Manufacturing Poverty

[CaptainBeowulf]

North America could easily get off imported oil, if you consider Canadian sources domestic.

Combining "fracking" for oil in the continental U.S. with the Alberta oilsands, building the Keystone pipeline and some offshore drilling, and North America could supply all its own oil for a while (decades).

There's a lot of natural gas here too, Diogenes' natural gas idea works.

Putting solar panels on your roof helps too. Still not sure about hybrid vehicles... still suspicious that the energy cost/pollution of making and disposing of the battery packs exceeds the energy cost/pollution of just burning gas during the lifetime of the vehicle.

Preferable, of course, would be something like Polywell combined with more efficient battery packs, which would allow electric vehicles to be recharged off the grid without creating pollution anywhere. However, the only thing stopping us before that sort of thing becomes feasible is political gridlock.

[Diogenes]

North America could easily get off imported oil, if you consider Canadian sources domestic.

Combining "fracking" for oil in the continental U.S. with the Alberta oilsands, building the Keystone pipeline and some offshore drilling, and North America could supply all its own oil for a while (decades).

There's a lot of natural gas here too, Diogenes' natural gas idea works.

Putting solar panels on your roof helps too. Still not sure about hybrid vehicles... still suspicious that the energy cost/pollution of making and disposing of the battery packs exceeds the energy cost/pollution of just burning gas during the lifetime of the vehicle.

Preferable, of course, would be something like Polywell combined with more efficient battery packs, which would allow electric vehicles to be recharged off the grid without creating pollution anywhere. However, the only thing stopping us before that sort of thing becomes feasible is political gridlock.

The only reason Obama blocked the construction of the Keystone pipeline project to Canada was to bolster support among his eco-nut supporters. He has shut down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and he has used the EPA in attempts to shut down Coal and Gas fired generating stations.

Notwithstanding the direct loss of jobs this conduct has caused, it has also driven up the cost of various fuels which has also contributed further to the loss of jobs in this country.

America COULD be independent of the Middle east if we would stop doing stupid things. (Like electing Liberals and/or Democrats. Likewise a bunch of Republicans aren't worth a sh*t either. )

I hope to see more efficient heat engines for converting fuels into usable motive power, and I hope to see breakthroughs in alternative energy systems such as solar and cellulosic ethanol, etc.

A polywell reactor would really be nice as well.

[choff]

North America could easily get off imported oil, if you consider Canadian sources domestic.

Combining "fracking" for oil in the continental U.S. with the Alberta oilsands, building the Keystone pipeline and some offshore drilling, and North America could supply all its own oil for a while (decades).

There's a lot of natural gas here too, Diogenes' natural gas idea works.

Putting solar panels on your roof helps too. Still not sure about hybrid vehicles... still suspicious that the energy cost/pollution of making and disposing of the battery packs exceeds the energy cost/pollution of just burning gas during the lifetime of the vehicle.

Preferable, of course, would be something like Polywell combined with more efficient battery packs, which would allow electric vehicles to be recharged off the grid without creating pollution anywhere. However, the only thing stopping us before that sort of thing becomes feasible is political gridlock.

The only reason Obama blocked the construction of the Keystone pipeline project to Canada was to bolster support among his eco-nut supporters. He has shut down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and he has used the EPA in attempts to shut down Coal and Gas fired generating stations.

Notwithstanding the direct loss of jobs this conduct has caused, it has also driven up the cost of various fuels which has also contributed further to the loss of jobs in this country.

America COULD be independent of the Middle east if we would stop doing stupid things. (Like electing Liberals and/or Democrats. Likewise a bunch of Republicans aren't worth a sh*t either. )

I hope to see more efficient heat engines for converting fuels into usable motive power, and I hope to see breakthroughs in alternative energy systems such as solar and cellulosic ethanol, etc.

A polywell reactor would really be nice as well.

No worries, we just sell the tar sand oil to China instead.

[Teahive]

Printing money is effectively a tax on cash and assets denominated in a given currency. Like other taxes, it transfers wealth into the hands of the government. And whether the government uses that wealth in a sensible fashion is a separate matter entirely.

Compared to other forms of taxes there are benefits, though. Low administrative cost is one, being able to choose the precise tax revenue another. It's not geographically bound, and it taxes the black market as well. And it's more neutral in terms of redirecting economic decisions than most other taxes.

It can be horribly abused, but the same is true for funding the state on debt. I'd rather see a government that manages a balanced budget via taxation than one that piles up debt it can never repay, and get rid of the presumed "safe haven" government bonds in the process.

[mvanwink5]

It is a cruel tax that targets retirees with fixed income and pensions, and historically it accelerates, bubble after bubble until collapse. Not pretty. We see that in process with the Euro and Greece. The Fed has joined in to help prop up the house of cards. Hold on to your fillings and avoid dark alleys... We already have the copper thieves, and Tide truck hijackings....

Thatcher said (paraphrased), "Socialism works well until the government runs out of other peoples' money."

