|
On May 29 2012 09:48 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 10:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 09:24 DeliCiousVP wrote:Could you guys not qoute it with all the pictures in it takes alot of space. just mark it copy it and add qoutation marks. So, why is it "monetary expensive" but not "resource expensive"? Give me a full breakdown here, I'm super curious. Because of the incentive to manipulate markets to gain a profit. Such as projected scarcity, Strategic patent blocking, Lack of monetary gain from solving a problem to name a few. I will focus more on technology right now Ignoring monetary cost and only recognizing Resource cost which is not to be considered the same. If you have issues recognizing this fact do please play a "hypotheticall" experminent with me in which you are having a "psychosis" that assumes this. So how do you calculate 'resource cost'? I think we've been asking for the math on that for 30+ pages now. The planets carrying capacity that is how much resources we can get per year using the most advanced and efficient technology available and the yearly revjuvination of the planet for example. We demand X earth provides Y We recycle Z amount If XZ is higher than Y we are okay. if XZ is higher than Y We would even further prioritize Substitue, Investigate possible value shifts and technology regarding maximizing potential usage recycling and extraction methods(If in a emergancy we can deplete earths resources) If this answer is not enough for you, And you want an even more advanced and further detailed answer i can ask the enginners. That being said if you do belive that the monetary system is calculating and managing resource cost efficently and practical you are not worth their time. Ok thanks. Clearly you have no answer. There is no such thing as the 'carrying capacity' of how much iron we can extract out of the earth. There is no 'carrying capacity' for an oil refinery's capacity... etc, etc, etc. A resource based economy remains a mathematical impossibility. FYI everyone, DeliCiousVP has created is own thread. I guess that means this thread can now be murdered and it's head placed on a spike, as a warning to future generations that there is nothing more destructive than stupid. http://endofcapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/exponent.jpgwarning for future generations: avoid capitalism at all costs
Look guys, it's a graph with no supporting documentation from a blog and therefore capitalism is the worst thing in the history of the world!
Of all the metrics, the stuff posted in this thread as "evidence" or an "arguement" are the reason I'm so disappointed in our educational system.
|
On May 29 2012 10:09 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 09:48 xeo1 wrote:On May 28 2012 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 10:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 09:24 DeliCiousVP wrote:Could you guys not qoute it with all the pictures in it takes alot of space. just mark it copy it and add qoutation marks. So, why is it "monetary expensive" but not "resource expensive"? Give me a full breakdown here, I'm super curious. Because of the incentive to manipulate markets to gain a profit. Such as projected scarcity, Strategic patent blocking, Lack of monetary gain from solving a problem to name a few. I will focus more on technology right now Ignoring monetary cost and only recognizing Resource cost which is not to be considered the same. If you have issues recognizing this fact do please play a "hypotheticall" experminent with me in which you are having a "psychosis" that assumes this. So how do you calculate 'resource cost'? I think we've been asking for the math on that for 30+ pages now. The planets carrying capacity that is how much resources we can get per year using the most advanced and efficient technology available and the yearly revjuvination of the planet for example. We demand X earth provides Y We recycle Z amount If XZ is higher than Y we are okay. if XZ is higher than Y We would even further prioritize Substitue, Investigate possible value shifts and technology regarding maximizing potential usage recycling and extraction methods(If in a emergancy we can deplete earths resources) If this answer is not enough for you, And you want an even more advanced and further detailed answer i can ask the enginners. That being said if you do belive that the monetary system is calculating and managing resource cost efficently and practical you are not worth their time. Ok thanks. Clearly you have no answer. There is no such thing as the 'carrying capacity' of how much iron we can extract out of the earth. There is no 'carrying capacity' for an oil refinery's capacity... etc, etc, etc. A resource based economy remains a mathematical impossibility. FYI everyone, DeliCiousVP has created is own thread. I guess that means this thread can now be murdered and it's head placed on a spike, as a warning to future generations that there is nothing more destructive than stupid. http://endofcapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/exponent.jpgwarning for future generations: avoid capitalism at all costs Look guys, it's a graph with no supporting documentation from a blog and therefore capitalism is the worst thing in the history of the world! Of all the metrics, the stuff posted in this thread as "evidence" or an "arguement" are the reason I'm so disappointed in our educational system.
If that graph has any merit at all, it is to show that industrialization is bad for the environment. But it doesn't even show what it's measuring, how it's measuring, sources, etc. so I guess it doesn't show anything at all. Kinda fits in with the theme of this thread 
|
On May 29 2012 12:53 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 10:09 ey215 wrote:On May 29 2012 09:48 xeo1 wrote:On May 28 2012 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 10:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 28 2012 09:24 DeliCiousVP wrote:Could you guys not qoute it with all the pictures in it takes alot of space. just mark it copy it and add qoutation marks. So, why is it "monetary expensive" but not "resource expensive"? Give me a full breakdown here, I'm super curious. Because of the incentive to manipulate markets to gain a profit. Such as projected scarcity, Strategic patent blocking, Lack of monetary gain from solving a problem to name a few. I will focus more on technology right now Ignoring monetary cost and only recognizing Resource cost which is not to be considered the same. If you have issues recognizing this fact do please play a "hypotheticall" experminent with me in which you are having a "psychosis" that assumes this. So how do you calculate 'resource cost'? I think we've been asking for the math on that for 30+ pages now. The planets carrying capacity that is how much resources we can get per year using the most advanced and efficient technology available and the yearly revjuvination of the planet for example. We demand X earth provides Y We recycle Z amount If XZ is higher than Y we are okay. if XZ is higher than Y We would even further prioritize Substitue, Investigate possible value shifts and technology regarding maximizing potential usage recycling and extraction methods(If in a emergancy we can deplete earths resources) If this answer is not enough for you, And you want an even more advanced and further detailed answer i can ask the enginners. That being said if you do belive that the monetary system is calculating and managing resource cost efficently and practical you are not worth their time. Ok thanks. Clearly you have no answer. There is no such thing as the 'carrying capacity' of how much iron we can extract out of the earth. There is no 'carrying capacity' for an oil refinery's capacity... etc, etc, etc. A resource based economy remains a mathematical impossibility. FYI everyone, DeliCiousVP has created is own thread. I guess that means this thread can now be murdered and it's head placed on a spike, as a warning to future generations that there is nothing more destructive than stupid. http://endofcapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/exponent.jpgwarning for future generations: avoid capitalism at all costs Look guys, it's a graph with no supporting documentation from a blog and therefore capitalism is the worst thing in the history of the world! Of all the metrics, the stuff posted in this thread as "evidence" or an "arguement" are the reason I'm so disappointed in our educational system. If that graph has any merit at all, it is to show that industrialization is bad for the environment. But it doesn't even show what it's measuring, how it's measuring, sources, etc. so I guess it doesn't show anything at all. Kinda fits in with the theme of this thread
It doesn't even show that, without any unit of measurement on the Y-axis or baseline values for comparison it's just "lines on the graph going up is bad! Because."
|
|
|
You don't work 'for money'. You work for the goods and services that money provides as a medium of indirect exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
