|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.213.10.142
In Reply to: RE: markets relatively calm today. interesting posted by pictureguy on June 27, 2016 at 16:00:47
I wouldn't call it a blow at this point. Maybe a razor nick. Maybe
Follow Ups:
Agreed. A single drop does not a rainstorm make.
IF others join the UK in leaving the EU or whatever, THAN they got problems.
A US / Canada / Mexico union would be off the table for another generation.
Too Bad that Reagan didn't get his wish and UFO guys announced their presence. THAT would get everyone on the same page in about 30 seconds.
Too much is never enough
When you have a plutocracy of 64 individual people with half the wealth of the whole human race I see no real problem for the luminati even if Europe falls apart. It might be a blow to their ego but they have so much wealth that nothing short of violence can come close to touching them in any real way. The UFO's are making themselves known probably everyday. Some governments have let enough info out about UFO as to leave no doubt about the subject, IMO. The plutocracy has their own page, UFO's or not. Disclosure has already occurred if one looks at the overwhelming amount of evidence. T
I'll leave UFOs for another time.
But the Illuminati are not the problem.
There are currently 3 major 'international' groups on the planet with in the old days would have been called 'interlocking directorate'. IOW, they share some membership across 2 or more of the organizations.
CFR and TriLateral Commission are both public, in the sense that they publish LOTS of stuff including meetings and white papers and research.
The current (It has changed over time) parent organization is the Bilderberg Group. These guys operate in (mostly) secret, and have a very SMALL public presence.
And while wealth and power seem to run each organization, they DO get input from 'outside' persons.
The goal? Not power. they've GOT that already, for those who haven't noticed. IMO, the final goal is what I call 'the soft landing'. If people continue to plunder the planet and use up the resources at the current rate, a crash will occur. It might be Water. Or Pollution. Or Food. Or something I haven't thought of, but at some point, a LIMIT will be reached and the bubble will pop. The whole thing is driven by POPULTION. 7 BILLION persons with a growth rate, globally, of say 1.5% is a DOUBLING time of 50 years. Where is the FOOD coming from, or the water or medical or whatever.
When the planet crashes, being RICH will buy you a couple years, at best a decade. The endgame is to get the planet into a sustainable condition for the long haul.
Too much is never enough
A "soft landing", eh? For everyone and for everyone's interests - regardless of race, creed, or color? Or mostly, for themselves and for their own interests?If *they* are somehow able to engineer a massive die-off (disease, war, famine, etc...) of insolvent humans in order to trim the population down to *manageable levels* and to preserve and strengthen their status and holdings, do you think that they might actually DO such a thing?
Are they in fact in the midst of DOING such a thing at this very moment in time?
Hmmmmmm....
Is it possible that a technologically advanced plutocracy might not need millions or billions of human laborers any longer, once the basic grunt work has been performed to their satisfaction? Why not "save the planet" and let efficient and powerful machines and computers perform any remaining *grunt work*? In times past, unfettered population growth served their purposes royally (cheap and plentiful labor), but the NEW era is finally on the horizon.
Edits: 06/29/16 06/29/16
I'm not psychic.
I just look at preponderance of evidence. That tells me we (the planet) are in BIG trouble.
rumor has it that both Hillary and Obama spoke with the Bilderbers Group in '08 when the annual Bilderberg meeting was on US soil. In West Virginia or other East Coast state. Both have missing time and BOTH managed to get separated from the Press Corps which kept them company.
Other speakers / Guests to these meetings include both Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger.
Nobody EVER talks about what went on, and NO notes are taken. It's tough to conceal the guest list and security is Epic. What are they doing at these meetings? Hookers, Air Hockey and Beer Pong?
Talking about the 'fix' doesn't do much good. So, if pressed, I'd say that 'wheels are in motion'.
Too much is never enough
That is what I THINK I am doing, too. And when I think about the history of gangsters and gangsterism (governments), the picture puzzle begins to materialize.
The problem transcends government.
Think about endgame. IF you let stuff go as it is, the wealthy will live well until the bubble bursts.
Clearly, some action is needed.
Don't get me wrong. There are multiple competing 'solutions' being floated by many groups, religions and philosophies. Many we never heard from. But they are all competing for what amounts to scarce resources.
Sure, the future is grim. Individual liberties will suffer. Either the population will be reduced or it will be some kind of a 90/10 situation where 90% live in poverty and the remainder live from OK to Well.
