Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The simple solution from the uneducated

sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 7:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How shall we insure everyone? How can we make it fair? How do we cover pre existing conditions? How will the poor get health care. Lets look at what the supposed greatest most intellectual ivy league minds in Washington DC have come up with. A monstrosity bill of rules and regulations that they can't even understand.

Lets consider a different solution so simple and would work over night and cause the cost of health care to plummet virtually over night. The cost of this simple solution has already been spent just setting up the ACA website alone, not including the millions more that will be spent fixing it.

This idea is so cheap and so logical you won't be able to fathom how the greatest minds in the world didn't think of it.

Are you ready? Do you think you know what the solution is? This solution will require only one govt mandate that every business in operation has to do already and does so voluntarily. Post it's prices. You say "that's not a solution" Well of course it isn't.

Here is the rest of it. The current population of the US is 317 million people. The govt spent well over 600 million on the worthless non functional website already, not including the millions more to fix it.

Lets do some grade school math shall we.

317 million + 317 million = 634 million

So if we look at this simple math the govt could have just cut a check for 2 million dollars to every man woman and child living in the US. Hell I will even include the 10 to 20 million illegals. What are millions when govt wastes money in terms of trillions.

No new federal agencies with tens of thousands of employees, no new regulations, nothing is required of govt "NOTHING"

So in conclusion every man woman and child gets a health care account with 2 million dollars in it that can only be spent on health care related issues. Doctors and hospitals post their prices therefore encouraging competition as the person is now going to shop around so as not to needlessly waste their 2 million dollar health care dollars.

I know to simple to logical.

Way to hard for the low information voter to even wrap their heads around it. There is no catch. The govt has already spent 600 million without even so much as giving it a thought. What's another 600 million when govt spends trillions. A million is a nickel compared to trillions.

Think about it, how many people spend 2 million on health care in a life time? Those who die prematurely will have their remaining balance rolled over into the chronically ill who require more than two million. And lets be honest 2 million is a lot to pay just to keep one person alive. Now we can spend 2 million on every single person to keep them alive. I don't know what could be more fair, equitable and cost effective than this. What more can you expect from the tax payer. Oh and the monthly fee to manage the account will come from your two million dollars. And best of all the filthy blood sucking govt can't touch it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:17:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You mean $2, right?

Cause 600 million divided by 300 million is 2, not 2 million.

lol.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:00:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid

EH, ya, flag for weekly stupid, up late math way off. looking for hope. Still none. Quite embarrassing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 6:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 8:00:37 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid

EH, ya, flag for weekly stupid, up late math way off. looking for hope. Still none. Quite embarrassing.

There is no hope if you plan on increasing the national debt by a factor of nearly 40. You have made an impossible system that I am pretty sure involves more money than there is on the face of the Earth.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:26:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like this idea.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 6:22:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 8:00:37 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid

EH, ya, flag for weekly stupid, up late math way off. looking for hope. Still none. Quite embarrassing.

There is no hope if you plan on increasing the national debt by a factor of nearly 40. You have made an impossible system that I am pretty sure involves more money than there is on the face of the Earth.

Pretty sure he admitted his crappy math.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 10:18:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
very number. such math. wow.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:58:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 6:22:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 8:00:37 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid

EH, ya, flag for weekly stupid, up late math way off. looking for hope. Still none. Quite embarrassing.

There is no hope if you plan on increasing the national debt by a factor of nearly 40. You have made an impossible system that I am pretty sure involves more money than there is on the face of the Earth.

I think that capitalism has been an impossible long-term system from the time of its conception. All it represents is one big pyramid scheme. If it weren't for all the riches found and stolen after discovering whole "new" world, such as North and South America, the system would have crashed a long time ago. A fiat-currency system runs on trust and fairness, but that's in very short supply. IMHO, it was inevitable that it would eventually start showing serious cracks.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 6:58:05 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/3/2013 6:22:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 8:00:37 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:19:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Cause 2 million times 300 million is

600 000 000 000 000= 600 trillion.

lol you stupid

EH, ya, flag for weekly stupid, up late math way off. looking for hope. Still none. Quite embarrassing.

There is no hope if you plan on increasing the national debt by a factor of nearly 40. You have made an impossible system that I am pretty sure involves more money than there is on the face of the Earth.

