Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cog wrote:From your link Newfie:

I can be rich only if you are poor; wealth is a relation: there has to be poverty in order to have wealth.

The man is either an idiot or a communist to believe such a thing. Typical progressive trash. I know this is a common thought process of those who are jealous of other's wealth and seek to destroy it by confiscation, but its not true now and never has been. A wealth redistributionist is a criminal, no better than a mugger except he has government do that which he won't do himself. No need to fancy it up. That is what they do.

Warren Buffet says the only true wealth can be counted by the number of people who love you. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that, Cog, since you define wealth as having more money than the next guy.
Helluva way to waste a life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIDMqq_fH8U

baha wrote:ASG - If you haven't read it, you should...

Have not read Foundation but have seen just about anything related to AI/Robots on TV and movies.

Again, as far as this topic's relevance, the important thing to note is the disconnect between those who feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns on innovation (which is the classic peak oil doom position) and those who feel we have a ways to go before LTG kicks in. I feel the latter reflects the current reality much closer whereas classic doomers come across as uninformed and biased.

It's also important to note that just because one sees the rise of AI doesn't make one a cornucopian as this sort of future could pose its own existential threat to the status quo as we know it. It's just a DIFFERENT kind of existential threat than end-of-Rome style collapse. So I don't like the attempt by luddites to strawman those who are anticipating technology as cornucopians.

Cog,

Somehow I think you missed the main points of the article.

Never mind, in my own humble words, Calitalisim is an outgrowth of the Puritan Work Ethic, which had its merits. It worked as long as we had expansive lands to develop. Ben Franklin knew this and argued that the colonies would be no manufacturing threat to England as long as land remained cheap.

But those days are long gone, the manufacturing phase too passed, now land is dear and humanity is cheap due to a super abundance and automation and fossils fuel slaves.

Capitalisim is in trouble because it is locked into the myth of continuous growth. The mantra of Capitalisim has lead us to the state we experience, for good and evil. But it is not able to transition to a new flat growth, much less defrosts, state. This is clearly evident to anyone who can do basic math or just understands you really don’t want your wife to “grow” 10% per annum.

In fact that might be a good metaphore. Capitalisim is a religion where each adherent strives to”grow” as much and as fast as possible, so the greatest outward expression of success is gross obesity. In this religion holding ones weight steady over years is see as sinning, and to diet, to reduce, well that’s blasphemy.

I’m sure Capitalisim will eventually emerge as intercine struggles between smaller and smaller political units. Each unit reveling in the virtue of eating another’s lunch, while in total the whole mess devolves into chaos.

We are a short sighted creature.

vtsnowedin wrote: Yes just like the assembly line workers wages and taxes were passed on in the value of a '57 chevy only the displaced worker won't have to commute to work or purchase day care for his children so the support level needed will be less.

Most family expenditures do not involve day care.

Cog wrote:From your link Newfie:

I can be rich only if you are poor; wealth is a relation: there has to be poverty in order to have wealth.

The man is either an idiot or a communist to believe such a thing.

The flaw is glaring, but it has nothing to do with communists and idiots. Wealth is stated to be a relation, but the poverty is viewed in absolute terms, while it should be treated as relative too. It should not be considered wealth-poverty relationship, it should be considered as that of higher-lower in a hierarchy.

Radon

Interesting point.

Where Communisim comes in (using the religion metaphore) is as the foil. Capitalist/consumerist (but I’m getting ahead of myself) need a foil like Our monomthesistic religions need a foil. Communisim is the DEVIL.

So it’s quite reasonable for a modern religious adherent (Capitalist/consumerist) to reflectively point to a nonbeliever and call them a communist. It’s like finding witches in Salem.

Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, control corporations, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

Cog wrote:Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, control corporations, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

If corporations and the wealthy would control themselves and act less parasitically, government controls wouldn't be necessary. They don't, and a list of examples is too long to bother with. Corporations aren't 'people' and have no soul or conscience. They are purely sociopathical, as are those who worship corporate control and dominance.

Corporations eat their young.

ralfy wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: Yes just like the assembly line workers wages and taxes were passed on in the value of a '57 chevy only the displaced worker won't have to commute to work or purchase day care for his children so the support level needed will be less.