I want to hear what you have to say, but all I'm getting is simple stuff tinged with Paranoia.
Keep in mind that the true test of a theory is to make Verifieable Predictions. I've made a few predictions, but just the simple ones.
Too much is never enough
Well, it's ALL just "simple stuff tinged with paranoia" until the actual results are in. It's "your paranoia vs. my paranoia" at this point in time - or at least that was the game I had THOUGHT we were playing here.Mysterious international entities up to who knows what, etc..? Can you prove that most of your guesses and/or assertions are in fact reasonable or correct ones? No, I didn't think so... and neither can I.
"Why despair at all when technology makes it seem as if any and all of our problems might *possibly* be fixed with time?", Inmate51 might ask. None of us can PROVE that Inmate51 is wrongheaded, even though the most reasonable question might seem to be "What is the most 'likely' scenario..?".
Fun stuff it is, at least until the shit actually hits the fan...
Edits: 06/29/16 06/29/16
Well, as a matter of fact, I DO have plenty of evidence. And I doubt I'm paranoid. Nobody is out to 'get me'. The Human Race is Breeding and consuming itself to oblivion. IMO, only the intentionally blind would argue with that conclusion.
Please read 'The Limits To Growth' 1972, Club Of Rome.
Nobody has YET refuted the premise, the math or the conclusions. The ONLY glitch is that some of there numbers used in the simulation have changed over the years. More of some stuff than they used in their analysis has Lenghtened the scenario.
There was a 30 year update issued which doesn't change the conclusions, but rather refines the technique of modeling with finer tools.
You can do some of the research yourself, online and all. Take ANY limited resource (oil is VERY popular) and do projections at current usage with an increase based on some exponential growth factor. You have a certain amount of time based on CURRENT usage which is reduced thru growth.
I can't think of ANY resource which has run out and been replaced by something CHEAPER.
Too much is never enough
LOL! Yeah - but it's hard to KNOW for sure, right?I would agree that population control seems like the most reasonable solution to the problem of resource management. The big question, of course, is *how*? The ENTIRE WORLD must reach an agreement on this in order for any plan to be effective. Unless everyone participates then I think that we can count on an almost inextinguishable spate of wars and disputes.
Call me *paranoid* if you'd like, but I can only imagine that large swaths of the earth's population might need to be FORCED to comply with certain upcoming regulations regarding population control and resource management in the foreseeable future. And because combat is time-consuming, wasteful, and inefficient I predict that *other means* (see my posts above) will be employed for the control and/or elimination of those who are (or seem to be) determined to remain non-compliant.
Mere speculation on my part, of course. But it's going to be interesting, no matter what.
Try to have a good day, and I'll do the same.
Edits: 06/30/16 06/30/16
It used to be a self-correcting system. Famine, disease, war - the usual suspects. With global trade, the UN, the U.S., improved crop yields, more agriculturerally (sp?) developed land, medicines deliverable to any part of the world, etc., the whole famine/disease thingy is kinda out the window.Got a major disease outbreak in Angola? Send in the relief teams. Got a potato famine in Ireland? Send in the relief teams. Got a dustbowl in the central U.S.? Send in the relief teams. See? Our ability to react and maintain is MUCH better than even a hundred years ago. We have reached a point where we can effectively limit the casualties of any natural disaster.
War? When the population of a region was 10 million, and an invading army could wipe out 2 million of them, war was effective at population control. Not so anymore. The Nazis killed, what, 6 million Jews? That was 75 years ago, and that kind of carnage hasn't been seen since (thankfully). War, as population control, no longer works.
So, that brings us to: Where in the world is population growth the fastest and most significant? Sure, you can have the population of Podunk, Manitoba double in 20 years, but is 200 more people really a cause for concern? No! Nations which have a huge population which is growing fast is where the problem is. Take India (please). In 1960, it had about 500 million people. Today, just 55 years later, it's more than doubled to over a billion. Ditto for China. That's more than another BILLION people - just in two countries! Don't even get me started on some African nations. They're breeding like rabbits, too.
Which brings us back to the question of population control. Is it Podunk, Manitoba's problem, or, is it primarily a problem for high population/high population growth countries? I say the latter. "We" can't fix that, only "they" can. In the meantime, "we" continue to "enable" them by supporting their food and medical needs. Maybe "we" should re-think our aid policy, as a means of indirect population control. Remember that bearded guy who did the ads for "saving the children", saying that for just 20 cents we can feed a poor starving African child? Yeah - I never sent my 20 cents a day, thus helping to control the population.
