Actually, I do think that "government" has performed some amazing things. Unfortunately, they:
#1 - Have a lot of cash (and can print more) so they can afford some of the best minds. #2 - They have enough top secret regulations that we'll never know what the best innovations are #3 - Have a lot of power in censoring, so I'd never trust using their services.
That's all we need -- Google buys Paypal, IRS buys Google. Lovely.
I've been working with some peers (true friends, not just network peers) in spreading my personal hard drive across what I would consider a Wide Area RAID (WAR).
I have a huge pipe right now (soon to be about a 12Mbps pipe in beta). Some of my friends have Comcast's 6Mbps (download) pipes. We're all XPMCE and MythTV heads, so we have literally terabyes of audio and video files. My wife has 2 60GB iPods maxed @ 96kbps.
Why isn't there a better way to use torrent or somet other protocol and set up a WAR? I don't need to back up 99% of my data -- the stuff that I do need to back up I just drop onto a few other hard drives I have access to.
I believe a company Google will be the company to provide a service like this. I'd rather see the ability for millions of users to offer a % of their hard drive to share with the world -- anonymously of course. There has to be a reasonable way to send your files out to millinos of users (in packets) and still have the ability to recreate the files if needed. On my hard drives at one of my offices, we have about 60 drives of 60 gigs a piece, and I bet we're only using about 1.2TB of the total. The rest is wasted. I'd love to offer this space freely (for myself and for others) to be used.
Will Google do it? They're sort of there now with gmail. If they can find a way to tap into the mass storage that is out there (safely), and offer it to be shared and mirrored and copied in a redundantly safe manner, we could get rid of backups entirely.
I don't have the solution, but the idea seems solid.
If you ever follow through with this, I'd be very interested to get at your final numbers. tarnar (at) gmail (dot) com
Noted! I sent my feelers out already, I have a few researchers in Canada who have performed some great hunts for me.
So why are so many big oil companies denying that the crunch is coming? Around here, the big guys are split almost evenly. To me, that's even more worrying than if they were all behind the supply crunch theories.
If there is going to be a crunch, the laws of supply and demand will destroy any government's ability to regulate. When Nixon set gas prices, supply and demand taught him a VERY quick lesson. When Katrina hit and state governments prevented temporary price hikes, supply and demand taught them a very quick lesson, too. If there is going to be a huge decrease in fuel and the demand can't drop with supply, we should be expecting huge increases right now as those "in the know" would be "secretly" hording oil in large quantities.
You've implied that your neighbours wouldn't be prepared for this, so they'll come knocking soon.
This is completely correct, which is why I am investing 2006's income into efficient solar and wind generators. The property I bought (a very large parcel of land, with a pond and nearby access to a decent sized river) was cheap -- dirt cheap. It's really more of a vacation property, but it is also a SHTF insurance program!
Too bad there isn't enough platinum in the world for every home to be done up in a similar fashion.
I was very surprised with what I saw in Montana. I did some research on some real nutcase survivalists a few years ago, and I met with 3 different communities that generated quite a bit of electricity for the entire community using renewable resources. Solar is just one. Wind is another. The best solution? Incredibly efficient appliances. Do I think we'll end up there? No, never. I don't believe society will ever fall apart this way. Instead, we'll just end up with no imports (if the dollar is worthless) and have to re-order the economy locally. Everything we need can be provided for in the US, including energy stores. 10 years of "poverty" for us is like 10 years of "wealth" for most of the rest of the world.
Raw survival, to me, is a plainly selfish and short-sighted outlook. Society needs to go on. Shouldn't we at least try to keep society running? Or would you rather it fail so that people stop spending $10-$15 per transit ride? There are people out there that can identify problems and will do everything in their power to avoid fixing them, just so they can act all smug when the feces hit the rotating metal blades.
Actually, I want to see the lazy die. I want to see the hard working prosper. That's it. Most of the lazy (to me) take government jobs or end up on permanent welfare. I have no problem when someone comes to me asking for money -- I have numerous jobs I can offer them in exchange for cash. I've helped a few people go from welfare-to-work in real consideration of their needs. I won't help keep people on drugs or on my cash though.
If the SHTF, my neighbors are fairly hard working. In my entire community (60 homes), over 90% of the people here are either self employed or self-sufficient retirees. The other 10% (about 7-8 homes actually) work a good job. I sold all my homes and condos and bought trailers -- I'll be buying the trailer park in a few years with my neighbors. About 1/3rd of the neighborhood has a net value of under US$1 million. I publish a newsletter called Mobile Home Millionaire, and you'd be surprised at how many of us are living in 3000 square foot homes:) (For reference sake, I live less than 10 minutes away from one of the top income communities in the state of Illinois, and I only live in a mobile home as it hasn't been affected by the housing bubble that I cashed out of).
What would you prefer your taxes go towards, if I may open that can of worms? I'd r
Say naturally occurring drough or climate change caused major decreases in food production in the Western US -- how would a gold standard prevent inflation, when production drops while currency remains constant?
I don't necessarily want to see ANY mandated currency standard. I believe we can allow currency to be a free market product (as Rothbard says here). Some banks will hold 100% reserves in gold, others will hold 100% reserves in oil or oxen or prostitute farms. Who knows what will win out (I bet it's gold).
Money is not a fictional product of myth and mandates. Money is merely a storage of your past labor to be used for someone else's future labor. It is a very basic idea. Rothbard's (free) book that I linked to really does a great job cutting out the theories of money that Keynes and Marx and other windbags created. Before shooting the lawyers and the accountants, the economists should go first;)
Back to your question -- it wouldn't prevent inflation. A gold standard would allow inflation as it should be allowed -- if a product drops in production, inflation should happen temporarily to allow people to put their assets in finding new ways to create that product and overcome the temporary shortage. Today's fiat inflationary currency causes people to invest in stupid investments -- housing and stock market bubbles. Their currency is worthless and continues to devalue, so they rush en masse to whatever is returning money today at the highest value -- which causes those items to jump up in value again. This is due to easy credit and low interests rates caused by easy money.
And how would a gold standard keep that inflation from further reducing production? It's a downward spiral that would eventually result in revolution, IMO.
I'm not sure I agree. With a fairly fixed currency base (sure, gold rushes can temporarily adjust prices but not as bad as fiat currency rushes), we can better set where we put our money for stability and growth. By stabilizing the currency base we give investors a reason to rethink if they want to invest. Free market interest rates (and savings returns) would not be 1-3%. 9-12% is more realistic and who knows what would happen. Plus we wouldn't lose money to the elite by funding wars through inflationary mechanisms, and taxation would be "more fair" as there wouldn't be the hidden tax of inflation.
It is complex because of government's fiat currency, IMHO.
What need do you then forsee for groups like congress and so forth?
From 1800 to 1840, I believe Congress had some need in performing their duties -- maybe a 4 week a year job though. From 1840 - 1920, I believe Congress was overreaching indeed, and from 1920 to 1990 I believe Congress proved it is not trustworthy of the powers we granted them.
From 1990 to the present I believe Congress and representational government is useless as we have the Internet. In an unanimocracy, how can you pollute or fix the vote? All it takes is one person saying they voted no, and the law isn't passed.
I like that idea alot... I must ponder that for awhile.
Me too:) I just came up with in a few months ago, and will have a dedicated group of people debating it if you'd like to join, drop me an e-mail.
never called anarchy 'take what you want', I said that some people would use anarchy as their excuse to take what they want. When the blackout hit the eastern seaboard / southern Ontario, what followed could be called 'anarchy'. A lot of societal structures fell apart for a few hours.
Sorry if I said something negative either way.
