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Nationalizing or 'globalizing' public production sources could mediate the level of competition and price to make outdated facilities still produce some revenue to contribute to their dismantling and the construction of new facilities.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.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Originally there were herders and farmers. It's totally not the herders' fault that the animals they chase ate crops the farmers protected. But it sucks that the herders didn't mind the farmers' loss. They should share beef and herbs.
Furthermore, there is another class of human. The merchant. They care not for farming nor for herds. They have other goods and piles that they trade. These folk have fancied themselves the new rulers of the world over the needs of hunters and farmers. This might be fine if they honor God. Farmers keep varmints away, and herders try to supply the best grass. While a merchant should try to cultivate their products and have them improve their customers.
Merchants, rulers, who do not honor God with their works labor in dishonor.
Furthermore, there is another class of human. The merchant. They care not for farming nor for herds. They have other goods and piles that they trade. These folk have fancied themselves the new rulers of the world over the needs of hunters and farmers. This might be fine if they honor God. Farmers keep varmints away, and herders try to supply the best grass. While a merchant should try to cultivate their products and have them improve their customers.
Merchants, rulers, who do not honor God with their works labor in dishonor.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Receipt for Debt
This post will discuss two main topics: currency traded for bonds and oil, and international cash reserves.
1. Sources say that this year for the first time substantially more bonds globally were traded in Euros than dollars. Dollars counted less than 40% of all transactions. A major source of these bonds are oil receipts, as well as gross industrial production and foreign trades.
2. China has overtaken Japan as the largest holder of capital. They have about $1 trillion, 700 billion of which is in dollars. They have decided to diversify their holdings away from the dollar.
China was both crediting America's trade deficit and domestic budget deficit and collecting American dollars. This propped up dollar-value internationally, while American fiscal heads ran up very large debts around rolling deficits. We became involved in longstanding and expensive wars and domestic irresponsibility and offshored our industrial base. We also sold our roads.
If China chooses to offload these dollars even over a few years, the American dollar will be housed. America will no longer have the fiscal ability to support itself, nor likely the credit rating to acquire financial support.
Predicting possible scenarios is not a worthwhile endeavor in this kind of fical market. New technology could potentially erase debt and deficits, and is a finer choice than playing small game.
It may be so that America has been planning this fiscal scenario since the PNAC signng. If the American aristocracy planned to run up large deficits before cornering the oil/energy market and then shut down oil flow worldwide except where it chooses, they could attempt to 'get away with' poor fiscal performance followed by very agressive military and economic warfare. God would not allow this to succeed.
This plan would be 'holed' by water-splitting technology or other major scientific advances which have been discovered, patented, and prototyped extensively.
Blessed are the poor, in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. -Beatitudes
1. Sources say that this year for the first time substantially more bonds globally were traded in Euros than dollars. Dollars counted less than 40% of all transactions. A major source of these bonds are oil receipts, as well as gross industrial production and foreign trades.
2. China has overtaken Japan as the largest holder of capital. They have about $1 trillion, 700 billion of which is in dollars. They have decided to diversify their holdings away from the dollar.
China was both crediting America's trade deficit and domestic budget deficit and collecting American dollars. This propped up dollar-value internationally, while American fiscal heads ran up very large debts around rolling deficits. We became involved in longstanding and expensive wars and domestic irresponsibility and offshored our industrial base. We also sold our roads.
If China chooses to offload these dollars even over a few years, the American dollar will be housed. America will no longer have the fiscal ability to support itself, nor likely the credit rating to acquire financial support.
Predicting possible scenarios is not a worthwhile endeavor in this kind of fical market. New technology could potentially erase debt and deficits, and is a finer choice than playing small game.
It may be so that America has been planning this fiscal scenario since the PNAC signng. If the American aristocracy planned to run up large deficits before cornering the oil/energy market and then shut down oil flow worldwide except where it chooses, they could attempt to 'get away with' poor fiscal performance followed by very agressive military and economic warfare. God would not allow this to succeed.
This plan would be 'holed' by water-splitting technology or other major scientific advances which have been discovered, patented, and prototyped extensively.
Blessed are the poor, in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. -Beatitudes
Saturday, January 20, 2007
A Leaner Industrial Complex
In the interest of spurring change and competition in the auto industry and world energy market, it may be beneficial to reduce the cost of the industrial complex. Some businesses in a governmental 'shadow', where high overhead and startup cost provide them with global market protection and the ability to crush or buy out all competetors produces an oligopoly of power among the major automakers. This power has been abused as demonstrated in the crushing of mass transit and the electric car, and other anticompetetive business practices and corporate interference with governance and law intended to regulate this industry.
This industry is also pervasive into consumer and public life, and affects us environmentally in the post-combustates of its products on the health of individuals and the planet.
Personal Economics: Some try to see how much money they can earn. We should instead try to see how little money we can earn and still have what we want.
How can we make the cheapest 1000 cars possible?
Marketing and advertising pose some of the largest expenses. Megacompanies spend bull-ions on their stock and on national and international television placement. If the goal is to sell 1000 cars, it will be an easier task to personally locate and sell individuals seeking automobiles, or to provide these autos to rental agencies or other infrstructures in addition to the general market. This can reduce the cost of production substantially and improve the vehicles' value.
Government money could also be appropriated for this purpose from grants. It may also be possible and exciting to gather investors for a small car effort from those interested in supporting or a new direction in energy and automobiles. Investors might be enticed by a novel product in such a large market. The potential for growth is explosive, and the ability to customize is fantastic. However, inviting stock sharing and therefore needing to provide greater return on investment will reduce the value of the vehicles.
