Topic: Economic Devastation - page 145. (Read 504776 times)

So what, Ideas are Lethal. It is a sweet death.

Damn all this Chinese comies riding a bicycle to work all those years, finally they saw their social errors and make proper capitalistic SUVs now days, if only its not too late to emit more CO2 and stave off the coming Ice Age.
If they can see it why can't you ? You socialist evangelists?

No they were writings about the fraud that was discovered, about the lack of science in their claims, about them withholding the source data, etc..

You still have forgotten that no one can prove AGW is true, because it is also impossible to prove it is false. And a follow-up explanation on why climate science is meta-theories and isnot falsifiable w.r.t. AGW.

So we end up in a political battle instead.

This is why the elite pick this sort of junk science propaganda to wage this Hegelian dialectic for us to waste our time on. Then they even force the AGW side to be indoctrinated on the youth in the schools.

If you are going to be this stupid+myopic (about the foolishness of falling into that unfalsifiable trap that causes us to bicker with politics), I don't want to have anything more to do with you. Because all you socialists can accomplish is talk and steal. Look at your Freicoin. It is not winning. Stupid design, it will not be popular to have the savers' funds taken from their accounts in demurrage. I am not a loser who has to steal to get my outcome. I get my desired outcome by crossing the Rubicon and conquering with competition. Socialists whine about the way it should be and then gang up to go steal it to their desired (failed) outcome.


https://cryptocrypt.org/index.php?topic=128.msg5365#msg5365

---

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/21/ineptocracy/

 I now understand the way in which you use the term "socialist" Coincube - its a very broad usage of the term.

Can I just give you a few examples of how we in Europe might use certain terms ?

      1) Public enteprise (socialist)


      2)Public Private enterprise (capitalist)


       3)Private enterprise (capitalist)



   I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs - there are obviously cultural differences here   - only it seems to me a bit far fetched to blame the problems of Detroit on socialism - but I suppose it depends on how you define the term.



 

I don't think the example above is the best example of failed socialiasm. The failure to research/exploit a cheep effective generic medication is a common one in medicine. The costs of human controlled trials are very high. There is no financial incentive for free actors to pay for this research research as there is no mechanism for them to recoup their investment.

Indeed one could make a strong case that the solution to this problem is actually better or smarter socialism. Right now our patchwork solution is to fund studies of promising generic medications through top down government research grants NIH funding and others. Obviously things are missed/overlooked with any attempt to top down control aspects of the economy. In theory it would be better improve the overlying superstructure of the economy and enable free agents to do this research via an intelligent and restrained modification of patent law. This would allow researchers in this area to profit from their work.

The collapse of excessive socialism.
http://www.charlestondailymail.com/Opinion/Commentary/201307220166

Versus

The chaos of excessive anarchy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/pakistan-polio-threaten-global-campaign_n_4808467.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World

Mint:  Your links are just for more anti-socialism political screeds similar to what your stating, no actual evidence that refutes AGW is presented.

Socialism at its best preventing cures for cancer:

http://www.nestmann.com/why-it-took-more-than-30-years-to-confirm-vitamin-c-fights-cancer

How many people die of cancer practicaldreamer?

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
 -Bob Dylan

You are thicker than a brick. Don't you realize the Capitalists (such as the major oil companies) own Obama? (you still haven't grasped the power vacuum of democracy) They present you with an false dichotomy illusion (Hegelian dialectic) analogous to the good salesman and bad salesman trick at car dealers.

I wasn't lobbied by the oil industry (I even stopped communication with my own father decade or more ago, who was a high ranking oil industry attorney). And you are too thick to understand the logic I have presented to you upthread.

I guarantee you that your socialism is going to kill millions more people over the next 20 years than climate will.

Your Malthusian fear has never been true in recorded human history. The Malthusians were always wrong. For example, Wikipedia the Luddites. Whereas, government has killed upwards of 250 million at least.

It doesn't matter what I write, your mind is not free. It is controlled already.

