David James claims to have been contacted by the mysterious Foundation X

bread you are not talking about the monetary system, you are talking about corporativism. it is something created out of law, not out of a banking system.

  On 11/5/2010 at 12:08 AM, GORDO said:

bread you are not talking about the monetary system, you are talking about corporativism. it is something created out of law, not out of a banking system.

It is an attribute derived from the monetary system. You're still not bringing anything to the table. Are you defending our current economic system? Simple question..

wow, even the BBC are finally admitting the fractional reserve banking process as a "money being made out of thin-air" procedure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11690803

skip to 0:50

bread i'm trying to enlighten you because you are confused as fuck, you seem to equate all these problems which have existed before the current monetary system to the current monetary system. you don't seem to have clear what exactly is the monetary system, is it fractional reserves? is it fiat currency? is it capitalism? is it coorporativism?

i know that you'll tell me hat the monetary system is the simple existence of something called money, and that the very concept of money is what causes all these problems you talk about. i know you'd tell me that because that's what the zeitgeist and venus guys say. however you pin point different things as conflicts, me and other people have explained to you that you're pointing fingers at the wrong things.

re: BBC. there's nothing to admit, people do know how money is produced, "out of thin air" is nothing of real meaning because "VALUE" is a completly human construction that changes it's meaning every second if something has more value now that later it doesn't mean that there's somehting shady goig on because you are creating value out of thin air.

anyway that is all.

  On 11/5/2010 at 2:09 AM, GORDO said:

bread i'm trying to enlighten you because you are confused as fuck, you seem to equate all these problems which have existed before the current monetary system to the current monetary system. you don't seem to have clear what exactly is the monetary system, is it fractional reserves? is it fiat currency? is it capitalism? is it coorporativism?

 

i know that you'll tell me hat the monetary system is the simple existence of something called money, and that the very concept of money is what causes all these problems you talk about. i know you'd tell me that because that's what the zeitgeist and venus guys say. however you pin point different things as conflicts, me and other people have explained to you that you're pointing fingers at the wrong things.

 

re: BBC. there's nothing to admit, people do know how money is produced, "out of thin air" is nothing of real meaning because "VALUE" is a completly human construction that changes it's meaning every second if something has more value now that later it doesn't mean that there's somehting shady goig on because you are creating value out of thin air.

 

anyway that is all.

you offer zero solutions - this is the difference here between what I discuss and what you discuss. You pay lip service to categorising different aspects of this current economic system as if it is really necessary when it all comes down to the fact that we live in a system of money that is not sustainable. You completely miss the points I'm trying to make. Share solutions if you have some - work towards them if you stand by them. Let's hear what you think regarding solutions to social problems otherwise you're wasting your time... this would make for a more productive discussion.

jeez i was correcting you bread, if you're serious about your beliefs at least you should make sure to say shit that is actually right. you are not making any new points, you're only paraphrasing wrongly what you probably heard on 'money as debt' and 'zeitgest addendum' not that they're not right, but at least make sure you actually understand the finer points of what you're arguing about. i'm not arguing pro or con the system it just bother me to read incorrect stuff.

as for solutions i have my own ideas, as i already stated before we should change what we concieve as growth and the actual goals of an economy, it could be done very well within the same monetary system and capitalist paradigm. just with this we could probably make it sustainable. and as i said it is something economists are already thinking about.

  On 11/4/2010 at 11:25 PM, Bread said:

But how does the monetary system address the following:

- Over-consumption by individuals due to materialistic needs |(which I have to emphasise are conditioned materialistic needs)| - you have too many people over consuming beyond their own needs

- This constributes to resource depletion occurring at a faster rate - hence why I say the current economic system we have currently does not allow the preservation of resources we all need to consume

whether a person is consuming beyond their needs is as you say, completely cultural. it has nothing to do with money other than you cant do it if you dont have enough money. The line between deserved luxury and undeserved materialistic overconsumption is so amazingly and utterly subjective, that you cant regulate it unless you want to completely marginalize individualism and tell everyone what they get to consume and when. The rate of consumption isn't just dependent on money either, population is much larger factor, so you're going to have to limit that too.

  Quote

Higher prices does not necessarily promote resource preservation, nor prevent individual over consumption. It simply is not good enough having high rates of resource depletion without considering replenishment.