Providing this money is a good way to generate capital to produce the cars, but the level needed to be reached should also be lowered, not merely assets raised. Producing parts for vehicles is a major expense and often requires large varied and complex infrastructure. Using a 3D printer to machine the various parts for the vehicle will dramatically reduce the amount of machinery required to shape the parts. This method can also allow more efficient part systems, since they can be built as one piece instead of assembled. This allows wiring to be internal to the device, for example, and necessitates fewer pieces per car.
Special electrolysis can also provide the ability to cheaply run electrical and hydrogen furnaces and other metalshaping and carbon refining methods.
To outsell major autoworks, these cars must be far more attractive and efficient than their modern market counterparts. For example, a 1000-model car will not 'quickly outsell' GM unless its numbers are far more advantageous than major models.
For example, it would be easy using appropriate technology to build a car that gets 50-100mpg and has a '5-star' level crash rating, can carry 4 passengers, and performs admirably. This kind of car would explosively outsell any standard model because the demand for it would be dramatically higher.
Maintenance on the vehicle can be reduced in price by printing and using some standardized parts. One of the major drawbacks of building 1000-model cars is the number of 'unique' parts they could use. It will be difficult to maintain these vehicles and replace the parts if they all use dissimilar parts. This can be avoided by conforming to major automakers.
Major automakers make more money by building cars that require maintenance. They get to sell replacement parts more frequently. As long as the initial model sells and retains some degree of resell value so as not to be totalled and abandoned, more part failure and replacement is more profit for major automakers. This is hideous, but if major automakers' parts can be machined more cheaply using a 3D printer, some of these small businesses may overtake major automakers' maintenance departments. This may inspire automakers to rely less on failure to generate revenue.
1000-model cars can be more specially built so that they will not require substantial maintenance. Automakers used to build cars to be proud of, that would last for 'a long time'. Many vehicles from before 1972 still run, and well, because they were carefully crafted in a time before planned obsolescence.
If these vehicles can be crafted using revenue-increasing and cost-reduction methods, they can probably out-value GM. It may be easier to sell to target markets rather than mid-market. Producing a solid and efficient $10,000 vehicle, and an outstanding $40,000 vehicle will probably be the best-selling choices.
See US Transit Authority for automobile blue-details.
This industry is also pervasive into consumer and public life, and affects us environmentally in the post-combustates of its products on the health of individuals and the planet.
Personal Economics: Some try to see how much money they can earn. We should instead try to see how little money we can earn and still have what we want.
How can we make the cheapest 1000 cars possible?
Marketing and advertising pose some of the largest expenses. Megacompanies spend bull-ions on their stock and on national and international television placement. If the goal is to sell 1000 cars, it will be an easier task to personally locate and sell individuals seeking automobiles, or to provide these autos to rental agencies or other infrstructures in addition to the general market. This can reduce the cost of production substantially and improve the vehicles' value.
Government money could also be appropriated for this purpose from grants. It may also be possible and exciting to gather investors for a small car effort from those interested in supporting or a new direction in energy and automobiles. Investors might be enticed by a novel product in such a large market. The potential for growth is explosive, and the ability to customize is fantastic. However, inviting stock sharing and therefore needing to provide greater return on investment will reduce the value of the vehicles.
Providing this money is a good way to generate capital to produce the cars, but the level needed to be reached should also be lowered, not merely assets raised. Producing parts for vehicles is a major expense and often requires large varied and complex infrastructure. Using a 3D printer to machine the various parts for the vehicle will dramatically reduce the amount of machinery required to shape the parts. This method can also allow more efficient part systems, since they can be built as one piece instead of assembled. This allows wiring to be internal to the device, for example, and necessitates fewer pieces per car.
Special electrolysis can also provide the ability to cheaply run electrical and hydrogen furnaces and other metalshaping and carbon refining methods.
To outsell major autoworks, these cars must be far more attractive and efficient than their modern market counterparts. For example, a 1000-model car will not 'quickly outsell' GM unless its numbers are far more advantageous than major models.
For example, it would be easy using appropriate technology to build a car that gets 50-100mpg and has a '5-star' level crash rating, can carry 4 passengers, and performs admirably. This kind of car would explosively outsell any standard model because the demand for it would be dramatically higher.
Maintenance on the vehicle can be reduced in price by printing and using some standardized parts. One of the major drawbacks of building 1000-model cars is the number of 'unique' parts they could use. It will be difficult to maintain these vehicles and replace the parts if they all use dissimilar parts. This can be avoided by conforming to major automakers.
Major automakers make more money by building cars that require maintenance. They get to sell replacement parts more frequently. As long as the initial model sells and retains some degree of resell value so as not to be totalled and abandoned, more part failure and replacement is more profit for major automakers. This is hideous, but if major automakers' parts can be machined more cheaply using a 3D printer, some of these small businesses may overtake major automakers' maintenance departments. This may inspire automakers to rely less on failure to generate revenue.
1000-model cars can be more specially built so that they will not require substantial maintenance. Automakers used to build cars to be proud of, that would last for 'a long time'. Many vehicles from before 1972 still run, and well, because they were carefully crafted in a time before planned obsolescence.
If these vehicles can be crafted using revenue-increasing and cost-reduction methods, they can probably out-value GM. It may be easier to sell to target markets rather than mid-market. Producing a solid and efficient $10,000 vehicle, and an outstanding $40,000 vehicle will probably be the best-selling choices.
See US Transit Authority for automobile blue-details.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Oil
Unfortunately, I am forecasting an increase in the price of oil compared to other dollar-value goods. Since the world's oil will no longer be traded exclusively in dollars, we will pay more dollars for oil. This means that oil prices for dollar holders should be rising.
What options does this produce?
