there is already another system with the same goal that has been in practice for decades. Permaculture. Food forests.
Open-e-farm is a great example of where the technology of abundance is headed.
Just wanted to quote this for anyone who has the urge to waste their life drawing pictures of floating cities. |
|
|
|
|
Schools that have a central plant or certain wholesale pricing often need to maintain a constant minimum load. So they do things like leave all the lights on at night. I don't know whether that's the case here though.
|
|
|
|
Your A/C isn't a heater or a cooler, its a heat pump. It moves heat from one place to another. Takes the heat in your room and pumps it outside It's not converting the electricity in to cold and pumping it in. The electricity is used up whiel the A/C does the work of moving the heat from inside to outside.
This is not true for standard Central Air Conditioning. (with the exception of heat pumps) Wrong. That description is perfectly accurate. |
|
|
|
Keynsian theory is founded on the idea of money as debt!...the exact opposite of what Web is saying.
Currently, there is two views of money, Fiat and gold based.
For sake of argument, there is no difference between a US dollar and “credit”. Both represent the same thing, a debt owed for work done.
The problem with Gold is, it doesn’t represent work done and a debt owed. It represents a physical material that it has value as a material.
The whole idea of gold as money outrages me that people cannot think of money in its purest form. It is suppose to be a guaranteed bond, akin to signing a contract, which work performed can be used to get work in return.
The problem comes in that individuals, companies, states, or governments would rather just make new money than create work to back the new debt created. This perversion of not having money represent work done and work owed is what we are witnessing by the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank. Ben Bernanke, in effect, is trying to show the world, that US does not have to honor repayment with new work, it can repay with sleight of hand and new paper IOU that will never get repaid with work. |
|
|
|
|
When I click on a link that says "hose of commons" I don't want to see the boring-ass US president. I want to see droll witticisms.
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Zeitgeist philosophy.
Actually it's just technocracy, which had as much of an influence on Ayn Rand's industrialist-train-magnate rape fantasies as it did on Jacques Fresco's post-modern communist psycho-babble, and which predates both by several decades. |
|
|
|
You sound like a liberal. You should realize that your urge to flee your country is likely caused by a genetic defect that predisposes you to novelty-seeking behavior. |
|
|
|
|
You're assuming that you can just add up total supply and add up total demand and that they must be equal? Supply is tied to price. It's not like "oh these Bitcoins here, I'm using them so I can't sell them".
Supply is 30% higher, but at 77% higher price. So the price goes up, not down.
|
|
|
|
the fallacy is so obvious
Like the fallacy of assuming that labor requires humans? |
|
|
|
That's true, but only to some extent. More people also means a more advanced division of labor, as well as more creativity and productive potential.
This is a popular misconception. Division of labor is in no way limited by the number of people on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
Most pools use some type of scoring system. So, someone could "mine for you" and just submit bogus results to drive down your score.
|
|
|
|
At what point did the term change for the negative?
Pretty much at the point that liberals decided to abandon the concept of rights in favor of mobocracy and wealth redistribution. |
|
|
|
|
The "law" of supply and demand is kind of like the law of gravity. It doesn't really tell us how things always are. It tells us how things tend to be. You can ignore the law of supply and demand; it's not impossible. But as a consequence you will run out of some scarce resource at the least opportune time. Just as you can ignore the law of gravity, and feel free to jump off a cliff.
|
|
|
|
I'm here to make money. Guess what? No ideology makes sense, in fact, nothing does.
Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. |
|
|
|
Seems to me the government defines economic health quite purely in terms of GDP figures, which are a measure of spending, not efficiency.
Well, sometimes. The US government is big, with many divergent interests. Sometimes economic health is measured by GDP growth. Sometimes by stock market growth. Sometimes by wage growth. Sometimes by foreign trade. Overall, if wasteful spending were the only priority, they could probably do an even better job of it. Regardless, spending forces efficiency. It's not "efficiency for the sake of higher consumption". It's "higher consumption for the sake of efficiency". But efficiency is not the end goal. It's just the next step. So it doesn't matter where on the circle you start. What's important is the process: spending -> consumption -> efficiency -> centralization -> risk -> failure -> dependence -> more spending Cash for Clunkers artificially increased the efficiency of big corporate auto manufacturers. For a time, there was pressure for centralization through mergers. At the least, it has prevented smaller competitors from arising. It has created the risk that subsidized, centralized auto companies will again fail to bring efficient cars to market. And when that happens, Americans will again be dependent upon foreign energy supplies secured by big government and made affordable by government spending. So, no, it's not really efficiency. But it's the definition of vicious cycle. |
|
|
|
if everyone was given $1,000 tomorrow, spending in the economy would increase over the following days and weeks and months. IF such spending improved the economy's health, however defined, then all the government needs to do to end recessions is print money and give it to us. Such a theory is absurd.
Here's the thing. The (US) government defines "economic health" solely in terms of efficiency of production. Efficiency of production tends towards centralization of production. Centralization of production gives government useful tools that it can use to control vast areas and populations. A "healthy" economy is therefore a centrally-managed economy, ipso facto. But centralization of production also tends towards risk. Centralization, and the risk inherent, periodically creates phenomena like entire generations of people who can't find jobs and can't survive independently and who are forced to become dependent upon more government, more efficiency and more centralized production. Government drives this process through Keynesian economic spending. Giving everyone $1,000 encourages consumption, which incentivizes efficiency, which leads to centralization, which creates risk, which leads to future failure and more spending, etc. This process is exactly what the US government wants to encourage, because it has defined this as a "healthy" economy. |
|
|
|
|
See, the problem with this experiment is that they didn't also lock the students in the room for several days and charge them for all of their meals.
Which is the reason we see the exact same behavior in real financial markets. There is absolutely no consequence to failure.
|
|
|
|
|
This looks like typical Keynesian claptrap and the idea of "money as debt" is fundamentally flawed since it is based on labor theory of value.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that one can store value for long periods of time by holding currency is an illusion anyways. It's a shame governments promote this idea in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