Most family expenditures do not involve day care.

Do you have a source for that?
My experience is that a middle class mother works about half ofthe available work days from the birth of her first child until the youngest enters highschool. That envolves a lot of daycare.

GHung wrote:

Cog wrote:Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, control corporations, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

If corporations and the wealthy would control themselves and act less parasitically, government controls wouldn't be necessary. They don't, and a list of examples is too long to bother with. Corporations aren't 'people' and have no soul or conscience. They are purely sociopathical, as are those who worship corporate control and dominance.

Corporations eat their young.

You want someone to sooth your tortured soul? Go talk to a priest or pastor. A corporation was not designed to sooth your feelings. It was designed to make money. I'm quite happy they do it because I have benefitted from it my entire life. So have you, unless you are on the dole. Which by your comments, seems extremely likely.

Cog wrote:

GHung wrote:

Cog wrote:Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, control corporations, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

If corporations and the wealthy would control themselves and act less parasitically, government controls wouldn't be necessary. They don't, and a list of examples is too long to bother with. Corporations aren't 'people' and have no soul or conscience. They are purely sociopathical, as are those who worship corporate control and dominance.

Corporations eat their young.

You want someone to sooth your tortured soul? Go talk to a priest or pastor. A corporation was not designed to sooth your feelings. It was designed to make money. I'm quite happy they do it because I have benefitted from it my entire life. So have you, unless you are on the dole. Which by your comments, seems extremely likely.

Yet another strange and childish response from one bent on declaring his socio-apathy and lack of character to whomever may pay attention.

Know this: My soul is not tortured, even as your's seems to be. Enjoy your silly faux wealth.

Faux wealth? Today (before the great power down, aka the crash) you can use it to buy food, energy, electronics, and the attentions of females. That is about as real as it gets. The only rub is figuring out what will still be worth owning after the crash.

KaiserJeep wrote:Faux wealth? Today (before the great power down, aka the crash) you can use it to buy food, energy, electronics, and the attentions of females. That is about as real as it gets. The only rub is figuring out what will still be worth owning after the crash.

When the mirage of wealth finally cracks, you will see how much the faux wealth is worth. You will be lucky if your money ie. wealth buys you a loaf of bread
See Zimbabwe hyperinflation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperin ... n_Zimbabwe

onlooker wrote:

KaiserJeep wrote:Faux wealth? Today (before the great power down, aka the crash) you can use it to buy food, energy, electronics, and the attentions of females. That is about as real as it gets. The only rub is figuring out what will still be worth owning after the crash.

When the mirage of wealth finally cracks, you will see how much the faux wealth is worth. You will be lucky if your money ie. wealth buys you a loaf of bread
See Zimbabwe hyperinflation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperin ... n_Zimbabwe

Your lack of prior planning, in the financial sense, doesn't create an emergency for me.

So pray if you care Cog, tell us in what or where you have your wealth?
Oh that"s right in the ultimate Ponzifaux source, the stock market. Enough said

Cog wrote:Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

Didn’t say it was an error. Just pointing out the thought process; Capitalisim/consumerism is holy.
Communisim is evil.

To a believer.

Newfie wrote:

Cog wrote:Redistribution of wealth, capital controls, etc are in fact what communists do. So its not an error to call them what they are.

Didn’t say it was an error. Just pointing out the thought process; Capitalisim/consumerism is holy.
Communisim is evil.

To a believer.

Communism is not evil by itself just ineffective. But often the leaders that have taken over countries while preaching communism to the masses to get their support have turned out to be truly evil and failed to even try to deliver the equality that communist doctrine promises.
The same can be said about many capitalist leaders so the observer must separate the system from the practitioner.

VT,
But you are not a true adherent to the religion. If you were your attitude would be different. You are looking for reason and shades of grey. Zealotry decries such nuances.

Newfie wrote:VT,
But you are not a true adherent to the religion. If you were your attitude would be different. You are looking for reason and shades of grey. Zealotry decries such nuances.

I try not to be religious about anything including peak oil. I do think Capitalism will always win out in the end as it uses human nature in a positive way. Communism on the other hand denies human nature and tries to reward laziness equally with earnest effort.