Its the end of the world as we know it!

[GSM]

Look at the whole thing with the 'baby boomers' and Social Security; the 'threat' was clearly recognised in the 60's, and measures could have been taken then

Jim

Yes Jim I'll never forget discussing that 'threat',
it really *WAS* recognised way back then,
but Democracy took over !!!!!

Cheers ............ Graham.

[dutchdivco]

Both Democracy,

and 'Free market' economics start with the same (flawed) premise; the idea of 'collective wisdom'. The idea is, that while we all know we, as INDIVIDUALS sometimes make stupid choices which are not in our best interests, that (somehow) that we COLLECTIVELY will make the 'right' decision.
Its something most people believe, instinctively, and yet there is absolutely NO evidence to support this idea, and in fact LOTS of clear evidence that there IS no such thing.
And, if you have a system built on a flawed foundation, it will very likely crumble.
The failure to fix SS is just 1 example; on a broader level, we have a 'representative Democracy'; Politicians get in office by promising us what we want, and stay in office by giving us what we want; we've been telling them for years; we want more and more 'benefits', but want lower and lower taxes. Much like the child who refuses to eat their veggies, and yet throws a tantrum if they don't get to eat desert. And, in order to keep in office, our politicians have been like the permissive parent, spoiling us.
"I have seen the enemy, and he is ME!"
The problem isn't that we've got the wrong kind of politicians, thats obvious; its that we've got the wrong kind of people. Jim

[Xenophanes]

[QUOTE=dutchdivco;247831]and 'Free market' economics start with the same (flawed) premise; the idea of 'collective wisdom'. The idea is, that while we all know we, as INDIVIDUALS sometimes make stupid choices which are not in our best interests, that (somehow) that we COLLECTIVELY will make the 'right' decision.
Its something most people believe, instinctively, and yet there is absolutely NO evidence to support this idea, and in fact LOTS of clear evidence that there IS no such thing.


Ah,like lemmings Or Socialists...

[dutchdivco]

Actually,

"Like" Humans; its part of our 'human' nature,.....Happy New years, everyone!
Jim

[jdodson]

and 'Free market' economics start with the same (flawed) premise; the idea of 'collective wisdom'. The idea is, that while we all know we, as INDIVIDUALS sometimes make stupid choices which are not in our best interests, that (somehow) that we COLLECTIVELY will make the 'right' decision.

And, if you have a system built on a flawed foundation, it will very likely crumble.

I don't think its a flawed foundation. I think we are simply making collectively wrong decisions.

Right or Wrong... Whats important though, is that the decisions are "collective". I agree with you in that we need to intelligently make smarter decisions and stop sacrificing our future for the benefits of today.

I believe a one world government would not be very hard to implement and will eventually happen.
If you've seen foreign money, the new $100 bill is starting to look more like it.

[Farmhand]

In order to make good decisions people need good "intel", the media is a
propaganda tool for the rich-elite, so we only get their propaganda in the
majority of the media. Therefore the majority of the public have no idea about
fractional reserve banking ect. and if one tries to explain it to them you get
different responses, the most common response I get is "why do I even need
to know or care because there is nothing I can do about it", and I say we are
the only ones who can do anything about it.

People do not care and live in almost complete denial, they see protesters at
things like CHOGM Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and have no
idea exactly why they protest and in fact put down the protesters who pay
heavy costs for trying to help the ignorant.

The number one issue is the reserve banking system and the issuance of
currency, all countries are in debt to private banks, very quickly the entire
world is becoming privately owned and the gov's pass laws to allow it for
money under the desk.

If our governments did not loan money that is conjured up from nowhere from
private bankers and pay interest, we would be living in the lap of luxury more
or less in most countries. We are lied to about the way the RBA works and is
run. The government always says we do not control interest rates the RBA
does, but they claim we own the RBA. It makes no sense because if the RBA
is owned by the Australian people why then would we need to pay interest on
the money and why would we need to borrow money from ourselves anyway.

If just this one thing is rectified our lives would be so much better, but it the
one thing that the Elite Banksters will not give up, it is how they control
governments and their armies.

All lies reinforced by the mass media. even if only 51% of the people believe
the lies the rest of us must live under them.

Subsistence theory of wages
Iron law of wages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..

[Cornboy 555]

A nice link Farmhand.