Does Martin Armstrong have any links to the oil industry by any chance ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

Armstrong slamdunks on the AGW fraud:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/18/global-warming-snow-everywhere-proof-now-of-global-warming-they-never-heard-about-thermodynamics/

Can you say "indoctrination" class? School has become like church, but now the religion is AGW:

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4911
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/two-high-school-students-take-on-teacher-over-climate-and-win-standing-ovation/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/14/exposing-common-core-kids-are-being-indoctrinated-with-extreme-leftist-ideology/

Problem is our only alternative for kids is christian fundamentalism, which is another mind control ideology. Are there any non-ideological private schools any where in the world today? Seriously.

---

On the death of socialism and the rise of the Knowledge Age, list at the 4:30 point of this video. He points out that decades ago the most admired people were the statesmen politicians, now it is the tech leaders of Jobs, Suckerberg, Satoshi, etc...

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

If you listen to that entire video, you will realize that I am 100% correct.

Look at these socialists focused on AGW while that guy above is involved with all these amazing developments.

I will not let these fools waste any more of my time.

---

You want to see what mind control does to someone's ability to think. After all I explained to him above, he writes this:

No it was a link to a Google search for all of Eric S Raymond's blogs on the AGW fraud.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5266&cpage=1#comment-424444

Contentionism it is.
 

As Mark Twain once said “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

In the early industrial revolution Capitalism was the thesis and Communism the antithesis. Socialism was the eventual synthesis and what we have been living with for the past few generations.

Now we are entering a time when Socialism is starting to fail. We are also (as argued above) on the verge of a major disruptive economic transformation. Today it is Socialism that is the thesis, Anarchism the likely antithesis and perhaps Contentionism the synthesis.


If the decentralized free market lacked any top down authority then you are correct it would lead to the jungle.  Egoist Anarchism and similar variants of Anarchism advocate for the jungle. They are false.

Anonymint and I explored this very point in some depth (in a somewhat technical manner) in the link below.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4897280


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
 - Bob Dylan

Edit: it is ironic that socialists bemoan the Capitalists who capture the government (e.g. their incorrect view that big oil companies help cause AGW), yet then they think somehow they can vote to regulate those Capitalists, but those Capitalists are in control of the voting via their ownership of the major media. Even when socialists get regulation it is always the Capitalists who game the system, e.g. Obama was handing out of carbon tax exclusions to his friends while closing coal electric generation plants of those who are not his friends. Thus socialism is an insoluble failure by itself. It needs a counter-balancing force otherwise it is entirely gamed and controlled by those who step in to fill the power vacuum.

---

CoinCube linked to my writings in the OP, wherein I claim that knowledge can't be controlled by stored capital, i.e. claims on future human labor because knowledge creation is not fungible the way manual labor is.

(CoinCube I will not come back here to repeat that for every new commentator that didn't get the point of the OP, it will be up to you to defend your thread)


Indeed you are conflating Capitalism with the free market. The latter is a superset, which also includes the decentralized free market, i.e. the one I described as simulated annealing.


Any positive-scaling, enforceable bottom-up structure that does not require a top-down vote, any trust or knowledge about the participants.

Extreme anarchy would have no structure at all, and I am not proposing that. Positive-scaling (listen to Eric S Raymond at 4 min in linked audio) means adding more participants makes it better, not worse. In Linus's Law ("given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"), the more decentralized people working on open-source, does not suffer from the Mythical Man Month in top-down controlled closed-source.

For example this is the genius of Satoshi's proof-of-work scheme:

=========================start AnonyMint Quotes=======================
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5115441


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5138106


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5114084

=========================end AnonyMint Quotes=======================


The decentralized free market can in theory fix the problem.

(I don't know how I manage to write a post 2 hours before your post that exactly answers your question. Not luck. There is an order to this.)


No. Just like cooling ice slowly doesn't produce cracks, the decentralized free market (simulated annealing) in absence of top-down power vacuum, will maximize entropy not concentrated profit. Remember low entropy is less resilient. Low entropy means concentrating probabilities (i.e. mass).

