Back a few posts, when I said I had a theory on the prices of everything eventually dropping to nil, I was using a model based on good faith of the people, one not having any flies in the ointment. It seems there may be one, which might explain the rationale I questioned in a subsequent post, about inflation and credit.
Just a few Canadian thoughts (One who pays US Taxes):-):
I would rather have my countries economy run by central bank then letting government print money on a emotional whim.At least their is cost associated when govenment generates a new bond issue. It is the only way other countries have confidence in the economy and will invest thus supporting the countries standard of living. I would believe without central bank controlling interest rates. The market would become more emotional and would swing greater from inflation to depression The problem is not a central bank but governments who refuse to balance their budgets. Going back to a gold standard is anti-growth and unproductive.
I don't think you have worry about a world government. Just look how ineffectual the UN is. I believe the world's economy will become more integrated through time because it is more efficient. I believe there is less conflict when rules and regulations on how to simply behave in the marketplace and then everybody's standard of living will improve. If the US wants to become more isolated from the rest of the world I can guarantee you it will affect your standard of living
Income Tax has been proven to be both anti-growth and unproductive. The fairest tax is a direct upfront tax on goods and sevices (Consumption Tax) But due the control the extremes of both political parties have, I don't think there is the political will to change it.
RFID chips do have the potential to be abused but has the ability to offer great benifits. The scenerios in this film clip are extreme cases. First thing the people have to take back control of your goverment instead of allowing it to cater to special interests. and institute sound and pragmatic policy on how information should be shared.
Just a few thoughts outside looking in
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
I think I should've checked first, before posting that link. I think the fellow who made the video is on to something about paying so much in interest. However, after checking, I feel compelled to post this link to The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, November 30, 2006, and I'll quote a bit from pp. 53-54:
Quote:
Those who act on frivolous positions risk a variety of civil and criminal penalties. Those who adopt these positions may face harsher consequences than those who merely promote them. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1991), “Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like moths, these people sometimes get burned.�
That said, I think there's a cousin to the “inflationary mentality�, that believes people won't work if their pockets are filled and they don't have to worry about where there next meal's coming from. What bankers have nothing better to do than conceive of these short-sighted fears? They think that there aren't enough immigrants to do the jobs we don't want to do and also do our jobs too. They think progress would grind to a halt if too many people had too much money. Here's what I think would happen if people had too much money: they would cease working, and begin pursuing happiness (short-term fear of the bankers) and realizing dreams. It's the realizing dreams part where the activity increases, and hence the productivity and progress of humanity skyrockets. I think that with enough robots in the fields and factories, we can maybe do some providing instead of trading, and perhaps win the bankers over to some activity more benefiting humanity, like counting stars and galaxies in the sky, and helping to account for Near-Earth Objects, instead of worthless beans.
A lot to check on, but so far it looks like a repetition of history in agriculture will help to keep many (more) people from being hungry (despite troubled areas). This plot, from the Wiki page seems to show tremendous progress over the last 40 years:
Was this progress so bad? True, the smaller farmer with oxen to pull to the plow can't hardly compete with farmers using tractors, but the smaller farmers by themselves could never produce enough food to keep millions of people from starving. A smaller farmer may have to seek out another vocation, but at least he won't go hungry, right?
I have no problem with a new green revolution for Africa or that part with GMO's. I just hope it will be implemented with lessons learned from past mistakes. I hope they will take a more sustainable approach and be more careful how argibusiness promote their products. I hope they talk to the farmers and deal with the countries that have the least corruption.
One mistake If my memory serves me right, I believe there was big push to plant Maize (a commodity crop) in Africa in the sixties to substitute for more indigenous species, a crop that produces a high yield but requires lots of moisture. Over the years these crops continue to fail because Maize is not drought tolerent. I hope the foundations do their homework properly this time. I hope the new green revolution will be Knowledge Based as opposed to the old green revolution which was capital based.
The following link points to some of my areas of concern about past mistakes in the old green revolution and some hopes for the new green revolution. New Green revolution
Typical development projects see smallholders as impediments to progress, underutilized workers whose labor would be more efficiently used in an urban factory.
Isn't this a little short-sighted this time around? What use does an automated ("robomated"?) factory have for displaced 'smallholders'? (And more to the point, should it be business's problem, or their government's problem?)
Is it fair to say that the entire ecosystem of the whole planet is, itself, a GMO? (If not, why not?)
Criticism, when it's constructive, is usually welcomed (the wiser folk have no problem with correction), and is usually beneficial. The complaints of declining biodiversity, for instance, had me concerned, but the concerns were quickly assuaged upon learning of the Consultive Group on International Agricultural Research.
