that sanctions are an after the fact tool.

It is a good point. What kind of changes would need to precipitate an ability to dole out corrective measures, beyond educating of consequences, beforehand? IMO just like the writ of basic human rights that developed nations work hard to secure...there should be a global agreement of law that explains in detail the consequences of violating those human rights that uses trade sanctions as one means. A cohesive, comprehensive writ of global undertaking and understanding that would elevate the human species globally as all humans but no borders would count. I am not a person who sees global agreements of this type as a threat to sovereignty but just the opposite. I see them as a way to solidify borders by eliminating a great many a question over who can do business with who and under what terms of legality and good business practice. A very good example of an agreement....the black ball policy just signed by most of the major banks of the world. Before this agreement banks could turn a blind eye to criminal behaviour exhibited by a counterpart and now they can not. Seems simple enough perhaps but before this agreement there was no way for one bank to extract itself from credit obligations to the corrupt party and any kind of acknowledgement that threatened exposure caused massive retaliatory actions from the corrupt party. Now, the way is paved for non-consenting banks to cut dealings off instantaneously from the corrupt party with support from all other signed banks. I'll look for a link to the document. It is one of the many global settlements going. A global settlement is a where a party has allegations levied against them across many jurisdictions/levels of court/countries and instead of having court cases for each individual faction the defendant requests a global settlement to have all factions combined into one. It reduces redundancy, court time and costs and negative media. We need a global settlement for human rights.

[Yesterday]

We live in a world now where we don't need everyone to work in order to maintain a functioning society. With the technology and knowledge we have now we could create a world with abundance and eliminate things like poverty. Money and the economy are just walls set up in our brain stopping us from reaching our full potential.

The social cost of labour...can be an extensive topic. Having read the Michael Journal and his take on labour and production...the cost on the family unit and the cause in part of a shrinking populace. The understanding of the cost of over production and product surplus and waste...the hard line reality of government and corporate manipulation of cost of living and tax revenue...destruction of valuable land for the now redundant resources that lie beneath it just to fuel capitalism...mm-mm. It is hard to find ways to do sustainable business without adding fuel to this fire. However, a person can still take great pleasure in the art of business without taking part in the grind.

I am beginning to think that perhaps it is not so much the definition of currency that is in need of a re-write but more so the definition of capitalism.

Money is not evil, it is actually a good barter medium if and when used properly. It is the capitalism and its accepted definition that are wrong. IMO. I am a capitalist at heart. Not a natural employee mentality and I love to create business concepts. I do not feel threatened by the fact that what is currently considered to be capitalist in nature is really criminal in nature on so many levels. In fact, as a business minded/capitalistic natured moral person I feel inclined to do any part I can to help rewrite the capitalist landscape into a more realistic version of itself.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Yesterday

[maple_leafs182]

We load our food with preservatives, growth hormones and other chemicals because it is cheaper to do so. We are then left with eating food that isn't very or less healthy for us.

We use fossil fuels to run our economy even though we have technology to be completely green.

We are then left with pollution like in the Gulf.

We fight stupid wars over resources, casualty numbers are rising...

We don't help people who starve around the world because it is cheaper not to.

The entire social system we have set up is fucking stupid, there is no logic in anything we do.

Having a strong economy proves what? we are better then others and deserve to have a better standard of living then the others...

[Yesterday]

We load our food with preservatives, growth hormones and other chemicals because it is cheaper to do so. We are then left with eating food that isn't very or less healthy for us.

We use fossil fuels to run our economy even though we have technology to be completely green.

We are then left with pollution like in the Gulf.

We fight stupid wars over resources, casualty numbers are rising...

We don't help people who starve around the world because it is cheaper not to.

The entire social system we have set up is fucking stupid, there is no logic in anything we do.

Having a strong economy proves what? we are better then others and deserve to have a better standard of living then the others...

Not true, not generally speaking. The only time I feel as down hearted as you seem to be feeling is when I am reading about war. Then it is my emotions more than my beliefs that dictate my words and thoughts.

A lot of people do help to feed those less fortunate...wars YES are stupid and we should never stop trying to figure out better ways of resolution....the fossil fuel issue is going to be a part of our past I would say in less than 100 years...food choices are also under fire, you can always choose to buy local to avoid this crap in the meantime...I won't eat processed food to any great degree...things are on the change Maple. Not a fast track change but we are learning, as always.