[dutchdivco]

Farmhand

A guy stumbles, and falls off a 500' cliff. As he is falling, he thinks "IF I could just grow wings, my problem would be solved, (and it would!). But, obviously, he is unable to grow wings, so that is NOT a 'solution' to his immediate problem.
To say "IF we could just get rid of the Central banks, we would all be living in the 'lap of luxury' is NOT a 'solution', cause its NOT going to happen. Again, it gets down to not that we have the 'wrong' form of Gov't., (which is obvious) but that we have the wrong kind of people, (collectively).
There are 2 main 'schools of thought', in economics. The first are people who become economists thru a background of study in math, engineering etc.
These are sometimes referred to as 'Mainstream' economists. The other 'school of thought' is people who come into economics with a background in the 'social sciences' of Psychology/sociology. Often reffered to as "Behavioral Economists". Up until 2008, this second group were pretty much dismissed by the 'main' group, with eye rolls, etc. But, it was almost exclusively the second group that not only weren't surprised by 2008, but had been predicting it.
Because they maintain that you cannot predict mass behavior by reducing it to complex economic formulaes; BECAUSE there is a 'psychological component' that cannot be reduced to #'s. And, they are right.

Similarly, there are 2 'schools of thought' on traffic engineering, the 'main group' which comes into it with or from a background in engineering, the other with or from a background in psychology/sociology. There is a book, "Traffic" which details this difference in approach.

In the book, there is a clear example of the difference. There are 2 roads. In terms of # and degree of curves, grades, etc. these 2 sections are identical. They are both 2 lane roads, 7 miles long.However, route A) has clear curbs, dilineating the edge of the road, route B) has none. Route A) has a painted centerline, route B) doesn't. Engineering background traffic designers would say put curbs and center lines on route B), to make it 'safer'. Psychology background traffic engineers would say take the center line and curbs OFF of route A), to make it safer. And they would be RIGHT, as traffic statistics show people drive faster, and get in more accidents, serious accidents, and fatal accidents on route A)!!!

They say this because they recognise the 'people' element, which is NOT logical, whereas the engineering background traffic engineers try to apply logic. People sense that route B) is more 'dangerous', having no center line and no curbs, so they slow down and drive more carefully.

The link you provided is 'coming from' the economic view developed by the 'engineering', math, physics school of economics, which believes economic behavior can be reduced to immutable laws and mathematical formula. And likewise, they are wrong. You HAVE to take into account human behavior, which is illogical, and can't be reduced to mathematical formulae. Thats just the way it is.

In short, in my opinion, the problem is much more fundamental than abolishing central banks; our problem has to do with the fundamental nature of PEOPLE.

Any proposed 'solution' which isn't practical, or 'politically do-able' isn't a 'solution'; its like the guy growing wings. Any solution one might suggest is going to require monumental change, and people don't like change; they prefer the 'devil they know' to the one they don't. 'Things' have got to get really bad, before people are willing to shuck what they know and are used to, even if they don't like it, in order to move towards something fundamentally different; Crises promotes change. Jim

[Farmhand]

Well I don't think I said it was the solution but it would be a step in the right
direction because the only way it would happen is if most or all of the corrupt
people were removed and the majority of people was aware of the situation, my
point was that most don't even know or understand it and a lot of the ones that
do understand it don't want to know about it. These are the reasons it can even
happen to begin with. If the press was all free and open it would be common
knowledge. And people would want it changed. It's not easy to understand or
even come to grips with.

There should be no doubt that even if the house was cleaned without the
people keeping an eye on the ones running the books they would get corrupted.

..

[jdodson]

Farmhand, Dutchdivco
Great posts

I think your both right. A country shouldn't have to borrow money from itself and the citizens should be informed and competent enough to realize that.

I completely agree about the media.

The media should be the ultimate check and balance on governance and any other national and military event, because its the media that provides the narrative and informs the citizens of what takes place. Which is ultimately what guides our "collective" decisions.

Instead what we have is a media that mocks anything that's not status quo.
A media that capitalizes on tragedy and makes criminals famous.
A media that cares not for science or knowledge, but only for ratings and cash.

If you think about it, outside of school, there is no real education...for adults.
People go to school get a degree and get a career. We spend our entire lives working.
As citizens, why is it that we have no responsibility or requirement to be informed?
Its no wonder media propaganda is so effective.

[dutchdivco]

A slight correction,

or clarification. You posted;
"The media should be the ultimate check and balance on governance and any other national and military event, because its the media that provides the narrative and informs the citizens of what takes place. Which is ultimately what guides our "collective" decisions.

