Rise of far right an ominous echo

[Ludwig]

Look it up and form your own opinions. It's all out there.

I have looked it all up (for a few years I read everything about the one-world stuff) and I am afraid most of it is BS.

However, that is beside the point, what are these mysterious plans?

You say you've read about it all Beria, and the theories have been alluded to in this thread, so what more is there so say? I won't be enlightening you, and anyone else here can research it themselves. Simply, in response to Hodson's references to the Rothschilds, I read around and came across stuff about secret societies and their methods, some of which are occult or semi-occult. The whole thing is really too depressing to want to discuss at length.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Look at the opposite. Should a person that has money or a building do nothing with it and lose money as the building deteriorates?

We have that over here. It's called land banking. There are several reasons to do it

Maybe you want to run down that area of town in order to lower the commercial value of property to allow you to buy up vacant lots until you own the whole block and then re-develop it.

Maybe you already own lots of buildings in the area and you want to ensure that no one else can muscle in on your patch with lower rents. By restricting supply you ensure rents stay high.

Maybe bought the property for a song in a bankrupcy firesale and having done so through magic accounting have been able to use it as collateral for businesss debts far beyond what you paid for it. Debts that you don't want to pay off but prefer to roll over annually because you are planning to allow that business interest to fail and business interest is tax deductable.

[vtsnowedin]

Look at the opposite. Should a person that has money or a building do nothing with it and lose money as the building deteriorates?

We have that over here. It's called land banking. There are several reasons to do it

Maybe you want to run down that area of town in order to lower the commercial value of property to allow you to buy up vacant lots until you own the whole block and then re-develop it.

Maybe you already own lots of buildings in the area and you want to ensure that no one else can muscle in on your patch with lower rents. By restricting supply you ensure rents stay high.

Maybe bought the property for a song in a bankrupcy firesale and having done so through magic accounting have been able to use it as collateral for businesss debts far beyond what you paid for it. Debts that you don't want to pay off but prefer to roll over annually because you are planning to allow that business interest to fail and business interest is tax deductable.

Yes but all those activities are negative so the opposite normal use of capital is at it's base positive.
I don't think Capitalism can fail as it is in line with natural laws and laws of human nature. Individual capitalist or even whole countries can fail as is allowed by these natural laws but the base principle is sound and will survive. Marxism on the other hand seeks to overcome human nature hence is doomed to failure.

[biffvernon]

I don't think Capitalism can fail as it is in line with natural laws and laws of human nature.

So a system that results in catastrophic global warming isn't classed as 'fail'?

[sweat]

I don't think Capitalism can fail as it is in line with natural laws and laws of human nature. Individual capitalist or even whole countries can fail as is allowed by these natural laws but the base principle is sound and will survive. Marxism on the other hand seeks to overcome human nature hence is doomed to failure.

What are these natural laws and human nature? Would you care to spell it out; any studies or documentation clarifying them would be useful too. Much obliged.

[emordnilap]

I don't think Capitalism can fail as it is in line with natural laws and laws of human nature.

So a system that results in catastrophic global warming isn't classed as 'fail'?

Perhaps he'd like this article.

We, the mass of the nation, desire the cheap gas (yes, really, we do, we can tell that from the fact that people are buying it). The people who live above the cheap gas don’t mind supplying the gas, but they really would rather not have the ground water contamination. Or the noise, the trucks, the congestion and everything else that goes with frakking.

All Coasean bargaining says is that we who want the gas should just keep raising the price we offer in compensation to those who are affected by the frakking until they agree. That is, until they agree that we are compensating them enough for the ground water pollution, the noise, congestion and everything else.