It was not the strong economy that gave us our quality of life...it was our ability to adapt ourselves and our customs to that which allowed for the formation of Canada by so many different nationalities, our ability to figure out how to combine, accept or let go of customs so we could function together. Those are the lessons we should share. Our economy has prospered because we could do that (in part).

[Pliny]

I'll agree with you somewhat but I think if we got rid of trade and the monetary based economy and just worked simply on helping each other and trying to benefit society as a whole, that would be far superior in achieving a peaceful and prosperous world.

Trade is a tit for tat, mapleleafs. Helping is good but as a consistently one-way highway it is not "help"

it is dependence. If you want to make someone feel worthless then just continue to help him without him being able to help in return.

[Yesterday]

Trade is a tit for tat, mapleleafs. Helping is good but as a consistently one-way highway it is not "help"

it is dependence. If you want to make someone feel worthless then just continue to help him without him being able to help in return.

How true, and I don't think human nature would allow for such a non competitive type society. We need to produce, we need to be busy. Ultimately this had led to a major stabilization in the quality if life for many. It is our limits that we need to come to terms with in order to equalize globally. The over production and massive waste/surplus needs to be honestly addressed and the ensuing limits on financial growth that will need to accompany it are what need to be dealt with. Trade and currency itself can be a very simple and effective means of moving productivity forward comfortably if we allow it. It is the current ability to concentrate/monopolize/hedge that productivity that needs/begs for attention/limits.

[Yesterday]

This looks like a very interesting read. Thanks Pliny for the suggestion to look up 'velocity of currency'. When I finish reading it I'll post about it. Sorry I didn't get back to it sooner however I think this will be one of those times when 'it's better late than never' applies.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/13807.html

[Pliny]

How true, and I don't think human nature would allow for such a non competitive type society. We need to produce, we need to be busy. Ultimately this had led to a major stabilization in the quality if life for many. It is our limits that we need to come to terms with in order to equalize globally. The over production and massive waste/surplus needs to be honestly addressed and the ensuing limits on financial growth that will need to accompany it are what need to be dealt with. Trade and currency itself can be a very simple and effective means of moving productivity forward comfortably if we allow it. It is the current ability to concentrate/monopolize/hedge that productivity that needs/begs for attention/limits.

Charity is a good thing in correct measure. State welfare minimizes the humanitarian element of charity and reduces it to being a mere sum of money.

Everything that has a price exists in scarcity and price is simply a measure of that scarcity relative to demand. If there were no scarcity there would be no price. Production will minimize scarcity but never eliminate it because if the scarcity were eliminated then there would be no necessity to produce. Wealth could be considered abundance of production, in essence the elimination of scarcity. This can exist for an individual but scarcity must exist in a society. Scarcity modified by demand tells us what to produce and the production will determine the price. This is how the competitive market works and ensures the efficient use of resources and a proper division of labour.

In the collective society need is determined by one person or a board, so individual need, as determined by each member of society is not determined and therefore many individual needs are not fulfilled and abundance or overproduction of other things occurs. This is inefficiency, a waste of effort and resources.

[Yesterday]

Charity is a good thing in correct measure. State welfare minimizes the humanitarian element of charity and reduces it to being a mere sum of money.

IMO in a large part it is the governments half assed commitment to the means of stabilizing to any great degree the standard of living of its patrons through the use of federal/provincial spending of tax revenue that has caused this 'mere sum of money attitude'. My preference would be perhaps to see an increase in the control of the basic cost of living and tax reductions especially on income but if government spending is the way du jour then at least clean up the redundancy, abuse and the actual definition of being a welfare recipient.

Everything that has a price exists in scarcity and price is simply a measure of that scarcity relative to demand. If there were no scarcity there would be no price. Production will minimize scarcity but never eliminate it because if the scarcity were eliminated then there would be no necessity to produce. Wealth could be considered abundance of production, in essence the elimination of scarcity. This can exist for an individual but scarcity must exist in a society. Scarcity modified by demand tells us what to produce and the production will determine the price. This is how the competitive market works and ensures the efficient use of resources and a proper division of labour.

Sometimes I ponder what the division of labour would look like governed by need/usage versus scarcity. I can see what you mean by scarcity being the fuel that drives the competition of the marketplace. How can we define scarcity? In some ways I suppose this scarcity can be considered in terms of being rather benign when thinking of emerging market demand but this method also creates situations where entire countries are being controlled through their import/export in terms of the IMF or internally by themselves to manipulate market demand and financial control. Scarcity has allowed for fortuitous, un-paralleled speed in the growth of fortunes but has done little towards peaceful global growth.