[Teahive]

It is a cruel tax that targets retirees with fixed income and pensions, and historically it accelerates, bubble after bubble until collapse. Not pretty. We see that in process with the Euro and Greece. The Fed has joined in to help prop up the house of cards. Hold on to your fillings and avoid dark alleys... We already have the copper thieves, and Tide truck hijackings....

Thatcher said (paraphrased), "Socialism works well until the government runs out of other peoples' money."

Inflation is a reality today, so a retirement option that pays a fixed income doesn't seem like a particularly good choice anyway. In many countries pensions get adjusted with inflation. I don't think piling up more and more debt and thereby either deferring taxes or bringing about a debt crisis is less cruel.

And as I said, what the government does with that money is a different issue. Even the most libertarian government needs a source of income.

[mvanwink5]

How many US pensions have 10% inflation built into them? I will go out on a limb here and say absolutely none. In fact I don't know of any pensions that are inflation indexed. Financing the government by debt ends up even with the State worker's pensions in doubt, ask the Illinois state workers. This experiment in socialism is a cruel experiment. That is all I will say on this subject, the rest will be future history.

[choff]

There are a few tools at government disposal for allieviating inflation caused by printing money. They can raise the fractional reserve requirements for banks, or literally put a best before date on the currency, a la Guernsey Island. Mainly the government spends the new currency on those areas of the economy in deflation, namely public works. The old Social Credit idea was transfer the new money directly into the accounts of the poorest/fixed income and small businesses.

The main Socred arguement is that because total wages in an economy will always be smaller than total prices in the economy the difference would be accumulated, compound debt. The only way to elimanate the debt would be to print enough money to cover the difference between the two.

[hanelyp]

The main Socred arguement is that because total wages in an economy will always be smaller than total prices in the economy the difference would be accumulated, compound debt.

How is that supposed to work? Everyone owes everyone more and more? Some portion of money vanishes with each transaction?

I see money as a way of tracking how much claim each has on the wealth (in material goods and services) of society. In a free market, how much a given quantity of money is worth is up to the party who owns what someone else wants to buy.

[choff]

The main Socred arguement is that because total wages in an economy will always be smaller than total prices in the economy the difference would be accumulated, compound debt.

How is that supposed to work? Everyone owes everyone more and more? Some portion of money vanishes with each transaction?

I see money as a way of tracking how much claim each has on the wealth (in material goods and services) of society. In a free market, how much a given quantity of money is worth is up to the party who owns what someone else wants to buy.

Eventually it doesn't work at all, because the debt interest payments becomes such a large cancer on society that it chokes off all economic growth. Hence the need to regularly inject new money into the system to stop debt accumulation in the first place. Pensions and health care are good places to do it amoung others, as you're not just giving money to lazy people.

[Diogenes]

Printing money is effectively a tax on cash and assets denominated in a given currency. Like other taxes, it transfers wealth into the hands of the government. And whether the government uses that wealth in a sensible fashion is a separate matter entirely.

Compared to other forms of taxes there are benefits, though. Low administrative cost is one, being able to choose the precise tax revenue another. It's not geographically bound, and it taxes the black market as well. And it's more neutral in terms of redirecting economic decisions than most other taxes.

It can be horribly abused, but the same is true for funding the state on debt. I'd rather see a government that manages a balanced budget via taxation than one that piles up debt it can never repay, and get rid of the presumed "safe haven" government bonds in the process.

I regard it as theft. It is the taking of the value of my money without my consent. People don't seem to realize that money is just a score keeping system for work or commodities. It took a certain quantity of work or commodities to trade for that money originally. What the government is doing by printing more money is jiggering the score keeping system.

They are cheating by manipulating the value of the accumulated score, and in reality, stealing people work and property.

[JoeP]

I regard it as theft. It is the taking of the value of my money without my consent. People don't seem to realize that money is just a score keeping system for work or commodities. It took a certain quantity of work or commodities to trade for that money originally. What the government is doing by printing more money is jiggering the score keeping system.

They are cheating by manipulating the value of the accumulated score, and in reality, stealing people work and property.

Yes. Theft. A Tax. On top of all the other taxes. It is a wonder anything is left to buy goods and services.

Mechanically, it is the same as a counterfeiter. A criminal prints a $1000 and spends it. The value represented by that $1000 dollars is stolen equally from all other dollars currently in the system.

It is unnoticeable because the effect is so dilute. An ounce of water in a swimming pool. But when billions or trillions are printed, a larger percentage of the existing base numbers of dollars are affected.

What should happen to increase the number of dollars is a split. Like a stock split. Your $1 is now worth $2, and prices are adjusted accordingly at a specific time, just like many of us do to reset clocks for DST. You trade your original dollars in for the new type at the bank. Or merchants give you change in the new type. Or just don't use cash and it is handled automatically in bits and bytes.

Either that, or pennies eventually become worth something again. So you get less money, but it buys more. 12 cents for a dozen eggs. Etc.

