If you want to know what kind of hell our world has become

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Little John

Post by Little John »

You could.

You could always buy your arrow heads instead of making them out of rocks as well..... :wink:
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

AutomaticEarth wrote:And this is Saudi Arabia for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 82134.html

Charming place.....
Ah yes, bin Laden's very secure homeland.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

[i]The Guardian[/i] wrote:half of global wealth held by the 1%
It's probably even worse than they say.

Source
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

emordnilap wrote:
[i]The Guardian[/i] wrote:half of global wealth held by the 1%
It's probably even worse than they say.

Source
And Again.
People carry on as if half (or whatever the number is) of the worlds wealth was hoarded as gold and diamonds in vaults somewhere and the greedy owners were forcing the rest of the world to starve out in the cold.
Nothing could be further then the truth. That wealth is factories, planes , businesses, farms , stores, trucks, mines, etc. that are working everyday in search of profit and providing all of us both jobs and all the things we consume. Take that wealth away from those that own it and give it to the government to run or distribute and a disaster of epic proportions would result. Bread lines with no bread at the end of the line and much worse.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

vtsnowedin wrote:.......
People carry on as if half (or whatever the number is) of the worlds wealth was hoarded as gold and diamonds in vaults somewhere and the greedy owners were forcing the rest of the world to starve out in the cold.
It's worse than that. It's held in worthless bits of paper and PONZI schemes, the CDOs and other derivatives which have been invented to sok up all the excess wealth sloshing around the system. For years now the money has been going into the financial market because the returns there have been greater than in the general economy in which you find all the good things you list below.
factories, planes , businesses, farms , stores, trucks, mines, etc.
Take that wealth away from those that own it and give it to the government to run or distribute and a disaster of epic proportions would result. Bread lines with no bread at the end of the line and much worse.
I used to believe that but the rich have increased their share of the pot to such an extent that their sanity comes into question. They have depressed wages to the extent that the vast majority of people are scrimping for their next meal and rent/mortgage payment and have no spare income to spend on anything else.

A capitalist system cannot work unless people have money to spend on the products that they manufacture. Henry Ford realised this in the 1930s and this discovery, that if you pay your workers enough money to buy the cars that they are making the whole business will prosper, heralded the peak of the capitalist system in the 1950s when wealth was well distributed.

I suspect that the wealthy are trying to take us back to a feudal system where everybody but them lived in rental accommodation owned by the lord of the manor. They will gradually accumulate most of the wealth and by manufacturing a crash every so often will ensure that those of us silly enough to buy houses at the top of the market lose them in the crash. The rich will then buy them and rent them back.

In this way they will eventually control the vast majority of the housing sector. The smaller rental landlords will eventually be frozen out and the 0.1% will again run the world.

They are also after control the food markets with the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer fighting to control the market in seeds. If they can get rid of the competition from saved seeds by introducing laws banning the saving, sale and exchange of non regulated seed, which they are trying to do at the moment, they will have us all in their nasty, greedy pockets.

Beware VT, you and the rest of your free market friends are being played. I believe in capitalism but that is long dead and we are being run on a Corporatist basis where the large corporations, and the people who own and run them, put forward all the laws that they require and their puppet politicians dance to their tune and enact them.
Last edited by kenneal - lagger on 19 Jan 2015, 18:31, edited 1 time in total.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6974
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

The problem is that the financial system miss-directs investment in order to sustain the unsustainable. There is no point building cities that no-one wants to live in (as in China) or airports that no-one flies to or from (Japan) or motorways no-one drives on (Portugal) or drilling shale oil wells that flood the the market with condensate that no-one can burn in their cars.

As we approach the limits of extractable resources on this planet, the financial system is rewriting the rules that are accelerating us towards the Seneca Cliff. We are investing ever more finite resources into BAU big industries that are rapidly becoming stranded assets as potent as Easter Island statues.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:.......
People carry on as if half (or whatever the number is) of the worlds wealth was hoarded as gold and diamonds in vaults somewhere and the greedy owners were forcing the rest of the world to starve out in the cold.
It's worse than that. It's held in worthless bits of paper and PONZI schemes, the CDOs and other derivatives which have been invented to sok up all the excess wealth sloshing around the system. For years now the money has been going into the financial market because the returns there have been greater than in the general economy in which you find all the good things you list below.
But you are wrong in that. The vast majority of wealth held by the one percenters is held in their business, stocks and real estate.
And because you are wrong in that the rest of your argument falls away.
What exactly is your remedy for this situation?
Little John

Post by Little John »

vtsnowedin wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:.......
People carry on as if half (or whatever the number is) of the worlds wealth was hoarded as gold and diamonds in vaults somewhere and the greedy owners were forcing the rest of the world to starve out in the cold.
It's worse than that. It's held in worthless bits of paper and PONZI schemes, the CDOs and other derivatives which have been invented to sok up all the excess wealth sloshing around the system. For years now the money has been going into the financial market because the returns there have been greater than in the general economy in which you find all the good things you list below.
But you are wrong in that. The vast majority of wealth held by the one percenters is held in their business, stocks and real estate.
And because you are wrong in that the rest of your argument falls away.
What exactly is your remedy for this situation?
What utter bullshit.

