Inflation is an increase in the average price level. It can be caused by an increase in the quantity of money, or a decrease in the velocity of money, or a decrease in goods and services in the economy.
I'm genuinely curious, for those who like to define "deflation" in these broad, vague terms, does the word retain any meaning at all to you? I mean, do you generally think of deflation as a bad thing, and if so do you really think that all of those "causes" are always bad? Or, when you hear "deflation" do you just mentally substitute "one of these five things could have happened"? What is the value of the concept of "deflation" to you, if any?
Well, I'm glad this comment clarifies the fact that you seem to have little knowledge of how the banking system actually works. I can now dismiss the rest of your comments as well.
We didn't remove "regulation" 30 years ago. We removed the gold standard. You might want to look into that.
And I'm not sure what planet you live on, but the "banking oligarchy" is not a product of lack of regulation, but of the government-sanctioned monopoly Federal Reserve and various other bail-outs and preferential cronyism that maintains it.
carbon and graphene is abundant and renewable--it can be pulled out of the atmosphere.
You realize that we currently put an awful lot of carbon *into* the atmosphere, because it provides a ridiculous amount of energy to do so, and it costs an equal amount of energy to remove it?
Partly, the statistics are rigged since Americans own twice as much land per capita, we have access to twice as much energy as even the rest of the developed world. So it makes economic sense for us to choose less efficient means of converting that energy into productive work.
Then again, there's really no excuse to live in an uninsulated house with a 15 year old air conditioner and drive a pick-up truck while running massive trade deficits importing cheap plastic crap produced from oil expropriated by a military that consumes more resources than all others in the world combined. So I guess that's what I would concentrate on.
What other country besides the PRC could successfully implement a one-child policy? (Even then, it's fertility rate is 1.7.)
Russia, Europe, Canada and the US all have similar fertility rates, excluding immigration. They achieve this via individual responsibility rather than oppressive government.
Poverty wouldn't be ended. Population and consumption would rise until we are right back where we are now; just like it has several times already in human history, following the advent of "magical" technological advances.
Croplands, pasture, managed forests, man-made lakes, roads, cities, suburbs. If it's capable of growing grass, humans have probably altered it at some point. They're probably using a somewhat loose definition of "altered." Then again, we've even expanded into swamps and deserts.
1) Building human arcologies, self contained cities that do not interact with the environment. We _EASILY_ have the technology to do this.
Biosphere 2 cost several million dollars, barely supported a half-dozen people for a couple of years, and failed due to the death of all the pollinating insects and rising CO2 levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop growing. Stop developing. Stop making children. Stop smoking. Stop eating animals. Stop eating plants. Stop breathing because you make greenhouse gases.
One of these things is not like the others...
Inflation is an increase in the average price level. It can be caused by an increase in the quantity of money, or a decrease in the velocity of money, or a decrease in goods and services in the economy.
I'm genuinely curious, for those who like to define "deflation" in these broad, vague terms, does the word retain any meaning at all to you? I mean, do you generally think of deflation as a bad thing, and if so do you really think that all of those "causes" are always bad? Or, when you hear "deflation" do you just mentally substitute "one of these five things could have happened"? What is the value of the concept of "deflation" to you, if any?
by a legal requirement for merchants to accept them within the relevant country's borders
No such requirement exists in the US.
Well, I'm glad this comment clarifies the fact that you seem to have little knowledge of how the banking system actually works. I can now dismiss the rest of your comments as well.
We didn't remove "regulation" 30 years ago. We removed the gold standard. You might want to look into that.
And I'm not sure what planet you live on, but the "banking oligarchy" is not a product of lack of regulation, but of the government-sanctioned monopoly Federal Reserve and various other bail-outs and preferential cronyism that maintains it.
We don't have an energy problem, we have an economical energy harvesting problem.
Fair enough. Though I would argue we just have an economic problem in general.
carbon and graphene is abundant and renewable--it can be pulled out of the atmosphere.
You realize that we currently put an awful lot of carbon *into* the atmosphere, because it provides a ridiculous amount of energy to do so, and it costs an equal amount of energy to remove it?
You mean, as long as we don't mind eating pesticide-infused GMO crops, foregoing beef, and hoping that fisheries magically don't collapse?
It's free trade in goods, not people. That's the reason agriculture, and renewable energy, are subsidized.
We've been fighting over what's left since it first started spewing out of the ground.
take away their ability to get us the oil, or silicon, or and than what do we have?
Sustainability and a stable ecosystem?
Partly, the statistics are rigged since Americans own twice as much land per capita, we have access to twice as much energy as even the rest of the developed world. So it makes economic sense for us to choose less efficient means of converting that energy into productive work.
Then again, there's really no excuse to live in an uninsulated house with a 15 year old air conditioner and drive a pick-up truck while running massive trade deficits importing cheap plastic crap produced from oil expropriated by a military that consumes more resources than all others in the world combined. So I guess that's what I would concentrate on.
Yes, the oil barons on their death beds are now giving us ecological tips.
We have peak population of around 10 billion
You should be old enough to know that this number is revised upwards every decade or so.
Really it should have been obvious that the thrust of this story was a genetic engineering bank on the moon. I missed it, I admit.
Don't we want to be dependent on fewer resources?
What, no. What the hell gave you this idea?
What other country besides the PRC could successfully implement a one-child policy? (Even then, it's fertility rate is 1.7.)
Russia, Europe, Canada and the US all have similar fertility rates, excluding immigration. They achieve this via individual responsibility rather than oppressive government.
Poverty wouldn't be ended. Population and consumption would rise until we are right back where we are now; just like it has several times already in human history, following the advent of "magical" technological advances.
Croplands, pasture, managed forests, man-made lakes, roads, cities, suburbs. If it's capable of growing grass, humans have probably altered it at some point. They're probably using a somewhat loose definition of "altered." Then again, we've even expanded into swamps and deserts.
The fundamental problem is the fraudulent monetary system. This was not mentioned in your populist political screed even once.
so what are we all just supposed to chill off with the reproducing until the population dies off a bit?
Some countries are, yes. Others are going to have to chill with the wanton destruction and wasteful consumerism.
1) Building human arcologies, self contained cities that do not interact with the environment. We _EASILY_ have the technology to do this.
Biosphere 2 cost several million dollars, barely supported a half-dozen people for a couple of years, and failed due to the death of all the pollinating insects and rising CO2 levels.
What an idiotic video.
Why does it matter whether it happens in 10 years or 100 years?
The point isn't to prevent terrorists. Governments create terrorists.
The point is to use terrorism as an excuse for censorship, in the same way terrorism is used as an excuse for resource wars and political oppression.
I'm just glad someone is working on keeping all the Wangs straight.