In the collective society need is determined by one person or a board, so individual need, as determined by each member of society is not determined and therefore many individual needs are not fulfilled and abundance or overproduction of other things occurs. This is inefficiency, a waste of effort and resources.

It is a bit easier to see the argument about how our future could be headed down the collectivist road when viewed from this perspective.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Yesterday

[maple_leafs182]

Trade is a tit for tat, mapleleafs. Helping is good but as a consistently one-way highway it is not "help"

it is dependence. If you want to make someone feel worthless then just continue to help him without him being able to help in return.

I understand but that is not what I am advocating.

Everything that has a price exists in scarcity and price is simply a measure of that scarcity relative to demand. If there were no scarcity there would be no price. Production will minimize scarcity but never eliminate it because if the scarcity were eliminated then there would be no necessity to produce. Wealth could be considered abundance of production, in essence the elimination of scarcity. This can exist for an individual but scarcity must exist in a society. Scarcity modified by demand tells us what to produce and the production will determine the price. This is how the competitive market works and ensures the efficient use of resources and a proper division of labour.

Scarcity is the problem, it isn't a must for society. Scarcity is what leads to poverty, theft and other social problems. I understand that supply and demand is the foundation of our economy but our economy is wasteful and it lacks morals. We need to start creating cities that create abundance for the citizens so we can faze out money. We can have farms/green houses completely operated by machines, we could use technology for what it is suppose to be used for and relieve humans of redundant tasks.

[Yesterday]

Scarcity is the problem, it isn't a must for society. Scarcity is what leads to poverty, theft and other social problems. I understand that supply and demand is the foundation of our economy but our economy is wasteful and it lacks morals. We need to start creating cities that create abundance for the citizens so we can faze out money. We can have farms/green houses completely operated by machines, we could use technology for what it is suppose to be used for and relieve humans of redundant tasks.

Hi Maple, I've considered what the world would be like without money as a bartering tool. We would need something else to replace it. Human nature is what it is and idle hands don't tend to produce much of value either emotionally or practically. I would have to say for the most part we need redundant task, not redundant production though like we suffer from now. Personally, I view the advent of a lot of our current machinery as very destructive towards productivity because human ability was a good tool for curtailing over production. Machinery allows us to produce a virtually unlimited stream of stupid stuff. This unlimited stream has defined capitalism in a very unhealthy way. This ability to produce so much is what is at the heart of almost every fractionated layer of currency. Before machines, this was not much of an issue. Not like it is today.

Barter, regardless of whether we use a paper bill, a metal coin, any object of considered equal value, exchange is what we have always done to reward effort and acquire needed materials.

There is a difference in the types of scarcity. The kind of scarcity in third world and other under developed nations IMO is not a type of scarcity that opens up markets. This one does not drive economy but retards it. The amount of labour and production that would be required to bring all the underdeveloped nations up to even just close to our standard of living is enough to probably stabilize markets and give enough people a job for hundreds of years. This realization is slowly taking roots. Viewing these countries through the rose coloured glasses of external natural resource exploitation is becoming part of the past. I view some of the middle east wars as hopefully the last push for ownership of these said resources.

The scarcity that I think has been referred to regarding business is one where a new technology or other comes available and through careful marketing a desire is made for this item defining an area of scarcity which shows viable markets. Unless the product is wanted, there is no scarcity. If there is no money for the average person to buy products, as in third world and such, there is no marketable scarcity. These are 2 different situations.

The ability to create a marketable scarcity needs to go. In its place can come a real scarcity that could create enough of a market to allow us to remove redundancy without so much debt and hardship. Under developed countries could give us this...look at the size of Africa. Aside from internal conflict within African nations, there is enough people there to provide a consumer base to last into eternity.

[Pliny]

I understand but that is not what I am advocating.

You may not be advocating it but that is what you will get.

Scarcity is the problem, it isn't a must for society. Scarcity is what leads to poverty, theft and other social problems. I understand that supply and demand is the foundation of our economy but our economy is wasteful and it lacks morals. We need to start creating cities that create abundance for the citizens so we can faze out money. We can have farms/green houses completely operated by machines, we could use technology for what it is suppose to be used for and relieve humans of redundant tasks.

Redundant tasks like taking out the garbage?

This idea is nothing more than the "I don't want to work I want to do whatever I want" mentality.

