Basejumper.com - archive

Everybody needs to watch zeitgeist 2 and support the venus project so that I don't have to go to work anymore.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist+addendum&www_google_domain=www.google.com&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=zeitgeist+add#

0

I made the instructions to big to fit in a word document and post so just click on the attachments in order starting with: Clicky Link Instructions 1.jpg

That is all

Good Luck

Is copying and pasting that hard?

Not at all. In fact it's a lot easier than creating the kick ass instructions.

But you know how it is when you feel strongly about something. For the good of the internet community of BASE typists, it was well well worth it!

all that... and no link. hahaha.

No link. I copy and pasted it once for the instructions. That about did me in.

http://video.google.com/...mp;oq=zeitgeist+add#

Well I'll be fcuked. It works.....

finally...

join the movement!

If I can help but one person, my work here is not in vain.


"for the good of the internet community of BASE typists"

I'm sorry for being ungrateful, those were kick-ass instructions. Now that we have that out of the way, Does anybody have an informed opinion about the validity of the view points from the movie?

<=== I actually laughed out loud.

Edit: to make the smiley clicky No kick ass instructions will follow. Sorry....

It is my perception that we live in a world of unsustainable social and environmental development. If this perception has no consensus, we can debate on the subject. But I'll leave it for now.

The lack of sustainability stems primarily from the human behaviour of seeking material growth and, in doing so, competing with each other. This behaviour results in an economic environment well suited for capitalism. Capitalism is depended on ever increasing growth, and thereby stimulates consume far beyond our needs. This results in materialism. Since the basis of our resources comes from the ecological system, there are limits to the total consumption. If we as humans want to evolve into a sustainable species (as in not just survive, but sustain our way of living together with all the worlds flora and fauna), we will have to start acting differently in our environment. That is not possible with an economic system like capitalism/monetarism, since growth eventually will consume the ecological basis from which we harvest. The film presents a refreshing new concept with "resource based economy". It sounds experimental, and it is. I'm not sure it is the best or only solution. But I am sure capitalism/monetarism will not do the trick. So the challenge is, are we able to "transcend" from the Darwinian behaviour of consumption into an intellectual behaviour of managing resources? I'm sceptical, yet this film represents a tiny hope...

I'm not really interested in the conspiracy theory discussion, so I'll just skip that. The above is what I think really matters, and in my opinion the film presents it very well.

Bring it on!

-h-

What you are advocating is a social caste-system, where individuals have no freedom. For you, or anybody else, to say that capitalism is not working, is to show gross ignorance of the world. Capitalism does not exist today! Also, capitalism is not dependant on ever increasing growth.

What I am advocating is a social non-system, where individuals have no craving for freedom because there is no non-freedom. For you, or anybody else, to say that capitalism is working, is to show gross ignorance of the world.


Please elaborate. It seems to me a contradiction to say that:
1. Saying capitalism does not work is to show gross ignorance of the world.
2. Capitalism does not exist today.
(3. Capitalism is not dependent on ever increasing growth.)

1: I would say that depends what you want to achieve. And assuming you'd want to achieve sustainability in our (all of human kinds) (harmonious) existence in the environment on the long term I would claim that we are failing as we speak.
2: If not, what are the foundations of our activities that makes us overconsume and fight amongst each other in such a way that the goal above is not reached.
3: Please enlighten me on how a capitalist economy with negative growth would be sustainable.

I think we established in the other thread that we do NOT hove pure Capitalism because we want our rights protected by the government. you desire protection of property rights. others desire protection for their right to breath clean air. still others desire protection from falling bodies. the protection of our rights provides freedom.

pure Capitalism assumes a highly limited role where the only protection afforded to most individuals is modifying their spending habits. it's hard to exercise any freedom when you lack power. thus, pure Capitalism offers precious little practical freedom.

What the fuck are you talking about?


You said capitalism is not working, inferring that what we now have today is capitalism. My contention is that you are ignorant because capitalism does not exist, and therefore cannot possibly be blamed for anything "not working".