Typical development projects see smallholders as impediments to progress, underutilized workers whose labor would be more efficiently used in an urban factory.
Isn't this a little short-sighted this time around? What use does an automated factory have for displaced 'smallholders'? (And more to the point, should it be business's problem, or their government's problem?)
During the previous green revolution there was massive depopulation of rural areas to urban areas, creating massive slums that still exsist today. These people moved because they anticipated a better future in the urban area. There was no infrastructure or (planned infrastructure) in place to deal with this. I just finished reading the Rockefeller's plan for the new green revolution and in my humble opinion it read like it was written in the fifties. I believe whoever wrote it does not understand Africa and this was reason I believe the old green revolution failed Africa. Africa's Turn
If you are planning on creating change don't you want all the stakeholders involved including displaced people (which is going to happen no matter what the change is) to be included. I just think the old green revolution in certain areas was not planned properly. (Maybe it was a lesson learned:-))
Quote:
Is it fair to say that the entire ecosystem of the whole planet is, itself, a GMO? (If not, why not?)
Humans are fallible, Nature is not. I think the greastest resistance to GMO's is this. Nature probably takes tens of thousands of years to introduce a new trait in a species. During this time it tests its surviorability and adjusts its compatibility thoroughly. Humanity now can do this in as little as ten years. My concern is that we have not covered all the bases in releasing massive GMO products on to nature. Granted we have been introducing new species for a thousand years cross breeding favorible traits into species. But not on scale Biotech has in mind. I think tough regulations are required with testing protocols along the line of FDA protocols.
Quote:
Criticism, when it's constructive, is usually welcomed (the wiser folk have no problem with correction), and is usually beneficial.
I agree but I find that sometimes with some wiser folk elitism or other motives takes hold and no matter what the critism is, it is not welcomed and ignored. I believe no matter who you are at least you should be listened to and even a response might be in order.:-)
Yeah A well thought out plan less dependence on petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides more sustainable farming practices. All stakeholders included... Yeah The Greener the Better.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
If you are planning on creating change don't you want all the stakeholders involved including displaced people (which is going to happen no matter what the change is) to be included. I just think the old green revolution in certain areas was not planned properly. (Maybe it was a lesson learned:-))
Yup, I would certainly think so, and it should certainly be possible, more so these days, for all concerned to participate in finding solutions to any unforeseen problems as well.
RE: Back a few posts, when
)
Just a few Canadian thoughts (One who pays US Taxes):-):
I would rather have my countries economy run by central bank then letting government print money on a emotional whim.At least their is cost associated when govenment generates a new bond issue. It is the only way other countries have confidence in the economy and will invest thus supporting the countries standard of living. I would believe without central bank controlling interest rates. The market would become more emotional and would swing greater from inflation to depression The problem is not a central bank but governments who refuse to balance their budgets. Going back to a gold standard is anti-growth and unproductive.
I don't think you have worry about a world government. Just look how ineffectual the UN is. I believe the world's economy will become more integrated through time because it is more efficient. I believe there is less conflict when rules and regulations on how to simply behave in the marketplace and then everybody's standard of living will improve. If the US wants to become more isolated from the rest of the world I can guarantee you it will affect your standard of living
Income Tax has been proven to be both anti-growth and unproductive. The fairest tax is a direct upfront tax on goods and sevices (Consumption Tax) But due the control the extremes of both political parties have, I don't think there is the political will to change it.
RFID chips do have the potential to be abused but has the ability to offer great benifits. The scenerios in this film clip are extreme cases. First thing the people have to take back control of your goverment instead of allowing it to cater to special interests. and institute sound and pragmatic policy on how information should be shared.
Just a few thoughts outside looking in
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
I think I should've checked
)
I think I should've checked first, before posting that link. I think the fellow who made the video is on to something about paying so much in interest. However, after checking, I feel compelled to post this link to The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, November 30, 2006, and I'll quote a bit from pp. 53-54:
That said, I think there's a cousin to the “inflationary mentality�, that believes people won't work if their pockets are filled and they don't have to worry about where there next meal's coming from. What bankers have nothing better to do than conceive of these short-sighted fears? They think that there aren't enough immigrants to do the jobs we don't want to do and also do our jobs too. They think progress would grind to a halt if too many people had too much money. Here's what I think would happen if people had too much money: they would cease working, and begin pursuing happiness (short-term fear of the bankers) and realizing dreams. It's the realizing dreams part where the activity increases, and hence the productivity and progress of humanity skyrockets. I think that with enough robots in the fields and factories, we can maybe do some providing instead of trading, and perhaps win the bankers over to some activity more benefiting humanity, like counting stars and galaxies in the sky, and helping to account for Near-Earth Objects, instead of worthless beans.