We can't get away from doing redundant tasks whether you do them or you get someone else they still need to be done.

If you want to get rid of scarcity you have to work at producing. youwill soon find if you produce too much of something you think should not be scarce that it will become valueless and people will waste it.

Scarcity does not determine poverty, coupled with demand it determines production. What you want is no demand which means there will be no production which means increased scarcity.

We certainly can relieve ourselves of some redundant tasks through technology but it means we will have other redundant tasks to do like looking after maintaining new technology.

In all of this "money" serves a purpose. It gives us all a yardstick to measure things we would prefer to have now or in the future over things we don't want but others may prefer and it tells producers how much of something to produce. It is a facilitator of trade. It's importance is undervalued by the fact it is nothing more than paper or an entry on an electronic balance sheet. This is not honest money. Honest money must have other qualities than just being a record of accounts.

[maple_leafs182]

You may not be advocating it but that is what you will get.

No, I am saying we go to places like Africa or wherever there is food shortage, we take sample of the soils around and see what foods would be best grown there. We educate the people so they can be self sufficient. No dependency, just helping each other out.

Redundant tasks like taking out the garbage?

No, but we should be making products with recycling in mind so we reduce the amount of garbage we create.

This idea is nothing more than the "I don't want to work I want to do whatever I want" mentality.

No it isn't, it is a more logical approach in maintaining a sustainable society then the way we go abouts it now. As for "I want to do whatever I want", that is called freedom.

If you want to get rid of scarcity you have to work at producing. you will soon find if you produce too much of something you think should not be scarce that it will become valueless and people will waste it.

It would not become valueless, well maybe if you mean in terms of money, but you would still be left with the product, as for people wasting it, yet again education is the answer to that.

Scarcity does not determine poverty, coupled with demand it determines production. What you want is no demand which means there will be no production which means increased scarcity.

What I want is no demand...what?

We certainly can relieve ourselves of some redundant tasks through technology but it means we will have other redundant tasks to do like looking after maintaining new technology.

Eventually we can have technology that maintains technology. Fixing broken machinery is a technical job like every other job.

In all of this "money" serves a purpose. It gives us all a yardstick to measure things we would prefer to have now or in the future over things we don't want but others may prefer and it tells producers how much of something to produce. It is a facilitator of trade. It's importance is undervalued by the fact it is nothing more than paper or an entry on an electronic balance sheet. This is not honest money. Honest money must have other qualities than just being a record of accounts.

I understand why we use money and how we came to start using money. What I am saying is we will never solve poverty or any other true corruptions in society with a monetary based economy.

Our money right now isn't honest money and that is the conspiracy. Central banks can manipulate economies threw raising and lowering interest rates. America knew the dangers of these banks that is why they abolished a few central banks that were put into place prior to The Federal Reserve.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. -Thomas Jefferson

This is happening now...

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

This is the President that signed the Federal Reserve Act.

The only president who tried to put the Federal Reserve out of business was John F. Kennedy...

[Yesterday]

Well that link I posted about currency velocity wasn't what I expected but it was kind of neat just the same. I couldn't get the velocity article to open up but there were lots of others. One in particular about Islam finance and Sharia (I know I spelled it wrong)Law. I read some of it...I think I had it mistaken for something else till I read that article. I think I can understand now the talk about the US becoming little Islam at least a bit. The no usury and so on is interesting. Maybe they could teach us a thing or 2 about finance.

I settled for a wiki article last night (actually a few) about currency. So far, I am absorbing the quantity versus real bills theories. I understand the concept on how it measures the velocity by how many times a bill gets used with a formula that includes things like amount of money printed/released, amounts in bank accounts and more. The only table that graphed the velocities I found was too complicated for me to understand (not a wiki graph but one from the link I posted)...it used symbols that made it hard to understand at least without more study that's for sure.

It is really interesting. I would love to have a better understanding of this. In truth, I love statistics! To actually be able to put a figure to how many times a bill changes hands before it makes its way back to the bank paints such a picture of human life. I'm going to read more tonight....the Austrian theory is going to take a bit of a back seat to this for awhile.

Thanks again! PS I'd give it perhaps more than a week or so unless I find some less complicated versions of explanations and stats to understand the whole concept at least in a rudimentary way. Giggle...

[Pliny]

No, I am saying we go to places like Africa or wherever there is food shortage, we take sample of the soils around and see what foods would be best grown there. We educate the people so they can be self sufficient. No dependency, just helping each other out.

