 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
The people talking in that Real News report appear to be misunderstanding political economy.
If I could jump into the discussion my viewpoint may lead the discussion toward greater understanding.
I could report a few facts followed up by a few questions.
Fact 1:
No living being survives without gaining more power than the power consumed in life; and therefore there must be at least a bare minimum of power required to sustain life, and that supply of power can be accurately measured in some way.
Which way?
Answer:
Surplus wealth, measurable as purchasing power.
Once the living beings accumulate surplus wealth, more power to live life than necessary at the moment, the surplus can then be added to, stored, and increased at a rate dictated by the thoughts and actions of the living beings who now have surplus wealth.
How can surplus wealth be increased above the bare minimum?
Answer:
When the power to purchase, the store of surplus wealth, is consumed in the process of making more surplus wealth, and the expense, or cost, does in fact result in more surplus wealth after the surplus wealth used to get more surplus wealth is used up, then there is more surplus wealth in fact.
Words may fail to convey the actual physical increase in surplus wealth realized during the process of gaining more surplus wealth, and therefore an example illustration may help convey the truth.
A person having a measure of power above the bare minimum can spend that power on a process by which the end result is a steady flow of power returning to the person who spent the measure of power above bare minimum.
1. A farm (organic production)
2. A factory or production facility (inorganic production)
3. A voluntary association of more than one person all working toward the same goal of increasing the supply of surplus wealth and using that supply of surplus wealth toward the goal of increasing surplus wealth.
4. Crime
A farm can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to grow and then have more food.
A. A measure of surplus wealth not spent on anything.
B. The measure of surplus wealth spent on all the things necessary to grow food.
C. Surplus wealth increases by that expenditure as the food supply increases through the process of farming.
A. Surplus wealth is X
B. Surplus wealth is less than X to get the farm running.
C. Surplus wealth is greater than X when the food piles up in storage.
If there is only one person then the one person has to do everything, every job, every thought, and every action required to turn the small supply of surplus wealth into a larger supply of surplus wealth.
A factory can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to make and then have more things.
If one single person made enough food to last one year and then one person stopped farming so as to make things, and if that one person made a thing that stored water, then one single person would then have another process by which the amount of surplus wealth is used to increase the amount of surplus wealth.
The single person uses power to increase food power, with a farm, and the single person uses power to increase water power, with a well, a pump, and a tank.
Power is used to gain more power, and then the supply of power increases as more food flows into storage, and as more water flows into storage.
One person can take a vacation, having so much wealth, as wealth fills the physical spaces where wealth was once not available, not flowing, not until the person invested the power toward the creation of more power.
A. No expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth.
B. An expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth.
C. Actual wealth filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth.
A situation where wealth is filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth won't occur without someone, or some group, deciding to spend wealth toward the goal of making wealth flow into physical spaces where more wealth can accumulate.
Even if the decision is made to spend wealth on a process by which the plan is to have more wealth flowing into a physical space where once there was no wealth, even if that is the plan, the end result may not be a flow of wealth into a physical space where once there was no wealth, and the end result of the plan may well be less surplus wealth after the implementation of the plan, as the supply of surplus wealth is wasted, and the supply of surplus wealth decreases back toward a bare minimum.
How can anyone ever know if their plan does increase the supply of surplus wealth?
Does a person have to ask a banker, or does a person measure their own body weight?
A single person is limited in the capacity of using power to create more power, or using surplus wealth in the work of increasing the supply of surplus wealth.
Is there a way to increase the power beyond the power a single person commands?
Answer:
Yes, any number of people cooperating toward the work of spending power to make more power can increase that power and increase that power exponentially, or much greater than the sum of one person added to another person.
Person power X
Person power Y
Total power is greater than X plus Y
Much greater power is possible when people cooperate in the work to use power to make more power because people can specialize, divide costs, and thereby more than double the rate of increase of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces where once there was no surplus wealth.
A farmer can farm while a pump and tank maker makes pumps and tanks, and another person can keep the water flowing.
The farmer keeps the food flowing. The factory worker keeps things flowing. The utility man keeps the water, or the electricity, or the natural gas, or the motor fuel flowing.
Each person can save a whole lot of time and effort by having someone else do one of the necessary jobs so that each person does not have to stop doing one job, start doing another job, and the savings in time and effort results as those costs are divided by the number of people working toward the same thing: to use surplus wealth toward to work of creating more surplus wealth.
If one person can be wealthy alone there is no logical reason why many people can not be extremely wealthy working together.
Because labor can be divided and people can specialize at certain jobs the capacity to use surplus wealth so as to make huge piles of expanding supplies of surplus wealth is a very real human capacity - a proven reality.
But then there is crime.
Crime is when a person expends power toward the work of extracting power from any supply of surplus wealth whereby the criminal does not add to that supply. The criminal has in mind only the work of exploitation: to take.
If the number of criminals exceed the entire capacity of human activity spent on creating surplus wealth there would be no surplus wealth as all the production of surplus wealth would be flowing to the criminal and the criminals do not create surplus wealth, by definition, they have only one plan, and their plan is to take.
One criminal can hatch a plan and implement that plan and the result may be a flow of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces that are then available to the criminal to be used to increase that flow of wealth to the criminal.
One criminal can thereby reduce the supply of surplus wealth.
The same criminal could have that power to make more power instead.
One criminal not only reduces the supply of power, the same criminal could have added to the supply of power instead.
One child and one elderly person may not have the power required to add to the supply of surplus wealth, and one criminal could conceivably be consuming the last of the supply of surplus wealth leaving one child starving and one elderly person frozen to death.
If the goal is to produce more wealth than the wealth consumed, by any person under the sun, then cooperative effort is the obvious solution.
If the goal is to take from the supply of surplus wealth, and not add to it, when the same time and energy spend taking could be time and energy spent adding to the supply, how is that goal not the same goal as any other criminal?
Answer:
Don't ask the criminal - they lie.
How can anyone ever know if their actions driven by their thoughts result in an increase in the supply of surplus wealth?
Answer:
If your plan includes a steady increase in the number of people tortured and murdered so as to reach millions of numbers of people tortured and murdered, then your plan is probably not increasing the supply of surplus wealth, your plan is criminal - if there ever was one.
The people who have control over the supply of money have control over all the people who use that money and their plan includes torture and there plan includes mass murder and their plan is criminal, and they torture, and they mass murder and ignoring that fact does not make that fact go away.
Arguing over the best method by which legal criminals could, if they only would, use power to increase the supply of power, rather than decrease it, is a plan, and an execution of a plan, to what end? What is the goal?
I think the goal is to ignore the torturing mass murderers who may focus their attention in a personal direction if someone were to fail to ignore the torturing mass murderers.
The goal cannot be one where the people actually desire more surplus wealth, rather than less, because the only way to get to that goal is to deal with the torturing mass murderers who have control of surplus wealth and they spend it on torturing and mass murdering.
Any discussion on political economy that does not accurately identify the greatest ongoing expenditure of surplus wealth by legal criminals conducting aggressive wars for profit is a discussion that avoids the discussion.
If the discussion goes ahead and ignores the legal crimes of torture and mass murder by legal criminals who have taken over the power of government and the power over the supply of money then why doesn't the discussion show simple facts?
A. Gasoline powered vehicles cost 80% more per mile than electric powered vehicles even when the electricity used is produced by burning coal.
B. Solar power is now about 10% less costly compared to the coal burning electricity supply.
C. There is an inevitable move from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford.
If people are not now moving from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford why are they not now moving in that direction?
Answer:
Ignorance
People who are paying more for less now don't yet know how to pay less for more; if they did they would.
When they do, they will.
Why are they ignorant?
Answer:
The people whose job it is to keep people informed are ignoring the greatest story ever told whereby the criminals have taken over the force of government and the power of money and they are now using that power, and that force, to torture and mass murder millions upon millions of innocent victims.
Once falsehood is allowed to infest, like cancer, it spreads, and the body is consumed by it.
The speaker says that Solar is not cost competitive with coal.
Do you believe that nonsense?
Look at your electric bill right now. You can save money on that bill by calling a Solar Panel installing company up - so long as you live in a sunny place. How can that not be proof that Solar is cost competitive with coal?
You pay less money for electricity.
How do you pay less money for electricity?
You switch from the Electric Company power supply and you begin making power at home by turning sunlight into electricity and you pay less per month for electricity.
Which planet is that speaker on?
This planet is the planet that already has people turning sunlight into electricity with solar panels and by that method they spend less power to get more power compared to burning coal to make electricity.
Solar panels are not the most efficient method compared to using mirrors to focus sunlight on a heat exchanger where a liquid is used to capture heat, store heat, and then heat is used to turn turbines that generate electricity.
There is a steady supply of sunlight used to make electricity, how much does sunlight cost?
There is a steady supply of coal used to make electricity, how much does coal cost?
Sunlight costs nothing.
Coal costs something.
A solar plant cost less to build and run than a coal plant. There is no need to run a constant supply of coal by rail to the solar plant as the fuel used to run the solar plant is sunlight traveling through space, and then through the atmosphere.
Who is fooling whom?
A Solar Panel on a home eliminates all the costs of pushing electricity though all those high voltage wires running from central electric power plants to each home.
A person can now buy an electric car and save 80% on each mile traveled and reduce the travel cost per mile even more by changing from coal burning electricity to home produced electricity with solar panels.
Why are these guys lying?
They say that ethanol is not cost effective. Why is ethanol sold in Brazil, right at the pump with petroleum fuel?
Even if ethanol was marginally cost effective relative to petroleum, then algae as an organic source of power, used to make motor fuel, is much more cost effective because algae grows much faster than other organic plants.
Ha, ha, ha, they laugh, while they either lie willfully, or while they pass on lies unwilling.
Either way the facts are not reported and their job is left undone, unless their job is to keep the victims ignorant.