The Emperor Has No Clothes

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
21

I’ve been hearing a lot about how rising medical costs will take up more of the federal budget.  This must impact the outlays for medicare and medicaid specifically – which means we can expect the 1.4 Trillion portion to rise – exponentially?
A Republican TV pundit claimed the Democrats are anti-growth  - which would be praise if we could replace growth with quality.  Cutting taxes will certainly fix this catastrophe :wink:

buzzfuzzel didn’t write:

Our constitution gurantees your right to “prusue happiness”  it does not gurantee it will not be provided to you with money borrowed from China.

22

sofistek,

But it’s all relative isn’t it?  We don’t need high speed trains, but one could argue that we also don’t need CT scanners, antibiotics, electricity, indoor plumbing, or metal tools.  We have them because they each improve the quality of life to some degree.  The same goes for the high speed trains… they offer similar quality of life benefits as cars and airplanes (improved mobility) but with a much reduced overall resource cost if used in the right locations.  It wouldn’t be ideal transportation for every part of the country, but there are areas that could benefit.

Finally, in what way are they inconsistent with living sustainably?  Is there some reason that it’s impossible for them to operate using renewable energy for example?  And is there something inherently bad about using mass transportation that moves quickly, or is that just a value judgement?  IMO it looks like you’re making your argument from a standpoint of belief, not facts.

And maybe it’s just the way I read it, but your last sentence seems to come off as passive-aggressive.

  • Nickbert
23

Wise observation. I thought the same thing. The future survivors will learn to Decentralize, Relocalize, and Recycle/Improvise.

24

The general spirit of that video in comment #3 above by Remant is spot on from past personal experience.  Take pride in yourself and just refuse to engage! You then empower yourself and strip power from the opposing evil.   

25

Yeah, I must say I agree with JAG here… I would like to read more about what to do, what others are doing here and there, etc. Detailed reports about what’s working, what’s not working, you know, so everyone can pick and choose what they feel fits best their own situation!

Samuel

26

A lot less than airplanes, cars, and trucks at least :wink: I am not so sure it’s unsustainable. I would be interested in reading research about how well we can run such a network on wind and solar power, for example, if anyone knows of any … thanks

Samuel

27

I disagree because it’s very important to get the word out.  I don’t believe there is a solution in isolation.  You have to sell your PM’s to someone eventually after all.

28

 

sofistek wrote:

Chris,

I’d have to take issue with you about your remarks on China’s high speed trains. I hope you weren’t simply dumbstruck by the beauty and vastness of it all. Why does any country need high speed trains? Why does any country need the vast rail stations shown in the image? Yes, they’re beautiful, but utterly inconsistent with living sustainably. Why do you need to get anywhere in such a hurry and in large numbers? Can you imagine the resources sucked up by operating high speed trains and enourmous stations?

 Sheesh. So we should just break down into city states and use backpacks and ox carts?

Being able to transport people great distances effciently helps facilitate sustainability. It gets a tremendous amount of people back and for to work for a relatively low enviromental impact in contrast with cars. It increases commerce and the fluidity and dependability of trade. A mobile populace is a productive populace.

29

I think maybe some of us are taking James Kunstler a little too seriously. It is ok to enjoy life, it is ok to plan for a prosperous future. There are some really smart people working on many of our problems and our knowledge is changing in the same exponential manner as our problems are. Dont abondon hope, James and the folks at the Oil Drum aren’t necessarily writing gospel.

30

Doing my morning Google news search shows it coming up under the title “Real Truth About The Deficit”.

31

I think that maybe some are losing the value this site represents. CM.com is, most importantly, a tool box of information; a training ground for people to become equiped with reality, no matter how painful that reality is. It is devised and built upon a solid ground of facts, paying little heed toward either belief or opinion.
It is a foundation piece that allows the expansion of valuable key facts, with the basis of building reliable detail into a fuller picture.

Holding onto this perspective is how all that read and write here can be taught not just the benefit of a library of useful information in one place, but also to become teachers themselves with this library.

The only way forward is to fully comprehend the future. By fully comprehending the future, this will give the answers as to what it is that people collectively need to do to have a future.

32

This is about where I am, too, JAG.  I spend less and less time keeping track of the gov’s day-to-day actions and speechifying.  There are so many other things to occupy my attention.

However, seems to me that with a constant flow of new folks arriving at this site, timely and relevant stories about the No Clothes are important to expose the new folks to Useful Information About Where We’re At – since they are most certainly not getting it at CNN.  I suppose you could make the case that there are plenty of older Martenson Reports that elucidate quite well the overall heinousity of the current sitch.  But nothing moves folks like cleareyed info about the current moment, IMO.  So I’d say CM’s efforts here are anything but wasted.  

Sure, you and I and many of the cohort here are past the Red Pill stage and off down the road of readiness to a greater or lesser degree.  But there’s plenty of folks out there still choking on the Blue Pill, and IMO if we’re going to build real stability and prosperity, we need heaps of 'em to take the Red Pill, wise up, and join us where we are.  