And one of the great joys of the way that minerals are owned in the US is that the system already does this. Those who are most affected by frakking are those who live above the shale that is frakked. And those who own the land above the shale that is frakked also own the gas (matters are very different in Europe where it is mostly the government which owns fossil fuels). So when they receive royalties for the gas that is frakked they are being compensated for that pollution. If they think that the royalties on offer are not sufficient to so compensate them then they are entirely free to refuse permission to drill. As indeed some do.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I don't think Capitalism can fail as it is in line with natural laws and laws of human nature. Individual capitalist or even whole countries can fail as is allowed by these natural laws but the base principle is sound and will survive. Marxism on the other hand seeks to overcome human nature hence is doomed to failure.

What are these natural laws and human nature? Would you care to spell it out; any studies or documentation clarifying them would be useful too. Much obliged.

I think he's talking about how life appears to be a competition. We who live in affluent societies with plenty of resources don't see much of it but it's there bubbling away beneath the surface. You can see it in sport, in the spectators of sport. You can see it on motorways and car parks and even supermarket queues. I'd guess it'd be more prevalent in cities than villages as you are less connected to the people around you.

Wait until we are 2 days without food and you'll see it a lot more.

Have you any studies that detail the macro cooperative nature of mammals?

[biffvernon]

So when they receive royalties for the gas that is frakked they are being compensated for that pollution.

But that assumes the pollution stays on the owned land and there is no damage beyond the fence caused by, say, greenhouse gases making the whole planet uninhabitable, or that landowners have any obligation future generations of landowners. The trouble with capitalism is that it doesn't actually work in the long run. (Most of the critique is about how it's not fair in the short run. This is true, but is a passing problem.)

[vtsnowedin]

By natural law I mean something that is true regardless of situation. Cave man, iron age , space age etc. for simplicity let us consider the prime root of capitalism which I would state as : Increased effort yields increased results.
Lets take our Neolithic man setting on the plains of Poland surrounded by Bison, Aurochs, horses and other mega fauna. If he stays by the fire and does nothing he will catch nothing and run out of fire wood. If he goes hunting and throws a spear or other missile at a herd of game animals he may kill one. If he throws a hundred spears he will have increased his effort and will probably kill several. Increased effort yields increased yields.
But effort can be more then just trying more times. If he takes care to aim carefully and practice he will increase his throw to hit ratio and increase his yield. Also time spent making straighter spears that fly true will increase his yield.
When he drags his kill back to camp those that stayed by the fire will want to share. He will ask whats in it for him. Someone might offer to tan the hide, or cook the meat or trade a well made spear or stone point for a portion and of course a woman may strike the oldest bargain in the world but perhaps there will be some that don't think they should have to buy or trade for the meat and demand an equal share. These are the first communist. If they are bigger and stronger then the successful hunter they may take the meat from him but he will probably not drag his next kill back to their camp.
Capitalism did not create the world population explosion which is the cause of climate change catastrophic or not. That is a result of our exploitation of the store of fossil fuel and will end when we exhaust the supply.
In the modern world increased effort takes many forms, capital, labor engineering, research and product development. A company that develops a process that pollutes less will have reduced it's future liabilities from that pollution and has therefore increased it's yield.

[sweat]

[

I think he's talking about how life appears to be a competition. We who live in affluent societies with plenty of resources don't see much of it but it's there bubbling away beneath the surface. You can see it in sport, in the spectators of sport. You can see it on motorways and car parks and even supermarket queues. I'd guess it'd be more prevalent in cities than villages as you are less connected to the people around you.

Wait until we are 2 days without food and you'll see it a lot more.

Have you any studies that detail the macro cooperative nature of mammals?

I think those who tend to co-operate seem to win all the competitions! The examples you give are worthless, they all rely on co-operation in the first place or they wouldn't even exist. Mutual aid by Kropotkin.

[Lord Beria3]

Look it up and form your own opinions. It's all out there.

I have looked it all up (for a few years I read everything about the one-world stuff) and I am afraid most of it is BS.

However, that is beside the point, what are these mysterious plans?