I think that capitalism has been an impossible long-term system from the time of its conception. All it represents is one big pyramid scheme. If it weren't for all the riches found and stolen after discovering whole "new" world, such as North and South America, the system would have crashed a long time ago. A fiat-currency system runs on trust and fairness, but that's in very short supply. IMHO, it was inevitable that it would eventually start showing serious cracks.

Except that it has worked for at least the past 237 years, and has consistently bounced back from major downfalls. Also, while you assert that a fiat money system runs on trust and fairness, which in a sense is true, why would the government all of a sudden declare the dollar worthless? It would be the end for the nations' economy if not the worlds' as well.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Except that it has worked for at least the past 237 years, and has consistently bounced back from major downfalls. Also, while you assert that a fiat money system runs on trust and fairness, which in a sense is true, why would the government all of a sudden declare the dollar worthless? It would be the end for the nations' economy if not the worlds' as well.

The govt shouldn't do that. It's too late already - we're out in the rowboat in the middle of the ocean. As I stated before, the system has kept afloat just as a pyramid scheme does, by constantly finding new sources of revenue to float the old. Mainly this has come from exploiting resources, especially in the Americas, where the natives were still living in the Stone-Age and hadn't harvested much. Oil also rejuvenated the system by supplying a steady source of cheap energy for half that time you mention, but it's running lower every day. Now almost every country in the world is heavily in debt, they are relying on fiat currencies with no intrinsic value, and they are scared to death that people will stop trusting the system and there will be a run on the banks. I wish it were otherwise, but after watching what we've been through the past decade or so, I honestly think we've passed the point of return.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 7:23:00 PM, Idealist wrote:
Except that it has worked for at least the past 237 years, and has consistently bounced back from major downfalls. Also, while you assert that a fiat money system runs on trust and fairness, which in a sense is true, why would the government all of a sudden declare the dollar worthless? It would be the end for the nations' economy if not the worlds' as well.

The govt shouldn't do that. It's too late already - we're out in the rowboat in the middle of the ocean. As I stated before, the system has kept afloat just as a pyramid scheme does, by constantly finding new sources of revenue to float the old. Mainly this has come from exploiting resources, especially in the Americas, where the natives were still living in the Stone-Age and hadn't harvested much. Oil also rejuvenated the system by supplying a steady source of cheap energy for half that time you mention, but it's running lower every day. Now almost every country in the world is heavily in debt, they are relying on fiat currencies with no intrinsic value, and they are scared to death that people will stop trusting the system and there will be a run on the banks. I wish it were otherwise, but after watching what we've been through the past decade or so, I honestly think we've passed the point of return.

We are finding ways of replacing oil though. It's not a matter of when the oil will run out, but rather the answer to the question of: "will we replace the fuel of enough systems around the world in time?"

Judging by the level of allocation and societal reinforcement on such issues, I am hopeful. We are already seeing electric cars that can challenge a Ferrari, and artificial leaves that convert sunlight into energy. Not to mention how cheap solar panels are.

Plus, you make it sound like the whole world, from the perspective of the governments is scared. The only time bank runs happen is in major times of economic despair. If the economy is doing okay, then bank runs won't happen, and even when the economy is doing okay, it bounces back within the decade.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:53:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We are finding ways of replacing oil though. It's not a matter of when the oil will run out, but rather the answer to the question of: "will we replace the fuel of enough systems around the world in time?"

Exactly! Do you really believe we'll find a plentiful substitute before the oil runs out? We know we've passed the peak already, and have known for decades what that would lead to, but we seem unable to curb our appetite for the stuff. It's been estimated that w/o oil the Earth couldn't support more than a billion people, which would mean widespread death, leading to disease, all around the world. This is because food production depends so largely on the nitrate fertilizers made from oil, something which an alternate energy supply couldn't help with much. That's not a fun thought.

Judging by the level of allocation and societal reinforcement on such issues, I am hopeful. We are already seeing electric cars that can challenge a Ferrari, and artificial leaves that convert sunlight into energy. Not to mention how cheap solar panels are.

And yet fossil fuels still provide approximately 82% of US energy supplies, and now we're down to using tar-sands which are so toxic that there is no known way to clean-up a major spill, should it happen. It will take a century, at least, to implement a new energy source on a nationwide level. Using things like fuels made from corn aren't practical because corn production is dropping as well, and there's a world-wide shortage of food.