What options does this produce?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Interest rates being high implies that the return on borrowed money should be high, yes? But in this low-return economy, how can that be so? It this rewarding fortunes, megafinance, and saving? Is it reigning in entrepreneurship and lending/borrowing in a poor economy?
Perhaps the rates *should* be lower.
Perhaps the rates *should* be lower.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
[This is a joint operation with www.ustransitauthority.blogspot.com to educate and reduce commutes.]
I looked back on the jobs I have had, and found that one of the factors making a job most enjoyable was a short commute. The quality, workmates, content, and pay scale of the job were also factors, but the commute played a part of many of these, since commuting is technically part of working, unless your commute is zero.
A long commute will actually *reduce* your effective salary. Assuming you produce 40 hours a week on the job for 50 weeks a year, every half hour of your daily commute will add 250 hours to your work. This reduces your hourly wage by 1/8, if you work 2000 hours a year. An hour long commute reduces your salary by 25%.
Furthermore your commute is not free. Assuming that you drive and get good mileage and fuel prices remain stable, you are also paying ~$5 per half hour of your daily commute. This becomes $1250 per year per half hour of your commute. If you are commuting 2 hours to work every day, you have increased your work year from 2000 hours to 3000 hours [taking a 33% pay cut] and you also will pay $5000 in fuel expenses, add maintenance and wear. Is that job worth your time and money? They would have to pay you substantially above-market rates to make it equally worth your while to commute.
You could take a lower paying job closer to home, or move closer to your job, if it is worth the time commuting. Please consider this when choosing employment, transportation, and residence. You will help improve your quality of life and the freetime you have to enjoy it more, and you will help save the planet and help the community.
I looked back on the jobs I have had, and found that one of the factors making a job most enjoyable was a short commute. The quality, workmates, content, and pay scale of the job were also factors, but the commute played a part of many of these, since commuting is technically part of working, unless your commute is zero.
A long commute will actually *reduce* your effective salary. Assuming you produce 40 hours a week on the job for 50 weeks a year, every half hour of your daily commute will add 250 hours to your work. This reduces your hourly wage by 1/8, if you work 2000 hours a year. An hour long commute reduces your salary by 25%.
Furthermore your commute is not free. Assuming that you drive and get good mileage and fuel prices remain stable, you are also paying ~$5 per half hour of your daily commute. This becomes $1250 per year per half hour of your commute. If you are commuting 2 hours to work every day, you have increased your work year from 2000 hours to 3000 hours [taking a 33% pay cut] and you also will pay $5000 in fuel expenses, add maintenance and wear. Is that job worth your time and money? They would have to pay you substantially above-market rates to make it equally worth your while to commute.
You could take a lower paying job closer to home, or move closer to your job, if it is worth the time commuting. Please consider this when choosing employment, transportation, and residence. You will help improve your quality of life and the freetime you have to enjoy it more, and you will help save the planet and help the community.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
College Books and Excessive Profit
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-collegebooks2506nov25,0,954603.story
College textbooks are the ultimate monopoly market. Often the college bookstore is the only source for the book, which is often 100% required to pass. This can elevate the cost to 'anything not suspicious'.
This is not legitimate. It contains criminal business practices, and at the very least needs to be changed. So here we are at the crossroads.
Anything that is aggressively profitable is, well, unfortunately wrong. If you're making 500% profit on something and it is turning into quite an uneven amount of leftover cash, you are cheating someone. Not maybe cheating, not making a killing, you are doing something wrong.
Unless your customers are not suffering from paying the cost. In that case, it doesn't seem to matter, except for being peculiar. But if you're charging students $400 or $500 per semester for books, and you produce these books for pulp, and could sell them for half their price, and the students are suffering, you are profiting from their suffering, which is bogus.
This practice is anti-community, anti-commerce, and detestable. It should stop.
College textbooks are the ultimate monopoly market. Often the college bookstore is the only source for the book, which is often 100% required to pass. This can elevate the cost to 'anything not suspicious'.
This is not legitimate. It contains criminal business practices, and at the very least needs to be changed. So here we are at the crossroads.
Anything that is aggressively profitable is, well, unfortunately wrong. If you're making 500% profit on something and it is turning into quite an uneven amount of leftover cash, you are cheating someone. Not maybe cheating, not making a killing, you are doing something wrong.
Unless your customers are not suffering from paying the cost. In that case, it doesn't seem to matter, except for being peculiar. But if you're charging students $400 or $500 per semester for books, and you produce these books for pulp, and could sell them for half their price, and the students are suffering, you are profiting from their suffering, which is bogus.
This practice is anti-community, anti-commerce, and detestable. It should stop.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Dominus Vitae
People vs Nations
If you own 66% of the world's resources, along with it comes the responsibility of those who rely on those resources for survival. Aggressive economics can be lethal otherwise, which is in the jurisdiction of the law.
This is the basis of state formation. If massive investment groups want to form commerce nations, then they will be allowed to, but they must operate in line with UN charters or they will be acted upon.
In the same way, building a national fence is unethical if you place a plurality of vital resources on one side only. In the way governments claim imminent domain, human populations may be able to claim dominus vitae on resources or other controlling elements.
Oil -> work
Drugs -> God
Sex -> love
Do not let the medium get in the way of the message.
If owning that much stuff gets in the way of your duty to others, you should not have it.
When economics and ecology clash, there will be death. This is potentially one of the laws of economics, or one of the consequences of environment.
Who do we represent? We are God's people, here to represent God.
Do not let the medium get in the way of the message.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Money is Also From God
Money represents things. It is the earth, a bushel of wheat, a field of oil. Having money is like having an unsubstantiated or undefined deed. It does not give you tyranny over the item. It gives you responsibility and authority over the item.