Um, how about the unlimited amount of credit that the government makes available through the Federal Reserve Act, and policies of deficit spending?

.

Easy, through savings. If you think that any society can sustain itself through continually living beyond its means, then you are even more ignorant than I thought.

 

Hopeless...

strangely, I was thinking the same...

you seem to lack intellectual consistency.

for example, do you think government intervention in the economy is good?
is government intervention in the economy consistent with pure capitalism?

we can take it from there...

Actually I've been extremely consistent in my view that government intervention in the economy is bad. Government intervention in the economy is the antithesis of free-market capitalism.

See my reply in the thread

Economics 101

don't you expect government intervention to protect intellectual property rights. or am I mistaken?

if I'm NOT mistaken, it seems like you are consistent in slightly contradictory statements.

 

I agree that most systems in the west are not the "perfect" capitalism, but rather a mixed economy. As pointed out by several, this is a good thing/necessity since some fields don't respond well to a laissez-faire capitalism for different reasons.

One of my points is in regards to a comment you made on the 101-thread:

"Polluting your neighbors air, water, land, etc., without permission, just compensation, etc., would not be tolerated. "

In practice, this is exactly what happens. Since profit is in the driving seat, companies tend to cut corners. How are we gonna stop a tanker flushing her tanks on the open ocean to avoid cleaning and treatment costs?

Another example: how are you gonna put a real price tag on a diminishing resource (i.e. golden toat) caused by biotope contamination from complex sources?

Another one: what is the real price of a barrel of oil? Somebody finds a way to pump it and bring it to the market and gets someone else to offer a hundred bucks for it. But on the other hand whose oil was it to begin with? It takes some (quite a few) million years to produce a barrel of oil and when it's burnt it's gone forever. There will never ever be a refill. Who's to say "this oil is mine to do what I want with 'cause I found it"? Just because we have the ability to supply a demand doesn't necessarily mean it's the best or only option to do so.

 

They do this now even though there are laws against it because there is no way to controle and they want to maximise profit/cut costs.



A golden toat is a frog that probably went extinct ten-twenty years ago. And at the rate we are exterminating the wildlife it is not very unlikely that more than half of all species living today will not exist in 200 years (massive standard deviation). It's very hard to put a price on this loss and thereby give someone the bill. We are loosing species we don't even know we have.


I can go along with the property idea. But oil and real estate are very different. Actually oil is different from most resources because there is no refill, and we use it by burning it. Who's to say this oil is not our grand children's oil, since they will be able to put it to a lot more valuable use.


The essence of what I am trying to say is that we are causing this planet to be in a much poorer state when our grand children are going jumping, than it is now. Is that our right? I think that at the core of this problem is the economy, which is a drive force to cut corners, exploit, over consume, and focus on present value instead of future value. I think that before we shift to a whole other economic system we will not solve the problem. The only thing we can do is regulate more and more, which probably only will undermine the positive sides of the (mixed) capitalist system and not help very much in solving the problems.
An underlying problem is that we always want more than we need. I believe this is a property that is mostly created through indoctrination, media, social structures etc. Materialism is closely connected to envy, but also media preassure. Capitalism, by focusing on efficiency/profit, will always lead us to spend more. How can you avoid that and still have capitalism?

so governments should protect the property rights of the original owners... sounds good.


but now you admit that it is hard to actually determine who rightfully owns property! so who's rights need protecting?

you have a limited, fixed view of property and rights to it. unfortunately, ideas regarding property evolve and do not all fit into neat categories.

laws prevented people from owning property.
laws treated people as property.

would you say Lincoln inappropriately interfered with people's property rights? (an extreme example, of course.)

maybe in the future, not only will people own the land and mineral rights below ground, but the air above. they might want their rights to clean air protected. heck, they can claim it as part of their property...

all regulation protects somebody's rights. you seem to pick and choose which rights are worthy of government protection.

the other thing about property, is the public property. the US government (or States) owns vast tracks of lands. it permits businesses to extract mineral wealth from it's lands. it charges these businesses far less than the going market rate. (do you really think Uncle Sam receives as much for a barrel of oil from the Gulf as the Saudis get?) doesn't that distort markets as well?