Plus, you make it sound like the whole world, from the perspective of the governments is scared. The only time bank runs happen is in major times of economic despair. If the economy is doing okay, then bank runs won't happen, and even when the economy is doing okay, it bounces back within the decade.

During 2008, the entire US government, including congressman and senators, were filled with dread that the system would collapse around the world. It was that real and scary. That's why they passed such huge loan and stimulus bills so quickly. If a run had started then, the system would have collapsed. A run is any bank president's worst nightmare, because we live in a fiat currency system that is based almost entirely on faith. I'm not saying it would be Armageddon, but the consequences would make 9/11 seem tame by comparison.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 8:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 7:53:55 PM, Idealist wrote:
We are finding ways of replacing oil though. It's not a matter of when the oil will run out, but rather the answer to the question of: "will we replace the fuel of enough systems around the world in time?"

Exactly! Do you really believe we'll find a plentiful substitute before the oil runs out? We know we've passed the peak already, and have known for decades what that would lead to, but we seem unable to curb our appetite for the stuff. It's been estimated that w/o oil the Earth couldn't support more than a billion people, which would mean widespread death, leading to disease, all around the world. This is because food production depends so largely on the nitrate fertilizers made from oil, something which an alternate energy supply couldn't help with much. That's not a fun thought.

Those are poor estimates. People have estimated facts about Earths human population regarding certain variables of years, and they are almost always consistently wrong (noting the estimations on overpopulation). There are other known solutions like the vertical farms in Asia (that are done en mass by the way).

Judging by the level of allocation and societal reinforcement on such issues, I am hopeful. We are already seeing electric cars that can challenge a Ferrari, and artificial leaves that convert sunlight into energy. Not to mention how cheap solar panels are.

And yet fossil fuels still provide approximately 82% of US energy supplies, and now we're down to using tar-sands which are so toxic that there is no known way to clean-up a major spill, should it happen. It will take a century, at least, to implement a new energy source on a nationwide level. Using things like fuels made from corn aren't practical because corn production is dropping as well, and there's a world-wide shortage of food.

Because developing countries haven't gotten to oil technology, and those that do are so big, that their infrastructure will take some time to accept the new fuel, but the transformation has long since been underway, and is probably accelerating. As you said, it would probably take a century, and when attempting to do research on when the oil will run out, you find that the shortest time is 40 years (if we kept using it at current levels without any increase in the use of "green energy"), whereas an alleged Harvard University report said that the truth is contrary to the idea that we are running out of oil [2]. There isn't a worldwide shortage of food [1], it's that we can't get the food to where it needs to go. Europe and America are opulent, while Africa is poor. If the food was re-distributed, that wouldn't be as bad of a problem.

Plus, you make it sound like the whole world, from the perspective of the governments is scared. The only time bank runs happen is in major times of economic despair. If the economy is doing okay, then bank runs won't happen, and even when the economy is doing okay, it bounces back within the decade.

During 2008, the entire US government, including congressman and senators, were filled with dread that the system would collapse around the world. It was that real and scary. That's why they passed such huge loan and stimulus bills so quickly. If a run had started then, the system would have collapsed. A run is any bank president's worst nightmare, because we live in a fiat currency system that is based almost entirely on faith. I'm not saying it would be Armageddon, but the consequences would make 9/11 seem tame by comparison.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

1. http://www.worldhunger.org...
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those are poor estimates. People have estimated facts about Earths human population regarding certain variables of years, and they are almost always consistently wrong (noting the estimations on overpopulation). There are other known solutions like the vertical farms in Asia (that are done en mass by the way).

Okay . . . let's say that these are poor estimates and only three-billion have to go instead of six. Is that really more acceptable? There is a food shortage worldwide. The UN issued a warning this year that "World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned. Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974."

Because developing countries haven't gotten to oil technology, and those that do are so big, that their infrastructure will take some time to accept the new fuel, but the transformation has long since been underway, and is probably accelerating. As you said, it would probably take a century, and when attempting to do research on when the oil will run out, you find that the shortest time is 40 years (if we kept using it at current levels without any increase in the use of "green energy"), whereas an alleged Harvard University report said that the truth is contrary to the idea that we are running out of oil [2]. There isn't a worldwide shortage of food [1], it's that we can't get the food to where it needs to go. Europe and America are opulent, while Africa is poor. If the food was re-distributed, that wouldn't be as bad of a problem.

