Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance

Home Forums General discussion Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance

This topic contains 557 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by  ALB 2 weeks, 3 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 558 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #190753

    marcos
    Participant

    Dear Matthew and Marquito,

    Thank you for your feedback about the “People’s” GRB network initiative. I revised http://www.grb.net to address your concerns. Please review the new copy and I hope you will also read and comment on http://www.grb.net/faq and the Mother Earth News article about Copionics at http://www.grb.net/copionics.
    The medium of exchange is relevant to a free global social society when it  values he production of nature and not the product of labor.
    “The medium is the message.” – Marshall McLuhan
    John
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    A beauty parlour, placing more cosmetics on the face of an old person, but it is still the same old person. The capitalist system can not be reformed, even more, any reform is the stepping stone for the following crisis
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  marcos.
    #190759

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    ALB,

    I am proposing a different mode of production as the base of our economy, i.e. the production of Earth’s vital natural resources and not Adam Smith’s product of labor and its currency ($) that values public debt to pay interest to industrial age capitalist banks for destroying our natural environment under the guise of jobs and “economic growth.” This is capitalist BS taught at university. Earth is a free ride for copious life.

    Peace,

    John

    #190765

    ALB
    Participant

    But if the Earth’s resources (as worked on by past and present human labour) are capable of copiously providing for people’s needs — as they are — why put a price on the products, why subject them to buying and selling? Why not make them freely available for people to take and use in accordance with the principle of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs’?

    p.s. if you are amending your website Adam Smith was not an aristocrat. As the idle rich he didn’t think much of them.

    #190778

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    ALB,

    Thank you for the correction. I deleted “aristocrat” and added Karl Marx to call attention to the failure of all political economies. As to why put an ecological, economic value (not price) on the common wealth of natural air, water, soil, plants, organisms and solar energy enable us to convert from from dollars to GRB ecos NOW. People’s realization of global sufficiency can be effected, expressed and accomplished with no harm to any group or class by implementing the GRBnet eco economic algorithm.

    John @ http://www.grb.net

    #190779

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    ALB,

    Thank you for the correction. I deleted “aristocrat” and added Karl Marx to call attention to the failure of all political economies. As to why put an ecological, economic value (not price) on the common wealth of natural air, water, soil, plants, organisms and solar energy enable us to convert from from dollars to GRB ecos now. The people’s realization of global sufficiency can be effected, expressed and accomplished with no harm to any group or class by implementing the GRBnet Eco economic algorithm.

    #190780

    ALB
    Participant

    Actually Karl Marx (and probably Adam Smith) argued that the Earth and its fruits had no economic value and so no price because no human labour had been mixed with them. That is why the air we breathe and the Sun’s rays are “ free goods” even under the buying and selling system ( exchange economy) that is capitalism.

    The difference between Marx and Smith was that, while Smith thought that an exchange economy was natural, Marx saw it only as a passing stage in the evolution of human society to be followed by a society  based on the common ownership of the Earth’s natural and industrial ( human fashioned) resources where wealth will be produced directly to satisfy people’s needs and made directly available for them to take and use without buying and selling. That really would be a different “mode of production “.

    From your reply I gather you don’t think this would work because people would take too much?

    #190781

    ALB
    Participant

    I am afraid you are going to have to make another correction to your website, this time in the FAQ section where you say:

    “Did physicist Albert Einstein say that charging interest on interest is the 8th wonder of the world? Yes.”

    There is no evidence that Einstein ever said this. See:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/compound-interest/

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/31/compound-interest/

    This myth is just another example of using some well-known person’s name to try to add some credibility to a trite or dubious statement.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  ALB.
    #190785

    marcos
    Participant
    1. I don’t think that Adam Smith would support the actual conditions of capitalism in the sense that he advocated for the free market and no intervention of the state in the economic affairs, he was one of the ideological founders of liberalism
    2. Your new mode of production is not new, it is just a cosmetic addition to the capitalist mode of production, a new economic system would the one base on the common possession of the means of productions in the hands of the working class.
    3. Huge state debts were created after the implementation of Keynes economic principles
    4. The main problem of the capitalist system is not produced by banks only, and one sector of the capitalist system is not the whole system, it is just a conspirative theory which is saying that our problems are produced by the central banks which were really created in order to control the chaos of this unstable economic system and despite that it always goes into crisis of super-production, our problem arises at the point of production
    5. Albert Einstein never said what you have said, there are too many false statements about Einstein which are being published on the internet, including the ideas that he was a Zionists and supporter of atomic wars,
    6. There are not political economies, before capitalism the concept of political economy did not exist, what Marx indicated was that all class economic system has been replaced by a new mode of exploitation
    7. Added value is produced by humans beings at the point of production, therefore, the earth doesn’t have any economic value
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  marcos.
    #190797

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    ALB said:

    I am afraid you are going to have to make another correction to your website, this time in the FAQ section where you say:

    “Did physicist Albert Einstein say that charging interest on interest is the 8th wonder of the world? Yes.”

