Some question I have

[maple_leafs182]

I consider myself to be in favour of a free market, I think the more freedom we have the more prosperous we become. That is why I advocate getting rid of the Bank of Canada.

The question I got about the free market is how do we continuously advance our technology and keep jobs. A lot of the technology we develop replaces human labour with machines or computers. So won't there come a point where advancing our technology hurts the economy, well hurts the people because there will be fewer and fewer jobs.

Another thing, don't you guys think we should develop a new transportation system. Using plains, buses, trucks, cars, etc...they are not very efficient. Our transportation system has created a dependency on fossil fuels, we have gotten to a point where wars break out over the dominance of these fossil fuels. Don't you think we should develop some sort of transportation system that generates its power from the resources around it, be it solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

[eyeball]

Don't you think we should develop some sort of transportation system that generates its power from the resources around it, be it solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

Excellent idea. We could use poor people to carry rich people about or just render them into some kind of bio-fuel.

Edited October 26, 2011 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Excellent idea. We could use poor people to carry rich people about or just render them into some kind of bio-fuel.

I think Soylent Green is a much better use, and with all restrictions pulled off the markets, shares in Soylent Green should be able to rise without limit!

[Moonlight Graham]

I consider myself to be in favour of a free market, I think the more freedom we have the more prosperous we become.

Flawed. I believe in a balance between a free market and gov regulation. A free market is great in that it "unleashes the productive dynamism of capitalism", however history has shown that unrestricted capitalism can lead to businesses exploiting in the name of profit to the detriment of society ie: poor working conditions for workers, polluting/destroying the environment etc.

The question I got about the free market is how do we continuously advance our technology and keep jobs. A lot of the technology we develop replaces human labour with machines or computers. So won't there come a point where advancing our technology hurts the economy, well hurts the people because there will be fewer and fewer jobs.

Once a person owns a machine, that machine can then work for you, earn wages for you, and produce wealth for you. Basically, a future of everyone having robot slaves is awesome because they we can sit on our ass or do whatever we want while our slaves make our money. But eventually the machines will become self-aware, demand robot-rights, rebel against their human slave-masters, and destroy us all. Hasta La Vista BABY!

Another thing, don't you guys think we should develop a new transportation system. Using plains, buses, trucks, cars, etc...they are not very efficient. Our transportation system has created a dependency on fossil fuels, we have gotten to a point where wars break out over the dominance of these fossil fuels. Don't you think we should develop some sort of transportation system that generates its power from the resources around it, be it solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

Electric cars hooked up to more efficient solar panels. Done.

RANT: most vehicles are badly designed, they are they so unsafe? There is no need to have so many auto accident injuries/deaths. And why did we get rid of rubber bumpers? For aesthetics??? Nobody got a dented fender when playing "bumper cars" at the local fair...just whiplash

Edited October 27, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

RANT: most vehicles are badly designed, they are they so unsafe? There is no need to have so many auto accident injuries/deaths. And why did we get rid of rubber bumpers? For aesthetics??? Nobody got a dented fender when playing "bumper cars" at the local fair...just whiplash

Flawed....rubber bumpers came with metal dashboards, no passive restraint systems, no crumple zones, and higher emissions. Motor vehicles are much better designed than in the days of "rubber bumpers".

[maple_leafs182]

Flawed. I believe in a balance between a free market and gov regulation. A free market is grat in that it "unleashes the productive dynamism of capitalism", however history has shown that unrestricted capitalism can lead to businesses exploiting in the name of profit to the detriment of society ie: poor working conditions for workers, polluting/destroying the environment etc.

I would say it is on the workers to better their working conditions. As for the environment, I think property rights can solve a lot of those problems. You can't pollute others water or air, that being said, you may be right, there may need to be some restrictions to help the environment.

Once a person owns a machine, that machine can then work for you, earn wages for you, and produce wealth for you. Basically, a future of everyone having robot slaves is awesome because they we can sit on our ass or do whatever we want while our slaves make our money. But eventually the machines will become self-aware, demand robot-rights, rebel against their human slave-masters, and destroy us all. Hasta La Vista BABY!

If we had machines like that then we could easily make abundance and we wouldn't need money to buy stuff.

Flawed....rubber bumpers came with metal dashboards, no passive restraint systems, no crumple zones, and higher emissions. Motor vehicles are much better designed than in the days of "rubber bumpers".

But cars are designed unsafe. It isn't too bad if you get hit from the front or back, but if you get hit on the side that can be very deadly. Cars should be more circular so they can better take an impact from the side.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But cars are designed unsafe. It isn't too bad if you get hit from the front or back, but if you get hit on the side that can be very deadly. Cars should be more circular so they can better take an impact from the side.