Now, this isn't much of an argument against my original point, as most people involved didn't feel much desperation. The lights were out, but they were likely to come back on. It wasn't winter, it wasn't cold. Now, if we entered some of the 'doomsday' scenarios that energy depletion leads to, we would see heavy inflation on basic foodstuffs, followed by shortages. That would probably create a different mentality than the lights going out for a day.
Which is part of my problem with government giving people the idea that they have a "right" to certain things. I appreciate my water supply, but I also live where I can pump water from a well (and I also own a large plot of land far from many neighbors which also has a large supply of water beneath). I own 2 generators, and have been looking at investing in a simple solar system just to run the basics (hot water and some electricity). My next home will definitely have some system to pump heat out of the ground (ambient heating/cooling). The last time I had a power outage, my generator kicked in and I was fine -- my neighbors were not. They were made at the electric company.
I don't doubt this. Government welfare works best for the people who don't want to be on it, the people who will do anything to get off it and support themselves again. However, that's an entirely different conversation.
This weekend I spent a part of Saturday helping truly needy people at an open call for help at my church. I personally worked with 5 different families who were truly in trouble. I offered them some advice, food, clothing and told them if they stayed on top of the advice I was giving them, I'd help them financially. Of the 5 families, one is an abuser who will likely perish (and should if they don't want to be responsible), and 4 I believe will work out of the hole they put themselves in. My money at my church does more than the money that is stolen from me in taxes. No welfare-by-force works.
I said that the oil companies themselves are starting to talk about supply crunches. You are eager to put words in my mouth just so you can dismiss me.
I trust publicly-mandated cartels less than publicly-funded scientists. Of course oil companies are calling out shortages -- they're manipulators just like anyone else. As long as I see the prices low, I don't see any reason for concern. If oil disappeared tomorrow, I have more than enough safety mechanisms in place (instead of a big house, a Ferarri and expensive junk) that I should be able to live fairly stable for a decade, even without food and water provisions. That's a big "should" but I feel pretty comfortable.
Finally, public transportation? Works around here. The City of Calgary listed ~$95M on Transit in 2004 in the Expenditures section of the budget.
Thanks for that info. I'll do some research on it in upcoming months. In the 5 public transportation departments I've studied (4 in the US and one in Europe) all were about US$10-US$15 per ride. I included gas taxes that subsidised them, as well as hidden taxes and fees that went to paying for them. Calgary is an unknown to me, but I would not doubt that you pay much more than what you're seeing. Give me some time, follow up in a few months.
That we shouldn't have environmental regulations on refineries? Or that taxes are too high on gas?
I'm arguing that the regulations we have do not help the environment one bit -- they help the cronies that run the refineries. If people want cleaner fuel, they'll request it in a competitive market. If they don't want cleaner fuel, why should you force them to buy it? Who is to say that car manufacturers aren't listening and that they find that cleaner exhaust actually can be profitable? We just don't know, it is too young of a market, and there are too many regulations preventing other competitive companies from entering the market.
Want to understand economics? I'll save you 4 years of college, a ton of headaches, and introduce you to completely understanding money and the markets in one evening:
Click on the link to Rothbard's book. It is free (e-book and HTML) and it completely takes away the confusion of what money and a market is.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Actually, I've come up with a really good solution for government. I call it a unanimocracy.
There are three rules in Dada's Unanimocracy:
1. No law can exist with a unanimous vote of the populace -- direct democracy in ultimate form. 2. All laws sunset after 6 years. 3. No future laws can change any of the 3 basic rules.
The unanimocracy will likely produce 7 different levels of government: Federal, Regional, State, County, Village, Community, Household.
If 300,000,000 voters can't pass a law unanimously at the Federal level (let's say minimum wage), then they can try at the Regional level (3-4 states maybe). If those 40,000,000 can't pass a minimum wage law, they can try it at the State level. If those 10,000,000 can't pass the law unanimously, they can try it at the County level, and so on and so on.
Some laws may only exist at the Household level. Some might be only at the County level -- and counties will compete for similar-believing citizens.
Most laws will never pass at the Federal level. You might have "No murder" laws at the Federal level, but you sure won't have "No using drugs" or "No prostituting" laws at even the State level. If a law DOES pass, in 6 years it fails and must be repassed by the new voting bloc.
Who knows what will happen. Which billions will die?
Will the strongest survive -- will we build glass-covered societies with the cleanest air we've ever had, the cleanest water we've ever consumed, and end the fear of UV radiation and global warming? Who knows.
I do know that capitalists (meaning voluntary cooperation with mutual profit for both sides) will work forever to make their lives better. The lazy may die -- that's fine with me, the lazy are the same ones leeching off of my hard work now.
If someone comes to me starving, I will offer them two things: eat, and help me grow back what you ate and then so, or starve. Some will take me on up eating and forming a community, some will try to kill me, and some will die. That's fine, that's life.
Starving people banding together to rape and pillage? Not in this culture and not in this day. When humans were animals, they performed these things. I don't see it happening as there is a higher signal:noise ratio of intelligence:animals than ever before.
That's very prescient of you. Gold is a better standard, I agree.
I published a print newsletter for years, and I had to give it up as I was actually losing money on it once gold became popular again. I wish I saved all my issues to stick online on my blog!
I personally don't want any currency standards. I'd like to return to banks printing their own currency to compete with one another. Will gold end up winning? I'm sure it will.
would say that's definitely a big part of it. Not sure I agree with the part about the Euro, though; and you know the US will fight like hell to retain a fiat currency of some sort.
The Euro's biggest problem is that they lack a common inflation standard. Eventually it will inflate itself so quickly that it will be worthless. I honestly foresee the Euro dead in 5 years and the EU dead in 10. It might be double both, but I believe I am closer to being right than almost any analyst.
We'll always have a fiat currency in the US, you're right. I believe we'll see a "gold holding" tax in 2-4 years: people with gold will have to pay a tax on how much they hold -- sort of like a property tax. Also, I believe we might see a remonetization of gold in the US (but not 100% reserves) in order to give the investors a feeling of safety. What will probably happen is we'll buy more gold than anyone, and just lease it all out to the central banks of the world. Fake gold standard.
I blog about manipulations of all parties (including my own manipulation by telling people to buy gold). I can't lie, I want gold bought. I don't want it bought in paper form by investors, though. I don't "invest" in gold, I save my labor for another day in gold. You'll be interested in my graphs -- I'm correlating gold's weekly value in things like eggs, milk, cigarettes, gas, and other consumer goods. The graphs just started 10 days ago, but in a few months we'll see some really interesting corellations.
Take people with the same energy as those who work for the DMV, and put them up against people with the same energy as those who work for your average car dealer.
Train both sets of people to become software developers.
Let's bet on the outcome. Public programmers are shams just like public workers in any public office. Cronying at best, lazy worthless animals at worst.
How Europeans continually think that they can compete by removing competition and giving it to government is beyond me.
I agree with your definition of my definition of war:)
I don't look at "war" between two parties as anything other than accepting that it is the populace of those supporting the parties in warmongering as being complicit in the warmongering.
If your government is fighting a war and you're not speaking out against war, you're part of it.
If someone comes to your land and forces you to go fight for them, you must stake your life on defending your right to say no. If a warlord comes to my land and threatens to kill me if I don't support them killing others, I will be the first one to first my weapon and stake my life on the outcome.
The world has changed more than every in the past 10 years. People in countries that never heard of freedom are now learning about it. We must continue the good fight to getting the word out that government is evil -- the bigger it is the more evil it is. There is no positive use of force against an other, and only government can use force "legally."
Anarchocapitalists believe in three things: no force, free markets and open source currencies (gold for me). Government takes all these away.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I still learn every day from slashdot. I give the highest self-moderation to those who are listed as my foes, as they teach me the shortcomings of my beliefs and help me rejudge what I have previously accepted as fact.
Would you say that a country as large as the US should be split into smaller countries that could be maintained and protected better?