According to Forbes, oil production could drop to half within 50 years. And we can't think of it as a finite happening. As reserves and supply drop and demand increases the price of oil will increase exponentially, making food and other resources less available and more expensive as well. Competition for access to dwindling resources will be fierce, increasing the chances of open conflict among especially the major powers. Again, there is a shortage of food. Read the article at http://www.theguardian.com.... It was written just last month.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

The real icing on the cake is that for the past five years, since the 2008 disaster, the major governments have been printing vast amounts of additional fiat currency to cover the enormous gaps that formed. This gives us a false picture of the state of our markets. Stocks may have risen by 25%, but if the value of the currency drops 35% then you have a net loss. We can't just keep printing pictures on paper and pretending it has intrinsic value. That is why the Eastern markets, and pretty much everyone else, are gobbling-up gold and silver bullion as fast as they can. Maybe you are right, and we have seen the worst pass us by, but it's pretty common sense that as our world becomes ever more integrated and automated, future disasters will be more damaging and less controllable.

You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:34:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:16:25 PM, Idealist wrote:
Those are poor estimates. People have estimated facts about Earths human population regarding certain variables of years, and they are almost always consistently wrong (noting the estimations on overpopulation). There are other known solutions like the vertical farms in Asia (that are done en mass by the way).

Okay . . . let's say that these are poor estimates and only three-billion have to go instead of six. Is that really more acceptable? There is a food shortage worldwide. The UN issued a warning this year that "World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned. Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974."

I just cited that there isn't a food shortage.

Because developing countries haven't gotten to oil technology, and those that do are so big, that their infrastructure will take some time to accept the new fuel, but the transformation has long since been underway, and is probably accelerating. As you said, it would probably take a century, and when attempting to do research on when the oil will run out, you find that the shortest time is 40 years (if we kept using it at current levels without any increase in the use of "green energy"), whereas an alleged Harvard University report said that the truth is contrary to the idea that we are running out of oil [2]. There isn't a worldwide shortage of food [1], it's that we can't get the food to where it needs to go. Europe and America are opulent, while Africa is poor. If the food was re-distributed, that wouldn't be as bad of a problem.

According to Forbes, oil production could drop to half within 50 years. And we can't think of it as a finite happening. As reserves and supply drop and demand increases the price of oil will increase exponentially, making food and other resources less available and more expensive as well. Competition for access to dwindling resources will be fierce, increasing the chances of open conflict among especially the major powers. Again, there is a shortage of food. Read the article at http://www.theguardian.com.... It was written just last month.

Fair enough, the evidence for a food shortage is therefore inconclusive. Also, the increase in demand for oil is slowed by the increase in demand for "green" energy.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

Which we got over. It sure isn't struggling as much as it was. You can't really deny that.

The real icing on the cake is that for the past five years, since the 2008 disaster, the major governments have been printing vast amounts of additional fiat currency to cover the enormous gaps that formed. This gives us a false picture of the state of our markets. Stocks may have risen by 25%, but if the value of the currency drops 35% then you have a net loss. We can't just keep printing pictures on paper and pretending it has intrinsic value. That is why the Eastern markets, and pretty much everyone else, are gobbling-up gold and silver bullion as fast as they can. Maybe you are right, and we have seen the worst pass us by, but it's pretty common sense that as our world becomes ever more integrated and automated, future disasters will be more damaging and less controllable.

Welcome to inflation. You have to print out some money as your population increases, or else people won't have enough money to be able to buy anything. I'd also call it far from common sense, seeing as the Great Depression was far in the past, and that was the worst economic disaster known to the modern world.


You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/

That was due to the ignorance of people at the time about computers. Computer scientists knew very well what would happen and took the precautions to do it. It seemed like nobody knew at the time, because only computer scientists knew.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fair enough, the evidence for a food shortage is therefore inconclusive. Also, the increase in demand for oil is slowed by the increase in demand for "green" energy.

The UN report took account of that. Now, there is always the chance that green energy will somehow prove greater than predicted, but as I said, green energy doesn't increase food production like oil does. The use of oil-based fertilizers has increased production many times over, and I don't see how green energy can do that. On another front, even your car is made largely out of petroleum. All the plastic, vinyl, rubber, insulation, etc. And that goes for household items, computers, etc. There's a documentary named "Ethos" with Woody Harrelson that you should check-out if you haven't already. It's pretty convincing about the subject.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

Which we got over. It sure isn't struggling as much as it was. You can't really deny that.

