If We're Going To Borrow Against The Future, Let's Borrow To Invest

Aggrivated wrote:

All of the changes you list, as  so many of those who  have responded to the article have said, require first the death of an entrenched industry/economic interest.  The natural world is able to respond quickly when a large species at the top of the feeding chain dies because smaller more resilient species are waiting in the wings.  So, we must wait, not only patiently, but persistently, surviving in the shadows of the great beasts, in the back waters of the streams until the inevitable death of the behemoths...

Some can afford to break free to some degree from dependence on the system…go for it!  Others of us find ourselves surviving on the edge in an environment that limits our potential to implement changes.  In both cases our persistent speaking out with the ideas for a better future is an important function that implants the genetic code of a survivable tomorrow. 

FANTASTIC!  That has been my attitude and approach for 5 years now and nothing I've learned in that time has caused me to change my mind.  This is because I have concluded:
  1. There won't be any significant course corrections until there is a collapse. Human nature will see to that.

  2. I can't fight it out with those at the top of the food chain.  However, I am looking forward to watching them scratch and claw each other to death when the collapse starts.

  3. I do believe I can fortify myself, and make myself small and inconspicuous enough not to draw any unwanted "attention" and thereby survive to the other side of the collapse (the bottom of the trough).  This would be much easier if I could get out of the big city right now, but I can't yet (but that day is approaching).

  4. My main remaining fears are: A) being crushed by either King Kong or Tyrannosaurus Rex as they fight each other, or B) being crushed in a stampede by the other tiny, little mammals like me, and C) there not being enough left over after the collapse for anything to survive.  Again, I'm working on getting out of the way and out of sight, but there's still the element of chance and bad timing.

In the meantime, let's just try to keep our heads together 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."

Tom

We've looked into custom PP.com gear in the past. Given the return/work ratio, it's been hard to prioritize over other ideas we've had for improving the site experience.
That said, I'm game for piloting a PP.com bumper sticker if there's truly sufficient interest.

Looking at printing & shipping costs (and the many individual mailings I'll be making), I think we'd need to charge around $5 per sticker for US orders.

If that's a price enough folks are willing to pay, I'll get to work with Jason on some designs for everyone to vote on.

cheers,

Hey Adam:
  Now you're talking!  that my line.

  you ever want to explore lapel pins or awards of any kind give me a hollar.

  we lots of bumper stickers…

 If it can ever help … my web:  www.landmarkpromotions.com

Perhaps more productive than my current one…"Give me Liberty, or give me Debt!"
(edit: something about a "better future", maybe?)

They're going to print up another trillion anyway.  I took the tone of the article as "If they are going to print up money willi-nillie anyway, then why not use it for some good?".  I don't believe Chris was advocating directly for additional thin-air money printing.

My Bumber Sticker is going to read:
"The only Bush I want to see in the Whitehouse in 2017 is Hillary's!"

I just can't wait to have "Bill" as first lady!

Wait, what were we taking about?

 

Tom,

Although we do not see eye-to-eye on some things, your points are spot-on! I look at nature and marvel at the small fish that cloak themselves to keep from being eaten. Are some swept away in the frenzy? Sure. but many, many more survive.

I think Chris was tongue-in-cheek about spending the next "trillion." But, since they will be spending it anyway… Alas, your point #1 is most likely the way things are going to play out. However, as you point out in #4… timing is everything! I think there will be enough "after" for those who survive. They will just have to be keen on not having it taken away.

As for #2 I will provide the beer and popcorn! It will be a helluva show to watch!

C.

I share your concern about being crushed between Tyrannosaurus Rex and King Kong.
Jay Goulds quote:  

I can hire half the working class to kill the other half
So I'm guessing that the first "one half" will be the establishment enforcer class who fight to preserve "Law and order" and crush "anarchy" and "terrorism."

The other half will be the group that "stands up for the constitution," believes in "freedom," and won't be "told what to do and how to live."

Both are powerful emotional hooks to draw everyone into the fight.

 

One tiny correction. The "government" had nothing to do with the creation of the "Federal Reserve." There is nothing "Federal" about the central bank. It's notion was created by the "free market capitalist" oligarchs. The "lawmakers" at the time were mere puppets. Please refer to, The Creature From Jekyll Island.

 

First, I'd like to say - I like the idea.
The debate on whether or not government should execute investment and research projects has been around forever.  We got the interstate highway system, the atomic bomb, and the Internet courtesy of Uncle Sam.  I know - I was around on the original ARPAnet way back when.  (No, I wasn't there for the A-bomb).

We all know that any massive project will end up generating a whole lot of waste, especially research projects.  The number of dry holes and failures (and boondoggles, and cons) will be legion.   Some group of us will incessantly bring up Solyndra.  We're going to have hundreds of Solyndras.  My question is only, "will this succeed or not?"