It used to be. I am a big fan of the Articles of Confederation, and I was a fan of the Constitution. Having 51 seperate States that are all self-sufficient is a great goal to return to. The idea of a central government was merely to do 3 things: Keep the States from hurting the People, defend against real intruders, and help facilitate trade with other countries. Now our central government is a tyrannical authoritarian imperialistic machine.
Do you think that government has a right to own the land in it's territory or does it belong to the people of that country?
Never. If we have a government, it should pay rent to property owners. The best way to "control" immigration is to end public welfare roles, reinforce the communities by downsizing the Federal and State government powers, and return property to private owners. If property is completely private, immigrants can only come if they're prepared to work and purchase their own land. Public property and welfare doles is what makes immigration bad today. If we could attract the most hard working immigrants, we could become the most prosperous nation again.
You accept a patently ridiculous story with objectively much less probability of being true than what this guy is positing (at least in terms of the prediction, I'm not to familiar with the underlying Gaia framework), so think twice before you call him out--it kind of sounds silly.
Social security is silly. Christianity is silly. Fine. In one of the two, you force me to accept your beliefs. In the other, I don't force you to accept anything. That's the end of that debate. You force me, I don't force you. Who is more correct in their beliefs?
If you applied it to the current system without redistributing wealth, it would be catastrophic and unfair.
Let's try it on a very small level. Let's allow one state to seceed and back out of the systems. No one wants it because they're afraid they'll actually have to work and be responsible for themselves. Is Somalia as bad as we read in some newspaper? I have 2 friends living there now creating more real wealth than they did when they lived in Israel or in Greece. It isn't as bad as the media reports. Anarcho-capitalism is not a myth, it merely means "no government / volutary cooperation with mutual profit." Are there places that require the use of force? Possibly -- but the only way I'll accept a monopoly on force is after I see how things go with everything else.
But with the former you would be pushing a Social Darwinist ideal, which seems at odds with your Christianity.
Actually, I blog about how I believe the Bible requires followers of Christ to give up support of governments and kings. I do believe that God gave us incredible abilities as humans, the only reason we see suffering is that we put our faith in other men -- government.
That means that "you cannot serve God and wealth" and therefore should give away all your worldly possessions.
Not true. The love of money is evil, but money is not evil. Money is merely a store of wealth -- the ability to save past labor you've performed in order to trade that past labor for someone's future labor. Read Rothbard's (FREE) ebook: http://www.mises.org/money.asp for more information on what money is and what it isn't. Gold is the ultimate store of wealth -- I work (per God's word), I store my word in gold, and I redeem my gold in exchange for someone else's labor.
Profit is not ever only good for one party. All transactions are mutually beneficial at the time of the exchange. You exchange money you don't need for a product/service you do need. The other party accepts this money to use for a product/service they'll need in the future. This is mutual profiting for both parties (capitalism).
It takes close to a decade now for our population to double: trouble indeed.
Ridiculous! A population doubling is a Godsend! Think of it: twice as many brilliant inventors to come up with new ways to feed and organize the world. Twice as many people available to clean the air, clean the salty oceans, farm the deserts and build products to feed and clothe others. More people = more wealth = more happiness. Or do you think that doubling the population means doubling the poor? I don't see that happening.
Given a worldwide economic collapse, it's not so hard to imagine the people with oil and guns forming cartels and dominating everyone else, perhaps depending upon a massive migrant worker or slave population to stay on top.
Maybe 100 or 1000 years ago, yes. But now that we can communicate instantly with anyone else all over the world, I don't see this happening. The new warlords are the cartel mercantilists who find that a happy population is a profitable one. Engines of war and domination are on the verge of disappearing -- Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Kennedy needs war to keep the cartel mercantilists in control, but the people are feeling less and less desiring to fight others. Terrorism is the last enemy, and once people see it doesn't really exist, war w
Actually, I believe returning to a gold standard IS often on topic. So many problems we face today (war, empire expansion, taxation, regulations and licensing) can be solvd by keeping government away from fiat currency control -- ie a gold standard.
How do you define price in your calculations?
That's a great question -- I've been keeping some spreadsheets of my research that I will publish (freely) in a year or two. I'm just waiting for some currencies to collapse:)
I find that the best way to value oil prices is by investigating what the use of that oil produced. Since oil is a recent development, it is hard to properly judge before about 1880. Nonetheless, I see the outcome of oil-use increasing while the price is relatively stable (if not going down in relationship to the world currency inflation).
Oil production is by far the least consistent to supply/demand issues because the subsidies (and warmonger) used to control oil are outrageously impossible to decipher. I spend almost 10 hours a week researching oil subsidies throughout "time" and can't stop finding new ways that cartel mercantilists controlled supply (or demand). Even 30 years ago with Nixon's oil/gold/money manipulations I still can't get through all the laws and constantly changing manipulations of the world cartels.
I can drive farther today than I could 5 years ago. I can fly farther today than I could 5 years ago. How much of this is subsidized and how much of it is free market provisions? Only time will tell -- we can only look back to get through all the mess. My research (up until about 1985) shows me that we're moving into a cheaper world, not a more expensive one. This leads me to believe that the cartels in control have better knowledge of the situation than the so called experts.
I prefer the capitalism outcome of slow deflation. As more people come into the world, more products can be made more efficiently -- prices drop. If we stick to a hard currency rather than a fiat one, we'll be competiting for a fixed money base -- again causing prices to drop as more people enter the markets.
Governments started to inflate the currency to fight this slow deflation over time -- by providing just enough new money to keep prices consistent. Yet once they find the power of printing more money, you see the problems that arise out of offering the power over fiat currency.
From 1800 to 1913, $1 was $1 (except when Lincoln removed us from the gold standard). From 1913 to 2005, $1 became $0.05.
Inflation is always bad for the common man. It destroys savings, and savings is the best way to grow an economy.
The world filled with oil huh? I'll have to run that buy a few of my geobuddies. Some good laughs for sure.
As I said, a good friend of mine has told me (on the side, off the record) for years that the geobuddies just don't know. Down to the core? Why do they keep changing their theories so significantly?
Should all land be owned by people or does land have a value without ownership?
I believe in completel private ownership of land, but not in the way that cartel mercantilists do. I believe that you own your land by combining your labor with it, and having the ability to personally defend it. The idea of one person owning thousands of acres of land is ludicrous to me. Anarchocapitalists are split on this issue (one of a few that we're split on). I have no problem with people contracting together to share a larger parcel of land, though, but I do have a problem with on person saying they own more than they can directly maintain. If you come onto land that is not maintained and being used productively, I believe you have a right to take over that land. If it is productively used and maintained, I think you should have no right to it. To say that one person can productively maintain entire regions is not realistic.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Democracy to me does not mean freedom -- democracy means insanity of the masses to agree to perform a basic action against the will of another mass or individual.
When soldiers go to war and the citizens of the same nation of those soldiers accept it, to me this is demoracy is action. I don't believe democracy must vote using the ballot box -- allowing catastrophes to happen without speaking out against them is no different.
Hitler, Stalin, Caeser, all of them had people who didn't care. Just the same as in the US when only a small percentage votes and the rest go along, we call it democracy. The same is true of fascism and any expansion of empire where the people go along with it because they feel they'll be better off than speaking out against it.
Voting comes with more than ballots -- spending your money is a form of a vote. Doing nothing when someone is killing others in your name is also a form of a vote.
You won't be able to do that much longer. The Fed will start hiding the M3 data on money near the end of March, coincidentally when the Iranian Oil Bourse is supposed to materialize.
I was one of the first people to write about the M3 figure (on my gold blog and in my printed gold newsletter). I've been living on a gold standard for 18 months and forecasted the M3 being dropped almost 2 years ago.