 

There are a lot of things I'd love to comment on, but I'll refrain from that and just make one quick observation long-winded rant before I get back to what I was doing drinking heavily:

If we were on an 'Honest money system', and NO new money was printed, wouldn't that existing money become increasingly rare (and hence more valuable) as population increased? If that were the case, then people would just be stashing their cash instead of spending or investing it, since it would be worth more tomorrow than it is today. Prices would end up dropping through the floor due to the increased value of money.... but you're not 'saving' any money by buying a gallon of milk for $1.00 if that dollar is worth 5 times what it used to be when milk was $3.00/gallon.

It all comes down to this: in order for a productive society to exist and everybody to have an abundance of goods and luxuries, people must first create those goods and luxuries (which they do out of want for money). For people to bother creating those luxuries, somebody needs to be willing to buy them.. but nobody will buy them if everybody's stuffing their cash in the mattress because it's increasing in value.

I really think you're underestimating the value of the velocity of money (as somebody explained briefly in the other thread). When a purchase is made, a good or service is sold for profit. When a large amount of goods or services are sold, two things happen: Production of those goods/services becomes cheaper, and more people are employed to create, market, and service that product. These people make more money that they can then go and spend on more products.

If an economy is liquid and people are willing to spend money (or encouraged to by inflation), then it is very easy for an individual or a business to make money.

Ideally, every time a dollar is changed hands everybody wins. The seller makes a profit, and the buyer gets a good. So, if the average dollar changes hands 500 times per month instead of 50 times per month, then there are 10 times more transactions in which one person profits, and the other receives a good. Make sure that you're the former as often as you are the latter, and it doesn't matter what the money is worth that you used to make the exchange.

I'm not sure if I've done the best job of explaining it, but that's my attempt.

I guess my point is this: the overall prosperity of society is based on everybody actively producing, investing, buying, selling, or otherwise participating. If you just sit around and clutch your moneybags in your arms and cry about inflation, inflation will pass you up and you'll lose out because you're not doing anything productive. However, if you're actively going out there and filling a need in the market and are smart about it (making sure you profit from your labor instead of only your employer), inflation won't matter one bit because as prices rise so will your income because your labor/product/service, too, has a price. It will self-adjust.

A fast-moving economy is like the Bridge Day party at Holiday Inn Oak Hill after a busload of Hooters Girls gets lost and unloads there for the night. Either you can sulk in the corner and let the party pass you up, or you can get in there and fight for a piece of the action

Edit to Add: A crappy, frozen, fearful economy like the one we have today is more akin to the BD party where all the Hooters girls are already dating some other asshole, and they are just there for you to look at but not to touch.

Edit: This turned out to be anything but quick... first paragraph fixed and revised for honesty.

 

I've watched zeitgeist and know the history in which it refers to. I'm not ignorant to it, but I disagree with ZG's interpretation of it.

Economics is "The study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources." Most of it is widely open to theory and interpretation; hence many great economists have disagreed with each other in the past. It's all just theory... it's far too complicated for you or I to simply be right or wrong.

Way back in my grandfather's day, you could go to the movies for a nickel. Now it costs around $7.50, and that's without popcorn. So what? We are still just as able to afford the movies now as we were back then.

Debt is something that we choose to enter into, not something that is forced upon us. Want to buy a house? Great... pay cash or be in debt. Want to start a business with money you don't have? Take out a loan and be in debt, but have some working capital with which to grow.

Want your assets to be based on a gold standard? Go buy some gold, it's been holding its own against the USD for quite some time now (which may or may not mean its time to buy).. nobody's forcing you to hold onto any particular currency... or earn your income in one for that matter.


This is something I commonly say to friends of mine who follow the lemming path straight into corporate america. The salaries are low and don't follow inflation, the benefits and 401(k)s are just a dangling carrot that will get yanked away from them once they're committed, and their futures are tethered to their employers like Wile E Coyote strapped to a rocket and the fuse is lit. For those like my parents, it already is too late.

