Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Greenspan to China?
I am surprised that Allen Greenspan addressed "China" regarding the recession. Was it a state to state call?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The New Global Economy and Chaos
There is technology available to shift the global economy and human structure away from the traditional economic structure and its greivances. This encompasses a major change in the structure of society, greater than any in modern history. The greatest challenge is not the acquisition of the technology nor the building of the infrastructure, but how to do this with a minimum level of chaos, destruction, and loss of life.
The primary up-coming resource needing leadership in structural change is free energy. Free energy impacts power plants, transportation, militaries, industry, urban environments, residential attachments and certain natural resources. Holdings in these sectors minus natural resources surpasses $7 trillion. These use or produce almost all of our world's produced energy and release the vast majority of the world's pollutant toxicity.
If free energy were released onto the 'market' today, it would explode like an atom bomb onto our way of life. We need to replace the jobs and infrastructure currently in place with free energy systems.
We could allow this to breach the market, and simply allow competition to progress. All major companies that did not upgrade would become 'uncreditable' from their poor business model. Companies would close ~immediately and ~800 million jobs would be destroyed. This would be grand chaos.
If we can provide massive capital to new industries forming and oversee the expenditure of this capital to appropriate contracting agencies, we can provide a suitable cover-slip to 'profitability'. A sufficiently-sized portion of new technology products and industry will need to be introduced in private sectors [machinery, equipment, contract installations] to support itself and be maintained.
Nationalizing or 'globalizing' public production sources could mediate the level of competition and price to make outdated facilities still produce some revenue to contribute to their dismantling and the construction of new facilities.
The state can also affect this change by switching all of its private and public contracts to new technology sources. This change alone would be enough to found a support structure. and improve government and industry efficiency. Pollution would also be reduced substantially.
Existing contracts for inefficient industries may stay on the books, but the new market would make it less profitable to renew them.
Vast natural resources will need to be updated in market value. Oil, uranium, coal, natural gas, these things will decline in value and usefulness. Industries devoted to cultivating them should be dismantled or abandoned in favor of new industries with high potential for economic interaction.
Automakers will need enhanced competition from these auto companies. A state-run or privately funded automobile manufacturer will need to be assembled. Perhaps in a Canadian factory complex. See examples from www.ustransitauthority.blogspot.com and below on this site to determine certain principles of automotive advance that may be useful and clean. Major automakers may be able to update using their own credit and capital without substantial government or social pressure if they are faced with competition from a small Canadian firm using this technology. The Canadians will not be able to produce millions of cars, but their presence on the market will encourage rapid change. Their assured profit will also assure rapid growth and fantastic credit. This may be a good example for many potential industries, so that the market will 'assist itself' in changing.
[con't.]
The primary up-coming resource needing leadership in structural change is free energy. Free energy impacts power plants, transportation, militaries, industry, urban environments, residential attachments and certain natural resources. Holdings in these sectors minus natural resources surpasses $7 trillion. These use or produce almost all of our world's produced energy and release the vast majority of the world's pollutant toxicity.
If free energy were released onto the 'market' today, it would explode like an atom bomb onto our way of life. We need to replace the jobs and infrastructure currently in place with free energy systems.
We could allow this to breach the market, and simply allow competition to progress. All major companies that did not upgrade would become 'uncreditable' from their poor business model. Companies would close ~immediately and ~800 million jobs would be destroyed. This would be grand chaos.
If we can provide massive capital to new industries forming and oversee the expenditure of this capital to appropriate contracting agencies, we can provide a suitable cover-slip to 'profitability'. A sufficiently-sized portion of new technology products and industry will need to be introduced in private sectors [machinery, equipment, contract installations] to support itself and be maintained.
Nationalizing or 'globalizing' public production sources could mediate the level of competition and price to make outdated facilities still produce some revenue to contribute to their dismantling and the construction of new facilities.
The state can also affect this change by switching all of its private and public contracts to new technology sources. This change alone would be enough to found a support structure. and improve government and industry efficiency. Pollution would also be reduced substantially.
Existing contracts for inefficient industries may stay on the books, but the new market would make it less profitable to renew them.
Vast natural resources will need to be updated in market value. Oil, uranium, coal, natural gas, these things will decline in value and usefulness. Industries devoted to cultivating them should be dismantled or abandoned in favor of new industries with high potential for economic interaction.
Automakers will need enhanced competition from these auto companies. A state-run or privately funded automobile manufacturer will need to be assembled. Perhaps in a Canadian factory complex. See examples from www.ustransitauthority.blogspot.com and below on this site to determine certain principles of automotive advance that may be useful and clean. Major automakers may be able to update using their own credit and capital without substantial government or social pressure if they are faced with competition from a small Canadian firm using this technology. The Canadians will not be able to produce millions of cars, but their presence on the market will encourage rapid change. Their assured profit will also assure rapid growth and fantastic credit. This may be a good example for many potential industries, so that the market will 'assist itself' in changing.
[con't.]
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Advertising on the Moon
Advertising is a poor choice. the individual should decide and seek the things they need.
This is complex because of the dynamic macroeconomics. A business should be successful [fit] enough without needing to advertise. Advertisement in a way is a weakness and protectionism. Only large companies can afford to nationally advertise, so small companies are at a distinct disadvantage, causing business hegemony, sloth, and increased franchisement vs entrepreneurship.
This could serve as a centralization of economics, but it also produces greater mass-market risk and may reduce worker recompense and increase cost of living.
Does a house rot entirely before it falls down?
Intensity of advertising also clogs public space and airwaves. It is distinctly not beautiful in its purpose, even if it may have a beautiful person or script as a mask.
What is the alternative to advertisement? A greater product review could assist economic fitness. [We even have a consumer product review?] An economy that relies on being lean and tight instead of enormous and poorly allocated could be a good choice.
We currently cycle the world's resources heavily with the WTO, IMF, -advertisement- and other hegemonic financial systems. For example, until recently, all oil as traded in dollars. As were most bonds. That centralizes resources in America at the cost of personal interest.
Promoting very unfavorable and unbalanced economic conditions is a poor way of infusing cash into a non-functional system propped up by military might or other contracts.
This system is then caught in place by a decapitated electorate and a Congress influenced by titanic fiscal interests, requisite by their own inefficiency.
This is complex because of the dynamic macroeconomics. A business should be successful [fit] enough without needing to advertise. Advertisement in a way is a weakness and protectionism. Only large companies can afford to nationally advertise, so small companies are at a distinct disadvantage, causing business hegemony, sloth, and increased franchisement vs entrepreneurship.
This could serve as a centralization of economics, but it also produces greater mass-market risk and may reduce worker recompense and increase cost of living.
Does a house rot entirely before it falls down?
Intensity of advertising also clogs public space and airwaves. It is distinctly not beautiful in its purpose, even if it may have a beautiful person or script as a mask.
What is the alternative to advertisement? A greater product review could assist economic fitness. [We even have a consumer product review?] An economy that relies on being lean and tight instead of enormous and poorly allocated could be a good choice.
We currently cycle the world's resources heavily with the WTO, IMF, -advertisement- and other hegemonic financial systems. For example, until recently, all oil as traded in dollars. As were most bonds. That centralizes resources in America at the cost of personal interest.
Promoting very unfavorable and unbalanced economic conditions is a poor way of infusing cash into a non-functional system propped up by military might or other contracts.
This system is then caught in place by a decapitated electorate and a Congress influenced by titanic fiscal interests, requisite by their own inefficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