I believe we fought the two Iraq wars to keep the USD as the standard oil currency, and I believe the the Euro will come and go in less than 5 years. I can only hope that Malaysia and UAE's upcoming gold trade standards will support a switch to hard currency.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I not so sure about that -- Diamond says that government is a facet of society, and governmental collapse is a symptom of pending or occurring societal collapse. Government can also contribute to societal collapse, as it's actions or lack thereof directly affect the actions of the people in a society
In Bill Bonner's recent book (Empire of Debt), he makes some amazes connections between failed empires and inflation/expansion. Society collapsed when government takes advantage of those in society -- overregulates, overtaxes, and overinflates the currency base. I agree with Bonner.
This is exactly the problem. Can't see the forest for the trees -- everyone doing what is in their immediate best interests (an honest day's pay) can result in dire consequences in the long run for the entire society.
No, that's not true. Everyone does what is in their best interest every time they make a decision. This means we're constnatly re-evaluating what "best interest" is. People think that this means they'll always do what they've always done. Government tries to keep the status quo by subsidizing industries to keep the afloat -- costing everyone else hard earned money and time. We, as humans, are able to constantly modify our lives in order to grow. This means we all can grow together. If oil starts "peaking" then we, as humans, still strive to innovate and find news ways to make energy. If the environment starts to get dirty and unliveable, we'll innovate and find new ways to live, even if it means living in huge glass enclosed societies. We're constantly changing our lives to better them -- and if that means we make it worse for the next generation, they'll find ways to innovate and survive and grow wealthier and happier.
We need to wisely pick and choose what policies, restrictions, etc, we enact for ourselves, or else we'll burn out our resources and cause our own collapse. And how else do we enforce those policies except through government?
We only need to think of ourselves -- that is how we make life better for us. The next generation does the same. There is no way we can destroy society or the environment so badly that no one can survive. I like to read old magazines (especially science topics) and newspapers and people have been forecasting doomsday for generations. It never happens, and things actually get better. Read the doomsday theories of when your parents were young -- not only did they not come to be, but our "doomed" generation made things better. This is always how it will be. Focus on making your life better.
Also, historical models cannot be extrapolated to the future with certainty -- just because we've not yet hit the limit of sustainable resource use doesn't mean that no limit exists -- especially as our actions often decrease the supply of available resources.
Society has become happier, healthier and wealthier for 6000 years. The failed societies tended to be the most tyrannical or the most focused on empire and spreading their genes. Simon didn't ignore these, necessarily. He looked at how humans not only survived the worst, but became stronger because of the worst. Who knows what will happen. Will we live in glass-covered societies in 100 years and wonder how we ever lived through the 1900s with unfiltered air, dangerous UV radiation and climate changes every 3 months? You don't know, but I know that things will always get better -- always.
Which brings me back to my first point -- government is part of society.
I can name nothing that government does that is a net good. Everything I see government doing helps a few (cartel cronies) at the expense of the many. My society is my family, my friends, my customers, and my suppliers. That's all I care about.
Doh, good point. Forgot about gaming. Thanks for that, that actually makes a lot more sense now:)
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
People living on ocean cruisers? What do they eat? Food from the oceans? Fish depletion results.
Or who knows where. As we get more populated on this earth, people in every country are eating better. Look at Eritrea. Look at UAE. Look at the Phillipines. More people but with more food? How? Capitalism.
And as far as deserts-come-greenspace, tell me what happens when your irrigation dries up. Fresh water is going to become more and more valuable in this economy. Damming rivers for irrigation will take water away from those downstream. Industry in one nation can corrupt the water flowing into another. This will happen at the nation level and within nations as well.
And we're finding more and more ways to harness the sun to create more fresh water. If there is a need, and there is a profit, there is a solution.
The geophysicists in the oilfield. I work in that particular industry. I live in Calgary (Oil Capital of Canada). Most of the industry here is talking about Peak Oil.
Really? One of my best friends (for almost 20 years) is a geophysicist and a professor of geophysicists. He admits that his industry is wrong more than it is right about what goes on beneath the crust more than a few miles. They have no idea what is happening, and their theories are constantly redone to account for new "wonders" that are discovered. Forgive me if I say this in a mean way: scientists are becoming state-funded liars. Give them a chance to earn some taxpayer-funded grants, and they'll say whatever is needed to scare the populace (see: You) into paying them more to discover if they're wrong.
Two words for you: New Orleans. Dismantle our societal structures and you will find some people who will work together to rebuild. You will find others that will play the anarchy to take what they want.
Anarchy is not "take what you want" that is chaotic nihilism. Anarchy just means no government. New Orleans is no example. I traveled to NO at least 3-4 times a year to eat, and the majority of the people I saw down there are there for handouts and to live on the taxpayer. I have no desire to help anyone who can't help themselves, and I will never give a dollar to anyone who lives to receive handouts. New Orleans will be rebuilt as the biggest government welfare program in all of history, and it will fail again in less than 20 years. Mark my words, print them out, stick them on your wall, and you'll see that I am correct.
Government doesn't help anyone, it harms the many to pretend to help the poor but instead help the cronies. Gas prices could drop 50% in the US if we deregulated the refinery industry and got rid of the boutique fuels. Pollution? Look at public transportation for one of the world polluters in the country. For every $1 paid by a public rider, $10 is requird to keep the beauracracy in place. That $10 also funds people who are polluting. Give me my car, it'll cost less per ride, meaning it will pollute less.
Forgive me for not trusting your personal observations as scientific fact, especially inlight of your oil opinions, but actual scientific studies have been done on how pushing further into the desert affect regional climate and ecosystem... not the economy.
I don't trust all scientists just as I don't trust all gas station owners. Everyone has a reason for doing what they do -- as science falls deeper into the "public grant" funding cartel, I'll trust it even less. The more books on science I flip through at my local bookstores, the more I realize that scientists are becoming fraudulent just to get a few extra publicly funded grant dollars. For every 10 "the sky is falling" articles I read, I see 10 "everything is OK" articles. Trust what you see, and trust what the market provides. I see relatively cheap gas, so I believe that gas is not running out. I see very expensive land in San Francisco, so I must believe that land is hard to find there.
Understanding that process would easily lead to the conclusion that we do not have infinite oil as you suggested.
I recently read (in a NYMEX newsletter) about how certail oil wells were replenished out of thin air. The oil companies were shocked to find some of their previously "dry" wells were filling up with oil that shouldn't exist.
One of my best friends in my entire life is a geophysicist. He tells me they have no idea what is going on deeper than a few miles -- they seriously have NO idea. The guy is a professor, writes numerous papers that industry looks at, and his community has no clue what goes on beneath a certain level of crust. The world could be filled with oil, who knows?
Government intervention includes environment laws (regardless of the "goodness" or "necessaryness" of the law), so you'd better make sure what you're preventing with the draconian environmental laws is worse than the de facto catastrophe of heavy handed socialism or communism
I'm confused. Are you debating my view or supporting it? I'm a huge fan of Simon, and I also support true capitalism (markets without regulations). I hate government regulation of the environment as the government is repeatedly the worst violater of the environment.
State-capitalism (what I call cartel mercantilism) is no different than communism or socialism. It just spews the same garbage but adds "freedom" and "liberty" here and there.
For years Mac users wanted cheaper hardware -- Apple is finding a way to provide lower prices by jumping on the most popular PC processor company's ability to consistently make quality products are reasonable prices. Mac users love the OS, I don't know of on Machead friend who would ever run XP, even under penalty of death.
Only on slashdot do I honestly think we'll see people buying $1000 worth of Apple Intel hardware for $2000, and put XP on it. OK, so dual booting might have SOME value to certain people. Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?
Other than that, what is the point of running XP on a Mac/Intel box? To be cool?