I think I could see a Gift
)
I think I could see a Gift Economy take hold in this future of abundance and fit into our evolutionary model.
Even Milton Friedman's argument that not enough people would have the incentives to produce good and services, this will not hold.
This economy is again starting to take hold with Bionc and open source software development:-)
Edit: Gift Giving Theory
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: I think I could see a
)
Edit: Sorry The last Link is Good but this one is better Gift Economy Today
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
The Bill and Melinda Gates
)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation are establishing a new Green Revolution for Africa New green Revolution.
This is an excerpt from Wikpedia of the Rockefeller's Old green Revolution.
Green Revolution
This resulted in the constant impoverishment of many small farmers worldwide to agribusiness.
The new green revolution is expected to use new improved seeds (Genetic Modififed Organisms). They are probabably intellectual property.
Are we going to repeat history.
Any Comments
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Are we going to repeat
)
A lot to check on, but so far it looks like a repetition of history in agriculture will help to keep many (more) people from being hungry (despite troubled areas). This plot, from the Wiki page seems to show tremendous progress over the last 40 years:
Checking the source for the data of that plot, I found these:
World Coarse Grain Area and Production and
FAO Hunger Map, where these came from
FAOSTAT, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.
Was this progress so bad? True, the smaller farmer with oxen to pull to the plow can't hardly compete with farmers using tractors, but the smaller farmers by themselves could never produce enough food to keep millions of people from starving. A smaller farmer may have to seek out another vocation, but at least he won't go hungry, right?
I have no problem with a new
)
I have no problem with a new green revolution for Africa or that part with GMO's. I just hope it will be implemented with lessons learned from past mistakes. I hope they will take a more sustainable approach and be more careful how argibusiness promote their products. I hope they talk to the farmers and deal with the countries that have the least corruption.
One mistake If my memory serves me right, I believe there was big push to plant Maize (a commodity crop) in Africa in the sixties to substitute for more indigenous species, a crop that produces a high yield but requires lots of moisture. Over the years these crops continue to fail because Maize is not drought tolerent. I hope the foundations do their homework properly this time. I hope the new green revolution will be Knowledge Based as opposed to the old green revolution which was capital based.
The following link points to some of my areas of concern about past mistakes in the old green revolution and some hopes for the new green revolution.
New Green revolution
The revolution will be critized
I will be watching :-)
By the way What's wrong in growing your own food??? :-)
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
From the criticism
)
From the criticism link:
Isn't this a little short-sighted this time around? What use does an automated ("robomated"?) factory have for displaced 'smallholders'? (And more to the point, should it be business's problem, or their government's problem?)
Is it fair to say that the entire ecosystem of the whole planet is, itself, a GMO? (If not, why not?)
Criticism, when it's constructive, is usually welcomed (the wiser folk have no problem with correction), and is usually beneficial. The complaints of declining biodiversity, for instance, had me concerned, but the concerns were quickly assuaged upon learning of the Consultive Group on International Agricultural Research.
Kinda looks to me like the greener the better. :)
RE: From the criticism
)
During the previous green revolution there was massive depopulation of rural areas to urban areas, creating massive slums that still exsist today. These people moved because they anticipated a better future in the urban area. There was no infrastructure or (planned infrastructure) in place to deal with this. I just finished reading the Rockefeller's plan for the new green revolution and in my humble opinion it read like it was written in the fifties. I believe whoever wrote it does not understand Africa and this was reason I believe the old green revolution failed Africa.
Africa's Turn
If you are planning on creating change don't you want all the stakeholders involved including displaced people (which is going to happen no matter what the change is) to be included. I just think the old green revolution in certain areas was not planned properly. (Maybe it was a lesson learned:-))
Humans are fallible, Nature is not. I think the greastest resistance to GMO's is this. Nature probably takes tens of thousands of years to introduce a new trait in a species. During this time it tests its surviorability and adjusts its compatibility thoroughly. Humanity now can do this in as little as ten years. My concern is that we have not covered all the bases in releasing massive GMO products on to nature. Granted we have been introducing new species for a thousand years cross breeding favorible traits into species. But not on scale Biotech has in mind. I think tough regulations are required with testing protocols along the line of FDA protocols.
I agree but I find that sometimes with some wiser folk elitism or other motives takes hold and no matter what the critism is, it is not welcomed and ignored. I believe no matter who you are at least you should be listened to and even a response might be in order.:-)
Yeah A well thought out plan less dependence on petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides more sustainable farming practices. All stakeholders included... Yeah The Greener the Better.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: If you are planning on
)
Yup, I would certainly think so, and it should certainly be possible, more so these days, for all concerned to participate in finding solutions to any unforeseen problems as well.