[choff]

I regard it as theft. It is the taking of the value of my money without my consent. People don't seem to realize that money is just a score keeping system for work or commodities. It took a certain quantity of work or commodities to trade for that money originally. What the government is doing by printing more money is jiggering the score keeping system.

They are cheating by manipulating the value of the accumulated score, and in reality, stealing people work and property.

Yes. Theft. A Tax. On top of all the other taxes. It is a wonder anything is left to buy goods and services.

Mechanically, it is the same as a counterfeiter. A criminal prints a $1000 and spends it. The value represented by that $1000 dollars is stolen equally from all other dollars currently in the system.

It is unnoticeable because the effect is so dilute. An ounce of water in a swimming pool. But when billions or trillions are printed, a larger percentage of the existing base numbers of dollars are affected.

What should happen to increase the number of dollars is a split. Like a stock split. Your $1 is now worth $2, and prices are adjusted accordingly at a specific time, just like many of us do to reset clocks for DST. You trade your original dollars in for the new type at the bank. Or merchants give you change in the new type. Or just don't use cash and it is handled automatically in bits and bytes.

Either that, or pennies eventually become worth something again. So you get less money, but it buys more. 12 cents for a dozen eggs. Etc.

There was a banker in the 1800's who claimed that even if you expropriated all the wealth of the bankers, so long as they retained the power to create money, they would just print enough to buy up everything again in short order, and then make the people pay for their slavery. One of his compatriots claimed that he cared not who ruled the country so long as he controlled the central bank. There was another guy that said that robbing a bank wasn't as bad as starting one.

We don't call it counterfeiting when the banks create money out of thin air and charge interest on government bonds or consumer mortgages and loans, (yes, thin air, research it for yourself). So why do the banks get to engage in counterfeiting but not the government, and we never complain about how the banks are devaluing the currency doing it. We've been conditioned not to question where money comes from.


A. Hitler made the claim that the people can be conditioned to accept the most monstrous slavery as freedom. Look at the national debt private central banks created from thin air and interest compounding, all paid for from tax money, that's slavery. Yet you've been conditioned to believe that money created without debt is a bad thing.


In case you don't believe you've been brainwashed by bankers, check out the history of tax free educational foundations created by the same central bankers. They provide financial support for the economic theorists that keep you in the dark, as well as historians, and psychological mass mind control research establishments like the Tavistalkers.

[Teahive]

Printing money is effectively a tax on cash and assets denominated in a given currency. Like other taxes, it transfers wealth into the hands of the government. And whether the government uses that wealth in a sensible fashion is a separate matter entirely.

Compared to other forms of taxes there are benefits, though. Low administrative cost is one, being able to choose the precise tax revenue another. It's not geographically bound, and it taxes the black market as well. And it's more neutral in terms of redirecting economic decisions than most other taxes.

It can be horribly abused, but the same is true for funding the state on debt. I'd rather see a government that manages a balanced budget via taxation than one that piles up debt it can never repay, and get rid of the presumed "safe haven" government bonds in the process.

I regard it as theft. It is the taking of the value of my money without my consent. People don't seem to realize that money is just a score keeping system for work or commodities. It took a certain quantity of work or commodities to trade for that money originally. What the government is doing by printing more money is jiggering the score keeping system.

They are cheating by manipulating the value of the accumulated score, and in reality, stealing people work and property.

I can understand that view. I'm pointing out that printing is little different from taking a certain quantity of work or commodities as a percentage of money earned or spent in the shape of a tax. That affects the score keeping system as well.

And if you take the view that government is necessary and needs funding, there's a strong case to be made that taxation (or a similar mechanism of taking wealth, like printing money) is a necessary evil, too.

[Diogenes]

Printing money is effectively a tax on cash and assets denominated in a given currency. Like other taxes, it transfers wealth into the hands of the government. And whether the government uses that wealth in a sensible fashion is a separate matter entirely.

Compared to other forms of taxes there are benefits, though. Low administrative cost is one, being able to choose the precise tax revenue another. It's not geographically bound, and it taxes the black market as well. And it's more neutral in terms of redirecting economic decisions than most other taxes.

It can be horribly abused, but the same is true for funding the state on debt. I'd rather see a government that manages a balanced budget via taxation than one that piles up debt it can never repay, and get rid of the presumed "safe haven" government bonds in the process.

I regard it as theft. It is the taking of the value of my money without my consent. People don't seem to realize that money is just a score keeping system for work or commodities. It took a certain quantity of work or commodities to trade for that money originally. What the government is doing by printing more money is jiggering the score keeping system.

They are cheating by manipulating the value of the accumulated score, and in reality, stealing people work and property.

I can understand that view. I'm pointing out that printing is little different from taking a certain quantity of work or commodities as a percentage of money earned or spent in the shape of a tax. That affects the score keeping system as well.

And if you take the view that government is necessary and needs funding, there's a strong case to be made that taxation (or a similar mechanism of taking wealth, like printing money) is a necessary evil, too.

Taxation/Government is a necessary evil, but beyond a certain legitimate percentage, it transforms into just plain evil.