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, thanks :)
Actually, I do think that "government" has performed some amazing things. Unfortunately, they:
#1 - Have a lot of cash (and can print more) so they can afford some of the best minds.
#2 - They have enough top secret regulations that we'll never know what the best innovations are
#3 - Have a lot of power in censoring, so I'd never trust using their services.
That's all we need -- Google buys Paypal, IRS buys Google. Lovely.
I've been working with some peers (true friends, not just network peers) in spreading my personal hard drive across what I would consider a Wide Area RAID (WAR).
I have a huge pipe right now (soon to be about a 12Mbps pipe in beta). Some of my friends have Comcast's 6Mbps (download) pipes. We're all XPMCE and MythTV heads, so we have literally terabyes of audio and video files. My wife has 2 60GB iPods maxed @ 96kbps.
Why isn't there a better way to use torrent or somet other protocol and set up a WAR? I don't need to back up 99% of my data -- the stuff that I do need to back up I just drop onto a few other hard drives I have access to.
I believe a company Google will be the company to provide a service like this. I'd rather see the ability for millions of users to offer a % of their hard drive to share with the world -- anonymously of course. There has to be a reasonable way to send your files out to millinos of users (in packets) and still have the ability to recreate the files if needed. On my hard drives at one of my offices, we have about 60 drives of 60 gigs a piece, and I bet we're only using about 1.2TB of the total. The rest is wasted. I'd love to offer this space freely (for myself and for others) to be used.
Will Google do it? They're sort of there now with gmail. If they can find a way to tap into the mass storage that is out there (safely), and offer it to be shared and mirrored and copied in a redundantly safe manner, we could get rid of backups entirely.
I don't have the solution, but the idea seems solid.
If you ever follow through with this, I'd be very interested to get at your final numbers. tarnar (at) gmail (dot) com
:) (For reference sake, I live less than 10 minutes away from one of the top income communities in the state of Illinois, and I only live in a mobile home as it hasn't been affected by the housing bubble that I cashed out of).
Noted! I sent my feelers out already, I have a few researchers in Canada who have performed some great hunts for me.
So why are so many big oil companies denying that the crunch is coming? Around here, the big guys are split almost evenly. To me, that's even more worrying than if they were all behind the supply crunch theories.
If there is going to be a crunch, the laws of supply and demand will destroy any government's ability to regulate. When Nixon set gas prices, supply and demand taught him a VERY quick lesson. When Katrina hit and state governments prevented temporary price hikes, supply and demand taught them a very quick lesson, too. If there is going to be a huge decrease in fuel and the demand can't drop with supply, we should be expecting huge increases right now as those "in the know" would be "secretly" hording oil in large quantities.
You've implied that your neighbours wouldn't be prepared for this, so they'll come knocking soon.
This is completely correct, which is why I am investing 2006's income into efficient solar and wind generators. The property I bought (a very large parcel of land, with a pond and nearby access to a decent sized river) was cheap -- dirt cheap. It's really more of a vacation property, but it is also a SHTF insurance program!
Too bad there isn't enough platinum in the world for every home to be done up in a similar fashion.
I was very surprised with what I saw in Montana. I did some research on some real nutcase survivalists a few years ago, and I met with 3 different communities that generated quite a bit of electricity for the entire community using renewable resources. Solar is just one. Wind is another. The best solution? Incredibly efficient appliances. Do I think we'll end up there? No, never. I don't believe society will ever fall apart this way. Instead, we'll just end up with no imports (if the dollar is worthless) and have to re-order the economy locally. Everything we need can be provided for in the US, including energy stores. 10 years of "poverty" for us is like 10 years of "wealth" for most of the rest of the world.
Raw survival, to me, is a plainly selfish and short-sighted outlook. Society needs to go on. Shouldn't we at least try to keep society running? Or would you rather it fail so that people stop spending $10-$15 per transit ride? There are people out there that can identify problems and will do everything in their power to avoid fixing them, just so they can act all smug when the feces hit the rotating metal blades.
Actually, I want to see the lazy die. I want to see the hard working prosper. That's it. Most of the lazy (to me) take government jobs or end up on permanent welfare. I have no problem when someone comes to me asking for money -- I have numerous jobs I can offer them in exchange for cash. I've helped a few people go from welfare-to-work in real consideration of their needs. I won't help keep people on drugs or on my cash though.
If the SHTF, my neighbors are fairly hard working. In my entire community (60 homes), over 90% of the people here are either self employed or self-sufficient retirees. The other 10% (about 7-8 homes actually) work a good job. I sold all my homes and condos and bought trailers -- I'll be buying the trailer park in a few years with my neighbors. About 1/3rd of the neighborhood has a net value of under US$1 million. I publish a newsletter called Mobile Home Millionaire, and you'd be surprised at how many of us are living in 3000 square foot homes
What would you prefer your taxes go towards, if I may open that can of worms? I'd r
Say naturally occurring drough or climate change caused major decreases in food production in the Western US -- how would a gold standard prevent inflation, when production drops while currency remains constant?
;)
I don't necessarily want to see ANY mandated currency standard. I believe we can allow currency to be a free market product (as Rothbard says here). Some banks will hold 100% reserves in gold, others will hold 100% reserves in oil or oxen or prostitute farms. Who knows what will win out (I bet it's gold).
Money is not a fictional product of myth and mandates. Money is merely a storage of your past labor to be used for someone else's future labor. It is a very basic idea. Rothbard's (free) book that I linked to really does a great job cutting out the theories of money that Keynes and Marx and other windbags created. Before shooting the lawyers and the accountants, the economists should go first
Back to your question -- it wouldn't prevent inflation. A gold standard would allow inflation as it should be allowed -- if a product drops in production, inflation should happen temporarily to allow people to put their assets in finding new ways to create that product and overcome the temporary shortage. Today's fiat inflationary currency causes people to invest in stupid investments -- housing and stock market bubbles. Their currency is worthless and continues to devalue, so they rush en masse to whatever is returning money today at the highest value -- which causes those items to jump up in value again. This is due to easy credit and low interests rates caused by easy money.
And how would a gold standard keep that inflation from further reducing production? It's a downward spiral that would eventually result in revolution, IMO.
I'm not sure I agree. With a fairly fixed currency base (sure, gold rushes can temporarily adjust prices but not as bad as fiat currency rushes), we can better set where we put our money for stability and growth. By stabilizing the currency base we give investors a reason to rethink if they want to invest. Free market interest rates (and savings returns) would not be 1-3%. 9-12% is more realistic and who knows what would happen. Plus we wouldn't lose money to the elite by funding wars through inflationary mechanisms, and taxation would be "more fair" as there wouldn't be the hidden tax of inflation.
It is complex because of government's fiat currency, IMHO.
What need do you then forsee for groups like congress and so forth?
:) I just came up with in a few months ago, and will have a dedicated group of people debating it if you'd like to join, drop me an e-mail.
From 1800 to 1840, I believe Congress had some need in performing their duties -- maybe a 4 week a year job though. From 1840 - 1920, I believe Congress was overreaching indeed, and from 1920 to 1990 I believe Congress proved it is not trustworthy of the powers we granted them.
From 1990 to the present I believe Congress and representational government is useless as we have the Internet. In an unanimocracy, how can you pollute or fix the vote? All it takes is one person saying they voted no, and the law isn't passed.
I like that idea alot... I must ponder that for awhile.
Me too
never called anarchy 'take what you want', I said that some people would use anarchy as their excuse to take what they want. When the blackout hit the eastern seaboard / southern Ontario, what followed could be called 'anarchy'. A lot of societal structures fell apart for a few hours.
Sorry if I said something negative either way.
Now, this isn't much of an argument against my original point, as most people involved didn't feel much desperation. The lights were out, but they were likely to come back on. It wasn't winter, it wasn't cold. Now, if we entered some of the 'doomsday' scenarios that energy depletion leads to, we would see heavy inflation on basic foodstuffs, followed by shortages. That would probably create a different mentality than the lights going out for a day.