Did you see the date on that report? It was just a few months old. Yes, it has improved, mostly due to the overprinting of fiat currencies being dumped into the system, but that creates another problem which we will eventually have to face - the risk of hyper-inflation. It's only a band-aid, not a fix. Hey, I hope like hell that all I've said is wrong, and we're on the brink of some new Golden Age, but the data doesn't support it.

Welcome to inflation. You have to print out some money as your population increases, or else people won't have enough money to be able to buy anything. I'd also call it far from common sense, seeing as the Great Depression was far in the past, and that was the worst economic disaster known to the modern world.

Exactly. And depending on how big and how fast the inflation hits, it will be anywhere from "harmful" to "catastrophic". Inflation leads to higher interest rates, and the US is barely able to cover the interest on its own outstanding debt right now. Imagine what a one-point increase does when your debt is nearly 20 trillion. The Great Depression was bad. What's worse is that if it happened to day it would be exponentially worse, because the world is so interconnected. It's kinda like the fact that if some "super-virus" was to emerge, it would spread so quickly around the world that the damage would be incalculable. It doesn't have to happen, but it needs to be addressed more forcefully if we want to lower the odds of it happening.

You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/

That was due to the ignorance of people at the time about computers. Computer scientists knew very well what would happen and took the precautions to do it. It seemed like nobody knew at the time, because only computer scientists knew.

Yes, it was. And now? People have gotten smarter, but computers have increased in complexity even faster. One scientist has built robots that have invented their own language, which they use to communicate with each other. The problem is that even the scientist and his team can't understand what they are saying unless they tell him. Nobody understands the full connectedness of the world today - that's the problem. It's just too big for any one mind to process, and group-think always leads to uncertainty. If only computer scientists knew at the time, then why did whole countries (including the US) set-up emergency HQs to prepare for a possible aftermath? Sure, they knew the odds were long that anything drastic would happen, but they didn't know.

I myself am a great admirer of technology. More than that, I'm aware that with enough time, what can be accomplished by technology is limitless. Humans could become virtual gods. But what I don't trust is human nature, or for humans themselves to use technology in good ways.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 5:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 4:48:27 PM, Idealist wrote:
Fair enough, the evidence for a food shortage is therefore inconclusive. Also, the increase in demand for oil is slowed by the increase in demand for "green" energy.

The UN report took account of that. Now, there is always the chance that green energy will somehow prove greater than predicted, but as I said, green energy doesn't increase food production like oil does. The use of oil-based fertilizers has increased production many times over, and I don't see how green energy can do that. On another front, even your car is made largely out of petroleum. All the plastic, vinyl, rubber, insulation, etc. And that goes for household items, computers, etc. There's a documentary named "Ethos" with Woody Harrelson that you should check-out if you haven't already. It's pretty convincing about the subject.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

Which we got over. It sure isn't struggling as much as it was. You can't really deny that.

Did you see the date on that report? It was just a few months old. Yes, it has improved, mostly due to the overprinting of fiat currencies being dumped into the system, but that creates another problem which we will eventually have to face - the risk of hyper-inflation. It's only a band-aid, not a fix. Hey, I hope like hell that all I've said is wrong, and we're on the brink of some new Golden Age, but the data doesn't support it.


Welcome to inflation. You have to print out some money as your population increases, or else people won't have enough money to be able to buy anything. I'd also call it far from common sense, seeing as the Great Depression was far in the past, and that was the worst economic disaster known to the modern world.

Exactly. And depending on how big and how fast the inflation hits, it will be anywhere from "harmful" to "catastrophic". Inflation leads to higher interest rates, and the US is barely able to cover the interest on its own outstanding debt right now. Imagine what a one-point increase does when your debt is nearly 20 trillion. The Great Depression was bad. What's worse is that if it happened to day it would be exponentially worse, because the world is so interconnected. It's kinda like the fact that if some "super-virus" was to emerge, it would spread so quickly around the world that the damage would be incalculable. It doesn't have to happen, but it needs to be addressed more forcefully if we want to lower the odds of it happening.

You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/

That was due to the ignorance of people at the time about computers. Computer scientists knew very well what would happen and took the precautions to do it. It seemed like nobody knew at the time, because only computer scientists knew.

