New economic system,..

It sounds entirely undemocratic and rather too soviet.

New theories of governance emerge from time to time, usually when the ruling establishment is or feels most vulnerable. But there is no evidence that the current global system of capitalism is dead or even on the way to dying.

Even if it was, there's no evidence any alternative system would be better for the majority of the world's population. There is surely no record of anyone proposing a system of governance that would make them personally worse off.
 
tomorton,.." current global system of capitalism is dead or even on the way to dying.",..
Hmmm,..strange thing to state, considering what's occurring around the world at present,...
For instance,..there are slogans flying around, e.g,.sustainable living,..going green,..global governance,."change",..hmm and many more. Have you noticed these?
Were you also aware that the present system isn't sustainable? (see, even I'm using the slogans) : )
Have you noticed our leaders stating the "re-distribution of wealth" slogan.
Did you notice that most of the EU's leaders are ex' soviet !
What I'm saying,.is,.don't rule out the things that are unnoticed, by the majority of the populace.
 
"Its not even changing.",...
LOL,...really!
I'll let you into a little secret,..civilizations change constantly, it's the folk who are born into them, that never notice.
But thanks for the laugh,..you seem like a fun guy to chat with ; )
 
"leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable, unusable"

Huh? Inflation is either small positive to zero in most major economies, so money is not undesirable (fiat currency is ENFORCED by the government and I want lots of it please). Unusable? No, that's not true either. All merchants are compelled by law to accept it. Unstable? Nah.. I wouldn't call the odd 10 percent here and there over a couple of years "unstable".

This is what is called a specious argument. If I encounter this kind of construction, it usually makes it difficult for me to read the rest, as the premise of the new currency is based on an initial falsehood.

E.g. "because students no longer drink alcohol, the price of beer has gone down and therefore ..."
 
Quite a nutty article. Exemplified by rather ridiculous stuff like:

"Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes global warming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early Technocratic thinking. "

Err ..... Not it's not. It's because of the physics of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere and that fact that CO2 is emitted in large quantities when fossil fuels are burned. Increasing the atmospheric CO2 by around 2/3% per year. "Early technocratic thinking" didn't think about that at all. It was not until the 1960s when reliable CO2 measurements became available that scientists began to think that there might be a problem. It's the science stupid.

But the most muddle headed stuff is equating CO2 emissions with energy. It's not necessarily the same thing at all as evidenced by the fact that around 17% of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power and a few more percent by hydro.

And the stuff about entropy from a scientific viewpoint is just nonsense.

The author also gets it wrong about environmentalists uniformly supporting carbon trading schemes. Many don't. One of the more prominent is James Hansen of NASA who advocates a revenue neutral carbon tax remitted as dividends to the population. Move along, no conspiracy here.

Energy rationing is not going to happen. It wouldn't even make much difference as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. It's the total amount that counts - not the rate of emissions. Either clean energy production is widely deployed or humans will continue to burn fossil fuels until they run out and the planet warms somewhere between 7-8C and complete runaway greenhouse warming terminating in the Venus syndrome. It depends on how optimistic you feel.

There is a solution that solves the CO2 problem and provides a energy rich future. It's called Generation IV nuclear power and will probably start to be deployed in the 10 -20 year time frame. A golf ball piece of uranium or thorium will provide all the energy for an individuals lifetime (based on current per capita energy consumption in the US). There is more than enough fuel for thousands of years. Gen IV is highly feasible and backed by lots of existing research including real research and production reactors. Google it.

When the current obsession with wind and solar wanes because they are both too expensive and not delivering the goods, the world will take the advanced nuclear route because there is no other option. There will be no carbon currency or energy rationing.
 
When having a debate,.it's always wise to experiment with objectivism,.IMO !
""Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or
synthesis).
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm
 
Thanks for the clip of the UKIP leader. I'm not sure whether the euro project will work or not, or whether he's right and it can't work. I suspect he may be right, though I think he and I would disagree on the reasons

Either way, what's your point?
 
The establishment of a common currency across some countries on one continent is a fractional representation of a soviet communist system, more a symptom than underlying cause. It is a side issue.

The euro wasn't set up to combat, nor in anticipation of, the decline of currency systems in use, but for political reasons. The establishment of the euro zone does not remove control of means of production nor distribution of wealth into the hands of the ECB. Granted, mainland European politicians tend to lean far more towards statism than the Anglo-Saxon Brits and Americans, barring hard-core new Labourites, but neither the euro project nor its potential failure, argue towards increased centralisation of what we see as the successful capitalist system.

My objections still stand. I despise any drawing room socialism that seeks to centralise control of production and the means of wealth creation into the hands of a state elite. The opportunity to gain wealth should remain open to all, in equal measure, such opportunity underwritten by the state. The wealth itself is a different matter and should not by default fall to ownership of the state.

I have to distrust anyone advancing a sweeping new system such as this, as I must suspect it offers them an advantage over what it offers me, else why would they suggest it?
 
tomorton,... I agree with a lot of your ideals,..have you ever read "sic itur ad astra",..by Andrew Galambos?
He gave lectures in the sixties, about the theory of volition,..
 
tomorton,.....Anything that helps to develop better perspectives,....is "the" best way to make money,..always has been!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Basic Instincts- New Economics Book
Replies
0
Views
2K
laurena86
L
M
Elder's Triple Screen Exits
Replies
0
Views
3K
momothebored
M
Directional
Draft EU directive on Fund Managers
Replies
1
Views
2K
firewalker99
firewalker99
Nowler
Installing Windows 7 on New System
Replies
19
Views
4K
axaxi
A
P
FCA to Cap FX and CFD leverage to at least 25-1
Replies
0
Views
2K
Phil_GMT
P
Top