:)
Edits: 06/30/16 06/30/16
Yeah 51. Fuckem. Let them make their own Soylent Green!
I think that I'm a pretty nice guy so my idea would be to try to maintain civility by getting EVERYONE, worldwide, to agree to NOT have very many more babies for the next 100 years or so. In order to facilitate a relatively healthy and *gradual die-off* of sorts, naturally.Machines and computers would have to be able do any work that an aging and dwindling population would find itself no longer able to do, on a regular basis, increasingly, as time marched by. Some say that we are already heading in this direction (probably a good thing).
The real problem might be in getting those living in the relatively affluent countries to voluntarily "dumb down" in order to adhere to the required modest living standards, for an extended period of time, while the so-called "gradual die-off" is taking place, so that everyone feels like they have equal standing in the new world order. IMO, this would be one of the toughest goals to meet because I suspect that many, many people on this earth would actually prefer killing others less fortunate than themselves to being forced to "dumb down" (greatly modify their ambitious lifestyles for decades at a time).
And after 100 years or so have gone past, it would be time to start afresh. With a fresh attitude and a new and sustainable plan for the future...
Yeah, sure!
Anyway, I think that it's going to be an interesting time, this 21st century of ours. That much is almost for certain.
Edits: 06/30/16 06/30/16
.
One of the capitalists seeming contradictions is that they supposedly want an ever increasing consumer base but don't want ordinary workers to make enough money to buy stuff. They sold US workers down the river for cheap labor and other markets. Now Chinese labor is getting too expensive for them. Without a major world wide push against this I see a major downward spiral for most of the human race. 64 people having half the human races wealth is unsustainable for an economy to work for most people. It looks to me that the plutocracy doesn't much care about finding consumers any more. They got theirs. And their gated, guarded communities. T
Good point. That is part of the reason why we're in the mess we're in today - there is the constant need to "create" and maintain an ever-expanding (and some would say *false*) economy. Go shopping for a set of towels and they'll try to sell you a set of plastic Santa Claus nightlights as well. Too much is never enough.But, who said anything about a traditional capitalist economy? I'm talking about existence in "emergency mode" here. Captialism, socialism, trade and barter, debt forgiveness, "All for one and one for all!", the entire kitchen sink and whatever is in it. Whatever it takes to simply get by, for several decades or longer.
BTW I only imply that such a scenario is *possible*, not that such a scenario is *likely*. The "likely" scenario is much more grim.
Edits: 07/01/16 07/01/16 07/01/16
I'm sure Joan Baez could sing a song (for free and a nice tax write-off) and the people of the world will be so moved by her message that they'll all stop having sex and babies. She'd certainly put me out of the mood. :)But I don't understand how having the affluent dial back their lifestyle will help to control population. Well, except that not as many luxury car/yacht/home/clothing/restaurant/vinyard/jewelry/etc. workers would have jobs, and so might opt to not have quite as many kids. Even so, that's a drop in the bucket when we're talkin' billions of unwanted extra people using up OUR resources.
Edit: Just last night, I watched a vintage episode of "The Twilight Zone", where The State could put a person on trial for being "obsolete", and eliminate them. It starred Burgess Meredith as the accused. There's an idea. ;)
:)
Edits: 06/30/16
As the good little elves already know, proper resource management sometimes means simply letting nature alone for a while, as much as possible. Reduce the harvesting and usage rates. Let things grow again, etc...So I'm thinking about the healing process. A temporary reduction in unnecessary manufacturing and excessive consumption via a voluntary return to more basic lifestyles, as a requirement for peace and stability (especially in the beginning). If the more affluent nations don't do agree to do this, the less affluent ones are not going to want to hold back either. I think that this would be viewed as a gesture of courtesy and good will on the part of the more affluent nations.
As population levels drop worldwide, access to resources and manufactured goods would gradually increase. The FEWER of us there are, the MORE each of us may have - and vice versa.
And remember too, the fewer of us there are the more valuable each member of the worldwide population becomes. The less, the merrier.
No more Joan Baez for me though. The above scenario is my dream and that voice is definitely the stuff of nightmares.
Edits: 06/30/16 06/30/16 06/30/16
"The above scenario is my dream... "
Yeah, well, getting back to "the markets", MY dream scenario is that "the middle class", of which I am a part, gets more than 0.02 percent interest on bank deposits, can invest with some confidence that their money will grow faster than inflation+taxes, and that the equities markets will actually set a new 12-month high and keep going ... ooh, sorry, I'm back to the topic thread title.
