Great overview of the global economic con game we are all subject to. What money is, and how it rules us. 45 mins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2583451279 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279)
Boooshpig
Cash not backed by gold or silver is fiat money. It's worth what people say it's worth. I put some money into gold and I'm glad I did.
Also a 'must see'. I watched 'The Money Masters' which is on the same theme and I believe the banking families are going to be so exposed that they will start giving back for fear of being universally hated.
both great videos, i esp. like the Money as Debt one (tho the Money Masters is useful in its comprehensivity)!!
Not quite on the same level, but still intresting is The Capitalist Conspiracy (//http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=449294564876413449) - kindof like a shortened, cartoon version of the Money Masters...
unfortunately everything in all these videos seems to be true :/
QuoteI believe the banking families are going to be so exposed that they will start giving back for fear of being universally hated.
if only... unfortunately they seem to thrive on being hated... i dont believe they would ever start giving back anything voluntarily... theyre not like bill gates or sthng :(
Bill Gates is a jerk. He is putting his money into Africa and other third world nations instead of here where he made his money. He gives vaccines and food to the over populated people there. What happens when the food runs out? Who is going to feed all the kids they raise? It's like putting kerosene on a fire.
Quote from: "Stonehenge"Bill Gates is a jerk.
He is also rich therefore, he is a jerk? When will we as teh people of Earth stop thinking of the poor of Africa and the poor of the USA are any different? Are we not all humans?
...added a ? mark
hey, im no fan of mr. gates either... i was just using him as an example of a rich person who at least apparently donated some of their money to something supposedly beneficial; in contrast to the banking families.
QuoteHe is putting his money into Africa and other third world nations instead of here where he made his money. He gives vaccines and food to the over populated people there. What happens when the food runs out? Who is going to feed all the kids they raise? It's like putting kerosene on a fire.
If over-population is a problem it is a global one, not just over 'there'... remember the current 'prosperity' and relative technological superiority of developed nations is partly due to circumstances resulting from historical (and ongoing) exploitation of other countries e.g. Africa.
Gates isn't as bad as some of them. I'll give you that. At least he is trying to do some good even if it's misguided.
What I'm asking is first of all, why doesn't he spend his money over here? Charity begins at home. Secondly, all those vaccines for children who would die mean that the over population problem gets worse. They are starving now, save more kids and the problem gets even worse. That's what good intentions will lead you to.
Quote from: "Stonehenge"all those vaccines for children who would die mean that the over population problem gets worse.
Granted its a problem, ill agree with you there, but how does letting them die because it would be a worse problem if they didn't die, make it a better 'solution' in your mind?
I agree, Syd. Pretty off the wall, if you ask me.
Just more of the same mindless, heartless drivel, to me. I didn't know I was going to have to read another of stoney's gems of wisdumb when I clicked on this thread.
lw
Lets all have a group boo hoo then. Feel better now? Someone explain to me how sending handouts to people who crank out too many babies helps the world? We should send them condoms. No, they'd just use them for water balloons or something.
You send vaccines and feed all the starving brats and they grow up and crank out 5 more brats per person. That is the rate over there, I'm not making it up. Dying off is nature's way. It's not our responsibility to take care of someone else's mistakes. Even less so when that just leads to more of the same.
After we have fed all the starving brats over here and all our hungry people are taken care of, then we can think of doing stupid things in other countries. lw, are you saying we should let our kids starve so we can feed kids in africa? JRL, are you saying that? If so, explain.
No, neither of you have anything positive to contribute on the subject. You just want to snipe at me.
Well, maybe so. But I do believe the problem isn't in the amount of resources, but in the distribution of them. I think that its a crime that there are hungry people here as well as anywhere. Call me a dreamer.
One needs to take more careful consideration of what the vaccine programme is really doing over in Africa ( and the globe in general). A
Booshpig
Btw, there is no "them and us," in my reality. Only "we."
lw
Amen, one world, one race, one love!
Quote from: "Bushpig"One needs to take more careful consideration of what the vaccine programme is really doing over in Africa ( and the globe in general). A
Booshpig
That is correct.
JRL, it is a shame that anyone is hungry anywhere. I'll go along with you on that. There are many shames in the world that we can do nothing about. I say work on the things we have some chance of solving. You can flap your arms all day trying to fly to the moon or you can do something constructive.
Take the analogy of 100 people stranded on an island. They have enough food and water for all to survive for 15 days max but the rescue ship will not come for 30 days. 50 could survive until the ship comes but not all 100. Should all die or should half be denied so the other half can live? Life involves some difficult choices at times.
Who is gonna be the decider?
Quote from: "JRL"Who is gonna be the decider?
That is one of the hard parts. Also, how do you decide, on what basis? Would you say to let them all live it up for 15 days and all die or do you have another solution? It's easy to criticize another solution when you don't have one of your own.
Islands usually will provide sustenance to those who seek it, so none would have to die.