And would the foods that would be best grown there be the foods they want? Or are they the ones that science decides they should have?

If they don't want those foods maybe they can trade them, right?

The thing you are doing is pushing how you think they should live.

They have lived the way they have lived for centuries and if they want to change that then the opportunity should be there for them but it is they that has to demand change not you. They will not learn your ways if you force them on them. They will rebuke your imposition or simply take what is given and nothing will be returned.

I feel it is a great mistake when one assumes how another would like to live and then proceeds to force him to do so.

Certainly, we see the advantages of modern convenience and find it difficult to understand the preference of someone to live as they have always lived. Progressively, they will demand improvement to their lives but it is they who must judge what improvement is, not someone else forcing them to change their way of life to what has been determined by someone else to be an improvement. Along with improvements come different responsibilities that they may not wish to take upon themselves.

No, but we should be making products with recycling in mind so we reduce the amount of garbage we create.

I don't think you will find anyone arguing against that.

No it isn't, it is a more logical approach in maintaining a sustainable society then the way we go abouts it now. As for "I want to do whatever I want", that is called freedom.

The way we go about it now is government plans and engineers society in an ever-progressive fashion.

Actually, freedom is about working within a framework of rules that you understand and agree with. No rules or too many rules for you to comprehend are both equally anathema to freedom.

It would not become valueless, well maybe if you mean in terms of money, but you would still be left with the product, as for people wasting it, yet again education is the answer to that.

Yes, a good public education.

What I want is no demand...what?

Eventually we can have technology that maintains technology. Fixing broken machinery is a technical job like every other job.

I understand why we use money and how we came to start using money. What I am saying is we will never solve poverty or any other true corruptions in society with a monetary based economy.

Then you don't understand money.

The only president who tried to put the Federal Reserve out of business was John F. Kennedy...

How was he going to do that? I know he was planning to reinstate use of the Treasury department's printing press to print US treasury dollars but why do you suppose he was doing that? What was his plan?

[maple_leafs182]

And would the foods that would be best grown there be the foods they want? Or are they the ones that science decides they should have?

If they don't want those foods maybe they can trade them, right?

The thing you are doing is pushing how you think they should live.

They have lived the way they have lived for centuries and if they want to change that then the opportunity should be there for them but it is they that has to demand change not you. They will not learn your ways if you force them on them. They will rebuke your imposition or simply take what is given and nothing will be returned.

We make them grow cotton for corporations which destroys the soil, instead of growing food for the people. As for what they grow, I really don't care what they grow. I would assume they would grow food that is common in their area.

I feel it is a great mistake when one assumes how another would like to live and then proceeds to force him to do so.

I'm not trying to tell people how they should live, I am throwing out ideas that aren't perfect nor are they set in stone. I just don't want the suffering to go on anymore and I'm looking for solutions to solve the problems.

Certainly, we see the advantages of modern convenience and find it difficult to understand the preference of someone to live as they have always lived. Progressively, they will demand improvement to their lives but it is they who must judge what improvement is, not someone else forcing them to change their way of life to what has been determined by someone else to be an improvement. Along with improvements come different responsibilities that they may not wish to take upon themselves.

That is true, force doesn't work, all we can do is set a good example and if they like it they would emulate us. I never advocated force.

We try to shape how people live their lives now by force. We war to spread freedom and democracy and we ban people from using drugs because people find it morally wrong.

I don't think you will find anyone arguing against that.

So why don't we, because of money, it is cheaper not too. Just one of the reasons why I do not support this monetary based economy that we use.

Humans may have conquered the planet but money has conquered humans.

Then you don't understand money.

I understand money and I do understand what you are saying, I just don't like money, I think it holds us back from achieving our true potential.

How was he going to do that? I know he was planning to reinstate use of the Treasury department's printing press to print US treasury dollars but why do you suppose he was doing that? What was his plan?

He signed executive order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, which gave the treasuring the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. He issued $4 billion of this debt free, interest free money which allowed the country to conduct its business without having to go threw the private Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve creates money out of debt and charges interest on it. Debt is slavery.

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile".- William Lyon Mackenzie King, 10th prime minister of Canada.

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of America

Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.... And when you realize the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate- James Garfield, 20th President of America

There is a conspiracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....There is a conspiracy.

Don't worry....you live in Canada. We shot Lincoln, Kennedy, and Garfield to death.