Instead what we have is a media that mocks anything that's not status quo.
A media that capitalizes on tragedy and makes criminals famous.
A media that cares not for science or knowledge, but only for ratings and cash."

Seems to me it is THE PEOPLE which should be the ULTIMATE check and balance, but of coarse the media, as you say, play a CRUCIAL role in informing the people. Minor nuance, perhaps....

The media has ALWAYS been concerned, in large part, with 'ratings' and cash; they are run as businesses, with business models, etc. If they don't earn a profit, they go out of business, and can't inform anyone of anything.

They ARE responsive to their viewers, however. Some time back, in the U.S., the evening news experienced a significant drop in viewers. Polls indicated that people were turning off the news, cause they were turned off BY it; people said they were not watching the news, cause it was 'too depressing'. So, the news departments went thru a change; in some cases they hired new anchors, and they changed their format; they were told for every 2-3 'negative' stories, (about shootings, stabbings, hit and runs) that they needed to include an 'upbeat' or 'human interest' story, and news broadcasters needed to have a more 'cheery' broadcasting style. I am rminded of this when i see BBC world news, on PBS; it is done in the 'old' style, where the broadcaster reads the news in a close to monotone, or sonorous style.

Point is, the broadcasters and print media ARE responsive to the market, and are 'giving' the people what they want. Yes, there has been media consolidation, its 'Big Business', etc.

But in the end, it still comes down to the people. Its not that we have the wrong form of Gov't., which is obvious, but that we have the wrong kind of people. Human nature is the problem, and HOW do you go about canging that???Jim

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The media, news papers, TV, are political and not independant, in all countries.
They lean either left or right, there are few who are in the center. The BBC is dependant on which government is in power at the time.

You only have to look at who reads the Times or Telegraph in relation to the Sun, and it is not only a question of education.

regards

Mike

[wayne.ct]

Think, think, THINK

There is a lot to be said for thinking things out for yourself. The biggest problem with that, however, is that one must know how to think! The zombie population is healthy and living among us! And that is unfortunate in the extreme.

[dutchdivco]

Yes

The 'media' has its own agenda. Not only political, but also on a more basic business model level; they are trying to sell newspapers, or air-time. They need a 'product' that people will pay $ for. Hence, Dog bites man isn't news, etc. So, they HAVE to engage in sensationalism.
Beyond that, I don't believe its possible for anyone to be 100% 'objective'; we ALL develop a kind or 'world-view', and our perceptions are all filtered thru our world view. In covering any news story, so many decisions have to be made, as to what part of the story to tell, what questions to ask, etc. So, there is unconscious or undeliberate bias, that the reporter, editor etc. aren't ven aware of. Then, of coarse there is the deliberate bias as well.

Not sure what YOU mean by Zombies; there are the sheeple, of coarse, who stumble thru life blissfully un-aware; You know, "Are you LAZY, or just STUPID?" "I don't KNOW, and I don't CARE!"
And then there are the sociopaths, who feed off of others, and are increasing steadily in #'s, as a % of the population. It seems the society we have created gives them an evolutionary advantage, or we are simply producing more. Either way, (Nurture vs. Nature) there #'s ARE increasing, and its unfortunate they aren't born with a big "Z" on their forehead, or some such easily distinguising mark.
They move 'freely' in amongst the population, reeking havoc on others lives, often with impunity.
Between the sheeple and the Zombies, we're doomed. A massive die off of humans seems like a pretty attractive notion, actually. So, whatever it is thats coming, just wishing it would hurry up and happen. The suspence is like waiting fohe 'other shoe to drop'. Nothing to do to hurry it along, and efforts to post-pone it or put it off seem futile. "IT" isn its own time frame, and I don't think TPTB, or anything else can have any real effect on it. Re-arranging deck chairs, etc. All I'm tryong do is arrage for me and mine to have a 'good seat' to sit back and watch it all collapse! Jim

[aljhoa]

And then there are the sociopaths, who feed off of others, and are increasing steadily in #'s, as a % of the population. It seems the society we have created gives them an evolutionary advantage, or we are simply producing more. Either way, (Nurture vs. Nature) there #'s ARE increasing, and its unfortunate they aren't born with a big "Z" on their forehead, or some such easily distinguising mark.
They move 'freely' in amongst the population, reeking havoc on others lives, often with impunity.

Goim's Nature

"Experience is the thing of supreme value."
Henry Ford Quotes — Henry Ford Quotes

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." -Bob Packwood
Experience Quotes

Have we learned anything if all we have been thought and cultured are "lice"?

Al