Money, too, is from God, as is the water and land and your time and life. It is to be used responsibly. Someone who makes a monopoly using money is a criminal just as someone who makes a monopoly using land or other resources.
If the Federal Reserve commits a monetary monpoly, they will deserve antitrust charges in the name of the people.
Money, too, is from God, as is the water and land and your time and life. It is to be used responsibly. Someone who makes a monopoly using money is a criminal just as someone who makes a monopoly using land or other resources.
If the Federal Reserve commits a monetary monpoly, they will deserve antitrust charges in the name of the people.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Black Gold Beans
Observe this movie about 3rd world - 1st world dominance in trade. If these 3rd world countries had a way to generate energy cheaply, they would not need to trade for such a pittance, and could engineer their economy more 'fruitfully'. This could give the 1st world less beneficial resource deals, though. This is economic terrorism.
Making coffee farming profitable is a good way to get more real trading partners and fewer impoverished slave-nations. The ideal is no impoverished slave-nations, and this is possible with free energy. This cannot condone 1st-3rd slavery. It is a crime that the 1st world enforces. It would be better to pay them reasonable wage for their beans than to break their knees into economic weakness.
Making coffee farming profitable is a good way to get more real trading partners and fewer impoverished slave-nations. The ideal is no impoverished slave-nations, and this is possible with free energy. This cannot condone 1st-3rd slavery. It is a crime that the 1st world enforces. It would be better to pay them reasonable wage for their beans than to break their knees into economic weakness.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Bare Cost of Living and Federal Minimum Wage
The 1968 minimum wage was equal to $9.33 [2006]. The cost of living in 1968 was also lesser in 2006 dollars. This would make even the least able person capable of making a suitable living wage! We did beat the Soviets' communism in that sense, and tenable welfare and other tax-provided public services can fill the gaps inbetween. But we lost to the lowest bidder when our state became unable to do this by allowing megaprivatization, corporatization, lagging out the minimum wage, and unbalancing the economy that is now threatening our Constituional framework and producing a poor lifestyle for millions in America and exploiting those around the world.
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/stateminimumwagechart.html
This chart shows the state minimum wages. The federal government recently did not pass a law that would make the minimum wage $7.50.
Monthly: hi low
Car insurance 78 78
Gasoline 200 100
Car care 150 50
Rents 500 300
Foods 400 300
Repayments 300 200
Stuff 200 22
Savings 200 50
Tax/Junk-15 305 165
---------------------------------------
M-Total 2334 1265
Annual 28000 15144
Weekly Pre- Tax Income
538 291
Hourly Wage $14.00 $7.57
[2000hrs]
This is a rough estimation of the basic living needs of the average human being working in America. If they begin debt free, they can work easily and use $2400-3600 less per year, which would turn into $1.20-1.80 less per hour, changing the debtless basic plan to $6.37/hour. Car insurance for many states and drivers is higher than $78 per month. Savings selections may vary. Rent indicates shared inexpensive rented dwelling. Food may cost more than $400 per person per month. The Red Cross affords something like $75 weekly for a person for food. Purchase of 'stuff' assumes no 'major' spending events, like buying a leather jacket or new computer, or only every few months. Assume no health insurance, or job-only payers, or add it on top at ~60 biweekly, turning into +~$.75 hourly. The tax is also somewhat low and does not include state tax.
The state minimum wage in:
Massachusetts is $6.75. In January, 2007 it will become $7.50 FAIRish
Connecticut is $7.40. In 2007 it will become $7.65 FAIR
California has $6.75. In 2007 it will become $7.50 In 2008 it will become $8.00. Okay
New Hampshire: Federal Rate $5.15. POOR.
New York State is $6.75. It will become $7.15 in 2007. NOT-OK
Rhode Island is $7.10, which becomes $7.40 in 2007.
Vermont has $7.25, which is adjusted for inflation annually! KIND OF FAIR
Washingont State had $7.63, which is the highest minimum income state, which is adjusted for inflation annually. Only Washington state truly meets the living minimum figured here.
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/stateminimumwagechart.html
This chart shows the state minimum wages. The federal government recently did not pass a law that would make the minimum wage $7.50.
Monthly: hi low
Car insurance 78 78
Gasoline 200 100
Car care 150 50
Rents 500 300
Foods 400 300
Repayments 300 200
Stuff 200 22
Savings 200 50
Tax/Junk-15 305 165
---------------------------------------
M-Total 2334 1265
Annual 28000 15144
Weekly Pre- Tax Income
538 291
Hourly Wage $14.00 $7.57
[2000hrs]
This is a rough estimation of the basic living needs of the average human being working in America. If they begin debt free, they can work easily and use $2400-3600 less per year, which would turn into $1.20-1.80 less per hour, changing the debtless basic plan to $6.37/hour. Car insurance for many states and drivers is higher than $78 per month. Savings selections may vary. Rent indicates shared inexpensive rented dwelling. Food may cost more than $400 per person per month. The Red Cross affords something like $75 weekly for a person for food. Purchase of 'stuff' assumes no 'major' spending events, like buying a leather jacket or new computer, or only every few months. Assume no health insurance, or job-only payers, or add it on top at ~60 biweekly, turning into +~$.75 hourly. The tax is also somewhat low and does not include state tax.
The state minimum wage in:
Massachusetts is $6.75. In January, 2007 it will become $7.50 FAIRish
Connecticut is $7.40. In 2007 it will become $7.65 FAIR
California has $6.75. In 2007 it will become $7.50 In 2008 it will become $8.00. Okay
New Hampshire: Federal Rate $5.15. POOR.