 

A logical, scientific, sustainable direction would be to promote resource preservation, and to make sure over-consumption is limited. This means educating children from a young age on the consequences of rapid resource depletion without preparing for the eventual scarcity to come thereafter.

but it does "consider" replenishment. When natural resource x becomes too low it becomes economically viable to replenish or produce that resource or research an alternative.

We do promote resource preservation, there are lots of non-profit as well as governmental organizations that do so. And i agree, some education could be effective for some people, but only goes so far, just like abstinence education. Do we do enough? Probably not. Not the monetary system's fault.

  Quote

Here's the problem: new progressive technologies are withheld in the name of profit. If you have put a lot of money into manufacturing a certain type of technology, but then suddenly there is an alternative technology that does the job better than the one currently being sold, the company with the outdated technology will do all it can to withhold the sale of the new technology as they want their item sold more than the new, progressive technology. Apply this example with the electric car - there is no reason why we all couldn't be driving in clean electric cars fuelled by renewable energy sources other than the profit motive (which is a key attribute of the monetary system). Have you ever seen this film?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on why electric cars are not yet the main mode of transportation in the world, because i personally believe its because this new "progressive" technology just isn't economically viable yet. I will have a really hard time believing, that when electric passenger cars are just now coming close to a $50,000 pricetag, that they were ready to replace or even compete with gas-powered cars in the 80s/90s. Im sure there was some dirty pool going on when electric cars first made it onto the scene, but now that a lot of research has been done on the technology and theyre starting to roll off the assembly line, why arent the oil/car companies still attacking them? Why don't electric cars exist anywhere else in the world? Why wouldn't oil/car companies just take over the market instead of stifling it if it were truly feasible? After all, that's more profit for them right?

  Quote

So are you still happy that the monetary system does deal with rapid resource depletion in a scientifically proven/efficient manner given the above information I have addressed? I find it amusing all these defensive remarks on how good the monetary system is when it is self-evident how shit and inefficient it really is. There are better solutions out there, research them and educate yourself. Stop putting ego before thought.

Sorry, but im perfectly content with the monetary system. Am i unhappy with our rate of consumption? Yes, but i consider that an entirely societal/cultural issue, it is not the market's job to put moral limits on people. There are cultures that live within their means and still use money. using money is utterly efficient, that's why we use it. It nothing close to perfect, but honestly what you're suggesting sounds like trying to get better government by anarchy, its totally naive, utopian, and realistically impractical.

let's get back on topic here...

The Nigerians (foundation X) are getting bigger and bigger balls... first they go after grandmothers and idiots, then dumb small countries, then England?

it's not the nigerians. it's the office of international treasury control; a hoax institution allegedly set up by a member of the cambodian royal family "Dr" Ray Chat Dam, claiming to be part of the UN and that it is in possession of a shitload of assets. what really freaks me out is how much effort has gone into this really really weird scam. i can't see any benefit that theyre getting from pretending to be rich and contacting important people. their website is a fucking geocities style joke and they have a youtube account with reams of slideshows on that make as much sense as timecube.

the jews must be involved somewhere.

not the jews... the nigerians

BUY BREAD

  On 11/4/2010 at 8:08 PM, 24ourange said:

  On 11/4/2010 at 10:27 AM, Bread said:

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running our of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard.

 

When prices get too high obviously. When will people actually give a shit about electric/hybrid cars? Maybe when gas is 10/20 bucks a gallon? Why are pomegranites 3 bucks each when bannas at 79 cents a pound? Why do puppers cost twice as much in winter as they do in summer? Why are coal plants prefferred over solar panel farms? The less affordable something is the less people will use it and look for alternative solutions that will be cheaper.

careful. such straight forward rational economic thinking is generally not welcomed in a discussion such as this. i urge caution.

and the fact that there's any argument about your point is just plain silly.

  On 11/5/2010 at 3:05 AM, GORDO said:

as for solutions i have my own ideas, as i already stated before we should change what we concieve as growth and the actual goals of an economy, it could be done very well within the same monetary system and capitalist paradigm. just with this we could probably make it sustainable. and as i said it is something economists are already thinking about.

I need more detail - share more info on your solutions. Are you part of an organisation which looks to introduce the solutions you stand-by to the world?