Which is part of my problem with government giving people the idea that they have a "right" to certain things. I appreciate my water supply, but I also live where I can pump water from a well (and I also own a large plot of land far from many neighbors which also has a large supply of water beneath). I own 2 generators, and have been looking at investing in a simple solar system just to run the basics (hot water and some electricity). My next home will definitely have some system to pump heat out of the ground (ambient heating/cooling). The last time I had a power outage, my generator kicked in and I was fine -- my neighbors were not. They were made at the electric company.
I don't doubt this. Government welfare works best for the people who don't want to be on it, the people who will do anything to get off it and support themselves again. However, that's an entirely different conversation.
This weekend I spent a part of Saturday helping truly needy people at an open call for help at my church. I personally worked with 5 different families who were truly in trouble. I offered them some advice, food, clothing and told them if they stayed on top of the advice I was giving them, I'd help them financially. Of the 5 families, one is an abuser who will likely perish (and should if they don't want to be responsible), and 4 I believe will work out of the hole they put themselves in. My money at my church does more than the money that is stolen from me in taxes. No welfare-by-force works.
I said that the oil companies themselves are starting to talk about supply crunches. You are eager to put words in my mouth just so you can dismiss me.
I trust publicly-mandated cartels less than publicly-funded scientists. Of course oil companies are calling out shortages -- they're manipulators just like anyone else. As long as I see the prices low, I don't see any reason for concern. If oil disappeared tomorrow, I have more than enough safety mechanisms in place (instead of a big house, a Ferarri and expensive junk) that I should be able to live fairly stable for a decade, even without food and water provisions. That's a big "should" but I feel pretty comfortable.
Finally, public transportation? Works around here. The City of Calgary listed ~$95M on Transit in 2004 in the Expenditures section of the budget.
Thanks for that info. I'll do some research on it in upcoming months. In the 5 public transportation departments I've studied (4 in the US and one in Europe) all were about US$10-US$15 per ride. I included gas taxes that subsidised them, as well as hidden taxes and fees that went to paying for them. Calgary is an unknown to me, but I would not doubt that you pay much more than what you're seeing. Give me some time, follow up in a few months.
That we shouldn't have environmental regulations on refineries? Or that taxes are too high on gas?
I'm arguing that the regulations we have do not help the environment one bit -- they help the cronies that run the refineries. If people want cleaner fuel, they'll request it in a competitive market. If they don't want cleaner fuel, why should you force them to buy it? Who is to say that car manufacturers aren't listening and that they find that cleaner exhaust actually can be profitable? We just don't know, it is too young of a market, and there are too many regulations preventing other competitive companies from entering the market.
Want to understand economics? I'll save you 4 years of college, a ton of headaches, and introduce you to completely understanding money and the markets in one evening:
h tml
http://dadasays.blogspot.com/2006/01/gold-stocks.
Click on the link to Rothbard's book. It is free (e-book and HTML) and it completely takes away the confusion of what money and a market is.
Actually, I've come up with a really good solution for government. I call it a unanimocracy.
There are three rules in Dada's Unanimocracy:
1. No law can exist with a unanimous vote of the populace -- direct democracy in ultimate form.
2. All laws sunset after 6 years.
3. No future laws can change any of the 3 basic rules.
The unanimocracy will likely produce 7 different levels of government: Federal, Regional, State, County, Village, Community, Household.
If 300,000,000 voters can't pass a law unanimously at the Federal level (let's say minimum wage), then they can try at the Regional level (3-4 states maybe). If those 40,000,000 can't pass a minimum wage law, they can try it at the State level. If those 10,000,000 can't pass the law unanimously, they can try it at the County level, and so on and so on.
Some laws may only exist at the Household level. Some might be only at the County level -- and counties will compete for similar-believing citizens.
Most laws will never pass at the Federal level. You might have "No murder" laws at the Federal level, but you sure won't have "No using drugs" or "No prostituting" laws at even the State level. If a law DOES pass, in 6 years it fails and must be repassed by the new voting bloc.
This is hereby known as Dada's Unanimocracy.
Who knows what will happen. Which billions will die?
Will the strongest survive -- will we build glass-covered societies with the cleanest air we've ever had, the cleanest water we've ever consumed, and end the fear of UV radiation and global warming? Who knows.
I do know that capitalists (meaning voluntary cooperation with mutual profit for both sides) will work forever to make their lives better. The lazy may die -- that's fine with me, the lazy are the same ones leeching off of my hard work now.
If someone comes to me starving, I will offer them two things: eat, and help me grow back what you ate and then so, or starve. Some will take me on up eating and forming a community, some will try to kill me, and some will die. That's fine, that's life.
Starving people banding together to rape and pillage? Not in this culture and not in this day. When humans were animals, they performed these things. I don't see it happening as there is a higher signal:noise ratio of intelligence:animals than ever before.
That's very prescient of you. Gold is a better standard, I agree.
I published a print newsletter for years, and I had to give it up as I was actually losing money on it once gold became popular again. I wish I saved all my issues to stick online on my blog!
I personally don't want any currency standards. I'd like to return to banks printing their own currency to compete with one another. Will gold end up winning? I'm sure it will.
would say that's definitely a big part of it. Not sure I agree with the part about the Euro, though; and you know the US will fight like hell to retain a fiat currency of some sort.
The Euro's biggest problem is that they lack a common inflation standard. Eventually it will inflate itself so quickly that it will be worthless. I honestly foresee the Euro dead in 5 years and the EU dead in 10. It might be double both, but I believe I am closer to being right than almost any analyst.
We'll always have a fiat currency in the US, you're right. I believe we'll see a "gold holding" tax in 2-4 years: people with gold will have to pay a tax on how much they hold -- sort of like a property tax. Also, I believe we might see a remonetization of gold in the US (but not 100% reserves) in order to give the investors a feeling of safety. What will probably happen is we'll buy more gold than anyone, and just lease it all out to the central banks of the world. Fake gold standard.
I blog about manipulations of all parties (including my own manipulation by telling people to buy gold). I can't lie, I want gold bought. I don't want it bought in paper form by investors, though. I don't "invest" in gold, I save my labor for another day in gold. You'll be interested in my graphs -- I'm correlating gold's weekly value in things like eggs, milk, cigarettes, gas, and other consumer goods. The graphs just started 10 days ago, but in a few months we'll see some really interesting corellations.
Take people with the same energy as those who work for the DMV, and put them up against people with the same energy as those who work for your average car dealer.
Train both sets of people to become software developers.
Let's bet on the outcome. Public programmers are shams just like public workers in any public office. Cronying at best, lazy worthless animals at worst.
How Europeans continually think that they can compete by removing competition and giving it to government is beyond me.
I agree with your definition of my definition of war :)
I don't look at "war" between two parties as anything other than accepting that it is the populace of those supporting the parties in warmongering as being complicit in the warmongering.
If your government is fighting a war and you're not speaking out against war, you're part of it.
If someone comes to your land and forces you to go fight for them, you must stake your life on defending your right to say no. If a warlord comes to my land and threatens to kill me if I don't support them killing others, I will be the first one to first my weapon and stake my life on the outcome.
The world has changed more than every in the past 10 years. People in countries that never heard of freedom are now learning about it. We must continue the good fight to getting the word out that government is evil -- the bigger it is the more evil it is. There is no positive use of force against an other, and only government can use force "legally."
Anarchocapitalists believe in three things: no force, free markets and open source currencies (gold for me). Government takes all these away.
I still learn every day from slashdot. I give the highest self-moderation to those who are listed as my foes, as they teach me the shortcomings of my beliefs and help me rejudge what I have previously accepted as fact.