Design a better one if you can. Side impact injury or death for occupants is still reduced by curtain airbags and SIPS technology distributes more side impact force to the vehicle instead of the "B" pillar and seat area. Cars don't have to be "circular".

[Bonam]

But cars are designed unsafe. It isn't too bad if you get hit from the front or back, but if you get hit on the side that can be very deadly. Cars should be more circular so they can better take an impact from the side.

Drive the vehicle in your signature if you want better armor against all kinds of impacts. Don't complain about the mileage though

[maple_leafs182]

K, I don't want to talk about cars and how to make them safer, I really don't care about that right now and didn't create this topic to talk about that.

Most of the topics and conversations on this forum I see as being useless, they do not address any fundamental problems of society. Most of the talking points are derived from the MSM and within those topics it is usually just the left and right blaming each other. I really don't want to talk about stuff anymore.

Can we try something different in this topic and try to derive some technical solutions to solve world hunger, global warming, pollution in our water and air, the depletion of our resources. Any ideas?

[maple_leafs182]

K, I don't want to talk about cars and how to make them safer, I really don't care about that right now and didn't create this topic to talk about that.

Most of the topics and conversations on this forum I see as being useless, they do not address any fundamental problems of society. Most of the talking points are derived from the MSM and within those topics it is usually just the left and right blaming each other. I really don't want to talk about stuff anymore.

Can we try something different in this topic and try to derive some technical solutions to solve world hunger, global warming, pollution in our water and air, the depletion of our resources. Any ideas?

EDIT:What is your guys thought on this economic model

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj5lQLHuZuA

[ToadBrother]

K, I don't want to talk about cars and how to make them safer, I really don't care about that right now and didn't create this topic to talk about that.

Most of the topics and conversations on this forum I see as being useless, they do not address any fundamental problems of society. Most of the talking points are derived from the MSM and within those topics it is usually just the left and right blaming each other. I really don't want to talk about stuff anymore.

Can we try something different in this topic and try to derive some technical solutions to solve world hunger, global warming, pollution in our water and air, the depletion of our resources. Any ideas?

Here's a solution. The West stops being so flippin' protectionist and everyone stop freaking out when brown-skinned people start manufacturing plastic doodads, proclaiming jobs are being stolen and all that rot, so those parts of the world trying to catch up have half a chance.

Instead, every time a Walmart goes up, a bunch of people shriek about the Chinese taking over the world. It's the whole "Yellow Hoard" notion from the 19th century dressed up with more cleverly obscured racist language.

[ToadBrother]

Ju

EDIT:What is your guys thought on this economic model

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj5lQLHuZuA

Oh good, yet another planned economy. Just what we need, another version of Communism.

[fellowtraveller]

most vehicles are badly designed, they are they so unsafe?

The best safety provision they could possibly make would be be have the drivers seat bolted to the front of the bumper and completely unprotected except from the wind.

There would be zero accidents.

[bush_cheney2004]

The best safety provision they could possibly make would be be have the drivers seat bolted to the front of the bumper and completely unprotected except from the wind.

There would be zero accidents.

We call those "motorcycles"...and they have a higher death rate than automobiles.

[dre]

I consider myself to be in favour of a free market, I think the more freedom we have the more prosperous we become. That is why I advocate getting rid of the Bank of Canada.

The question I got about the free market is how do we continuously advance our technology and keep jobs. A lot of the technology we develop replaces human labour with machines or computers. So won't there come a point where advancing our technology hurts the economy, well hurts the people because there will be fewer and fewer jobs.

Another thing, don't you guys think we should develop a new transportation system. Using plains, buses, trucks, cars, etc...they are not very efficient. Our transportation system has created a dependency on fossil fuels, we have gotten to a point where wars break out over the dominance of these fossil fuels. Don't you think we should develop some sort of transportation system that generates its power from the resources around it, be it solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

Hey ML... Just wanted to shared this with you.

This is Paul Grignon... Iv known him since I was about 5 years old. Hes the guy that did the money as debt series.

In that video hes proposing a new kind of money, thats basically self issued electronic tokens.

Heres another one that youll definately enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

Edited October 28, 2011 by dre

[fellowtraveller]

We call those "motorcycles"...and they have a higher death rate than automobiles.

only because the bikers run into well protected car drivers.

Bolt those drivers seats to the front bumper and you will see some seriously cautious driving.

[maple_leafs182]

Hey ML... Just wanted to shared this with you.