Outline some of the main problems we face today - and why they have come about? I'm genuinely being sincere and want to hear from you your thoughts on where we are currently.

  Quote

whether a person is consuming beyond their needs is as you say, completely cultural. it has nothing to do with money other than you cant do it if you dont have enough money. The line between deserved luxury and undeserved materialistic overconsumption is so amazingly and utterly subjective, that you cant regulate it unless you want to completely marginalize individualism and tell everyone what they get to consume and when. The rate of consumption isn't just dependent on money either, population is much larger factor, so you're going to have to limit that too.

People can be conditioned to consume beyond their needs - the reward for successful conditioning is profit for the companies who sell their goods/services to the populace of a society. All I'm saying is that profit is associated with money and the system of how money can operate. The manipulation of people's psychology for profit would not need to take place in a resource based economy where money and the concept of profit no longer exist. Goods/services will be made freely available with free access via technological means. Companies/corporations or any other monetary related inventions will cease to exist in an RBE [resource based economy]. Now that we have removed the concept of "profit" from the equation, there's no need for manipulative conditioning to take place anymore where corporations advertise and market their goods to customers in a, perhaps, materialistic, irrational approach. People can be equipped from school onwards with educational knowledge on the consequences of overconsumption.

  Quote

but it does "consider" replenishment. When natural resource x becomes too low it becomes economically viable to replenish or produce that resource or research an alternative.

We do promote resource preservation, there are lots of non-profit as well as governmental organizations that do so. And i agree, some education could be effective for some people, but only goes so far, just like abstinence education. Do we do enough? Probably not. Not the monetary system's fault.

I'm glad to hear you agree with me on the importance of education. The main framework of a monetary system gives rise to inevitable problems. Does this make sense to you?: We currently have big energy companies who are STILL involved in the oil industry and the sale of this fuel - yet we know there are countless sustainable, renewable energy sources that can be put in place, which would eliminate the need for pollution derived from oil based transportation systems. We're consuming oil faster than it can be replenished -- why don't we just move away from this industry and do something that will be better for the environment and more sustainable - and that is to move into the direction of sustainable energy sources? The reason we don't see this is because oil is scarce, or possibly "imagined" to be more scarce than it actually is, and this notion becomes financially rewarding [backwards logic basically]. Tell me, is this is not corruption that is directly or indirectly related to the framework of the monetary system? It's beyond me that you find it hard drawing associations between "profit" and the money system. It's merely an attribute of money..

Back to your point, we already have substantiated research on better sustainable energy systems, yet we're STILL utilising oil. WHY? = profit.

Do you trust that corporations "know" what they're doing when it comes to managing the Earth's resources intelligently? Do you think they manage resources scientifically, meeting the needs of all people around the world? Of course not. They're blinded by the means to survive in the market, and if it means destroying the environment in the process, then so be it. They don't give a shit as long as they get their cut. Why support such a system?

  Quote

Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on why electric cars are not yet the main mode of transportation in the world, because i personally believe its because this new "progressive" technology just isn't economically viable yet. I will have a really hard time believing, that when electric passenger cars are just now coming close to a $50,000 pricetag, that they were ready to replace or even compete with gas-powered cars in the 80s/90s. Im sure there was some dirty pool going on when electric cars first made it onto the scene, but now that a lot of research has been done on the technology and theyre starting to roll off the assembly line, why arent the oil/car companies still attacking them? Why don't electric cars exist anywhere else in the world? Why wouldn't oil/car companies just take over the market instead of stifling it if it were truly feasible? After all, that's more profit for them right?

There are many corporations who deliberately patent electric car technologies to withhold and slowdown their development because it is profitable to keep selling the oil-based vehicles whilst oil is percieved to be scarce (which it is anyway). So with a huge industry of oil-based car manufacturing, why throw all that away when you can keep selling this outdated technology before moving onto something else later? The need for profit holds back progressive technologies which we can have NOW. All I'm saying is by removing money from society this problem is eliminated and we can start to update things further.

  Quote

Sorry, but im perfectly content with the monetary system. Am i unhappy with our rate of consumption? Yes, but i consider that an entirely societal/cultural issue, it is not the market's job to put moral limits on people. There are cultures that live within their means and still use money. using money is utterly efficient, that's why we use it. It nothing close to perfect, but honestly what you're suggesting sounds like trying to get better government by anarchy, its totally naive, utopian, and realistically impractical.