Your pathetic shoulder shrugging at the obscene differentials in wealth, not least in your own country, is on the basis of, presumably, that it matters little if one person gains on the back of another's loss just so long as the total size of the pie can be said to be remaining constant or, indeed, growing. Such a position, however, is deeply, deeply stupid. Any economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year (an economy like America’s, for example) is extremely unlikely to perform well over the long term.

For a start, increasing inequality is the other side of a coin on whose opposing side is decreasing opportunity. Decreasing opportunity equates to inefficient allocation of the most valuable asset of all; people and their creative talents.

Secondly, the underlying monopolies of power that lead to inequality also undermine systemic economic efficiency. For example, many young and talented people, seeing this monopoly of power in the financial sector have entered that sector as the only viable means of getting on in life instead of directing their talents towards more productive industries and, consequently, a more productive and healthy economy.

Thirdly, an efficient economy requires infrastructure that can be funded only via collective means such as central taxation and allocation of those taxes on things such as roads, railways, eduction, health, social security and all the rest. All of which is undermined by a wealthy elite who are too f***ing selfish to promote any kind of agenda other than one which diminishes their tax contributions.

And the reason for this is simple; the wealthy don’t need to rely on the state for public roads, for healthcare, for eduction and for all of the other myriad things that the impoverished majority need due to their growing impoverishment. The wealthy can, of course, buy all these things for themselves. But, in doing so, they remove their lives and life-experiences ever more from those of ordinary citizens, in turn losing whatever semblance of empathy they may once have possessed.

There's a war coming between these fuckers and the rest of us and you're batting for the wrong side mister.
Last edited by Little John on 19 Jan 2015, 22:00, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population, according to a study by anti-poverty charity Oxfam.

The charity's research shows that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year.

On current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016.
http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/pub ... ore-338125
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

stevecook172001 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote: It's worse than that. It's held in worthless bits of paper and PONZI schemes, the CDOs and other derivatives which have been invented to sok up all the excess wealth sloshing around the system. For years now the money has been going into the financial market because the returns there have been greater than in the general economy in which you find all the good things you list below.
But you are wrong in that. The vast majority of wealth held by the one percenters is held in their business, stocks and real estate.
And because you are wrong in that the rest of your argument falls away.
What exactly is your remedy for this situation?
What utter bullshit.

Your pathetic shoulder shrugging at the obscene differentials in wealth, not least in your own country, is on the basis of, presumably, that it matters little if one person gains on the back of another's loss just so long as the total size of the pie can be said to be remaining constant or, indeed, growing. Such a position, however, is deeply, deeply stupid. Any economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year (an economy like America’s, for example) is extremely unlikely to perform well over the long term.

For a start, increasing inequality is the other side of a coin on whose opposing side is decreasing opportunity. Decreasing opportunity equates to inefficient allocation of the most valuable asset of all; people and their creative talents.

Secondly, the underlying monopolies of power that lead to inequality also undermine systemic economic efficiency. For example, many young and talented people, seeing this monopoly of power in the financial sector have entered that sector as the only viable means of getting on in life instead of directing their talents towards more productive industries and, consequently, a more productive and healthy economy.

Thirdly, an efficient economy requires infrastructure that can be funded only via collective means such as central taxation and allocation of those taxes on things such as roads, railways, eduction, health, social security and all the rest. All of which is undermined by a wealthy elite who are too ******* selfish to promote any kind of agenda other than one which diminishes their tax contributions.

And the reason for this is simple; the wealthy don’t need to rely on the state for public roads, for healthcare, for eduction and for all of the other myriad things that the impoverished majority need due to their growing impoverishment. The wealthy can, of course, buy all these things for themselves. But, in doing so, they remove their lives and life-experiences ever more from those of ordinary citizens, in turn losing whatever semblance of empathy they may once have possessed.

There's a war coming between these fuckers and the rest of us and you're batting for the wrong side mister.
You start with an expletive and the rest becomes moot.
Little John

Post by Little John »

more bullshit

You clearly have nothing with which to respond.
Lurkalot
Posts: 288
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 22:45

Post by Lurkalot »

Catweazle wrote: The Yanks reportedly used 1.8 Billion rounds per year in Iraq and Afghanistan, which equates to 250,000 rounds per insurgent killed. That figure is incredible, US ammunition manufacturers struggled to keep up. In Vietnam they reportedly used 50,000 per enemy killed.
Catweazle , do you have a source for those figures please? It seems an almost unbelievable figure although I vaguely recall hearing a figure of 10,000 per enemy in Vietnam but a quarter of a million per insurgent? I've heard anecdotal stories of American soldiers being trigger happy , the old pray and spray , and of course some modern weapons have rates of fire in the thousands of rounds per minute but the figure is still hard to swallow. I suppose another way of looking at it could be to say that given the average ammo load of the infantryman they would need to out number the insurgents by 1000 to 1 if we ignore things like aircraft and vehicle mounted mg's .
And anyway it must be wrong , I've seen Hollywood films where the heros take out loads of bad guys with just a single magazine :D

Edit
Since posting I've had a bit of a google which indeed does bring up the quarter of a million figure. However , from some sources it appears the bean counters have included training rounds rather than just rounds fired in anger. It's unclear if the figure includes the rounds used by local troops being trained by the US . Either way while overall consumption is still huge it does at least make the kill rate per round seem a tad more respectable.
Post Reply