Given that we have a functioning democracy here, I'd say, we don't need a revolution and the attendant violence that allowed the sociopaths in Russia to rise to the top.
The sociopaths function just fine in a deomcracy - they just need to get 50%+1 by promising to rob the other 50%-1.
What is your solution to the problem of the rich using legislation to redistribute wealth to themselves?
Long term: repudiate the principal of wealth redistribution entirely.
Short term: there's very little wealth left for the banksters and their allies to redistribute. Pretty much all we can do now is sit back and watch the fireworks when this ponzi scheme unwinds.
Your socialist revolution will allow the ultra-rich to pillage the slightly-rich as well as the rest of the population and they'll be even more powerful than before.
Did you know that George Washington, for example, taught himself geometry? Back in the days when we had actual education it was understood that any person with the capability to read and access to the correct books could teach himself any skill he was capable of learning.
The problem is, because of the way the Federal Reserve system is set up, debt IS money, and therefore the system gets consumed by interest if it doesn't keep going along an accelerating, unsustainable path of more and more loans.
That's not necessarily true - because currency circulates multiple times through the economy it is not necessary for credit to expand faster than GDP.
Indeed, for many decades credit growth was maintained in proportion to GDP growth and we didn't have a problem with asset bubbles.
But this meant that occasionally lenders who made bad loans, as well as the borrowers went bankrupt. This process kept debt from growing out of control but also limited the amount of wealth the banksters could siphon away from the middle class, so the practice was scrapped.
Isn't it awesome how the media has managed to convince that a centrally planned economy compete with wealth transfer from the public to wealthy oligarchs is "capitalism"?
Every single redistributionist that excludes himself from the group having "excessive" wealth is simply a thief trying justify stealing.
If someone truly believes in the principal that one person's production should be forcibly taken and given to someone that an arbitrary authority has decided needs it more then that person should lead by example.
Just about every large purchase has become prohibitively expensive for a large part of the population because of the inflationary effects of cheap credit. Thank you, Federal Reserve!
The problem is that there is exactly one source of energy that is sufficiently dense, reliable and inexpensive to replace fossil fuels and is it the same source that environmentalists fight tooth and nail to stop.
You can generate enough energy to supply 9 billion people with a first-world standard of living with technology that exists today but you'll never get there with wind and solar.
Short answer: It was viable in 1969 and it's still viable today.
Jimmy Carter killed all reactor technology that involved reprocessing via executive order and NIMBY killed all commercial interest in new nuclear technology for a generation.
During the experiment they overcame all corrosion and embrittlement issues by adding a little bit of titanium to Hastelloy-N. The fluoride salts are stable and there is no creation of fluorine gas as long as the salts are in liquid form.
Wikipedia has a good writeup on the original experiment. And there's a good Google Tech Talk on the commercial version of the concept.
How many countries are less developed now than they were in 1950?
If every single developed country has shown reduced fertility rates as they developed why would we not expect the same thing to happen to the countries with high birthrates that are becoming more developed now even as we speak?
If you look into voiding from neutron damage coupled with liquid metal embrittlement you'll see why metallurgists are not paticularly keen on reactors with a lot of liquid metal
Well then it's a good thing that the molten salt reactor doesn't contain any liquid metal isn't it?
Why don't you actually read up on the results of the MSRE instead of spouting off bullshit?
The fertility rate is going down because women are choosing to have less children. This is a consequence of economic development and a higher standard of living.
The worldwide fertility peaked at almost 5 in the middle of the 20th century and has been steadily declining ever since. Now it's down to 2.5 and will reach the replacement level within a few decades. Even the UN now admits that worldwide population will most likely peak a 9 billion sometime before the end of this century and start declining due to this effect.
In our geological past when the Earth was (much) hotter than it is now did the overall increased precipitation overcome the tendency of desertification at higher temperatures? What fraction of that land mass was desert?
How quickly will wave action deposit more sand on the beeches? Will the water level rise faster than this?
It gets worse - if we would have built 13 thorium breeder reactors for every coal plant we've built in the last 30 years (or one plant with 13 times the capacity) the extra energy produced would be enough to, using existing technology, generate 200 billion gallons of (carbon neutral) gasoline per year from seawater and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A true democracy with a fully functioning structure of laws that prevents company or corporation from influencing it. Where the people are the ones holding the power and not the corporations. One where we actually get to watch the watchers.
I want a pony.
My dad always told me that I should want in one hand and shit in the other hand and see which hand fills up first.
Please provide one historical example of a government that didn't devolve into oligarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
The sociopaths function just fine in a deomcracy - they just need to get 50%+1 by promising to rob the other 50%-1.
