maple_leafs182 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 Jesse Ventura is closer to Dennis Kucinich than Ron Paul. Ideologically? Jesse Ventura dedicated his last book to Ron Paul and on national TV he said he would run as Ron Paul's running mate if Paul chose to run as an independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) OK...then name one that "we" haven't tried, projected "sustainability", and the expected economic performance. A Resource Based Economy Edited June 19, 2011 by maple_leafs182 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 A Resource Based Economy Sorry, a resource based economy is not sustainable on a large scale and cannot demonstrate sufficient efficiencies/performance. It is also not compatible with individual liberty and intellectual property guaranteed by existing political systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 For a site that is supposed to be government orientated...there sure are a lot of libertarians here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 For a site that is supposed to be government orientated...there sure are a lot of libertarians here. Better that than a lot of commies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 So true. Most countries in the world lag far behind "fallen Britain". That's true. "Fallen" is a relative term. The Vancouver Canucks lost the cup but they'd still beat most anybody else out there. And if they didn't, their fans would do it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 And if they didn't, their fans would do it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 A Resource Based Economy I think you've posted this before. It's pretty easy to post some futuristic pictures, and description of the perfect society but from the opening paragraph, you can tell that this is just a geeky dream. Even the term 'resource based economy' shows that they don't understand what they're talking about. The main point of their economy is that there's no money - that resources are just allocated somehow, so this isn't 'resource based' If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 I do not know that. I will gladly take your valueless cash if you like. No, I am keeping what I have for now. I did not build this system, but it's the only one that we use it seems. Sure, but ... do we have 'money' then ? I am not sure if I can classify it as money. That's the system. Tax revenues don't equal expenditures and that's a problem. But it doesn't mean we're getting to zero value. Let's do another comparison to your own personal debt. Why would you keep spending going deeper into debt with no hope of paying it off? If you would not do that on a personal level, why is it acceptable on a federal level? Would you personally borrow more money even though you are already in huge debt? What do you do? Keep borrowing, or change your spending habits and tighten the belt? If it does not make sense to do it on a personal level, why is it acceptable to do it on a country level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 Sorry, a resource based economy is not sustainable on a large scale and cannot demonstrate sufficient efficiencies/performance. It is also not compatible with individual liberty and intellectual property guaranteed by existing political systems. I really don't think we need intellectual property, I think information and ideas should be free for everyone to use. I understand the need in a system that uses money like our current system, intellectual property rights creates scarcity and scarcity is profitable. I think you've posted this before. It's pretty easy to post some futuristic pictures, and description of the perfect society but from the opening paragraph, you can tell that this is just a geeky dream. Even the term 'resource based economy' shows that they don't understand what they're talking about. The main point of their economy is that there's no money - that resources are just allocated somehow, so this isn't 'resource based' There is no such thing as a perfect society and as for the name it is irrelevant. I also don't think you fully understand the concept of a resource based economy. I know there is very little chance this will get any traction any time soon. People don't understand the problems of having a system with fiat currency let alone look at the entire system as a whole and the problems it creates. Do you guys at least realize that with the current fiat system with the use of interest, there is more debt in the world then there is money to pay it off, it is physically impossible to pay off all the debt. Do you see that as a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 Let's do another comparison to your own personal debt. Why would you keep spending going deeper into debt with no hope of paying it off? If you would not do that on a personal level, why is it acceptable on a federal level? Would you personally borrow more money even though you are already in huge debt? What do you do? Keep borrowing, or change your spending habits and tighten the belt? If it does not make sense to do it on a personal level, why is it acceptable to do it on a country level? Who says that it makes sense ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 Let's do another comparison to your own personal debt. Why would you keep spending going deeper into debt with no hope of paying it off? If you would not do that on a personal level, why is it acceptable on a federal level? Would you personally borrow more money even though you are already in huge debt? What do you do? Keep borrowing, or change your spending habits and tighten the belt? If it does not make sense to do it on a personal level, why is it acceptable to do it on a country level? If I had power over 300 million people from whom I could arbitrarily collect money, and moreover was certain I could keep borrowing for many years yet from nations and institutions around the world, and also only happened to care about what would happen in the next 4-8 years, I just might also be rolling in trillions now and screw thinking about later. That's why it's "acceptable" on a country level and not on a personal level. The individual has to plan their money to last through retirement. The leaders of the country only have to plan til their term is up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 In this case, Kissinger doesn't have to, as America projects all three elements in spades. Agreed. He shouldn't have to but he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 ....Do you guys at least realize that with the current fiat system with the use of interest, there is more debt in the world then there is money to pay it off, it is physically impossible to pay off all the debt. Do you see that as a problem? No, as this is by design. There is no need to "pay off" all the debt...there is more wealth than debt. Wealth is far more than just "money". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 That's why it's "acceptable" on a country level and not on a personal level. The individual has to plan their money to last through retirement. The leaders of the country only have to plan til their term is up. So our leaders don't actually plan for our future? Just until their term is up? That seems very shortsightedness. If it's not acceptable for our own finances, it should not be acceptable on the government level. The government gets us into a debt the taxpayers are on the hook long after these people leave office. How is that fair to the hard working taxpayers in which the government wont exist if they did not exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Youll need to go back and read some of my posts. Iv slammed the fed for both for suggesting Americans take out ARMS and also for being a full two years late in raising rates and ignoring their own formula. Just because Im quick to expose your conspiracy theories, and your free market religion doesnt mean I think the government was blameless. I don't think you really want me to dredge up some of your posts regarding this. My position has always been that the housing bubble was due to government policies, specifically low interest rates, easy credit (the creation of debt) and the Community Reinvestment Act, plus certain government policies from agencies such as Fannie and Freddie to purchase risky mortgages. If I recall, your stance is that it was speculators, investors and a greedy public that drove the boom to the netherlands. Well, they are the actors but they don't act just because they are who they are. The conditions have to be set in order for them to act. Speculators and investors and Wall Street were all set to make some money. Unfortunately, those that were simply homeowners wanting a home were the ones that were hurt the most. The homeowners that those government policies, the ones that created the "moral hazard" and greased the wheels, were supposed to "help" the most. And to add insult to injury - Wall Street was bailed out and Main Street left to languish for the most part - while government loftily looked down it's nose at all the greed - they deserved punishment for their deeds. Conspiracy theories???? Free market religion??? Wow! Edited June 20, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 No, as this is by design. There is no need to "pay off" all the debt...there is more wealth than debt. Wealth is far more than just "money". There will be a lot of debt to write off so I would say it currently exceeds the amount of extant wealth. Indeed wealth is far more than just money but "money" is becoming less scarce proportionately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 So our leaders don't actually plan for our future? Just until their term is up? That seems very shortsightedness. If it's not acceptable for our own finances, it should not be acceptable on the government level. The government gets us into a debt the taxpayers are on the hook long after these people leave office. How is that fair to the hard working taxpayers in which the government wont exist if they did not exist? It isn't fair. I believe the next generation will let us know that. Hopefully, they won't be too cruel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 It isn't fair. I believe the next generation will let us know that. Hopefully, they won't be too cruel. Well we have been seeing the effects of spending too much and not having the cash to pay for it all. Bail outs for banks, but not for the homeowners (many who are now homeless) who were sold those mortgages for those homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 No, as this is by design. There is no need to "pay off" all the debt...there is more wealth than debt. Wealth is far more than just "money". I'm not talking just about public debt, private debt too. There is more debt based in dollars then there are dollars to service that debt, it is mathematically impossible for everyone to win in this system, there will always be a group of people that get the short end of the stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm not talking just about public debt, private debt too. There is more debt based in dollars then there are dollars to service that debt, it is mathematically impossible for everyone to win in this system, there will always be a group of people that get the short end of the stick. Who says "everyone" is suppose to win? What does that even mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Who says "everyone" is suppose to win? What does that even mean? Aren't we told that if we work really hard we will succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Aren't we told that if we work really hard we will succeed. No....we're told that we may succeed. Success is defined many different ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 No....we're told that we may succeed. Success is defined many different ways. Going deeper in debt is one of the ways you define success? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Going deeper in debt is one of the ways you define success? Individuals can choose whether or not they want to go into debt. As far as the collective debt, that's a problem of politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.