Still, why aren't Germany and France going gangbusters, now that they don't have the UK to please?
:)
Dunno. I never knew that Germany and France were interested in anything except pleasing themselves.And I thought that it was mostly the UK that was interested in gangbusting.
Edits: 07/01/16
Yes, getting Earth's population to reasonable levels for long-term survival at a reasonable standard of living IS quite impossible.
Everybody would say something like OK, YOU FIRST.
Chinese have tried without success to limit family size. India hasn't bothered and is well on the way to being THE most populous country.
Big problems ahead.
GO CUBS!
Too much is never enough
Here's hoping.
"Only the intentionally blind" You got that right. Don't bet on the self control thing.
100%
People continue to think of themselves as seperate from 'nature'. What a shock is coming.
Too much is never enough
Actually, we're already there. We've been there for centuries or maybe even thousands of years.
Add up the people in poverty in Asia, Africa, India, the Mideast, and Central and South America. The numbers are staggering. As Carl Sagan might have said, "billions and billions".
On the other hand, a higher percentage of people are living a relatively comfortable life than ever before. And, amazingly, our agricultural expertise and technology, combined with modern food storage and shipping methods, means that more people are being fed better than ever before. Not to put too fine a point on it, but, a friend of mine who is from Ethiopia, when seeing my "flip-phone", said "we have better phones than that in my country". Ouch.
So, I disagree on "the future is grim". The past sucked, the future looks much better. (Especially when everyone eventually makes the same wage - kidding!)
:)
It is a simple math problem.
Living standard requires resources. Clean Enviroment (China, for example, is a disaster) and FOOD and a bunch of other things.
Now, with population growing at about 1.5% worldwide, please tell me how to essentially DOUBLE everything JUST TO MAINTAIN 'even' with today. You've got 50 years.
What is 'poverty'? Some might think it's just 'not enough money'. But REALLY it includes most of the stuff we take for GRANTED. Available water. Food is a grocery store trip away. Light? Flip a switch. Communications? dial a phone. I'll stipulate that Cell is easier to install than hardwire in many 3rd world type enviroments.
Do the math. GIven EXPONENTIAL GROWTH of population AND Resource Use you'll see that we are on borrowed time. Humanity as a whole must take charge of its OWN FUTURE or the few of us left will be telling unbelivable stories and living in goatskin huts.
Too much is never enough
I understand what you're saying, and I suppose a case can be made. And maybe there should be government limits on child-bearing - I don't know, but some governments have already done that, China being an example. In fact, China has recently loosened the "one child per couple" law, so, they apparently are ok with population growth. Yes, their country is a mess. And so are about 150 other countries around the world. That's the "billions and billions" of people to which I referred in my earlier post. ALL of those countries have been a mess since forever. Can y'all say "Ruwanda" or "India" or "Mexico"? Did you know that Mexico City has over 20 million people in the greater MC area? That's astounding. And Moscow itself has over 11 million, putting New York City to shame with its paltry 8.5 million.
Since 1970, when the U.S. population was about 200 million, the U.S. has grown to about 320 million. It took 45 years to do that. Yet, more U.S. citizens (and illegal aliens) are eating better than ever: Year-round fresh veggies and fruits, fresh meats and dairy, seafood, etc., and the vast majority of it is affordable by the average person. (Personally, I have never purchased caviar, nor do I want to.) This was unheard of in 1965! And yet, with our population growth, the U.S. exports more "tonnage" of food than ever, both as business exports and as "charity".
"Charity", and "foreign aid". People in extreme poverty areas of the world continue to "make do" partly because the modern developed countries have an excess of food, etc. (medicine, cell phones) which can be exported to them. Are you suggesting that such areas of the world "pick up the ball" and do more to fend for themselves and to limit their population growth?
:)
I've been To Mexico City. It's a major MESS. When flying in you can SMELL the place 25 minutes OUT as the airplanes ventilation system picks up the smog.
I've been to CAIRO EGYPT, too. Now That's a crowded city. Traffic Jams INCLUDE Camels and various carts. Jitneys are common. That's a kind of communal taxi where you pay a fixed fare and ride the route. Jitney was at one tine 'slang' for a nickel, which was the old-time fare.
Nigeria has a huge population, too. And NO WAY to sustain it, other than imported everything. Nigeria may exceed the population of the US in 30 or 40 years as India will exceed that of CHINA. Good luck with THAT.