It is the power vacuum that mucks it up.

However, as CoinCube pointed out, entropy has to be harvested else it wanders aimlessly, i.e. decentralized structure has to be decided by a top-down creator, e.g. Satoshi. Entire lack of structure is infinite disorder (infinite entropy) and will resemble a black-hole where nothing exists. So there must be this contentionism between socialism and anarchism, else we would not exist. Note how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say entropy will reach infinity, rather it says it is forever trending to maximum.

I am going to depend on CoinCube to go wandering through my recent writings to find where I explained that more in depth.

I really need to quit. I am giving you all the overviews, someone else has to hammer it in.


No that is what the power vacuum causes. You perceived that to be the free market, because you don't realize the decentralized free market is not the same as Capitalism.


No in a decentralized freedom, the knowledge (thus capital) moves to the producers and away from the stored capital claims on future manual labor. I am positing we couldn't do this on large-scale (i.e. most of the population doing it) before the internet, Satoshi, and the Knowledge Age.

A lot of "ism's" going on here - this-ism, that-ism, ism-ism 

"Capitalism", as far as I am aware, was a term coined post the industrial revolution to describe the way that capital and the ownership of the means of production was galvanised to extract value from labour. For Marx at least, labour became the source of wealth.
   You might argue that we are living in a largely post industrial age (growing knowledge economy etc)- but this is academic really with regards the ownership of the means of production and the modus operandi of those in power. Note we are talking about the ownership of the means of production here - not [solely] money - money in itself need not necessarily play any part.

    My point is, that capitalism and the free market are symbiotic. The free market in 1650 => feudalism. The free market in 1850 =>capitalism. The free market 2050 => post industrial capitalism ?
    "Meet the new boss - just the same as the old boss" - for the bulk of the population it has always amounted to the same thing - practical disenfranchisement and debt.

People are attacking the free market today as it is seen as the means by which the powerful maintain their exploitative domination - not Government (whose role in all this is open to debate). The idea that the market being deregulated/liberated will lead to more equitable and just outcomes for the bulk of the population seems anathema to a lot of people - because they have no power within that market - and because even though such a market may operate more "efficiently" than one constrained by regulation, it certainly will not operate to the greater good of the greater numbers of agents within that market.

  What would a "decentralised free market" look like exactly ? LocalBitcoins.com ? I'm not sure I understand the term.

   And how would such a market address the vast disparities in the distributions [within the free market economy] of wealth, power and opportunity ? Or don't these issues actually need addressing at all - are they after all not a threat to [a] civil society ? Does the sense of injustice that grips a huge proportion of the population because it strikes a note of discord deep within the very fabric of their being count for nothing at all ? Is there no civic duty, responsibility towards our fellow man, compassion after all ? Only, the free market 

My feeling is that a free market economy would be totally powerless to address these issues - because the job of the free market is not to create social harmony and cohesion - its purpose is to allow the firm unhindered means by which to allocate resources that it might more efficiently maximise profit.
   
   I can only say again that to my mind the unregulated free market (wether with or without a central Government sugar daddy) would not represent a utopian idyll - rather, it would resemble a jungle, with all its associated savagery, paranoia and needless suffering. Some would prosper but most would live in fear and uncertainty. The lions wouldn't pay any tax, rather they would extract tax from the subordinates - but being a free market it wouldn't be called tax - it would be called surplus value/profit - it might even be called the fruits of economic freedom.
        In short it wouldn't be too far removed from what we have already  .


ps. I hope this doesn't make me a collectivist marxist socialist totalitarianist  .

Government fills the power vacuum of democracy (top-down voting, taxation, and expenditure). The antithesis of the power vacuum would be decentralization (e.g. Satoshi's proof-of-work, no voting, with anonymity no taxation, and thus no expenditure).