I'd say we'll get a lot more progress towards the goal with such an effort in place, vs if we let things just trundle along as they are doing right now.

As Mark said, the collected group of potential losers will scream bloody murder - likely invoking the talismanic name of Solyndra as evidence such a thing is doomed to failure.

We just have to decide if the price of 100 more Solyndras is acceptible if we end up eventually meeting the goal.

As I said going in, I think its better to try rather than sit back and float downstream - wherever that might be leading us.

The energy transition is already in full swing and hugely popular … in Germany. It is called Energiewende.  There is a virtual main stream media blackout about it in the US and UK.  Lets look at their targets and how they are getting on.
 

Closure of eight nuclear plants in Germany, with the rest of the stations to be shut down by 2022.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) and by 80 percent by 2050.

The electricity supply will consist of at least an 80 percent share of renewable energies by 2050. There are also  intermediate targets of 35 to 40 percent share by 2025 and 55 to 60 percent by 2035.
 

agora re target

 

Ask yourselves this question.  Why have the vast majority of US and UK citizens not heard of Germany's Energiewende ?  

Following on from my last comment.  I gave you a difficult question at the end.  I'll give you a few hints.
The Energiewende is about empowering people, literally.  Locally sourced, financed and controlled energy production instead of huge centralized power generation.  The government's roll is to provide the smart grid and give incentives to small operators and households.

Secondly, the political voting system uses proportional representation.  Hence small parties, crucially the Greens in this case, have a say in constructing the narrative and in the deciding policy.

Thirdly, it is hugely popular, especially amongst the young.

Who has all the power in the US?

Hope these hints help you answer my original question.

Yes, yes, yes! Great post.
What a unique time in history, a time when governments can print money, tons of money, and not cause inflation. How can we allow that money to be used to raise the bottom lines of big banks and the Fed? Why isn't it used for what it is needed?

Research batteries. Build windmills. Install efficient mass transit. Or to reverse the popular song, tear down the parking lot and put up a paradise! And heck, drop some money from helicopters and let me have some. But give it to banks? Why, oh why?

As you mentioned elsewhere, the Fed is owned by private banks. If the Fed were someday dissolved, I understand its assets would technically be the property of the banks that own it. So when we allow the Fed to print money and use it to buy tangible assets, we are in essence allowing private citizens to print their own money to buy things with it. What a racquet! Why is there not a chorus of outcries against this? Perhaps history will record this as the greatest swindle ever, in which banks were allowed to "counterfeit" themselves to riches, and nobody seems to have noticed.

 

 

 

Albert J. Nock wrote the following essay in 1936 in the depths of The Great Depression.  He discusses the great masses of people and why they never listen to wisdom. And he discusses a Remnant of people, a small minority who also exist hidden from common view among the masses.  These are the people he says any prophet worth his/her salt should focus their efforts on, not wasting time and energy on those who are wilfully blind.  From the Bible, to Plato, to Marcus Aurelius and others he makes his case.  It's long by 2015 standards, but you'd be rewarded reading all of it.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/04/03/isaiahs-job/#more-95633

...This view of the masses is the one that we find prevailing at large among the ancient authorities whose writings have come down to us. In the 18th century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which “society” is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favorable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.

On this side of the ocean a whole new continent stood ready for a large-scale experiment with this theory. It afforded every conceivable resource whereby the masses might develop a civilization made in their own likeness and after their own image. There was no force of tradition to disturb them in their preponderance, or to check them in a thoroughgoing disparagement of the Remnant. Immense natural wealth, unquestioned predominance, virtual isolation, freedom from external interference and the fear of it, and, finally, a century and a half of time — such are the advantages which the mass man has had in bringing forth a civilization which should set the earlier preachers and philosophers at naught in their belief that nothing substantial can be expected from the masses, but only from the Remnant.

His success is unimpressive. On the evidence so far presented one must say, I think, that the mass man’s conception of what life has to offer, and his choice of what to ask from life, seem now to be pretty well what they were in the times of Isaiah and Plato; and so too seem the catastrophic social conflicts and convulsions in which his views of life and his demands on life involve him. I do not wish to dwell on this, however, but merely to observe that the monstrously inflated importance of the masses has apparently put all thought of a possible mission to the Remnant out of the modern prophet’s head. This is obviously quite as it should be, provided that the earlier preachers and philosophers were actually wrong, and that all final hope of the human race is actually centered in the masses. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that the Lord and Isaiah and Plato and Marcus Aurelius were right in their estimate of the relative social value of the masses and the Remnant, the case is somewhat different. Moreover, since with everything in their favor the masses have so far given such an extremely discouraging account of themselves, it would seem that the question at issue between these two bodies of opinion might most profitably be reopened.