Good discussion though

P.S. Want to know a real large-scale theft that the Gov't is involved in? Property taxes. What is yours is no longer yours when you have to pay rent to the government

You did a great job of explaining the 'Multiplier Effect'
and the 'Velocity of Money' which are two reasons why
some moderate inflation is good.

You also know the difference between TO and TOO.

FYI - for those of you who English is a second language:
Two words that sounds alike but are spelled differently
and mean different things are called Homonyms.

As for property taxes, I agree they suck, but you just
perked up Adam Lanes, he was bitching about them
with me in person almost a year ago!

what I find really pathetic is most self appointed experts on the economy tend to be bombastic blowhards who pick and choose their data to badger those who disagree. that is pathetic.


but what is property? the topic was the evolving definition of "property." it is hard to fix "property rights" without a fixed definition of "property."

I said nothing about morals. you seem to want to distract instead of staying on target.


again, distracting instead of discussing. the Gulf of Mexico is divided up into many "blocks." currently, all such "blocks" are owned by the people through the US Government. do you advocate selling water as if it were land?

does thinking that selling water raises a ton of issues make someone a communist?

oh, and as far as history and truth...
governments distort markets in "the national interest." this provides reasons to subsidize steel or send armies to other countries. colonization was all about supplying cheap raw materials to home industry.

you really seem to have a pretty ideal in your mind. I'm sorry, but that ideal does not exist. given human nature, it can't exist.

I'd rather deal with the facts (all of them) or GreenMachine (who asks, discusses, and informs, not postures).

Sounds like your ideas are all about making the best society for Americans. The idea should be making the best society for human kind.


Saying that our ancestors wont be able to afford oil is the opposite of what the capitalism you are praising is all about. Someone will always be able to afford the oil, thats how free trade works. The fact that maybe no Americans will be able to afford oil is another issue. The American economy is really unhealthy, but only Americans themselves can fix that.

If you had a gold standard, how would you prevent increases to the money supply? Wouldn't you have to outlaw the mining of gold? Would that be easier (or harder) than using a fiat money and declaring that there would be no increases in the money supply?

So if we slow down the printing of money to achieve
Adam Lane's goals we would also need to restrict the
amount of credit available.

This of course would help prevent the poor/marginal
borrowers from making bad decisions... BUT then it
would be more outcry of unfair lending practices.

A few of my black students thought that color had an
impact on the ability of one to get a loan. I laughed
and then explained that lenders are looking for the
highest return at their acceptable risk level.

Hence it would cost them money to discriminate!!

The European economy isn't doing so great either... it just took them longer to realize it. It'll take them even longer to actually do anything about it, since they're interconnected financially but separate politically.

Just look at Iceland, which went bankrupt. Now the IMF is going to step in to rescue them. If we're believing Zeitgeist's conspiracy theory, they'll be a third-world indentured servant to the US in no time...

That was a common joke in grad school by
us poor fuckers taking out student loans!!

Upon graduation in 2001 I had a total of
$63,000 in debt with Sallie Mae, fuck her!

hahaha... man you are very disciplined with your greenieness. I am impressed. that must take dedication to type green! every time you change color.


as for financial aid, its how I paid for skydiving ADC/skydive gear (10,000 scholarship), then BASE jumping with a student loan, and flight training, with some scholarship and mostly student loans. and rope jumping I earned the money for, mostly.

does it work?
SliderUp

Or in your case, SliderUp Bellyup (your preferred deployment method from trampolines)

look here, manbearpig,

I think I did that perfectly. it was totally symmetric. did not kick packjob, spread the legs and have a canopy child.

go back to underwater. you ladies got far too serious for dorkzone 20 posts ago./too complicated for me


(edit to add the complicated part)

Yeah, many college kids at my old DZ
used to buy new gear at the beginning
of each semester

I didn't start jumping until I was done
with grad school or I am sure I would
have been doing the same thing!