Yes, it was. And now? People have gotten smarter, but computers have increased in complexity even faster. One scientist has built robots that have invented their own language, which they use to communicate with each other. The problem is that even the scientist and his team can't understand what they are saying unless they tell him. Nobody understands the full connectedness of the world today - that's the problem. It's just too big for any one mind to process, and group-think always leads to uncertainty. If only computer scientists knew at the time, then why did whole countries (including the US) set-up emergency HQs to prepare for a possible aftermath? Sure, they knew the odds were long that anything drastic would happen, but they didn't know.

I myself am a great admirer of technology. More than that, I'm aware that with enough time, what can be accomplished by technology is limitless. Humans could become virtual gods. But what I don't trust is human nature, or for humans themselves to use technology in good ways.

It would appear that this goes back to my original (generalizing) point of, it's not a matter of if or when, but rather a matter of will we be prepared enough to handle it?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 6:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 5:05:10 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/5/2013 4:48:27 PM, Idealist wrote:
Fair enough, the evidence for a food shortage is therefore inconclusive. Also, the increase in demand for oil is slowed by the increase in demand for "green" energy.

The UN report took account of that. Now, there is always the chance that green energy will somehow prove greater than predicted, but as I said, green energy doesn't increase food production like oil does. The use of oil-based fertilizers has increased production many times over, and I don't see how green energy can do that. On another front, even your car is made largely out of petroleum. All the plastic, vinyl, rubber, insulation, etc. And that goes for household items, computers, etc. There's a documentary named "Ethos" with Woody Harrelson that you should check-out if you haven't already. It's pretty convincing about the subject.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

Which we got over. It sure isn't struggling as much as it was. You can't really deny that.

Did you see the date on that report? It was just a few months old. Yes, it has improved, mostly due to the overprinting of fiat currencies being dumped into the system, but that creates another problem which we will eventually have to face - the risk of hyper-inflation. It's only a band-aid, not a fix. Hey, I hope like hell that all I've said is wrong, and we're on the brink of some new Golden Age, but the data doesn't support it.


Welcome to inflation. You have to print out some money as your population increases, or else people won't have enough money to be able to buy anything. I'd also call it far from common sense, seeing as the Great Depression was far in the past, and that was the worst economic disaster known to the modern world.

Exactly. And depending on how big and how fast the inflation hits, it will be anywhere from "harmful" to "catastrophic". Inflation leads to higher interest rates, and the US is barely able to cover the interest on its own outstanding debt right now. Imagine what a one-point increase does when your debt is nearly 20 trillion. The Great Depression was bad. What's worse is that if it happened to day it would be exponentially worse, because the world is so interconnected. It's kinda like the fact that if some "super-virus" was to emerge, it would spread so quickly around the world that the damage would be incalculable. It doesn't have to happen, but it needs to be addressed more forcefully if we want to lower the odds of it happening.

You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/

That was due to the ignorance of people at the time about computers. Computer scientists knew very well what would happen and took the precautions to do it. It seemed like nobody knew at the time, because only computer scientists knew.

Yes, it was. And now? People have gotten smarter, but computers have increased in complexity even faster. One scientist has built robots that have invented their own language, which they use to communicate with each other. The problem is that even the scientist and his team can't understand what they are saying unless they tell him. Nobody understands the full connectedness of the world today - that's the problem. It's just too big for any one mind to process, and group-think always leads to uncertainty. If only computer scientists knew at the time, then why did whole countries (including the US) set-up emergency HQs to prepare for a possible aftermath? Sure, they knew the odds were long that anything drastic would happen, but they didn't know.

I myself am a great admirer of technology. More than that, I'm aware that with enough time, what can be accomplished by technology is limitless. Humans could become virtual gods. But what I don't trust is human nature, or for humans themselves to use technology in good ways.

It would appear that this goes back to my original (generalizing) point of, it's not a matter of if or when, but rather a matter of will we be prepared enough to handle it?

Yes, I suppose so. I have really enjoyed discussing this, though. Thanks for a worthy "debate". :)
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 7:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 6:56:24 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/5/2013 5:05:10 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/5/2013 4:48:27 PM, Idealist wrote:
Fair enough, the evidence for a food shortage is therefore inconclusive. Also, the increase in demand for oil is slowed by the increase in demand for "green" energy.