You say you've read about it all Beria, and the theories have been alluded to in this thread, so what more is there so say? I won't be enlightening you, and anyone else here can research it themselves. Simply, in response to Hodson's references to the Rothschilds, I read around and came across stuff about secret societies and their methods, some of which are occult or semi-occult. The whole thing is really too depressing to want to discuss at length.

There are some disturbing things on the occult (a Radio 4 documentary on the Skulls and Bones was fascinating as well as the film the Good Shepard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaKGCLTmqTg)

Watch it if you haven't - its a brillant movie which captures how the skulls and bones secret society operates within the American ruling class. The bit on Kennedy is clearly hinting how the conspiracy to murder him happened, but it lets the audience work it out by nods and winks.

However, anybody can create a strange semi-occult secret society - you and I could tomorrow but it would mean nothing. Why? Because neither of us are rich or powerful - ultimnately it is the class role of these societies which make them interesting.

The secret societies make rich and powerful oligarchs feel exclusive and superior to the masses but ultimately focusing on them is a mistake. Instead, read the WSWS and keep track on what the ruling classes are doing. The whole secret societies thing is a massive red herring.

[biffvernon]

Capitalism did not create the world population explosion which is the cause of climate change catastrophic or not. That is a result of our exploitation of the store of fossil fuel and will end when we exhaust the supply.
In the modern world increased effort takes many forms, capital, labor engineering, research and product development. A company that develops a process that pollutes less will have reduced it's future liabilities from that pollution and has therefore increased it's yield.

Bit muddled there. The population explosion is not the cause of climate change - it's what the population does that matters, to wit burning fossil fuel. That got underway in earnest in the 19th century with the development of coal-powered steam engines. These were absolutely the child of capitalism. The growth of capitalism since then has been lock-step with fossil energy burning.

[vtsnowedin]

Capitalism did not create the world population explosion which is the cause of climate change catastrophic or not. That is a result of our exploitation of the store of fossil fuel and will end when we exhaust the supply.
In the modern world increased effort takes many forms, capital, labor engineering, research and product development. A company that develops a process that pollutes less will have reduced it's future liabilities from that pollution and has therefore increased it's yield.

Bit muddled there. The population explosion is not the cause of climate change - it's what the population does that matters, to wit burning fossil fuel. That got underway in earnest in the 19th century with the development of coal-powered steam engines. These were absolutely the child of capitalism. The growth of capitalism since then has been lock-step with fossil energy burning.

A bit of a grey area of course but I think you are more muddled then I am. Our use of fossil fuels let us dispense with draft animals for agricultural traction. This freed up the half of the arable land that was being used to support those animals and provided the food needed to support our recent population growth. A larger population consumes more and pollutes more just based on it's size. The form of government or economic system used to exploit the fossil fuels is irrelevant. Capitalism existed before fossil fuels and will exist after they are gone. The same cannot be said for Marxism.

[Ludwig]

However, anybody can create a strange semi-occult secret society - you and I could tomorrow but it would mean nothing. Why? Because neither of us are rich or powerful - ultimnately it is the class role of these societies which make them interesting.

Well, yes and no. The occult aspect is not, in my view, insignificant. It is possible that symbols, gestures and imagery really do acquire power through repeated use. If you take the view, as I do, that consciousness rather than matter is at the heart of reality, it makes a lot of sense. But to each his own.

[vtsnowedin]

However, anybody can create a strange semi-occult secret society - you and I could tomorrow but it would mean nothing. Why? Because neither of us are rich or powerful - ultimnately it is the class role of these societies which make them interesting.

Well, yes and no. The occult aspect is not, in my view, insignificant. It is possible that symbols, gestures and imagery really do acquire power through repeated use. If you take the view, as I do, that consciousness rather than matter is at the heart of reality, it makes a lot of sense. But to each his own.

When was the last time that consciousness put a meal on the table?
I have to ask Ludwig. How do you rate your chances of survival in a post peak collapse scenario?