By the way, turning the green on and
off is quite simple, I just type out the
command once, copy it, & then paste
it in several times adding the /.

What really takes time is making my
spacing such that sentences (or long
paragraphs) end at the same length.


Yea, yea, yeah, obsessive compulsive,
anal retentive, or just fucking weird...
I have heard it all.

Of course I have packed over 2,600
parachutes without a malfunction nor
do I lock my keys in the car.

even so, its impressive that you remember it.

OCD is a good thing in BASE right?

oh god I love online school. well. kinda. I need to get banned so I'll take this test. hmmm....

Turning off topic here:


The biggest European problem have been that our banks trusted American banks and have gotten huge losses because of this. The big problem with Iceland is that the bank Kaupthing have assets thats 6 times higher than the whole country's GDP. When that bank then collapses then of course the country is in troubles.

Europe might also have problems the next years because of the economic, but when I said the American economy is unhealthy I was thinking about whats been going on there since Reagan changed the tax system almost 30 years ago. The US have spent a lot more than they make for so many years and it doesn't seem to change. You don't need to be a professor in economics to see that spending way more money than you earn for 30 years is an unhealthy economic (see http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm#debt)

Our banks trusted unqualified borrowers. That's their own fault. Your banks trusted our banks, which were clearly trusting unqualified borrowers. That's the European banks' fault. They simply made bad investments.


I'll agree with that!

Here is an excerpt from Ayn Rand on the definition of property rights.

"The right to life is the source of all rights, and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not a right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property , but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use, and to dispose of material values.

Gold is the most widely accepted, and therefore preferred, medium of exchange in the history of man. A monetary system based on gold does not require the outlaw of competing moneys. Many things of value have been used as money throughout history and cultures. Gold had become most widely accepted for many reasons including, relative scarcity, high unit value, it is durable, portable, homogenous, divisible, and possesses both artistic and functional values. The amount of gold above ground is increasing through mining operations; however, the amount of gold in the world is finite, and mining operations come with great expense. Fiat money on the other hand has no value other than by decree of government, can be produced at will, and with little to no limitation. The Federal Reserve Note was originally payable on demand in gold, which was basically a promise by the government to limit the increase in the paper-money supply. Obviously that didn't last.

what i have learned from all this economic education:

AdamLanes has a giant naked poster of Ayn Rand tacked to the ceiling above his bed. he heard that she has a thing for big foreheads.

wwarped likes to argue with children until they cry. then steal their candy.

i am a dope-smoking hippy who just whines every time he thinks "the MAN" is "putting me DOWN"... that is, when i'm not arguing out of both sides of my mouth.

ghetto likes trannys

calvin19 got fed up with this shit weeks ago

and if you disagree, you will report to Komrade green machine for economic "re-education," or, 20 years in a siberian labor camp. your choice!!

report to Komrade green machine for economic
"re-education," or, 20 years in a siberian labor
camp. your choice!!

Damn, are my economic-concepts that painful?
No wonder students keep cutting my brake lines!

FYI - I am not a socialist/communist at all...
Libertarian at heart, registered Independent,
and have voted right, left & 3rd party over
the last 18 years.

that definition provides a wide interpretation.


that appears like it does NOT apply to homes, as few produce or earn their homes... (they earn money which they use to pay for the homes.)


that part speaks of material values, so it seems to ignore intellectual property rights.

I could be mistaken as I do not know the full context of the quote. I was hoping to get a clearer explaination. maybe I'll get a better idea as I continue reading this thread.

I got to keep the fat on somehow!

I admit to being a fat, lazy, american. the Norgies have tried to out hike me while carrying my bag as well. (I declined the considerate offer.)

Dude, I've jumped a few times with you in Twin and you're cool guy. However, on here you're coming across as a fucking douchebag. FYI.

Is that the point we have come to in America where the one guy in the thread defending liberty and freedom is called a douchebag? I really could care less if people want to wallow in ignorance in personal matters, but since a democracy allows people to vote away my rights, I'm stuck in a quandary.