On a personal note, how do you feel that you may have to work in a job for most of your life (which you may not like) in order for your basic needs to be met although you know full well that we can easily have a technologically upgraded society whereby your needs are met without a price tag?

Utopia is unachievable and a "blanket" term that really has zero basis in this discussion - it's just like labelling an RBE as "communism". It's not effective communication when in fact you know that perfection is completely unattainable - I only want to see a better global society than the one we have now that is divided, unscientific and full of preventable suffering. I know you probably have difficulty being empathic toward poor people in the world - I can tell because if you were truly empathic toward others, you would know something is not right about our current economic system.

We actually don't need money anymore. It's irrelevant and doesn't even compete with science. It can be a system we outgrow as time goes on. Money is only useful when you can not create a "near" abundance of resources with lack of technology such as hundreds of years ago. We're beyond that point now. - YES address this point please if you will.

Seriously: how open-minded and sincere are you toward learning about new societal systems? It's naive when you experience a mind-lock mentality - you evidently do have this mentality as you're not enquiring sincerely. You just don't seem to want to learn about anything new that is offered your way. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but be specific, don't generealise and use useless, empty words to describe an idea as "utopian".

i've skipped to the end.. but was this thread about the 'David ® James' whom what posts ere? !!!!!!!!!!!

yep.

*starts drafting email plea for money*

  On 11/6/2010 at 1:23 AM, Bread said:

  On 11/5/2010 at 3:05 AM, GORDO said:

as for solutions i have my own ideas, as i already stated before we should change what we concieve as growth and the actual goals of an economy, it could be done very well within the same monetary system and capitalist paradigm. just with this we could probably make it sustainable. and as i said it is something economists are already thinking about.

I need more detail - share more info on your solutions. Are you part of an organisation which looks to introduce the solutions you stand-by to the world?

Outline some of the main problems we face today - and why they have come about? I'm genuinely being sincere and want to hear from you your thoughts on where we are currently.

something as easy as goverment will look at the data that reveals what the GDP is, they'll do stuff to try to make it bigger. i'm only saying there are other indicators that tell you how well as a country you're doing, like the index of human development (not sure if it's the right term in enlgish lang.), education, some new ones could be created, a measure of how self suficient the country is, a measure of how good is health care.. etc then a goverment would simple try to improve upon these statistics directly instead of just aiming at being a bigger producer. the market would still be in place. probably the best and quickest solution is to invest in education.

i also think that as long as we keep trying to organize a lot of people there are going to be problems, the more people the more problems, the more people the harder it'll be to keep everyone satisfied, i think the world is conencted enough today as to abandon the big cities and people should spread out to smaller communities.

bread, please stop derailing threads with your own agenda :(

  On 11/6/2010 at 2:08 AM, Bread said:

The manipulation of people's psychology for profit would not need to take place in a resource based economy where money and the concept of profit no longer exist. Goods/services will be made freely available with free access via technological means. Companies/corporations or any other monetary related inventions will cease to exist in an RBE [resource based economy]. Now that we have removed the concept of "profit" from the equation, there's no need for manipulative conditioning to take place anymore where corporations advertise and market their goods to customers in a, perhaps, materialistic, irrational approach. People can be equipped from school onwards with educational knowledge on the consequences of overconsumption.

not being able to profit from trade isnt going to get rid of the problem of greed dissapear. people will always try to get more than their share if they want it, no matter the system, no matter the distribution.

  Quote

Back to your point, we already have substantiated research on better sustainable energy systems, yet we're STILL utilising oil. WHY? = profit.

Nope. Practicality, oil is cheap. I can buy a bottled water for more than i pay for gas, it's cheap and it's damn effective. Sustainable energy systems which are just now becoming barely practical.

  Quote

Do you trust that corporations "know" what they're doing when it comes to managing the Earth's resources intelligently? Do you think they manage resources scientifically, meeting the needs of all people around the world? Of course not. They're blinded by the means to survive in the market, and if it means destroying the environment in the process, then so be it. They don't give a shit as long as they get their cut. Why support such a system?

Because our governments are supposed to prevent this squandering. The degree that they do varies from culture to culture, and the fact that we have to potential to prevent shit like this from happening should tell you that what your talking about is achievable in a monetary system. Why don't we do it? Because the government is too fucked up.