VIVA, ya’lls! – Sager

33

Regarding the video clip submitted by The Remnant:
Everything he says is true! Only one problem. If all the people he says he’s talking to (informed, intelligent, even brilliant) decide to take his advice and opt out of the voting process then the only ones voting will be the “livestock” he rightfully derides. So we’ll all have our pride and not even a whisper of control over the herd.

Better to maintain our involvement and work to take back control of the system Ben, Tom and the rest designed for us.

The way to get the “candy” (and our self esteem) back is a side kick to the knee and a backfist to the nose of the bullies. Walking away empowers and encourages them. Trust me! I still hold the emotional scars of being afraid to confront bullies.

Not voting is the same as giving “the guys with the guns” blanket permission to continue business as usual. Your video guy may be sincere, but  I suspect he’s a “double agent.”

For further understanding of what’s going on and why Ron Paul is definitely on the right track, check out the video at … www.bigeye.com/moneymasters.htm … It’s dry but very enlightening.

34

BE,
I really want American’s to have a fair and honest reason to vote. I would want you to have a collective say in how the United States are moulded in the future. Yet, the truth’s that are discussed on this forum have proven to me that no amount of voting stock have swayed government into anything like a sustainable future.

It appears your impression of Remnant (who placed Stephan Molyneux video up) is of the opinion that voting is but a pointless task. In my understanding, that is far removed from the truth.

What I’ve gained from this site and Chris Martenson’s work is of a collective tipping point of understanding. Armed with this, my reasoning tells me that, in its present form, there is no value to voting as, there is no choice. You have no choices in the arrangement.

Look at the millions of ‘voters’ who took to the streets that were against Afganistan, Iraq, bank bailouts or quantitive easing. Look at the reality that Obama has become from the hype that put him into power. The U.S is still using a quarter of the worlds resources to support 5% of the population of it at a time when oil energy supply has more than definately peaked. This, you must come to agree, is far from sustainable when accounting with $112 Trillion worth of debt.

Coming back to the origins of this site is sometimes the best answer, and I urge you to read a most important Martenson Report from where I originally came to write on this forum. This isn’t pretty but it can’t be refuted: -

The United States Is Insolvent

https://peakprosperity.com/martensonreport/united-states-insolvent

I also urge you, because I note that you’ve only just registered here, that maybe you haven’t watched this set of films, which is the gell that holds the fabric of this site together : -

The Crash Course

https://peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

If you’ve already seen The Crash Course, please respect that many have begun writing here by stumbling on the site and assuming that people are writing contrarian views.

Kindest Regards,

Paul

35

I noticed this quote:

For the record, I would have an entirely different view of government spending if it were spent on different things.  For example, I am really taken by the new high speed trains (and stations) that China has received for its government expenditures:
I notice others were raising points about the validity of the "shiny bling" and sustainability brought to you by the State.

No free market institution would divert that much captial and tools into the production of a high-speed train unless it could profit (generate wealth) from doing so.

Remember, that train was built by a minority of men with a monopoly on violence, with the power to tax, and collect those taxes unopposed.

Since government produces no wealth, they acquire it in one of three ways:

  • Tax (Theft Today)
  • Borrow (Theft Tomorrow)
  • Inflate (Indirect theft by removing the purchasing power of your money without removing a dollar from your posession)
Those trains weren't free.  They came about as a result of violence - the forceable redistribution of wealth or redistribution of impoverishment.

 

36

In regards to Remnant’s video, instead of witholding from voting, I would much rather give my vote to somebody like Ron Paul. He got what, 50 thousand votes last election? Next one he needs to get 50 million. But he needs to run as an independent.

37

My views on having shiny trains has more to do with symbolism than bona-fide solutions.   As I look about at the things that we are choosing to invest in nationally, I am slowly losing hope.
A high speed train would indicate, symbolically, that we understand what the future holds.  F22 fighters indicate a different view of the future.  Both would cost about the same (~$70 billion).

This goes along the lines of the Broken Window theory which holds that people take subtle clues from their environs and make relatively profound decisions about their social behaviors from what they see around them.  Along these lines, I posit that if millions of people were to transit through modern, shiny, highly efficient transportation hubs they’d take home a shifting attitude about what’s important.

My interest in seeing us invest in ourselves (and more appropriate technologies) goes way beyond mere dollars and cents. I want it for its highly-important signalling function(s).

Lastly, the free market cannot and will not ever deliver everything we want primarily because it is 100% based on a failing debt-based monetary unit.  Under different money I might hold a different view (depending on which one was the dominant form) but for now I simply have no faith that a debt-based free market will deliver the right things for a sustainable future.  The profit motive is good for some things, but not everything (charity is one example). For some things we have to make our decisions based on other considerations besides an ever-increasing flow of money units.

 

 

 

38

TheRemnant
I know you’re new here, so rest assured no one on this site is tickled pink at the prospect of paying more taxes.  My guess is that you haven’t watched the Crash Course yet because you aren’t factoring in peak oil to our ecomomic future.  It seems a pretty safe bet that our transportation infrastructure is going to be undergoing a radical restructuring in the not too distant future.  The personal automobile, trucking as the main means of moving stuff and airplanes are going, of necessity, to be playing far smaller roles.  The most efficient means of moving people and stuff in terms of fuel usage are shipping and trains.  Therefore, in terms of what kind of infrastructure we should be aiming for, those two modes of transportation should play much larger roles than they currently do.