Capitalism allows for capturing the government and is not required to operate within a decentralized context. Thus Capitalism is not the antithesis of the various forms of collectivism (Marxism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, etc). This is why the people are so confused today and attacking the free market (e.g. "99% versus the 1%" protests), as if the decentralized free market (conflated it with Capitalism) is at fault.

I explained the issue at the following linked post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5204210

Contentionism is the realization that socialism (top-down governance) must exist where the power vacuum exists, yet it acknowledges the repeating failures of socialism and the counter-balancing force of anarchism that prevents the extreme socialism from killing every single man, woman, and child and turns the cycle back the other direction each time extreme socialism is reached.

There are a lot of real problems that engineering and science can actually solve. These have never been global social engineering projects. Never. It is a shame we waste the resources of smart people, but this is what 200 year peaking $150 trillion debt bubbles do. They always bring out the lunatic Malthusians (go study history) because the white middle class senses there is waste (due to the debt bubble) and technological unemployment (due to the debt bubble preventing humans from adjusting their education, we have a huge liberal arts & business degrees student debt bubble) and wants to blame it on something other than the debt bubble and socialism.

Of course most every socialist liberal will then jump on the Malthusian bandwagon for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths, etc.. I will be laughing (and probably in alternative fits of crying) my head off from 2016 to 2032.

The cooling and warming of the earth, such as Ice Ages (even I've seen paintings of skating on the Thames river in London) and warm periods such as when there were vineyards in England, is not something we can realistically "fix" (stop) and we don't even have any proof it needs to be stopped. I know you propagandists will get busy trying to pick holes in that statement, because you are INSANE.

Bye. Stay lost from life and I will stay as far away from you as possible. And doing my technological best effort to destroy your ability to tax and confiscate to pay for your nonsense and debt.

Why am I angry? Because Socialists want to steal my liberty, my money, and perhaps even my life.

---

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5203611 (AGW thread)

---

I would prefer to call it contentionism to imply there are two opposing forces in play. It is also a new word.

That would make me a anarchistic-leaning-contentionist, meaning I admit the necessity of socialism because there can't be a complete elimination of the centralizing power vacuum but I prefer to fight on the side of anarchism. This is a better characterization of my views than minanarchism, which I formerly tentatively used.

Neutralism suggests a static where there is no oscillation and upheaval.

CoinCube appears to be a socialistic-leaning-contentionist. This is why I can sometimes get irritated, but as you see he forces himself back to center by demanding a realistic cost analysis of such a dubious AGW proposition. So he desires simple+smaller-scale, socialist solutions to the over concentration of wealth by the power vacuum (e.g. sustenance welfare for destitute), but not at the cost of insanity; whereas I would say private charity instead mostly because I don't trust socialism not to snowball to the extreme. He reins in his desires with analytical objectivity as to the outcomes of extreme socialism (I hope). AGW is extreme, radical socialism for the reason I stated at the top of this post.

The point is not that AGW has a 0% probability but that the costs of global warming are unknown. Without a rigorous cost/benefit analysis we do not even know if global warming is a bad thing. It is possible that some warming could be good for humanity in the long term. Lots of land in Canada, Russia, Greenland may open up to farming and productive use with some warming.

I have not seen a comprehensive cost benefit analysis have you? I definitely have not seen anything remotely justifying the guaranteed bad outcome of taxation/reduced growth/reduced prosperity. The burden of proof falls on those who want to interfere with free markets. Global warming is not an extinction level threat. There is no reason to make rash inefficient decisions based on insufficient data or insufficient analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

All the peaks of temp and co2 happen at around the same level. What is the explanation for this, because I have never seen one. If there is no accepted explanation that means we do not understand the system very well. If that is the case, treating the patient may cause more problems than it solves. Medicine was in this state for pretty much every ailment until recently, and still is for many such as cancer.

In short, climate science can not be falsified to the level that can justify stealing other people's money to attempt an imagined fix to an imagined problem.

Continue on. I will not allow your insanity to steal any more of my precious time.

We will talk again in 2032 after the debt bubble has collapsed and there is no more funding for AGW propaganda.