New York State is $6.75. It will become $7.15 in 2007. NOT-OK
Rhode Island is $7.10, which becomes $7.40 in 2007.
Vermont has $7.25, which is adjusted for inflation annually! KIND OF FAIR
Washingont State had $7.63, which is the highest minimum income state, which is adjusted for inflation annually. Only Washington state truly meets the living minimum figured here.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Cost of Free Energy
The True Cost of Free Energy
A free energy watercar is extremely probable, due to the massive amount of examination examples have received from the US military, NASA, and by the examination and proliferation of HHO and hydrogen gas water engines, many with nationally registered patents by independent scientists in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, the Philipines, and other "100%+" efficiency inventions. For example, in spring 2002, a patent was issued for a motionless electromagnetic generator producing some 100 times the power put into it. Japanese patents for electromagnetic devices and other engines producing 100%+ energy are also 'common'.
These items are not fantasy and do not draw energy from nothing. Examine statements at www.timetravelisforsuckers.blogspot.com for detail on 'zero-point' energy devices. Some draw energy from the universal constant, an ambient energy level that is present everywhere, even in empty vacuums devoid of matter. Some use the entrainment principle of wave synchronization to force vibrational atomics to change chemical structure. This is the most likely explanation for water splitting, and would account for the precise hertz level the electrons must be moving at for the process to work. More inventions and explanations abound at www.byronwine.com.
So many wonder, if these remarkable devices exist, why isn't GM using them? Why isn't the USGOV using them? The answers are the choices of certain key shareholders and officers, but we can speculate their motivations.
Oil experts estimate that there are "100 trillion dollars worth of oil" [$100T] underground right now, with the greatest collection in the hands of Saudi Arabia, followed by Iraq. This is a ridiculously large sum that can drive entire economies, the entire world economy, and change the history of mankind and isolate power at key bottlenecks. If there is an 'oil monopoly', and cars run only [95%+] on oil, then only those who control oil will have substantial automotive power. This plays a massive force in world commerce. More powerful than supply alone, price sets levels of domination, basically a Seringhetti pecking order, and can be used to track money movements and used as currency and payments. For example, the US NAVY was able to track every tanker than left Iraq. >50% of oil smuggled from Iraq during 1991-2003 went to a US company in Texas.
Oil Reserves: $100 Trillion
This does not count coal, uranium, or natural gas, which are also very highly valued.
This also does not include the hundreds of oil refineries found worldwide. Russia has hundreds, America has hundreds, Europe has plenty, the Middle East has hundreds, Asia has probably hundreds of them. A 'refinery' is not a SimCity 16-square sized building. Some of them take up entire SimCity sized maps, encompassing multi-square-kilometer facilities. These facilities could be themselves valued collectively at perhaps $2 trillion dollars.
Oil Refineries: $2 Trillion
Free energy devices, usually producing no immediately meaningful pollution, would also immediately replace all non-free power plant facilities. This means that all nuclear plants, and the world has over 400 operational nuclear reactors, with many plants having up to 4 reactors or more at a plant, with dozens of nations from Uruguay to Malaysia having plants. There are also hundreds of research plants, fuel processing facilities, refining plants, and uranium mines and their industries. China plans to open 2 new plants per year until 2020, according to the 2004 GE symposium. Note that Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida was hit by Hurricane Andrew and shut down, while Three Mile Island and Chernobyl both had nuclear accidents, and both plants attempted to conceal the news!
A nuclear plant is 1:1.3 efficient, about 23%, and each KW capacity costs around $3200. This would make a 650MW plant cost a hair over 2 billion dollars. The world's collective energy production nuclear power plants probably cost in the vicinity of 800 billion dollars. The average nuclear power plant is not profitable until its 17th year of operation because of energy costs. The majority of nuclear plants are owned by private companies.
Geothermal energy could replace this cost without polluting, and could potentially decrease volcanic and earthquake activity. The majority of earth's caloric heat comes from earth, not from the sun. Geothermal energy is also $~2800/KW capacity, beating nuclear by a fair margin and producing no meaningful pollution.
Add onto this the world's coal plants. According to this site, 54% of American energy comes from coal power. We have 600 coal power plants in America, which produce more radiation from carbon isotopes, than nuclear plants produce in pure radiation, although nuclear waste is highly concentrated, and nuclear plants purposefully release radiation into the environment on a biweekly basis. According to wiki, a 500MW plant costs $650 million, and we have some 600 of them. As of 2004, a coal plant cost $1300/KW capacity. These plants and their background mines and refineries add up to $390 billion. They are all infrastructure, and free energy would turn their value to $0. Assuming that other nations combined have only about equally as many coal plants as America has, plus $20 billion in infrastructure, the total springs to $800 billion.
Alternative energy projects such as wind and solar plants would also likely become illusions. It is more probable, given the assumably probable existance of sufficient alternative energy technology, that wind and solar power are entirely red herrings, and designed to down-market non-oil power sources, and distract those who would search for alternatives with the 'likely competetors'. Yes, solar and wind power suck and cannot meaningfully replace oil or coal or nuclear power at their current production levels and our current demand. They will still be useful for low-draw operations.
