Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Bar' started by Genius Gone Insane, Jun 17, 2013.
No, not really, obviously. I thought it was pertinent to point out, because that misconception is part of why people seem to believe that it is impossible for the dollar bubble to ever burst:
If anyone can prove me wrong feel free.
But there hasn't been a single paper currency that hasn't reverted back to it's true value (zero) in history. I wonder what makes people think the dollar is so special. To me it's only a matter of time, that bitch will eventually be worth nothing.
Well, here's one: the earth revolves around the sun. That would have been considered the equivalent a conspiracy theory at one point.
I'm sold! I guess I'll go convert my $80k in student loan repayments into bitcoin.
No, it means that 1500 architects and engineers are willing to put their careers on the line and speak up. If there were no risk to signing your name to this, perhaps more architects and engineers would speak up. I personally wouldn't sign my name to that shit. Whoever orchestrated this monstrosity could dispose of me rather easily, I imagine.
I'm not running out to covert my money into something else. I was merely pointing out an issue with paper money historically.
Central banks have only been around for about 300 years, and floating exchange rates off the gold standard have only been around for about 40. We live in a completely different monetary, fiscal, and political environment than we did when any fiat currencies of the past collapsed. That's like saying, "Every country in human history has collapsed or been taken over." Yeah, but nobody is saying the U.S. is going to get invaded by China tomorrow.
Except conspiracy theorists, of course.
Perhaps they're shit architects/engineers looking to make some $ off of BS. It's not much people considering. Maybe? You would have to look into each and every engineer/architect before assuming they have indeed a stake in their name?
Just a thought.
You're the one who brought numbers in implying that 1500 was an impressive number. I simply pointed out that that was less than 1%. If the story is now that the number doesn't matter b/c everyone is afraid of the government then there was no reason to try to quantify it in the first place....except that that was how you were going to prove your last point. Beyond that, your current point is contingent on accepting that there was in fact a conspiracy and the conspirators are after everyone who exposes them. It's circular logic and classic tinfoil hat garbage.
Using the same flawed technique I can prove there is no conspiracy b/c you talk about one constantly and any competent global conspirators would have had you killed by now. Do you see why that doesn't work?
Aye. It's a wonder they haven't already, what with your incredibly reasoned, scathing, and lets not forget successful, attacks upon the establishment.
(the above might be sarcasm)
You are right, my reference to the Venus Project was more the mutual economical agreement of Fresco and Joseph of the resource based economy. That economic view point is ultimately what Joesph has always pushed. "Money is the root of all evil therefor we must get rid of all forms of any monetary policy". It isn't the most educated assertion. On the Alex Jones show he even went as far as saying that there would be no need for a police force because under the resource based economy there would be no war, no criminals, physical altercations as well as stating that all negative human instincts would disappear because we would no longer have to compete for resources or to advance ourselves in the social hierarchy. To him, all murders, fraud, robbery, assaults and all other acts of violence are purely because of money...yes he really did say that.
So under this resource based economy, everything is free, you don't have to work and you can get everything you want without cost because technology exists to permanently eliminate labor and the people that design or maintain the infrastructure or still have professions, do so for the love of humanity, basically a utopia. Not accounting for scarcity and consequently the subjective value an individual then places on that good or service, his theory compeltely voids the understanding why markets, why money, why trade exists in the first place, it exists becuase goods on this planet are limited and resources and thus scarce. This is why we give them value, and goods having value requires a market of some sort. The best type of market is on where people have a choice to interact voluntarily, as opposed to governments saying what you can or can't buy or even worse, communism, where you don't own zilch.
To me, the whole system is rehashed communism, or communism looked at from a different perspective, but hold still a lot of cores. Call it Neo-Communism if you will.
Here are two lengthy articles on the topic, worth the read. I have had these bookmarked for about 3 years now.
Yes Joseph is pretty off the handle crazy, it was actually through TZM I started "Awakening" if you will. Over time, I lost respect for him and others like Jones for being more worried about pushing their radical agendas rather than focus on the individual. While Joseph isn't outwardly crazy like Jones, is cool and collected and comes across as intelligent, he still IMO has a dangerous and radical view point. Delving into Philosophy and Classical Liberal Economics and history will put a light to not only the situation and TZM/TVP.