The 'case' is one that shouldn't have to be 'made'. it is self evident that LIMITS EXIST. Humanity must accomodate itself to nature and its 'laws' rather than the other way 'round.
I'm not going to 'suggest' anything. I'm just going to SAY that the real, core problem is one of TOO MANY PEOPLE. Especially if they EXPECT anything more from life than scratching around in the mud. You can have a VERY high standard of living for a very short time with large numbers of people. As you reduce the number of people, you extend the dwell time. At some point in population you can expect a very long time without foreseeable 'crash'.
I'd say THESE guys, who EVER they are or were, got it right.
The 'Age Of Reason' refers to a book by Thomas Paine.
Too much is never enough
Food problem fixed PG. Edward Fu has done an experiment with magnetism and plant growth that showed improved germination and growth when plants were subjected to a magnetic field. HUMM? I wonder how those paramagnetic bastards managed that? Any theories? T
I did a similar experiment when I was in 7th grade. And while I certainly didn't maintain anything like 'scientific rigor', I didn't see any difference between plants left to germinate and those which were subjected to a 60hz magnetic field. Courtesty of my induction coil.
Now, how is that going to DOUBLE foodstuffs production in a mere 50 years?
Will the new plants require MORE WATER? More FERTILIZER? Will this process work on GMO products? If more fertilizer and water, where is THAT coming from?
And let's just say for the sake of discussion that this IS 'the fix'? Now? Population will again DOUBLE in another period of time. Resource usage will increase at population multiplier (1.5% exponential) PLUS 'rebuild' rate. I don't know how to do the math for an example, but say you build a Steel Bridge. It'll last 50 years maybe more. At that time, you must REPLACE the bridge on top of ANY new construction. In 100 years, the place we find ourselves NOW, you have so many bridges to replace that you have to CUT new contruction. You find that you don't have the resources to both maintain AND build new.
Even the United Nations talks about 9.7 Billion in 2050 and 11Billion + by 2100. Those are bogus estimates, since currently growth is about 1.5% and the UN is projecting LESS than HALF that rate. Somebody better start exercising SELF CONTROL, which I don't see happening.
And FInally, let's take the UN population number as good. (I think they are shy) AND let's further say that food is OK, too.
Now? What about pollution? Scarce resources? Potable Water?
Sorry, I don't buy it. Limits are Limits and we are approaching one right NOW.
Too much is never enough
PG, You brought up how these groups were dealt a blow by Brexit. That doesn't seem to relate to the condition of the planet. Only ET can save us now from disaster and they don't seem to interested in that. T
If I said 'blow', I perhaps overstated.
I would retrench to 'setback'. and not huge, at that. The POTENTIAL for other countries to bail is now heightened. Will Germany or France pull out? Should THAT occur it would be bad for what I envision as the 'master plan'.
Stay Tuned:
Too much is never enough
"Too Bad that Reagan didn't get his wish and UFO guys announced their presence. THAT would get everyone on the same page in about 30 seconds. "
Speaking of which, I seriously gotta go see the new Independence Day II movie - in a theater, not at home. Well, unless I get a video projector. Hmmm...
:)
The New ID Revisited is supposed to be a real Gobbler. Reviews are generally poor. I'm going to way for a RedBox rental opportuity.
As for a Projector? Industry is transitioning to 4k resolution. IF you are willing to settle for a 'mere' 1080p, some bargains can be had.
The NEW SONY SXRD projector uses 3 panels (RGB)
I would ONLY buy a SONY SXRD device IF they NO LONGER USE plastic filters. My SXRD TV lasted maybe 8000 hours before the filters went to the hot place. Picture became discolored and SONY was ho-hum about the whole thing, even losing 2 or 3 class action lawsuits. A slap on the wrist was the main penalty.
4k projectos are probably pretty expensive for the next couple years.
Too much is never enough
"a real Gobbler." "I'm going to way for a RedBox rental opportuity."
Well, then, that does it. I'm not going to waste my time and money going to a theater. I'm buying a projector! (Epson?)
:)
All I know about projectors is NOT DLP. With a single chip version I sometimes see the screen door effect out of the corner of my eye.
SXRD might produce the best picture. IF they fixed the filter cooling problem or went to heat-proof glass.
Why not, for the same money as a premium projector a 4k direct view OLED set? For a Mere 25Large, you get the 77" OLED by LG.
Too much is never enough
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: