NEW COLLAPSE thread, one of many reasons what we are doing now will not last.

Many of you post on these forums, many read thoroughly topics related to your own interests whether economic, political, paranormal, or generally conspiratorial. One of the topics I rarely see discussed, is "Real Cost."

Sustainability as defined by me substantiates that in order for something to be sustainable you must be able to replenish what has been used. Thereby leaving future generations with something of value and something to hope for.

Our economy is designed to not be sustainable as it milks the real value and asset out of everything and turns the value into debt. Fiat currency was only devised by financial minds in order to allow governments to become large enough, powerful enough to do their bidding. It is the perfect system.... for turning the real value of mankind into the debt of mankind, otherwise known as slavery. The system is designed for the already rich or the newly rich to be able to keep their wealth and live off the interest which is paid by the poor. The greedier the rich get the poorer the rest of humanity gets.

Before someone accuses me of being socialist, hear me out. It is ok for someone to become successful. It is not ok for someone to be able to take their success and then milk the less fortunate. That is inherently encroaching on the rights of all free people. This thread is not about protecting the bottom feeders of society that choose by their own free will to milk the system and do not become active members of their respective communities.

And I mean what I mean here, the entitlement programs shouldn't exist, but entitlements are a way of saying hey, I know you people are getting raped of your livelihoods in order to make these rich people richer, here is what I will give you in order to keep you quiet so we can continue a little longer until it all collapses. The safety net is getting larger and larger, and the jobs get worse and worse.

Its funny now that we start to have some manufacturing returning to the USA from places like china that the actual wage of the workers today in America, making the same products they did before they left for china will now make less than they did 2 decades ago doing the same job.

I will just pick one topic, vaccine production. Vaccines have attributed to a very large number of issues in our society that have been almost proven without a doubt. But the actual vaccines are a great thing for humanity, it is an artificial way to boost the immune system to fight known disease and in some cases all but irradiate the disease from the world.

vaccines contain a host of chemicals, most of which are added to the mixture in order to increase the shelf life of the product. I see this as a greedy evil way of doing business, and should not be allowed, allowing pharmaceutical companies to add these items, prevents these ever expanding companies from having to localize production of vaccines in smaller businesses. (you know creating local money that feeds local economy and makes local community's stronger and sustainable) they say that this is somehow supposed to be a step forward for humanity, but it is very plainly obvious to me and I hope to others that this is a screaming example of why no "LARGE" corporations should exist period. There is no public need that is met by large corporations that local business could not do better.

And I challenge anyone to think of ONE THING that beats local and regional economies in "REAL COST." Because REAL COST is the ABSOLUTE measure of sustainability. Currency markets, currency speculation, commodity speculation, nothing in our economy has had the REAL COST changed without innovation. ONE CORPORATION with all the money, led by 1-12 individuals with different political and financial ties to other industries will do absolutely nothing compared to 1,000 smaller companies with literally thousands more people that are apart of the process. Will that large corporation make more money splitting up, there may be a few cases, but overall, no? And in that one fact lies one of the absolutes of why collapse is inevitable. The fact that the economy is led by people who hope to consolidate power and wealth into the hands of a few, And the laws are always changed to meet the growing needs of corporate greed. Because they see that the larger a company is the more efficient it "appears" to be. Its a perception that is perpetuated by our financial system. The only politician who understands this (and is willing to fix the ACTUAL problem) is Congressman Ron Paul.

It is much more efficient to make a vaccine that is "ORDERED" and used locally without the need for large amounts of harmful chemicals, toxic substances, because the vaccines would be produced regionally. Would they be more expensive, maybe, but the economy preventing stewardship of our planet is a PRIMARY problem that must be resolved. Carbon tax is more scam to feed a fake money system with more fake money so that rich people will have something else to milk of value. I am not covering all the points I want to make, because this is getting too long, and many of these points that I have made can be debated forever, as no one that I speak to associates the actual common sense meaning of "REAL COST" into their thoughts and actions. And in many cases people will go to an accounting book for the definition, which is not the real meaning of the term. I am using I am using the term to describe the waste of resources when closing a 4 billion dollar plant in one country only to build another 4 billion dollar plant in another country. the real cost of that is astronomical. the real cost of making a product and shipping it across the world (especially when it is not needed) Is just another reason why large corporations are the real plague. Large corporations are the BUTT of humanity. There really is no reason for them to be here, on this planet.

Out of 100 hundred small businesses in the same field, maybe 10-15 will survive and thrive. But only because of innovation. The constant recycling of bad ideas into large corporations is evident in the laws they pay to change in order to remain "efficient" TOO BIG TO FAIL, means that when a corporation is allowed to become powerful enough to take the real value out of your labor, and LIFE, with one bad day - it is a RISK. And a severe risk. It is akin to running a red light to get to work faster. Why even do it, what really is the point of private and public corporations having the power to not only manipulate the public, but also the government in the country they reside. Sounds to me like the biggest security risk countries face is their own corporations. Sounds like people need to start busting these companies up and creating sustainable regional economies. I mean if I work for homeland security, i am having briefings on how to reduce the fallout and ultimately reverse the corruption and corporate takeover of America. Why would I give two craps, about the 4yr old on a plane that is suspected of handing a weapon to grandma? Why am I worried about the security threat that untrained, armed, or even highly trained citizens present to society? the answer to that question you already know. HOMELAND SECURITY, TSA, CIA, DEA, ATF, I could go on, these government agents are not public servants - they are corporate servants. THE END - will have some links to provide tomorrow. Not really wanting to finish this tonight.

I've heard if the whole world were to collapse then only North Korea and some central African countires would endure/recover the intial shock due to the "more primitive and less industrialized nations would be quickest to rebound since they would also be affected the least by a global economic depression" quote from somebody.

reply to post by starwarsisreal


While I agree that primitive society would survive a global economic meltdown, I do not agree that local and regional economies are in any way PRIMITIVE. Matter of fact - the ONLY long-term examples of working financial systems in the world's history are localized economies.

This thread put me in mind of a conversation I had with my brother-in-law about a year or so ago. We are both business managers and we both have considerable experience in the field.

The gist of the conversation ended up with....

"Economic collapses build billionaires."

In a struggling economy, there will always be a select few who apply initiative and utilise their skill-set to turn the situation into an advantage.

reply to post by OccamAssassin


agreed, but only because the system is designed to make bad decisions look like the RIGHT decisions. For instance not improving a safety feature on a model of car because the cost to improve the device will be more than the theoretical cost of the liability. My point isn't about hindering success, it is about localizing success, by removign the BIG from the equation. The only 3 billionaires I have met in my life have IQ's of about 80, but are ruthless as hell. they possessed no skill set other than using the system as designed - milk the people who don't have access to the resources I have.

Kind of like internet trolls IRL.

reply to post by no time


I wonder who's gonna be the new world power now that the US is knocked out the Chinese can't be the new superpower since they too will crumble. This game I played called Homefront mentioned after the economic collapse North Korea will rise to become the New SuperPower after the fall of both China and the US

reply to post by no time


Wrong, the system works fine when left to do what it does.
It is very stable as people vote with their wallets.
And as long as we do not allow monopolies, walmart, comcast, Etc.

reply to post by no time

by removign the BIG from the equation.

It isn't big that's bad....it is a lack of business ethics. There are far more small business s exploiting the poor than the rich ever will.

The US of A is a prime example.

How much does a waitress get an hour?

How much does a farm-hand get an hour?

How much does a checkout operator get an hour?

The three above examples are not limited to corporations, in fact, the first two are usually in a small business situation.

The only 3 billionaires I have met in my life have IQ's of about 80

I doubt that very much.

I deal with the elite/wealthy on a limited basis (I am from the maritime industry and occasionally have to work on super/mega-yachts) and I have never met anyone who has made a fortune that wasn't as "sharp as a tack".

I agree with much that you have said, and I know you wanted to keep it short, but I feel that you touched base with a critical aspect in all of this..

This being risk management... although I'm a young buck, I feel that I have a fairly well rounded idea as to how this should be assessed.

Risk management can never be accurately assessed with out encompassing the idea of responsibility.

Todays corporations only have the responsibility of pleasing their stock holders. They could seemingly care less about any environmental impact, societal impact, and the results of their actions outside of the ability to reach consumers and keeping the pockets of their stock holders lined with money.

But who can realy blame them, this is the belly of the beast, the shark tank, and a world of finance, efficency.

Here's where responsibility comes in.

With the amount of investment capital that many of these corporation have accumulated over the years, their pursuits are endless, as their pocket books will seemingly never run dry. Even the money that is tied into the company, doesn't truly represent the entirety of worth that the individuals that make up this company account for.

This seperation between their earnings(much of which is from bonuses) and over paid salaries, in relation to the worth of the company further pushes away from any real risk management to be assessed. For if the company goes belly up, becuase of an ill advised pursuit... those who made this decision still retain their earnings.
Which is a gift and a curse... don't get me wrong, I don't think that a person should lose everything that they earned based on a bad business pursuit.
But the level of income they recieved prior(and bonuses) is seemingly always disproportionate in relation to any services or work that they may have contributed. The push towards profit margins can account for much of this 'extra' money that is handed out every year... yet, instead of going towards to value of the company, and benefitting the stock holders, it goes to the pockets of those behind the doors.
This alone, takes away from the reality that is their value, as to any risk management in their future pursuits...

All of this money, that is no longer a part of the company, could and should have been retained as to prevent any collapse of said companies... if this was not practiced, then the notion of 'too big to fail' would rarely enter the conversation, for the company would still retain the necessary funds to keep the business running, even in times of hardship such as the recession.

to wrap up that point:
1 responsibility is only to the stock holder and themselves
2 money distributed via bonuses and over paid salaries take away from company
3 those making decisions now lose sense of responsibility for company, because they have already made enough to allow the business to go belly up, while they stay wealthy.
4 which, yes, hurts stock holders... but those truly invested enough are aware of the economic forecast and simply pull out... or have other means of protecting their investments such as insurances like those from the realestate collapse

ok.. back to risk management

Those who are fixed on recieving money from entitlement programs, or such things as welfare, foodstamps, subsidized housing and all of the above... have replaced their responsibility for themselves, with being dependent on others.

This is a direct reflection of the failure of the community to suppor one another... and should not be taken up by the government via tax dollars. This is obviously not to apply to all programs, such as disability and such, so don't run rampant with thinking I'm some cold hearted bastard.

This is then reflected in the decisions that many of these individuals make, for they have tossed away their responsibilities to themselves, and replaced it with dependence. There is no decision that they can make that will negatively effect their current financial situation. Just like those ceo's and other higher ups with over paid salaries that I mentioned before.

To sum up these probable ignorant ramblings...

There is no true measure of risk management being assessed in many of the pursuits that people are taking today, for they do not cary any true responsibility for ill advised decisions.(lol, i should have skipped the ranting and just said that to begin with)

I hope this made sense(again, lol). Let me know what you think...

reply to post by starwarsisreal



I agree!
A lot of Americans who are elites or have that elitus attitude, those are the people I feel will be the ones to cry the loudest when they can't get to thier Botox or thier hairblowers. The ones that cry the loudest won't be able to pay their way into survival....their money will be nothing and for the first time in their lives they're not going to be able to buy their way out of the situation.

The only reason we haven't seen a revolt in epic proportions is because it hasn't totally brought the rich to thier knees yet. I suspect a lot more rampages out of people that will lose or whose lost everything.

Slavery is the name of the game. Always has been; always will be! Everything else, is just a dog and pony show. One slip in the chain, and it's on like Donkey Kong. Imagine, if people couldn't use their Androids and Blackberrys. Look out! Imagine, if they couldn't by their "Happy Meal". Whoa Boy! Picture, if they ran out of alcohol and prescription drugs. GULP! And, don't let them, not be able to log on to facebook. Oh nooooo!

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by no time

 

Wrong, the system works fine when left to do what it does.
It is very stable as people vote with their wallets.
And as long as we do not allow monopolies, walmart, comcast, Etc.

I don't agree. The system as originally intended, works fine without monopolies, the system as is today is not the same system.

Fiat currency + Reserve Currency + Compound Interest + Fractional Reserve + Free trade among several differently valued currencies = never intended. these things combine to steal the value from the working class, and give that value to the rich to pay them their interest.

reply to post by nahahh


I do not believe slavery was the name of the game, Hard work used to actually mean something. Now a guy sitting at a desk pressing a buy/sell button making money for some unknown individual somehow relates as that other individual "working hard" for their money, and they are somehow "brilliant" In My mind the only truly brilliant people on this planet are people actually trying to do innovative things to solve the problems this system as it is now, not as it was designed to be, is causing.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by no time

 

by removign the BIG from the equation.

It isn't big that's bad....it is a lack of business ethics. There are far more small business s exploiting the poor than the rich ever will.

The US of A is a prime example.

How much does a waitress get an hour?

How much does a farm-hand get an hour?

How much does a checkout operator get an hour?

The three above examples are not limited to corporations, in fact, the first two are usually in a small business situation.

The only 3 billionaires I have met in my life have IQ's of about 80

I doubt that very much.

I deal with the elite/wealthy on a limited basis (I am from the maritime industry and occasionally have to work on super/mega-yachts) and I have never met anyone who has made a fortune that wasn't as "sharp as a tack".

as far as the 3 people I met who are now billionaires, they are absolutely NOT brilliant. If you believe they are, you might be having a little bit of infatuation, and not enough sense to look past the glamour and the fancy stories they tell to get to the MEAT of how they actually made their fortunes. I am not saying every billionaire is dumb, I am saying the ones I have met were not impressive. But this could be the difference see, your definition of brilliance I doubt matches mine.


When someone buys locally that money creates jobs locally, when everyone buys locally, regionally, that money turns itself over and over inside that local economy, bringing the quality of life of that community skyrocketing upward. When you purchase products that are not local, that money then feeds a corporation and funnels money from your community to their offshore accounts and paychecks. Yes I realize that stockholders can win big in this scenario.
Communities should be self sufficient, and the more people that buy into that system, the better local job pay and benefits will get. You seem to say that because a small business cannot afford to pay a waitress 60,000 a year that means that the small business is taking advantage of the employee. I say all of the people in the community spending $400 at Wal-mart every week or month is what is causing the job market and wages to stagnate. That money leaves the local economy, and doesn't come back. But the system as it is working today is helping to centralize financial planning into a global government that sees no way to give a decent quality of life to all the world inhabitants. They are working to De-compartmentalize the entire financial system in order to more easily dictate who wins and who loses. Think about it - if all of the power in the legislative, executive, and Judicial branch was combined into one office - it would become EASIER to do what you want if you were in charge. EASIER TO CONTROL in history has ALWAYS meant bad things. ALWAYS






LOCAL WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As Promised a link to a successful local economy experiment.