"usually" doesn't get it. This island has a 15 day supply, period. I see that no one has an answer for the problem. That's what usually happens in real life. People can't make the tough decisions and dither instead. The end result is everyone dies in a situation like that. Or the strong survive and the weak perish. Most likely those with food will keep it for themselves. Those who share will die.
Substitute the earth for the island and the 100 people represent the 6 billion earth population. In our case, it's mostly energy that is scarce. If you have enough energy you can make clean water and produce food. When the energy runs out then we will have a die off.
If fusion power comes along in time (the rescue ship) then we will be saved. We will have unlimited power to run desalination plants, make food grow in the desert and so on. Fusion looks like it's a long ways down the road and oil is running out. $100 a barrel oil will look cheap in a few years. Should all the poor people die or how will we decide things?
It's a useful analogy Stonehenge, but I think it fails to take into account one point. That the earth has all the resources, and we as people have all the potential to ensure everyone can prosper. However there is a very real deception going on to stop that. I know it sounds very much idealist in position( hehe shoot me down, it's almost optimisitic), but it's my 2 cents. Methinks the island is not a full analogy for the earth and our human condition.
Boooshpig
right on, bushie,
lw
Bushpig, I like your optimism. However, I prefer to have a solution in hand rather than hope something will come along in time.
The earth is very much like an island in that we can't realisticly escape it and it has limited resources. We see from the geologic record that many species that were wide spread and very successful in the past died out and became extinct because of changes in their environment. Lets hope we don't suffer a similar fate.
Quote from: "Stonehenge""the strong survive and the weak perish. ... Should all the poor people die or how will we decide things?
Sounds like you've already decided for them.
QuoteTake the analogy of 100 people stranded on an island. They have enough food and water for all to survive for 15 days max but the rescue ship will not come for 30 days. 50 could survive until the ship comes but not all 100. Should all die or should half be denied so the other half can live? Life involves some difficult choices at times.
I think the mathematics in this analogy are misrepresentative of the complexities of Life on Earth. We create our own future. As to who will survive, it will likely be those who are able to cooperate and build truly sustainable communities - whether this is on a local or more global scale would depend. Peasant farmers in Africa and other 'poor' regions may be at an advantage compared to ppl in industrialised countries when the energy deficit really starts to come home. Energy won't run out for a while - there is always the sun, if serious investment was put into solar tech. i'm sure energy problems could be easily solved. btw, what about cold fusion (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion)?
I totally agree the problem is one of unequal distribution and vested interests... if people started being more empathetic, hypercapitalist tendencies were tuned down and people were less greedy/selfish in general, i'm sure a truly symbiotic society could evolve.
...like Terence McKenna once said -
We have
the technological power,
the engineering skills,
to save our planet,
to cure disease,
to feed the hungry,
to end war.
But we lack the intellectual vision; the ability to change our minds.
Azarius, cold fusion is an interesting idea but never worked. Fusion itself in any form has not worked except of course for the bomb. Reliable fusion is the "rescue ship" in my analogy. If it comes along before the oil runs out, we will be saved. If not, we face a die off.
Producing large amounts of food requires large amounts of energy. It takes energy to produce the fertilizers, run the tractors and so on. Doing everything by hand, using human and animal wastes along with garbage for ferts means we will be working from sunup to sundown just staying alive at the subsistence level. Not a pretty picture. Add to that massive die offs from lack of food and aids running rampant and a world without oil looks grim. We still have coal but the smog and CO2 emissions means global warming will keep getting worse.
I'm just trying to get people to look at the big picture. Take care of our own first before sending off resources overseas.
One planet, one race. This may be the only way out. Given humanity's track record, nay sayers like the honorable Stonehenge might be right.
"I don't know whose back thats strong, maybe find out before too long"
QuoteBushpig, I like your optimism. However, I prefer to have a solution in hand rather than hope something will come along in time.
I do not disagree at all with needing a solution :) Thats the tricky bit :P My point was merely to say a change in 'mind' is all we need, rather than to pick who should die in regards to the analogy. I'm pretty much along the lins of Azarius' McKenna quote.
Boooshpig
Another factor to consider is that some countries have stabilized their birthrate and others, most notably the third world, have not. Someone optimisticly said the world's population may stabilize at 8 billion or so. Africa alone may have that many people at the rate they are going. Should we keep sending food and aid over there if they refuse to control their own population growth?
It's been said that all we need is a better distribution system. We produce the goods and distribute them (free) to those in need. Is that what you think we should do, BP? A change of "mind" is not going to solve the overpopulation problem, the energy problem or the other problems. Unless the breeders have a change of mind. That's where change needs to begin.
Change needs to begin within oneself.
No, I do not think that we should do that Stonehenge, but then, I do not think Africa is in the state it is because they 'just can't get there shit together'. Africa, seems to be that way because certain powers probably benefit from it being that way, until of course it is time for the true conquest of Africa....which I am sure will come.
It is one tricky problem though, I do not dissagree there but I do think Syd sums it up the best "change begins with ourselves"
Boooshpig