III

But without following up this suggestion, I wish only, as I said, to remark the fact that as things now stand Isaiah’s job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass acceptance and mass approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses’ attention and interest. This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, that one is reminded of the troglodytic monster described by Plato, and the assiduous crowd at the entrance to its cave, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favor, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.

The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one’s doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.

Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favor, and answerable only to his august Boss...

Maybe what he would say today is that it's only a small minority who escape the Matrix. And we don't have to find them.  They'll find us.  That's been my experience and it sounds like it's been the experience of most of us here.  Not much to do about that.  We just have to get on with doing right.

 

This may be out there, but it may not be, and it is sorta in line with the bumper sticker conversation.  I have just been thinking about the implications of Chris's most recent writings and several of the responses that have been posted here.  I imagine there are internet or other on line communities that are having discussions pretty much like this one.  What do we do, in the little time that is left, to attract more of the population as change happens around us?  This is might be the discussion Chris and Adam had when they shifted from "The Crash Course" to "Peak Prosperity".  How to spread the message about some very negative outcomes in a way that helps people become safer, healthier, and happier?
The internet is huge because the message can go global very quickly.  Times are "good" right now.  Normalcy bias is a problem that we are up against.  I just think back to the Iranian students using social media a couple of years ago during their protests…it was amazing how quickly they got the message out.

So I'm just floating this idea and it kinda pinballs between the effectiveness of the internet and the need for on the ground changes within each of our local communities.   Ya, I have been thinking about Chris's latest writing for a while.

So even if it starts out with the bumper stickers, (I'm a Peak Prosperity Home), Could be laughable, could be a great idea…what if we step up to the plate by creating a connecting web of businesses, homes, etc, within each of our spheres of influence, that has earned the "Peak Prosperity" approval…start local and on the ground.  This would take massive organization, and obviously Chris and Adam would be the ones to push the on the ground momentum, but to use Chris's argument, we need to become the change we seek…there is an element of being visible which is necessary to attract more "customers" or people to this more logical way of life.  Smaller.  Safer.  More common sense.

I don't even know if "I'm a Peak Prosperity Home" is a good enough idea for a bumper sticker, but I'm just pushing to find ways to bring the message down to every day folks.  Before their lives are so negatively effected.

Peace,

Jason

I will add my voice to the chorus. Yes, all of these investments are absolutely sensible. But we can wait a long time for this to occur from the top down. We do not have to wait for the perfect future time point, when the entire world acknowledges and is moving towards the same solution. We can lead.
I suggest that we each use the resources under our personal control, including professional and social capital to ‘be the change you want to see’.

I know that many of us have started on this path, but every dollar we spend, every word we write, every conversation we have, counts. Personal consumption choices and individual actions en mass can be a very powerful force.

I share the same thoughts to an extent, but as I was reading through I noticed how Chris said "Set massive monetary prizes for whomever solves the power density riddle using common materials".  Which is essentially similar to the X-prize model as well as the method proposed by Robert Zubrin to advance space science and exploration, and such a proposal would probably mitigate some of the worst inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go with government involvement.  The government provides the money and sets the goals, but after that steps out of the way and lets everyone from individuals & small business to large megacorporations figure out whether to take on the risk of the endeavor and how to create the solution that achieves the goal.
Now while I think this would be one of the few ways (if not the only one) to mitigate government stupidity and corruption for such projects, sadly I don't see it as very likely, primarily because it would be hard to sell it to elected officials in the first place.  The current batch of chowderheads who are in office and those influencing/lobbying government seem to be control freaks for the most part, and 'hands-off' approaches do not fit in their usual pattern of thinking.  And then there's the corruption angle… such an approach greatly limits the potential for skimming and graft and the handing out of political favors.  So while I think it COULD work I don't see it likely to be implemented in such a way in the first place.  So while it's worth pushing for, it's still best to put most of the effort and energy on the level of the individual and small community.

Former Guantanamo Boss Faces French Court Inquiry

Guantanamo prison ex-chief Geoffrey Miller has been summoned by a French court over the use of torture in the detention facility a decade ago, following a lawsuit from two French citizens who were former inmates of the infamous military jail.

French citizens Nizar Sassi and Mourad Benchellali have filed a lawsuit in a French court against the former Guantanamo chief, demanding a criminal probe into his actions.

On Thursday, the court granted the complaint, summoning the former American general to France for a hearing.

The French judge’s decision might set a precedent for more prosecutions of US military personnel who served at Guantanamo Bay.

This news item appeared on the Russia Today Internet site at 2:22 p.m. Moscow time on their Friday afternoon.
Read more...
 

"Proud Crash Course Grad"

We move into early Easter Morning.  I will get off work in a few hours and to attend a sunrise service to talk about the transformative life of one called the Prince of Peace.
The most basic role we can play is to bring uncivilized and psychopathic hoodlums under control.  Lets have "Nuremberg trials" for the criminals among us.