The UN report took account of that. Now, there is always the chance that green energy will somehow prove greater than predicted, but as I said, green energy doesn't increase food production like oil does. The use of oil-based fertilizers has increased production many times over, and I don't see how green energy can do that. On another front, even your car is made largely out of petroleum. All the plastic, vinyl, rubber, insulation, etc. And that goes for household items, computers, etc. There's a documentary named "Ethos" with Woody Harrelson that you should check-out if you haven't already. It's pretty convincing about the subject.

In 2008 there was an economic crisis... that we have since recovered from.

According to Pingfan Hong, Chief of the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DESA"s Development Policy and Analysis Division, that is simply not so. Mr. Hong pointed to the deterioration of the euro crisis, the US fiscal cliff and a possible hard landing for some large developing countries as some of the dangers we face. "To mitigate these risks, policymakers worldwide are greatly challenged," underscored Mr. Hong, also describing how the world economy is still struggling to recover five years after the eruption of the global financial crisis." ~ http://www.un.org...

Which we got over. It sure isn't struggling as much as it was. You can't really deny that.

Did you see the date on that report? It was just a few months old. Yes, it has improved, mostly due to the overprinting of fiat currencies being dumped into the system, but that creates another problem which we will eventually have to face - the risk of hyper-inflation. It's only a band-aid, not a fix. Hey, I hope like hell that all I've said is wrong, and we're on the brink of some new Golden Age, but the data doesn't support it.


Welcome to inflation. You have to print out some money as your population increases, or else people won't have enough money to be able to buy anything. I'd also call it far from common sense, seeing as the Great Depression was far in the past, and that was the worst economic disaster known to the modern world.

Exactly. And depending on how big and how fast the inflation hits, it will be anywhere from "harmful" to "catastrophic". Inflation leads to higher interest rates, and the US is barely able to cover the interest on its own outstanding debt right now. Imagine what a one-point increase does when your debt is nearly 20 trillion. The Great Depression was bad. What's worse is that if it happened to day it would be exponentially worse, because the world is so interconnected. It's kinda like the fact that if some "super-virus" was to emerge, it would spread so quickly around the world that the damage would be incalculable. It doesn't have to happen, but it needs to be addressed more forcefully if we want to lower the odds of it happening.

You know, the one thing that bothered me most about the whole "Y2K" scare in 1999 wasn't the risk that all the computers would suddenly go crazy. It was the fact that no one in the world could say for certain what would happen. They set-up a crisis center in Washington D.C., and some countries actually shut-down portions of their automated air-control systems because they were afraid they might shoot-down commuter flights. If the couldn't understand the system in 1999, it's hard to imagine how clueless they are now. :-/

That was due to the ignorance of people at the time about computers. Computer scientists knew very well what would happen and took the precautions to do it. It seemed like nobody knew at the time, because only computer scientists knew.

Yes, it was. And now? People have gotten smarter, but computers have increased in complexity even faster. One scientist has built robots that have invented their own language, which they use to communicate with each other. The problem is that even the scientist and his team can't understand what they are saying unless they tell him. Nobody understands the full connectedness of the world today - that's the problem. It's just too big for any one mind to process, and group-think always leads to uncertainty. If only computer scientists knew at the time, then why did whole countries (including the US) set-up emergency HQs to prepare for a possible aftermath? Sure, they knew the odds were long that anything drastic would happen, but they didn't know.

I myself am a great admirer of technology. More than that, I'm aware that with enough time, what can be accomplished by technology is limitless. Humans could become virtual gods. But what I don't trust is human nature, or for humans themselves to use technology in good ways.

It would appear that this goes back to my original (generalizing) point of, it's not a matter of if or when, but rather a matter of will we be prepared enough to handle it?

Yes, I suppose so. I have really enjoyed discussing this, though. Thanks for a worthy "debate". :)

It was nice, as I just like to stay positive about the world.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It was nice, as I just like to stay positive about the world.

Well, you are young, and it's good that you can feel positive about it all. If I were your age I would be pissed, but you sound like my daughters. One is 21 and the other 17, and they are both very upbeat when I ask them how they feel about all the debt and problems that my generation has left to theirs. One told me a week ago that she felt confident they were smart enough to fix it. lol If I wasn't 51 years old I'm sure I would feel the same. And maybe it's that "can-do" attitude that will make the real difference that's necessary to turn it all around.
SCHUMAN8R
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The government gets most of its money from tax dollars. Not everyone pays taxes therefore some people would be paying insurance for others. This sounds like the basis of Obamacare lol
Can't touch this!