  Quote

The need for profit holds back progressive technologies which we can have NOW. All I'm saying is by removing money from society this problem is eliminated and we can start to update things further.

My point was that if it was truly a good idea they were putting so much effort to hold back they wouldve stolen it and made much more profit by producing the electric cars instead of patenting them and sitting on the idea for 20 years.

  Quote

On a personal note, how do you feel that you may have to work in a job for most of your life (which you may not like) in order for your basic needs to be met although you know full well that we can easily have a technologically upgraded society whereby your needs are met without a price tag?

Well here's the thing, if i end up working a job i dont like, it's my own damn fault. Meeting my "needs" is a very ambiguous phrase. The bare minimum of my needs as a human are not near enough to keep me happy, and how much i need to keep me happy depends on the person. We're individuals with varied desires. I don't want a society that only meets my basic needs even it was "without a price tag". I want a society that allows me to make my own informed decisions about how much i want to consume and when i get to consume it.

  Quote

Utopia is unachievable and a "blanket" term that really has zero basis in this discussion - it's just like labelling an RBE as "communism". It's not effective communication when in fact you know that perfection is completely unattainable

I would like to see a better global society too, but as i've mentioned before it's obtainable in our current monetary system. What you want is different, you want a complete and total overhaul of all global markets, governments and societies.

  Quote

We actually don't need money anymore. It's irrelevant and doesn't even compete with science. It can be a system we outgrow as time goes on. Money is only useful when you can not create a "near" abundance of resources with lack of technology such as hundreds of years ago. We're beyond that point now. - YES address this point please if you will.

i'd love to address this point but it makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying all countries have all the resources and technological advances necessary to sustain themselves in a perfectly environmentally sound way all the while satisfying their entire population? The only reason preventing them from doing so is because of the monetary system right? it's only money and profit thats keeping them from flourishing and obtaining perfect harmony with the environment? Bull shit!

  Quote

Seriously: how open-minded and sincere are you toward learning about new societal systems? It's naive when you experience a mind-lock mentality - you evidently do have this mentality as you're not enquiring sincerely. You just don't seem to want to learn about anything new that is offered your way. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but be specific, don't generealise and use useless, empty words to describe an idea as "utopian".

Bread, when i spend so much time deliberating on these issues with you, taking the pains to bump this thread every time to engage in this discussion in a civil manner even though everyones sick of hearing us wank about this RBE bullshit for the zillionth time, it's really irritating to have you act like you're the only one who has a valid perspective. Stop telling me i'm in a "lock-minded mentality" or that i "have difficulty with empathy" and accept that people have different and more practical ideals than you and your effing zeitgeist movement.

LOL don't even bother with bread. ooh technology will save us all! Jaques Fresco, the guy who started the whole zeitgeist movement is a raving lunatic who can't even understand something as simple as opportunity costs.

LOL at thinking being on the gold standard means you can't have economic crises. Riddle me this bready bread bread. What happens to your exporters when when world prices for a commodity fall, but your country is tied to the gold standard?

All of this of course, is ignoring the fact that there is not enough gold in the world to back all the nations in the world.

Finally, the cycle of booms and busts is nothing new, the world market has been facing economic crises for at least 500 years. There has been a magnification of them because of the more complete integration of the global economy and the corruption of the stock market, but capitalism is remarkably flexible, as has been proven repeatedly.

  On 11/5/2010 at 11:30 PM, fox said:

Why are coal plants prefferred over solar panel farms?

well, for one thing, coal can be mined with a simple pickaxe, found through all 128 levels and comes in a convenient cube form.

oops, wrong thread

well played.

---

+ if those people were real mi5-6 could have verified the 'secret' identities of those approaching the lord with ease. It has to be a scam and the reason why no one has told lord james is cause they don't like him. poor chap.

  On 11/6/2010 at 5:50 AM, Funktion said:

bread, please stop derailing threads with your own agenda :(

  On 11/6/2010 at 4:36 PM, delet... said:

well played.

 

---

 

+ if those people were real mi5-6 could have verified the 'secret' identities of those approaching the lord with ease. It has to be a scam and the reason why no one has told lord james is cause they don't like him. poor chap.

And fancied a good laugh?