Long term: repudiate the principal of wealth redistribution entirely.
Short term: there's very little wealth left for the banksters and their allies to redistribute. Pretty much all we can do now is sit back and watch the fireworks when this ponzi scheme unwinds.
Yes, it was but the principal behind it is not. More people are opting out than you think.
Your socialist revolution will allow the ultra-rich to pillage the slightly-rich as well as the rest of the population and they'll be even more powerful than before.
Just like in the Soviet Union.
In that case, what do all you leeches do when the producers decline to participate in the partnership any more?
It worked well for 150 years.
Did you know that George Washington, for example, taught himself geometry? Back in the days when we had actual education it was understood that any person with the capability to read and access to the correct books could teach himself any skill he was capable of learning.
That's not necessarily true - because currency circulates multiple times through the economy it is not necessary for credit to expand faster than GDP.
Indeed, for many decades credit growth was maintained in proportion to GDP growth and we didn't have a problem with asset bubbles.
But this meant that occasionally lenders who made bad loans, as well as the borrowers went bankrupt. This process kept debt from growing out of control but also limited the amount of wealth the banksters could siphon away from the middle class, so the practice was scrapped.
Isn't it awesome how the media has managed to convince that a centrally planned economy compete with wealth transfer from the public to wealthy oligarchs is "capitalism"?
Every single redistributionist that excludes himself from the group having "excessive" wealth is simply a thief trying justify stealing.
If someone truly believes in the principal that one person's production should be forcibly taken and given to someone that an arbitrary authority has decided needs it more then that person should lead by example.
Here's the deal: allow me redistribute your wealth first, then I'll consider the validity of your argument.
Just about every large purchase has become prohibitively expensive for a large part of the population because of the inflationary effects of cheap credit. Thank you, Federal Reserve!
Besides being a front for collectivist indoctrination?
The problem is that there is exactly one source of energy that is sufficiently dense, reliable and inexpensive to replace fossil fuels and is it the same source that environmentalists fight tooth and nail to stop.
You can generate enough energy to supply 9 billion people with a first-world standard of living with technology that exists today but you'll never get there with wind and solar.
Short answer: It was viable in 1969 and it's still viable today.
Jimmy Carter killed all reactor technology that involved reprocessing via executive order and NIMBY killed all commercial interest in new nuclear technology for a generation.
During the experiment they overcame all corrosion and embrittlement issues by adding a little bit of titanium to Hastelloy-N. The fluoride salts are stable and there is no creation of fluorine gas as long as the salts are in liquid form.
Wikipedia has a good writeup on the original experiment. And there's a good Google Tech Talk on the commercial version of the concept.
How many countries are less developed now than they were in 1950?
If every single developed country has shown reduced fertility rates as they developed why would we not expect the same thing to happen to the countries with high birthrates that are becoming more developed now even as we speak?
Well then it's a good thing that the molten salt reactor doesn't contain any liquid metal isn't it?
Why don't you actually read up on the results of the MSRE instead of spouting off bullshit?
The figures I cited are worldwide averages, not just developed countries.
If you don't like that use of the term "fertility rate" then go fix Wikipedia.
I slept 50' away from the nuclear reactor that I operated for a number of years.
The fertility rate is going down because women are choosing to have less children. This is a consequence of economic development and a higher standard of living.
The worldwide fertility peaked at almost 5 in the middle of the 20th century and has been steadily declining ever since. Now it's down to 2.5 and will reach the replacement level within a few decades. Even the UN now admits that worldwide population will most likely peak a 9 billion sometime before the end of this century and start declining due to this effect.
I take it you have no hands-on experience with nuclear reactors?
All forms of human societies are simply transition states to oligarchy. It's just a matter of how fast they get there.
But having a government (in fact if not in name) is a prerequisite.
It isn't happening all at once - it's spread out over a century.
In 1791 Alexander Hamilton threatened Congress with the prospect of economic collapse if he and his friends didn't get a bailout.
In 2008 Henry Paulson did the same thing.
Same shit, different day.
In our geological past when the Earth was (much) hotter than it is now did the overall increased precipitation overcome the tendency of desertification at higher temperatures? What fraction of that land mass was desert?
How quickly will wave action deposit more sand on the beeches? Will the water level rise faster than this?
It gets worse - if we would have built 13 thorium breeder reactors for every coal plant we've built in the last 30 years (or one plant with 13 times the capacity) the extra energy produced would be enough to, using existing technology, generate 200 billion gallons of (carbon neutral) gasoline per year from seawater and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
I want a pony.
My dad always told me that I should want in one hand and shit in the other hand and see which hand fills up first.
Please provide one historical example of a government that didn't devolve into oligarchy.