Its doesn't have to be dreary if you know the solution and understand it well. As gloomy as out economics are these days, it gives hope knowing that a new age of enlightenment is only as far away as any able bodies individual spread an intelligent assessment of the financial woes we are in, how we got there, and how we get out of it.
You are touching on one of the main challenges in this discussion. How can you tell if an idea is communist? How can you tell if an idea is a so called conspiracy theory?
In the 1960s the FBI pulled strings to have several University of California professors fired because of their leftist philosophies. University of California students protested. The University of California students who protested were called "communists."
Were they? What is a communist? It is a poorly defined word that has been thrown around too much.
In my mind, communists are people like the Soviets, or people who run around saying "I am communist." Personally, I fucking hate communism. It is ten times more atrocious than the perverse, greedy, corrupt capitalism we have in the USA. I like having the freedom to do what I want and worship what I want. Communism threatens against that.
So it really bothers me when people call some of these enlightening new ideas "communist." Especially when these "communist" ideas are trying to support the very freedom that our current capitalist system is shitting on.
This is golden.
The idea of resourced based economics is that all resources belong to the collective community and how those resources are going to be used is decided by the community/governing bodies, not the individual. In practice that would mean if you wanted a certain good or service that wasn't available and wasn't being made then you are shit out of luck. It would be a system where the community, the collectivist would tell you how you can live, where you can live, what you can have and could (and usually does) turn into a system where you have no private property. Sounds like traditional Marxist Communism to me.
I personally come from the other side of the coin, the belief that the individual has the right to make decisions for themselves, the right to property and the right to mutually trade goods and services with others without the threat of coercion. The "collective community" and the "greater good for society" argument doesn't mean shit to me.
Do you have any private property right now? Certainly no private intellectual property.
BTW I do not necessarily think you are wrong. I just hate it when people throw this C word around.
I'm by no means a communist, but seriously? That's quite scary. Sounds kinda like something Ayn Rand would have said after too many Benzedrines.
For societies as a whole to truly flourish, then the individual must have the right to personal freedom. If those freedoms are protected among all individuals then societies are both more financially rich and socially rich. On the other hand when a collectivist approach is assumed, it only creates a system where the majority impose their will on the minority. If civil liberties are protected and individuals are allowed to do as the please so long that it is peaceful, then society as a whole does well. In certain aspects majority rule systems like democracy or a republic are needed, but those usually are used in the choice or political representatives, which at best, are guardians of "Natural Law" and the "Rule of Law" or private matters that don't affect civil liberties.
That is not Ayn Rand by any means, more like a couple millennium before, try Aristotle or even the US founding fathers and visionaries (Jefferson, Madison, Locke, Paine etc.) as well as any other Classical Liberal. Aristotle deeply understood many of the fallacies of collectivism and the commonwealth and ironically enough most of his observations can be observed if you know where to look.
This is accurate. But the problem is that people use this as an excuse to shit on weak people and steal their money and then use that money to pay politicians to make it legal for the government to defamate people who stand up for the weak people.
It is a circular issue, and it is better than communism (a lot better). But many people would consider me a commie bastard simply for posting this.
I think you are missing the point. When governments job and duty is only to enforce laws protecting the rights of individuals and to a lesser degree companies/corporations. When proper restriction is placed on government and those who seek unfair advantages at the expense of others are punished by the law and the law is correctly enforced, there is no excuse to steal money, there is no "shitting" on the weak, it simply won't happen, a government that is following is prime and only duty is to make sure that doesn't happen.
Unfortunately we have never had this. During the founding of the US, at least, while our founders were for this, they had to compromise because the backwards manipulative bigots who were in state positions who did unfortunately speak accurately for the bigoted culture of the time. The result was slavery, women didn't have rights, you could only vote if you were a white male with x amount of land etc. Real social change has to take place at the people first. When that happens a better government will come forth and if maintained will ensure that the opportunists out there, in politics or otherwise are properly punished for infringing upon civil liberties.
If real social change takes place and unjust laws are created, they are nullified by those who refuse to enforce. If you have the removal of career politicians this would mean that current politicians in order to win office or keep office up to their term limit would have to keep the best interest of the people and thus adapt laws to what the people want.