Would you say that a country as large as the US should be split into smaller countries that could be maintained and protected better?
It used to be. I am a big fan of the Articles of Confederation, and I was a fan of the Constitution. Having 51 seperate States that are all self-sufficient is a great goal to return to. The idea of a central government was merely to do 3 things: Keep the States from hurting the People, defend against real intruders, and help facilitate trade with other countries. Now our central government is a tyrannical authoritarian imperialistic machine.
Do you think that government has a right to own the land in it's territory or does it belong to the people of that country?
Never. If we have a government, it should pay rent to property owners. The best way to "control" immigration is to end public welfare roles, reinforce the communities by downsizing the Federal and State government powers, and return property to private owners. If property is completely private, immigrants can only come if they're prepared to work and purchase their own land. Public property and welfare doles is what makes immigration bad today. If we could attract the most hard working immigrants, we could become the most prosperous nation again.
You accept a patently ridiculous story with objectively much less probability of being true than what this guy is positing (at least in terms of the prediction, I'm not to familiar with the underlying Gaia framework), so think twice before you call him out--it kind of sounds silly.
Social security is silly. Christianity is silly. Fine. In one of the two, you force me to accept your beliefs. In the other, I don't force you to accept anything. That's the end of that debate. You force me, I don't force you. Who is more correct in their beliefs?
If you applied it to the current system without redistributing wealth, it would be catastrophic and unfair.
Let's try it on a very small level. Let's allow one state to seceed and back out of the systems. No one wants it because they're afraid they'll actually have to work and be responsible for themselves. Is Somalia as bad as we read in some newspaper? I have 2 friends living there now creating more real wealth than they did when they lived in Israel or in Greece. It isn't as bad as the media reports. Anarcho-capitalism is not a myth, it merely means "no government / volutary cooperation with mutual profit." Are there places that require the use of force? Possibly -- but the only way I'll accept a monopoly on force is after I see how things go with everything else.
But with the former you would be pushing a Social Darwinist ideal, which seems at odds with your Christianity.
Actually, I blog about how I believe the Bible requires followers of Christ to give up support of governments and kings. I do believe that God gave us incredible abilities as humans, the only reason we see suffering is that we put our faith in other men -- government.
That means that "you cannot serve God and wealth" and therefore should give away all your worldly possessions.
Not true. The love of money is evil, but money is not evil. Money is merely a store of wealth -- the ability to save past labor you've performed in order to trade that past labor for someone's future labor. Read Rothbard's (FREE) ebook: http://www.mises.org/money.asp for more information on what money is and what it isn't. Gold is the ultimate store of wealth -- I work (per God's word), I store my word in gold, and I redeem my gold in exchange for someone else's labor.
Profit is not ever only good for one party. All transactions are mutually beneficial at the time of the exchange. You exchange money you don't need for a product/service you do need. The other party accepts this money to use for a product/service they'll need in the future. This is mutual profiting for both parties (capitalism).
It takes close to a decade now for our population to double: trouble indeed.
Ridiculous! A population doubling is a Godsend! Think of it: twice as many brilliant inventors to come up with new ways to feed and organize the world. Twice as many people available to clean the air, clean the salty oceans, farm the deserts and build products to feed and clothe others. More people = more wealth = more happiness. Or do you think that doubling the population means doubling the poor? I don't see that happening.
Given a worldwide economic collapse, it's not so hard to imagine the people with oil and guns forming cartels and dominating everyone else, perhaps depending upon a massive migrant worker or slave population to stay on top.
Maybe 100 or 1000 years ago, yes. But now that we can communicate instantly with anyone else all over the world, I don't see this happening. The new warlords are the cartel mercantilists who find that a happy population is a profitable one. Engines of war and domination are on the verge of disappearing -- Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Kennedy needs war to keep the cartel mercantilists in control, but the people are feeling less and less desiring to fight others. Terrorism is the last enemy, and once people see it doesn't really exist, war w
Actually, I believe returning to a gold standard IS often on topic. So many problems we face today (war, empire expansion, taxation, regulations and licensing) can be solvd by keeping government away from fiat currency control -- ie a gold standard.
:)
How do you define price in your calculations?
That's a great question -- I've been keeping some spreadsheets of my research that I will publish (freely) in a year or two. I'm just waiting for some currencies to collapse
I find that the best way to value oil prices is by investigating what the use of that oil produced. Since oil is a recent development, it is hard to properly judge before about 1880. Nonetheless, I see the outcome of oil-use increasing while the price is relatively stable (if not going down in relationship to the world currency inflation).
Oil production is by far the least consistent to supply/demand issues because the subsidies (and warmonger) used to control oil are outrageously impossible to decipher. I spend almost 10 hours a week researching oil subsidies throughout "time" and can't stop finding new ways that cartel mercantilists controlled supply (or demand). Even 30 years ago with Nixon's oil/gold/money manipulations I still can't get through all the laws and constantly changing manipulations of the world cartels.
I can drive farther today than I could 5 years ago. I can fly farther today than I could 5 years ago. How much of this is subsidized and how much of it is free market provisions? Only time will tell -- we can only look back to get through all the mess. My research (up until about 1985) shows me that we're moving into a cheaper world, not a more expensive one. This leads me to believe that the cartels in control have better knowledge of the situation than the so called experts.
I prefer the capitalism outcome of slow deflation. As more people come into the world, more products can be made more efficiently -- prices drop. If we stick to a hard currency rather than a fiat one, we'll be competiting for a fixed money base -- again causing prices to drop as more people enter the markets.
Governments started to inflate the currency to fight this slow deflation over time -- by providing just enough new money to keep prices consistent. Yet once they find the power of printing more money, you see the problems that arise out of offering the power over fiat currency.
From 1800 to 1913, $1 was $1 (except when Lincoln removed us from the gold standard). From 1913 to 2005, $1 became $0.05.
Inflation is always bad for the common man. It destroys savings, and savings is the best way to grow an economy.
The world filled with oil huh? I'll have to run that buy a few of my geobuddies. Some good laughs for sure.
As I said, a good friend of mine has told me (on the side, off the record) for years that the geobuddies just don't know. Down to the core? Why do they keep changing their theories so significantly?
Should all land be owned by people or does land have a value without ownership?
I believe in completel private ownership of land, but not in the way that cartel mercantilists do. I believe that you own your land by combining your labor with it, and having the ability to personally defend it. The idea of one person owning thousands of acres of land is ludicrous to me. Anarchocapitalists are split on this issue (one of a few that we're split on). I have no problem with people contracting together to share a larger parcel of land, though, but I do have a problem with on person saying they own more than they can directly maintain. If you come onto land that is not maintained and being used productively, I believe you have a right to take over that land. If it is productively used and maintained, I think you should have no right to it. To say that one person can productively maintain entire regions is not realistic.
Democracy to me does not mean freedom -- democracy means insanity of the masses to agree to perform a basic action against the will of another mass or individual.
When soldiers go to war and the citizens of the same nation of those soldiers accept it, to me this is demoracy is action. I don't believe democracy must vote using the ballot box -- allowing catastrophes to happen without speaking out against them is no different.
Hitler, Stalin, Caeser, all of them had people who didn't care. Just the same as in the US when only a small percentage votes and the rest go along, we call it democracy. The same is true of fascism and any expansion of empire where the people go along with it because they feel they'll be better off than speaking out against it.
Voting comes with more than ballots -- spending your money is a form of a vote. Doing nothing when someone is killing others in your name is also a form of a vote.
You won't be able to do that much longer. The Fed will start hiding the M3 data on money near the end of March, coincidentally when the Iranian Oil Bourse is supposed to materialize.
I was one of the first people to write about the M3 figure (on my gold blog and in my printed gold newsletter). I've been living on a gold standard for 18 months and forecasted the M3 being dropped almost 2 years ago.