One of the priorities in figuring out how we are to use our still cheap fuel going forward, is to build out the infrastructure that we will need when fuel, particularly oil, is no longer cheap or readily available.  Lots of projections have been done on how to get there from here.  Basically, no matter how fast we develop alternative energy sources, we cannot replace the carbon based fuels in time to make an easy transition.  There will be shortages of fuel.  The best hope we have is to go on a massive conservation campaign.  (The last is my view, which I don’t think some of the people on this site agree with yet)

The only entity in our society that has the wherewithal to martial the economic forces necessary for that transition is the US government, notwithstanding the Ayn Randian free market notions of some.  Although I think a lot could be saved by cutting taxes in other areas, particularly cutting back on our massive road and highway system, it seems to me that a priority should be put on upgrading our rail system that is currently old and falling apart.  The reality is that a fast efficient rail system will go a long way toward making our transition easier.  I agree with Chris that, if we’re going to run up deficits, it ought to be on something that will make our future better and provide the free market transportation for its stuff.

Doug

39

High speed = inequity = energy depletion
Ivan Illich and High Speed Trains

http://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/  This link is to the full text of Illich’s brilliant essay on energy and equality.

If i take issue with Chris and his trains comment, it is on the issue of equality and access.  Illich suggests that high speed trains, indeed any high speed transport, is a precursor to inequality. High speed = high energy use.  Low speed = low energy use = cheap = equitable.  High speed means you give your money to the owners of the trains and to the owners of the power company that supplies the power. High speed = inequality = disparity between rich and poor.  Then there is the issue of energy depletion as the power will come from either coal or nuclear.

If you have access to high speed travel then you can access education and employment that someone without that acces is denied.  If you want equality, equity, then you need to have low speed transport.

Illich suggested back in the early 70’s that a world speed limit of 25mph would solve many equity problems, and a large number of environmental ones to boot.

Think about it, low speed means that the energy you use is put into moving you, not the air infront of you = much more efficient.  low speed means that you can fit multiples more cars, bikes, or trains on existing infrastructure as you can be closer to the person infront of you.  low speed means cheap; Illich suggests that low speed trains could be free as they are so cheap to run.  Think about what that would mean to the city you live in.  low speed means more bikes and walkers as the fast toxic cars are moving at a human pace. Low speed means low tech. You dont need fancy rare earth magnets in a bike and you can use your existing car if you like, no new infrastructure. 

To me it is the obvious ‘silver bullet’ which is being overlooked.

What do you think?

40
Lastly, the free market cannot and will not ever deliver everything we want primarily because it is 100% based on a failing debt-based monetary unit.  Under different money I might hold a different view (depending on which one was the dominant form) but for now I simply have no faith that a debt-based free market will deliver the right things for a sustainable future.  The profit motive is good for some things, but not everything (charity is one example). For some things we have to make our decisions based on other considerations besides an ever-increasing flow of money units.
Chris, thank you so much for responding!  I really do appreciate it.

I have watched the Crash Course.  Several times.  Many of us are drawn to the message for different reasons and different backgrounds.  In fact, I was so impressed with CC, I became a paying member.  I am involved with my Transistion Town movement up here in Canada as a result.  I wholeheartedly agree with the message contained within CC, and I want to be a part of this as it occurs.

From your post above, I captioned a portion of it I would like to discuss a bit.

You’re conflating a free market with ascribing value to a debt-based fiat currency.

If I opened "The Remnant’s Money Store” and produced uniform pieces of paper with different inks/designs on them indicating denomination, how would I get the free market to accept them? How could I prevent a competitor from doing the same? Answer: I can’t. I’d be laughed at or ignored. People would rightly say, “You’d print up money and give it to yourself or your friends and use it to your benefit, while producing nothing of economic value! You’re a cheat!”.

Now, if I got a bunch of thugs to work for me with the biggest guns in town and threatened others to pay me tribute (via legal tender violence or taxation violence) in my form of money, what would happen? You’d cave in to me or I’ll make your life miserable or worse. If a competitor opened a store, I’d throw him in jail or kill him for “counterfeiting” or competing with my fiat franchise.

Money is merely a commodity like all other commodities, with the unique property valued in the market as being tradeable for all other commodities.  Money has no intrinsic value but the value of it imputed by other market actors.  I would never argue, “People should be forced to use [insert money form here] as money!”. What I argue is “People should be free to choose what they want to use as money!”. In practice, this would mean a return to commodity forms of money. Perhaps gold/silver/copper with the market determining exchange rates between them.

Interest rates on money would be freely set by the market, not manipulated by a monopoly on violence (the State) via a central bank nor its connected insiders (the banks).  Central banks and free markets are opposite ideas.

If you are familar with Gresham’s Law (bad money drives out the good), then you must understand Gresham’s Law only works due to State violence.

To be continued…kids are home from skating.