World Coal and Nuke power plants: $1.6 Trillion
Then consider our automotive industries and oil companies and their factories and all cars on the road. As of Y2K, 51 of the 100 largest economic entities were corporations, not nations. In 2000 GM had a net worth of $176 billion dollars, ranking #23, just behind the nation of Turkey, and beating out the whole country of Denmark, with a $174 billion economy. Exxon-Mobil was #26 with $163 billion. Ford Motor was #27 also at 163 billion, and Daimler Chrystler was #28 at $160 billion. Poland was #29 at $154 billion. Mitsubishi and Toyota are #38 and #39 with $117 and $116 billion each. Royal Dutch is #43 with $105 billion. Israel is #46 with about $100 billion. BP is #56 at 83 billion, Volkswagen is #58 with 80 billion, and from there it becomes loose change with Honda and Nissan ranking #78 and #80 pulling in ~55 billion each. Also on this list are Boeing, Deutsche Bank, State Farm Insurance, Bangladesh, Fiat -#85, 51 billion, Toshiba, Siemens, and Mexico, which has an economy about as large as America's annual debt of $~500B. America's GDP in 2000 was ~8.7 trillion dollars. Today it is something like $13 trillion, but in American dollars, which is about equal to 8.7 trillion USD2000.
These figures are for the year 2000. Since then these companies have all grown at a rate of perhaps 4% per year, while the average salary has risen 0.3% per year for the past 25 years -NPR interview. Inflation defeats this salary increase. Cost of living has also increased. The collected major oil company annual sales on this list were $350 billion dollars. Numerous smaller companies, such as Venezuela's state oil company, and other traders, were not on this list, and presumably would bring the total oil revenue to ~450 billion dollars, when oil cost about a buck a gallon. Remember gasoline cheaper than bottled water? The total number of car sales in the year 2000 for the major companies listed comes to $973 billion, with total world car sales probably leveling out at $1.1 trillion dollars, that year. The world spent $1.095 trillion on armies and weapons and wars in 2005, I believe. In the years since 2000, with these companies growing at 4% per year would place their total revenue for 2006 at around $1.9 T in 2005-6.
All oil companies and their affiliated gasoline stations would become $0 value in the event of water energy. All automotive companies would need to scrap the majority, let's call it 85%, of their factories and lineup processes. All carburaters and fuel injection systems would need to be retooled, all exhaust systems rendered worthless, and likely new fuel cell and other technology items spliced in their place. Please note that these companies often have subcontractors whom are not listed in their revenue tree.
Actually, it is likely that only about 85% of automotive company sales and efforts would be destroyed per year, until it becomes fiscally impossible to continue production. This would take about 1-2 years. A market for replacement parts could continue for 10-20 years.
Also note that all oil traded in the world comes in Dollars, not Euros, not Yen, not Yuan. This conversion process is very lucrative for Americans and dollar traders everywhere. One of the major concerns of Saddam Hussein's regime was that he wanted to trade in Euros for the first time in 2003, shortly before we invaded him. Other media recently [October 2006] says that he had issued statements that he would cooperate fully with American forces shortly before our invasion, but that George Bush refused to acknowledge these statements.
Automotive and Oil sales: $1.9 Trillion
All passenger and cargo and other jets would need to be refitted, again at 85% of fleets or more per year. Fortunately, we are approaching the era of hypersonic scramjets, which run on hydrogen fuel anyway. Most alternative combustion fuel production methods would just make this process easier. However, the aerospace industry is a multi-billion dollar economy, and Boeing was listed in 2000 asa #74 with $58 billion. It's major competetors, Airbus, and other world companies, and passenger jet companies, would face major losses to the measure of billions-touching-trillions. The American military receives nearly $500 billion annually and has hundreds of petroleum fuelled jets. NASA's rockets and all our ~500 football field sized ICBMs, other missiles, military hardware vehicles, and a majority of our nation's warships are also fuelled with petroleum products. Some of our warships are nuclear powered. They would face special challenges that might make replacing 85% of them or more annually difficult to agree with. I am not counting military expenses apart from the annual budget, only geopolitical tactical considerations.
Aerospace Industry and Jets: ~$2 trillion + military
This brings the grand total of loss of capital and expense for the introduction of alternative fuels to ~$107.5 trillion dollars, not counting accumulated coal, natural gas, and uranium resources. Also on this bill are the 1st world's supremecy, as no one anywhere in the world would ever want for electricity ever again, which could easily produce virtual economic autonomy everywhere. In the event of such economic exuberance, the American Federal Reserve would lose all control over the value of the dollar and all world currencies, companies would no longer be able to maintain their obsoleted patents, factories and industrial magnates would no longer be able to maintain natural monopolies from costs of production, since the cost of production would decrease so rapidly and far from "removing" the energy market basically in its entirety, any person with such a machine and a modest amount of capital could start any production facility they chose.
The value of the commodities that capital could buy would also be deflated preposterously because of the corresponding industrial explosion from eliminating the majority of the cost of energy-intensive production efforts. Heavy industrial efforts, such as producing carbon fiber, would become cheaper than producing steel. Automotive and generating engines using the new technologies would become as expensive as the cost of their natural resources, plus tooling, plus profit of 8-10%, and still cost a fraction of what they do today, in 2006, in terms of manhours of labor and dollars. Natural resource harvesting, of plentiful metals, minerals, lumber, hemp, crops, could all be accomplished using non-polluting, free-to-run-continuously-and-for-years engines that themselves would eventually be made using robots.
Robotics could easily flood the market with any level of goods of any type within years. Maintenance of automated industrial production would become the major time and labor consuming cost of indsutrial production. Entrepreneurship and competition would become pure in almost every field because of the reduction of business expenses and cost of living.The political and economic upheaval of the process would almost certainly bankrupt Duke Energy, the IMF and World Bank, most automotive production companies who do not embrace the shift, most financial institutions who do not embrace massive currency chaos, deflation and adjustment, and likely some major retailers unless they shift tactics. Any company that stands in the way of this shift will be brushed aside eventually either by the grinding halt of peak oil, or by the amazing tide of free water energy. You have until ~2010 at the very latest.