You have called people's ideas who don't agree with your narrow interpretation of liberty,freedom,and capitalism and how they interact, ignorant. As if your opinion is the only one that is valid, and all other's makes them ignorant.

I call it behaving like an egomaniac, some would call it being a "douchebag".

i think adamlanes comment "pathetic" etc were in reference to an idea, not to the person speaking them... (maybe i'm wrong maybe he hates you)

but cmon its the internet! how boring would this be if we didnt take offense at everything.

i personally attack everybody here! nyeah!

Hey asshole, who told you I liked trannys!?!? That was supposed to stay between me and Andrew Karnowski, who for the record also likes trannys. When we go out trannyhunting, he gets the fat ugly friend while I go for the 10's

So I understand that you're advocating a "genuine" type of capitalism where preserving the individuals right to life, liberty and property is at center. Fair enough, I guess we might even call it a sound and reasonable view. But as we have seen here there are problems regarding the definitions of these rights.

1. Exercising them should not inflict on others to exercise theirs.

This infliction will always have a gradual transition from negligible to intolerable. Where do you draw the line? (is it ok fo me to breath, and thereby polluting your atmosphere with my bad breath? is it ok to blow up a nuke on my own property?)

2. What can be defined as property?

I'd say this definition is quite good and healthy, but far from what we exercise today. In fact you could argue that by this definition only creative work produces property. Is harvesting identical with production? If you fish all the fish in the ocean, are they yours? You surely didn't produce them. What about real estate? Has anyone ever produced his own piece of land? Specifically it says "it is not a right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object". So when have you produced it and when have you earned it?

I believe that if we are supposed to handle the mistreatment of our and our children's environment we will have to change our perspective on these matters. That's why I argue that "capitalism" doesn't work. I see now that we have separate understandings of the term, but I'm talking about the mixed economy system that has evolved in much of the world. Unless we resolve the issues regarding the fundamental rights, I don't think your ideal capitalism will work much better. In order for any system to work we need to find a way to consume in such a manner that the ecological refilling of resources is sustained, at the least. Unless we do so, we are in violation of the rights of the next generations.

I changed my post to refer to adamlanes's ideas, not to him, as a person.
Just checked out the Ayn Rand institute web site. There's some serious Capitalist cultists, ha! A "free market" will save the world! Talk about some one sided views, holy shit!

Any way... Another good documentary to watch. Why We Fight.
can be found here
http://video.google.com/...C&q=why+we+fight

long, but very interesting. Lots of information that seems to have been swept under the rug here in the states.

Check out http://mises.org

If this link was a hint to your view regarding human activity's affect on the environment (http://mises.org/story/3101), you just lost a huge chunk of credibility in my book. Sure, we could go back and discuss the ifs and if nots on this subject, but I was hoping we were beyond that chapter. Other than that I must say that the Ludwig von Mises Institute represents a seemingly healthy point of view on capitalist theory.

If not, I'm interested in hearing your views on the problems I mentioned in the above post.

I had not seen that one article before your post, but now that I have read it I am wondering what exactly are your objections to it? Maybe you should start a new thread on climatology and the environment and we can discuss it there. One interesting thing to note is that the United States Government's policy of massive deficit spending, which is made possible through the Federal Reserve Bank, is what allows the consumption of resources at an unsustainable rate. Basically we are living beyond our means, and therefore consuming the resources of future generations as you say. The Federal Reserve Bank is a fundamentally anti-capitalist institution, and needs to be abolished.

I'd like to keep it here, because I believe the key to sustainable exictence in our environment (socially and ecologically) is directly linked to our economic system. (That's what I think the film Zeitgeist:Addendum presented in a good way. Though bare in mind, I'm in no way saying it presents the solution, merely a healthy "out of the box" mindset (the "box" being the systems we've had up until now).)

First of all:

With his knowledge of economic modeling, the author uses his authority to back the claim:
"Despite the obvious differences between the disciplines, this sorry episode from the field of economics should counsel caution before we hand over even more power to the politicians due to the results of mainstream climate models."

