Political Ramblings

[kstaven]

Didn't mean to say you said to end it. Someone earlier said we should end it and use our own money and when I asked them what they meant I got no answer. And that's the usual response.

So how do we better the system ? Don't we have continual growth ? There's more consumers in the world everyday.

More consumers but you still deal with the limitation on tangible resources, the effect of trying to turn that into increasing amounts of currency (profit) and then loaning it out to try to create even more profit doesn't stand the test of time. Sooner or later the tangible resources sky rocket because of this system. Then no one can afford to buy. Then the dollar dives and has no value. All our current manipulations do is postpone the cycle.

 

[kstaven]

In the end I think we will all take it on the chin when our artificial construct called money self regulates.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
I don't agree that there's a limit to resources. Lets just take oil for example. 40 years ago the experts said there was a trillion barrels of oil we could use. Well in the 40 years we have used trillions of barrels of oil and now have more then a trillion barrels of reserves. And why is there more oil today, because it cost more. Now the cost of oil has made more sources of energy available. We also use less oil to do more then we did 40 years ago, because it's cost effective to develop better ways to do things. In another 40 years we could be using things for energy that we don't even know of today. When you take profit away you also take away innovation and discovery.

 

[kstaven]

Too a point it works when factoring in efficiency. But when you deal with an ever increasing population and a finite land mass which is a resource that also effects currency where does that leave us? Every country in the world is trying to capture the resources available for their people and that pie can only be divided so many times. Raw materials extraction has its limits, as does our ability to produce food, our water supply, the air we breath, and the list goes on. We can try to be more efficient and innovative but the reality is we have a limit to money based on tangible assets and the number of times it can be divided before all feel the impact.

We need increased population to continue the growth curve with more consumers, but the resources to sustain them has a limit.

 

[kstaven]

What I do find interesting is when people say a few families want to own all the money. Reality is that if they did and we handed them every dollar on the planet tomorrow they would have a huge problem because the money they now have would be worth nothing. It would no longer be circulating and the populace as a whole would replace it with something else out of necessity. Money in and of itself has no value until we base it on something tangible.

 

[hemet dennis]

Too a point it works when factoring in efficiency. But when you deal with an ever increasing population and a finite land mass which is a resource that also effects currency where does that leave us? Every country in the world is trying to capture the resources available for their people and that pie can only be divided so many times. Raw materials extraction has its limits, as does our ability to produce food, our water supply, the air we breath, and the list goes on. We can try to be more efficient and innovative but the reality is we have a limit to money based on tangible assets and the number of times it can be divided before all feel the impact.

We need increased population to continue the growth curve with more consumers, but the resources to sustain them has a limit.

So do we limit the number of kids people can have ?

We now grow crops where we couldn't 40 years ago and we get more from the land that we have been farming for a hundred years. I live in Southern California and the air is much cleaner then 40 years ago.

 

[kstaven]

Hours of posting here and no one flew off the handle, called the other an idiot or picked a fight. Wish threads could run like this more often.

 

[hemet dennis]

What I do find interesting is when people say a few families want to own all the money. Reality is that if they did and we handed them every dollar on the planet tomorrow they would have a huge problem because the money they now have would be worth nothing. It would no longer be circulating and the populace as a whole would replace it with something else out of necessity. Money in and of itself has no value until we base it on something tangible.

Yes the people that say a few families want to control all the money are loony

Have you ever been on ether side of a promissory note ?

 

[hemet dennis]

Hours of posting here and no one flew off the handle, called the other an idiot or picked a fight. Wish threads could run like this more often.

And I get accused of trolling when I question and just try to get an answer. LOL

 

[kstaven]

So do we limit the number of kids people can have ?

We now grow crops where we couldn't 40 years ago and we get more from the land that we have been farming for a hundred years. I live in Southern California and the air is much cleaner then 40 years ago.

True. But according to our so called financial wizards out there we need the population to double every 20 years to maintain the consumer based economic system. How long can we do that for?

In all reality we need to base our economic system on something else. Have no idea what. But in order to keep it from going down the toilet it does need to evolve which will require a drastic shift in how we view currency. At this point in time it appears we are trying to stop that evolution and in the end hurting ourselves.