The Kyoto Treaty will be meaningless, no company will be able to produce a sufficient amount of CO2 to pollute the world substantially. Major polluters will be put out of business by more efficient and cleaner technologies. These new technologies will probably allow us to easily research new ways to clean up wastes and toxins and new medical procedures to treat diseases. Unfortunately, and depending on the level of chaos, returning to this level of infrastructural articulation will probably take 5-10 years after these shifts, which will themselves probably take 5-10 years, beginning as soon as water technology breaks out industrially, or as soon as we invade Iran or another oil entity, or ~2008 when peak oil will otherwise arrive.This will cost us $107.5 trillion imaginary dollars, which represent potential labor, which will be replaced by an economic and social utopia. Your strength will be meaningless in this economy. Only your skill will be worth rewarding. A dollar will not produce an ear of corn that no one tended to. An existing machine could shovel a ditch for zero net units of energy. You can only trade a dollar for labor. Natural resources all belong to the ground. The ground and we, who came from dust, belong to God.
><>
Corporations and The Individual
What is good for corporations is good for their investors and CEO/board. Reaganomics did not work, and the money did not 'trickle down'.
Examine the increase in class seperation opening in the 1980's. That is where the money went. Not to the lower or middle class.
The same can be said of corporations, except their pockets are infinitely deep for withholding sums in finance. You could just lower the interest rate on loans a % or two instead.
We've seen corporations get huge deals and tax breaks in the past 6 years. It has widened this gap moreso than any time since the 1920's, and perhaps even to the 1890's, before we used AntiTrust laws on those railroad robber barons and mega-industrialists.
We have also been using an agressive privatization version of capitalism that strips public welfare. Welfare like schools and hospitals, quality of living, cost of living, and median wage. All of these sectors have taken a beating.
Examine the increase in class seperation opening in the 1980's. That is where the money went. Not to the lower or middle class.
The same can be said of corporations, except their pockets are infinitely deep for withholding sums in finance. You could just lower the interest rate on loans a % or two instead.
We've seen corporations get huge deals and tax breaks in the past 6 years. It has widened this gap moreso than any time since the 1920's, and perhaps even to the 1890's, before we used AntiTrust laws on those railroad robber barons and mega-industrialists.
We have also been using an agressive privatization version of capitalism that strips public welfare. Welfare like schools and hospitals, quality of living, cost of living, and median wage. All of these sectors have taken a beating.
Thanks For The App
"What if New York had its own currency? In a sense, it already does. Our dollar looks the same as the better-known U.S. version, but it doesn’t go nearly as far here as anywhere else. How much is it really worth? Based on a few scientifically imprecise calculations, a New York dollar would lag somewhere behind a Canadian buck. Here’s why:"
Thanks. Examine this article in relation to regional economics.
Thanks. Examine this article in relation to regional economics.
Finance and Labor
I am disappointed with republican and statewide attempts to eliminate medical coverage and pensions for seniors. These things are not only general duties of the state, but they have been sworn to when they took the money from them for insurance and FICA etc in the first place.
If the state removes that compensation, they will need to replace it with some other meaningful support. Perhaps excellent research into proteinology or stem cells, and support to hospitals and medical organizations and provision of statewide healthcare. Installing these procedures can save 16-20% right off the top, which would normally be profit for investors who can likely afford their own healthcare.
In American capitalism that becomes private profit. In European and Canadian capitalism, those services are not private sector, they are provided by the state, and no 'profit' is made. Healthcare costs for all are abated, and taxes rise a few percent to pay for it. Currently [2004-5], healthcare costs the average American family something to the tune of $13,000 annually before work related compensation, which often takes it down to ~$8,500.
Is saving $13K worth even a 10% higher tax rate? Only if you make under $130K.
Furthermore, we have been shoveling much of this medical expense towards pill companies, who openly bribe doctors into prescribing their pills. If we spent money and grants on corrective medicine instead of throwing pills at it, we could do a better job of solving the problem at the root. Research a pill or process to change the way your body makes that chemical reactor, instead of supplementing the chemical reactor.
Companies making huge money on the IMF, oil funds and infrastructure, "big economy", big government, finance, and other fiascos will wreck this country and world within 3-5 years if nothing changes. The Federal Reserve has predicted a 60% likely chance of a major currency crisis in the next 3-5 years. Allen Greenspan has predicted a 70% chance of an American economic crisis in the next 3 years.
I wonder what that 30-40% chance of being saved is? We seem to have the technology to fix these problems, and we have more liquid capital than at most points in history, and the public is more aware than ever, except perhaps the late 1960's, early 1970's. We could change in time, even with disasters in the pipeline, and improve the world for all.
===
Another matter, in an environment where oil is not cheaply producable, human labor will probably become less valuable, as it is supported and extended by oil power. We may all face a pay cut in the form of oil and commodity prices increasing rapidly. The solution here is not to scramble to acquire and supply resources, that will only increase global resource pressure and use more resources in the process.
The solution is to work leaner, not grander. We can do more with less, particularly in corporate environments at the top and in profit margin, in cost to consumers of certain services, and in infrastructure. New technology should be examined in energy, industry, medicine, and transportation which will allow us to be more effective with less material and expense.
If the state removes that compensation, they will need to replace it with some other meaningful support. Perhaps excellent research into proteinology or stem cells, and support to hospitals and medical organizations and provision of statewide healthcare. Installing these procedures can save 16-20% right off the top, which would normally be profit for investors who can likely afford their own healthcare.
In American capitalism that becomes private profit. In European and Canadian capitalism, those services are not private sector, they are provided by the state, and no 'profit' is made. Healthcare costs for all are abated, and taxes rise a few percent to pay for it. Currently [2004-5], healthcare costs the average American family something to the tune of $13,000 annually before work related compensation, which often takes it down to ~$8,500.