    There is no evidence that Einstein ever said this. See:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/compound-interest/

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/31/compound-interest/

    ALb, Thank you for the feedback. Please see:

    http://www.theinvestmentmania.com/compound-interest-real-8th-wonder/

    I’ll wait for your reply before I make another correction. – John

     

    #190798

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    Marquito said:

    1. I don’t think that Adam Smith would support the actual conditions of capitalism in the sense that he advocated for the free market and no intervention of the state in the economic affairs, he was one of the ideological founders of liberalism. – I agree. – John

    I disagree with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. See

    http://www.theinvestmentmania.com/compound-interest-real-8th-wonder/

    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS849US849&ei=SZCYXYKSN-LO5gLTzr1g&q=google+Compound-interest-is-the-eighth-wonder-of-the-world-He-who-understands-it-earns-it-he-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-pays-it-%E2%80%9D-How-can-the-average-person-use-this&oq=google+Compound-interest-is-the-eighth-wonder-of-the-world-He-who-understands-it-earns-it-he-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-pays-it-%E2%80%9D-How-can-the-average-person-use-this&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i71l8.23995.33593..38327…0.2..0.0.0…….13….1..gws-wiz.0KndXBBdpPw&ved=0ahUKEwjC2q79koXlAhVip1kKHVNnDwwQ4dUDCAs

    John Pozzi – http://www.grb.net

     

    #190802

    ALB
    Participant

    John, that thing from investmentmedia is just one of thousands on the internet attributing the quote to Einstein. Snopes and QI (which specialise in checking quotes) set out precisely to check this quote and found no evidence that Einstein was the first to say it or even said it. Their conclusion cannot be refuted by quoting one of the thousands of unsourced claims that it was Einstein. That would require a verifiable source (chapter and verse) of when and where Einstein said it. They searched for this but couldn’t find anything.

    #190809

    John Pozzi
    Participant

    ALB,

    Thank you for the information. I took Eisenstein down.

    John Pozzi – http://www.grb.net

    #190810

    marcos
    Participant

    Thank you for the information. I took Eisenstein down.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    You should take everything down and publish the principles and aims of the World Socialist Movement. Bingo !!!

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  marcos.
    #190819

    Dave Chesham
    Participant

    “You should take everything down and publish the principles and aims of the World Socialist Movement. Bingo !!!”

    Hear, here!

     

    #190826

    ALB
    Participant

    Anyway, compound interest is not the Eighth Wonder of the World. It is perfectly rational within a money system. Say A lends B $100 for a year at 5% interest p.a.. Neither is going to enter into this deal unless both expect B to use the money to end up with more than $5 at the end of the year. At the end of the year B repays A the original $100 + $5 as agreed. If B has made more than $5 B keeps it. If B wants to continue and A doesn’t want to cash the $5, then A is in effect lending B for the next year not $100 but $105, also at 5% p.a., which means that at the end of the second year B has to repay $105 + $5.25. What’s so wonderful about that?

    Of course, all this assumes that B is using the money to make more money so as to end up with more than 5% of the amount borrowed. This can only be done by using to produce something that can be sold for more than the amount borrowed. Which is what happens under capitalism, with profit as the extra amount. This is why what is important under capitalism is profit not interest. In fact interest always has to be less than profit. It can’t be more whatever the mathematical formula for compound interest says. Interest cannot go on being compounded unless more and more profit is being made somewhere from production.

    In other words, compound interest cannot go on accumulating divorced from reality (production). Marx gives an amusing example of the conclusion drawn by someone, the Rev. Dr. Richard Price, who writing in 1774, thought it could:

    “One penny, put out at our Saviour’s birth to 5 per cent compound interest, would, before this time, have increased to a greater sum, than would be contained in a hundred and fifty millions of earths, all solid gold. ” (quoted by Marx, Capital, volume 3, chapater 24).

    Now that would be a Wonder of the World.

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 558 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.