This is of course not an unhealthy stand in general, but I hoped we had moved beyond that chapter. Please agree with me in the "fact" that discrediting environmental scientists is so last year. Further on he goes into the details of complex modeling and concludes with something similar to the terms "it's so complex that we don't know anything anyway" (yes, I know I'm exaggerating a bit). In addition he makes the vast mistake of putting on the tunnelgoggles which have been a major problem in "new age" environmental discussions. By this i mean it quickly degenerates into "are you sure it's 4,5 degrees, it could be only 2,5". I interpret his article as another one feeding the skeptics (In this case the ones that rather want to put the pedal to the metal because we can't be completely sure there is a brick wall just ahead), and there has been too many already. I was hoping we could move forward here.



Couldn't agree more. Fortunately for me I live in Norway and it's different here (the parliament as in "we the people" own the "Fed". And we run budget surpluses massively every year. And we have more than half a "rescue package" stocked away), but it doesn't help my problem. Yes, our "Fed" is charging interest, and yes, we have inflation. But I really don't think that is our biggest problem.



So how come we do the same here, even though we have none of your causes? I think the problem lies (at least partly) eslewhere. I think the problem in short is something like this:

Semi-capitalist systems focuses on profit. Profit attention leads to unethical cornercutting of terms like liberty and property (which were never really well defined to begin with) in the sense of social and ecological spending/wasting. This behavior leads to regulations, which are not and can never be effective, but destroys some of the positive basic ideas about the capitalist system. Profit attention also leads to increased spending (cultural indoctrination), which in turn leads to unethical (as in vastly more than I need, just because I can) consumption.

To be fair I have to say that profit attention has lead to enormous progression in the general standard of living for man kind. But maybe too much? Maybe (actually, not really maybe, definitely!) it's time to come up with a new system that focuses on balance? A zero growth system or a system that can perform healthy with negative growth (you mentioned savings as a means to have negative growth, but I have a hard time finding any historic evidence to show sustained savings in any economic system. The norgie way is probably the closest you'll get, but I can assure you, we will spend it eventually).



On a side note...
Liberty an property rights have more problems attached to them that has not been mentioned yet. What about the idea of inheriting? Have you automatically earned something just because your parents died? And what about if a property is not lawfully accessed? How many generations does it take to be earned? As an example, our ancestors traveled to America and introduced the idea of property to the natives. They seemingly had a healthy and sustainable balance with their environment at the time...

 

It's a theory that free markets are more efficient than centrally run government economic systems.They might be? They might not. After all there(as to my knowledge)has never been a true free market economy as you see it. And to say that any free market would always be more efficient than a government run economy seems to be a bit of a stretch.

The Norgies, for example, have a working version of a socialist system that is very succesfull.

Oh, and what are some the economic fallacies of zietgiest, and why?

I absolutely agree. But in addition to global warming there are so many other unsustainable processes we are responsible for (fishing all the fishes, ruining farmland, monoculture farming, pesticides, toxic waste on land and in the sea, vast wastedepots that we have no plans for, toxic gases in the atmosphere, pcb, plastics, energyspending, to mention just a random few), so I think it it important not to get hung up on the argument whether we contibute with 2 or 3 degrees. CO2 emissions are important, but there are plenty more to deal with as well. And I see profit as a driveforce in these mechanisms. Therefore I think a really interesting question is;

Can we come up with a new system, where profit is not an essential part? Or is it possible to transform the system we have in such a way that profit does not contribute to he scenarios we see?

I can agree that getting rid of the central bank, and cleaning up the system might help a lot when it comes to efficiency. But I don't think it would affect the problem I'm talking about much, other than maybe by increasing efficiency we'd get more product for the same amount of pollution (It's a start..).

I don't feel we're getting much further here so unless something new is brought to the table, I'll go read a book instead... Thanks for the tip.

Ren, read this one book and all the questions you raise in your last post will be answered. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

there is a difference between swept under the rug, and not ever reported because no one cares.

It's probably both...