Is saving $13K worth even a 10% higher tax rate? Only if you make under $130K.
Furthermore, we have been shoveling much of this medical expense towards pill companies, who openly bribe doctors into prescribing their pills. If we spent money and grants on corrective medicine instead of throwing pills at it, we could do a better job of solving the problem at the root. Research a pill or process to change the way your body makes that chemical reactor, instead of supplementing the chemical reactor.
Companies making huge money on the IMF, oil funds and infrastructure, "big economy", big government, finance, and other fiascos will wreck this country and world within 3-5 years if nothing changes. The Federal Reserve has predicted a 60% likely chance of a major currency crisis in the next 3-5 years. Allen Greenspan has predicted a 70% chance of an American economic crisis in the next 3 years.
I wonder what that 30-40% chance of being saved is? We seem to have the technology to fix these problems, and we have more liquid capital than at most points in history, and the public is more aware than ever, except perhaps the late 1960's, early 1970's. We could change in time, even with disasters in the pipeline, and improve the world for all.
===
Another matter, in an environment where oil is not cheaply producable, human labor will probably become less valuable, as it is supported and extended by oil power. We may all face a pay cut in the form of oil and commodity prices increasing rapidly. The solution here is not to scramble to acquire and supply resources, that will only increase global resource pressure and use more resources in the process.
The solution is to work leaner, not grander. We can do more with less, particularly in corporate environments at the top and in profit margin, in cost to consumers of certain services, and in infrastructure. New technology should be examined in energy, industry, medicine, and transportation which will allow us to be more effective with less material and expense.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Environment and Economy
I had come up with the environmental economic macroassociation on about October 28, 2006, but more pressing matters kept me from writing until now. I see economist.com has an October 30 spread on the topic.
They project about a 2/5 increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. I wonder, where will these gasses come from? Oil cannot be sustained to those measures. Coal cannot replace oil to that extent, and nuclear power relies heavily on oil power.
If we do not do something about oil yesterday [in 1995] we will face the decline of industrialized civilization. So it may be an open secret that we're heading for a major economic crisis in about 2007-2008-2009, to be preceeded and overlapped by an eventually global military upswing, if it is achievable politically.
This will also be considerable because the value of fiscal currency will likely become far more attached to commodity than its floating value. Regional value of commodities may become exaggeratedly more prevalent than the normal value of a currency. I would expect a rapid shift from liquid assets to commodity and perhaps real estate during this time, especially during war, multiplied by worldwide oil shortage.
What is my fiscal recommendation for such a situation. Leave your 401(k) and put it into something more solid. The stock market is going to be a massive sinkhole in the event of peak oil or a fiscal crisis, or any serious crisis, for which many are we headed. I would avoid the finance sector, as it is fluff and based on nothing. Precious metals and energy shares seem most viable for the old-world economy.
But a new world market will be born, or "no flesh will survive". Energy technology will advance dramatically and allow clean free energy to be produced anywhere for a low cost per kilowatt capacity. This will allow people to live in very low cost of living environments and likely deflate the economies of the most industrialized areas by ~75%. The resource-heavy reasons people went to war will become obsolete, and new society will be formed around the new mankind-sustaining technology. This should square up in the years of the crisis and after.
Brazil will not be making 700 billion tons of greenhouse gasses by 2025. They will be making about 32 billion tons, primarily from exhalation. If you extrapolate growth figures from 2000-2005 without considering advanced technology or resource shortage then you'll get exactly what you chart for, which will not happen.
I am also surprised that the economist is so politically minded, yet they describe long term economic statements without regard to volitility, peak oil, and the effects of environmentally mandated or publicly mandated industrial or political course-change.
They project about a 2/5 increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. I wonder, where will these gasses come from? Oil cannot be sustained to those measures. Coal cannot replace oil to that extent, and nuclear power relies heavily on oil power.
If we do not do something about oil yesterday [in 1995] we will face the decline of industrialized civilization. So it may be an open secret that we're heading for a major economic crisis in about 2007-2008-2009, to be preceeded and overlapped by an eventually global military upswing, if it is achievable politically.
This will also be considerable because the value of fiscal currency will likely become far more attached to commodity than its floating value. Regional value of commodities may become exaggeratedly more prevalent than the normal value of a currency. I would expect a rapid shift from liquid assets to commodity and perhaps real estate during this time, especially during war, multiplied by worldwide oil shortage.
What is my fiscal recommendation for such a situation. Leave your 401(k) and put it into something more solid. The stock market is going to be a massive sinkhole in the event of peak oil or a fiscal crisis, or any serious crisis, for which many are we headed. I would avoid the finance sector, as it is fluff and based on nothing. Precious metals and energy shares seem most viable for the old-world economy.
But a new world market will be born, or "no flesh will survive". Energy technology will advance dramatically and allow clean free energy to be produced anywhere for a low cost per kilowatt capacity. This will allow people to live in very low cost of living environments and likely deflate the economies of the most industrialized areas by ~75%. The resource-heavy reasons people went to war will become obsolete, and new society will be formed around the new mankind-sustaining technology. This should square up in the years of the crisis and after.
Brazil will not be making 700 billion tons of greenhouse gasses by 2025. They will be making about 32 billion tons, primarily from exhalation. If you extrapolate growth figures from 2000-2005 without considering advanced technology or resource shortage then you'll get exactly what you chart for, which will not happen.
I am also surprised that the economist is so politically minded, yet they describe long term economic statements without regard to volitility, peak oil, and the effects of environmentally mandated or publicly mandated industrial or political course-change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