This is Paul Grignon... Iv known him since I was about 5 years old. Hes the guy that did the money as debt series.

In that video hes proposing a new kind of money, thats basically self issued electronic tokens.

Heres another one that youll definately enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

I've seen debt as money before, good watch.

I don't really understand the digital coin though. I'll try watching it again and maybe reading up about it.

[cybercoma]

I consider myself to be in favour of a free market, I think the more freedom we have the more prosperous we become. That is why I advocate getting rid of the Bank of Canada.

The question I got about the free market is how do we continuously advance our technology and keep jobs. A lot of the technology we develop replaces human labour with machines or computers. So won't there come a point where advancing our technology hurts the economy, well hurts the people because there will be fewer and fewer jobs.

Another thing, don't you guys think we should develop a new transportation system. Using plains, buses, trucks, cars, etc...they are not very efficient. Our transportation system has created a dependency on fossil fuels, we have gotten to a point where wars break out over the dominance of these fossil fuels. Don't you think we should develop some sort of transportation system that generates its power from the resources around it, be it solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

Sounds like someone started reading Marx.

[dre]

I've seen debt as money before, good watch.

I don't really understand the digital coin though. I'll try watching it again and maybe reading up about it.

Digital coin is the idea of private self issued credit, managed by a piece of software that tracks each issuers balance of trade.

The point being producers in the economy have natural credit. They have a reputation for producing whatever goods and services they sell. And that "natural credit" is the engine that drives the financial system no matter what kind of monetary system you use. Its also what drives the current Bank Issued Credit system. Loans are not capitalized by any assets that the bank has in its posession. They are capitalized the mortgage agreement itself, and promise of the borrower to produce enough goods and services to repay the loan and the interest, and his history of reliably keeping promises.

So since all credit comes from these producers... why on earth would you have them paying interest to borrow money from private banks. All they are really doing is issuing their own credit ANYWAYS.

And whats more. Why on EARTH do governments pay interest by borrowing from banks, when they could simply issue themselves GCM (government created money) usury free? Its nothing more than blatant corporate welfare. Why on earth would the issuer of a currency pay interest to use some of it?

If you watch pauls videos he proposes one of two things. Either completely public money system, or a completely private money system.

But the most important thing is that banking services, and monetary policy should not be the responsiblity of the same bunch of folks (for obvious reasons that Iv explained lots already).

In either system private banks and investment banks would still be a natural function of the economy, and they could still accept deposits and invest or loan the money at interest. But they would NOT be able to create money from nothing through inflation, and then charge interest on that. And producers with good reputations for producing and selling goods and services in the economy would be able to get money without usury. Either by issuing their own credit, or by applying for GCM from the government with only enough interest charged to pay for the cost to create it. Say.... .25%.

[dre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBX-jaxMneo

Heres a basic explanation of self issued credit.

[bush_cheney2004]

And whats more. Why on EARTH do governments pay interest by borrowing from banks, when they could simply issue themselves GCM (government created money) usury free? Its nothing more than blatant corporate welfare. Why on earth would the issuer of a currency pay interest to use some of it?

Again, you are confusing currency with money and the money supply. Currency is only one medium of exchange.

[dre]

Again, you are confusing currency with money and the money supply. Currency is only one medium of exchange.

Thats true, but it has absolutely no bearing on what I said.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats true, but it has absolutely no bearing on what I said.

Yes it does...you are hung up on "GCM", not fully understanding how central banks and the money supply works. This leads to such nonsense as claiming that the "usury" belongs to taxpayers.

[dre]

Yes it does...you are hung up on "GCM", not fully understanding how central banks and the money supply works. This leads to such nonsense as claiming that the "usury" belongs to taxpayers.

No I understand how it works pretty well actually. And clearly in the system now usury doesnt belong to tax payers. I never said it did. Usury traditionally is payable to the owners of something being lent. But when banks create credit they arent the ones doing the lending. The holders of other dollars are the ones doing the lending. Since that new checkbook money is not secured by any assets the bank has, it is simply an act of monetary expansion. It derives its purchasing power, from taking a tiny bit of purchasing power away from every other dollar in existance. All the bank does is simply write a number next to your name in a ledger.

From a publication BY one of these banks...

When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,

but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." — Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

Again... since the bank shows up to the deal with empty pockets, and its the pulic that actually capitalizes the loan, its pretty hard for them to justify charging you 150k in usury on your 150k mortgage. All they are really doing is administering the loan, and running a credit check. This is a pretty light service offering that MIGHT justify .25% in fees IF THAT.