I believe we fought the two Iraq wars to keep the USD as the standard oil currency, and I believe the the Euro will come and go in less than 5 years. I can only hope that Malaysia and UAE's upcoming gold trade standards will support a switch to hard currency.
I not so sure about that -- Diamond says that government is a facet of society, and governmental collapse is a symptom of pending or occurring societal collapse. Government can also contribute to societal collapse, as it's actions or lack thereof directly affect the actions of the people in a society
In Bill Bonner's recent book (Empire of Debt), he makes some amazes connections between failed empires and inflation/expansion. Society collapsed when government takes advantage of those in society -- overregulates, overtaxes, and overinflates the currency base. I agree with Bonner.
This is exactly the problem. Can't see the forest for the trees -- everyone doing what is in their immediate best interests (an honest day's pay) can result in dire consequences in the long run for the entire society.
No, that's not true. Everyone does what is in their best interest every time they make a decision. This means we're constnatly re-evaluating what "best interest" is. People think that this means they'll always do what they've always done. Government tries to keep the status quo by subsidizing industries to keep the afloat -- costing everyone else hard earned money and time. We, as humans, are able to constantly modify our lives in order to grow. This means we all can grow together. If oil starts "peaking" then we, as humans, still strive to innovate and find news ways to make energy. If the environment starts to get dirty and unliveable, we'll innovate and find new ways to live, even if it means living in huge glass enclosed societies. We're constantly changing our lives to better them -- and if that means we make it worse for the next generation, they'll find ways to innovate and survive and grow wealthier and happier.
We need to wisely pick and choose what policies, restrictions, etc, we enact for ourselves, or else we'll burn out our resources and cause our own collapse. And how else do we enforce those policies except through government?
We only need to think of ourselves -- that is how we make life better for us. The next generation does the same. There is no way we can destroy society or the environment so badly that no one can survive. I like to read old magazines (especially science topics) and newspapers and people have been forecasting doomsday for generations. It never happens, and things actually get better. Read the doomsday theories of when your parents were young -- not only did they not come to be, but our "doomed" generation made things better. This is always how it will be. Focus on making your life better.
Also, historical models cannot be extrapolated to the future with certainty -- just because we've not yet hit the limit of sustainable resource use doesn't mean that no limit exists -- especially as our actions often decrease the supply of available resources.
Society has become happier, healthier and wealthier for 6000 years. The failed societies tended to be the most tyrannical or the most focused on empire and spreading their genes. Simon didn't ignore these, necessarily. He looked at how humans not only survived the worst, but became stronger because of the worst. Who knows what will happen. Will we live in glass-covered societies in 100 years and wonder how we ever lived through the 1900s with unfiltered air, dangerous UV radiation and climate changes every 3 months? You don't know, but I know that things will always get better -- always.
Which brings me back to my first point -- government is part of society.
I can name nothing that government does that is a net good. Everything I see government doing helps a few (cartel cronies) at the expense of the many. My society is my family, my friends, my customers, and my suppliers. That's all I care about.
Doh, good point. Forgot about gaming. Thanks for that, that actually makes a lot more sense now :)
People living on ocean cruisers? What do they eat? Food from the oceans? Fish depletion results.
Or who knows where. As we get more populated on this earth, people in every country are eating better. Look at Eritrea. Look at UAE. Look at the Phillipines. More people but with more food? How? Capitalism.
And as far as deserts-come-greenspace, tell me what happens when your irrigation dries up. Fresh water is going to become more and more valuable in this economy. Damming rivers for irrigation will take water away from those downstream. Industry in one nation can corrupt the water flowing into another. This will happen at the nation level and within nations as well.
And we're finding more and more ways to harness the sun to create more fresh water. If there is a need, and there is a profit, there is a solution.
The geophysicists in the oilfield. I work in that particular industry. I live in Calgary (Oil Capital of Canada). Most of the industry here is talking about Peak Oil.
Really? One of my best friends (for almost 20 years) is a geophysicist and a professor of geophysicists. He admits that his industry is wrong more than it is right about what goes on beneath the crust more than a few miles. They have no idea what is happening, and their theories are constantly redone to account for new "wonders" that are discovered. Forgive me if I say this in a mean way: scientists are becoming state-funded liars. Give them a chance to earn some taxpayer-funded grants, and they'll say whatever is needed to scare the populace (see: You) into paying them more to discover if they're wrong.
Two words for you: New Orleans. Dismantle our societal structures and you will find some people who will work together to rebuild. You will find others that will play the anarchy to take what they want.
Anarchy is not "take what you want" that is chaotic nihilism. Anarchy just means no government. New Orleans is no example. I traveled to NO at least 3-4 times a year to eat, and the majority of the people I saw down there are there for handouts and to live on the taxpayer. I have no desire to help anyone who can't help themselves, and I will never give a dollar to anyone who lives to receive handouts. New Orleans will be rebuilt as the biggest government welfare program in all of history, and it will fail again in less than 20 years. Mark my words, print them out, stick them on your wall, and you'll see that I am correct.
Government doesn't help anyone, it harms the many to pretend to help the poor but instead help the cronies. Gas prices could drop 50% in the US if we deregulated the refinery industry and got rid of the boutique fuels. Pollution? Look at public transportation for one of the world polluters in the country. For every $1 paid by a public rider, $10 is requird to keep the beauracracy in place. That $10 also funds people who are polluting. Give me my car, it'll cost less per ride, meaning it will pollute less.
Forgive me for not trusting your personal observations as scientific fact, especially inlight of your oil opinions, but actual scientific studies have been done on how pushing further into the desert affect regional climate and ecosystem... not the economy.
I don't trust all scientists just as I don't trust all gas station owners. Everyone has a reason for doing what they do -- as science falls deeper into the "public grant" funding cartel, I'll trust it even less. The more books on science I flip through at my local bookstores, the more I realize that scientists are becoming fraudulent just to get a few extra publicly funded grant dollars. For every 10 "the sky is falling" articles I read, I see 10 "everything is OK" articles. Trust what you see, and trust what the market provides. I see relatively cheap gas, so I believe that gas is not running out. I see very expensive land in San Francisco, so I must believe that land is hard to find there.
Understanding that process would easily lead to the conclusion that we do not have infinite oil as you suggested.
I recently read (in a NYMEX newsletter) about how certail oil wells were replenished out of thin air. The oil companies were shocked to find some of their previously "dry" wells were filling up with oil that shouldn't exist.
One of my best friends in my entire life is a geophysicist. He tells me they have no idea what is going on deeper than a few miles -- they seriously have NO idea. The guy is a professor, writes numerous papers that industry looks at, and his community has no clue what goes on beneath a certain level of crust. The world could be filled with oil, who knows?
Government intervention includes environment laws (regardless of the "goodness" or "necessaryness" of the law), so you'd better make sure what you're preventing with the draconian environmental laws is worse than the de facto catastrophe of heavy handed socialism or communism
I'm confused. Are you debating my view or supporting it? I'm a huge fan of Simon, and I also support true capitalism (markets without regulations). I hate government regulation of the environment as the government is repeatedly the worst violater of the environment.
State-capitalism (what I call cartel mercantilism) is no different than communism or socialism. It just spews the same garbage but adds "freedom" and "liberty" here and there.
For years Mac users wanted cheaper hardware -- Apple is finding a way to provide lower prices by jumping on the most popular PC processor company's ability to consistently make quality products are reasonable prices. Mac users love the OS, I don't know of on Machead friend who would ever run XP, even under penalty of death.
Only on slashdot do I honestly think we'll see people buying $1000 worth of Apple Intel hardware for $2000, and put XP on it. OK, so dual booting might have SOME value to certain people. Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?
Other than that, what is the point of running XP on a Mac/Intel box? To be cool?