"doog" <doog@toz.it.na> wrote in message news:420C3BCC.4040701@toz.it.na...

http://www.the7thfire.com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_scam_to_promote_world_depopulation.htm

Money is a new and terrible form of slavery, and like the old form of
personal slavery it demoralizes both slave and slave-owner, only much
more, for it frees the slave and the slave owner from personal, human
relations with one another. — Nikoli Tolstoy, What Must We Do?, 1886
===

Economic freedom (capitalism, property rights), intellectual freedom
(science and technology) and self-interest makes societies prosperous.
Strong, utopian government leads to unemployment, poverty, emigration
and famine. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in practice in
countries all over the world. Yet ignorant thinkers continue to resist
these ideas even today.

http://humphrys.humanists.net/capitalism.html

Want and greed are why humanity today is freer, healthier and more
comfortable than it's ever been. Nearly every significant innovation,
invention or improvement that man has so far come up with resulted from
the innovator, the inventor or the improver's desire to better his own
condition, or, put differently, to get more stuff. It is 'greed' and the
want of stuff that drives us to work longer hours, to build better
mousetraps, and to take the kinds of risks that shake up the
marketplace, and move the whole system forward.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3436

What is capitalism good at? Well, let's just take accepted wisdom as our
guide on this question: If we take as our example the economic system of
the US, which is what we might call Extreme Capitalism, we can certainly
say that capitalism excels in producing things. I don't think there can
be much question about that. These things are all over the place. My
goodness, what a huge amount of stuff. And the packaging the stuff comes
in, good gravy, what a lot of paper and cardboard and glass and
cellophane, it's all over the place. And the advertisements for all the
stuff, well, it's just all over the place. Probably 90 percent of our
information resources are devoted to educating people about all the
stuff available for purchase under extreme capitalism.

So capitalism is good at producing stuff.

Another piece of accepted wisdom about what capitalism is good at says
this: capitalism spurs invention, technology, achievement in general.
Now we all know what losers the Russians were in this regard under
Soviet Communism. They had this guy, Doctor Lysenko, who set them back a
good half-century. But that was more a factor of their lack of democracy
than of their lack of capitalism, I think. I mean, after they got rid of
Lysenko, they put a man in space before we did. So capitalism didn't get
us into space before them, and what spurred us to beat them to the moon
wasn't capitalism, but a kind of national one-upmanship. I mean, the
space program was state-funded – kind of like under communism.

http://www.mejeffdorchen.oblivio.com/moments/moment_capitalismgood.html

...the profit motive that drives a free market creates incentives to use
resources as efficiently as possible. After going through the trouble
and expense of obtaining virgin resources, firms have an incentive to
pass any unused portion through the economy instead of dumping it in the
back yard. At the same time, the right of individuals "down stream" to
seek damages for excessive negative environmental impacts has always
provided incentives to moderate pollution.

Of course, one never hears this argument from the activists who will be
boarding the plane to Johannesburg this weekend. That's because it stirs
up an idea that makes environmentalists distinctly uncomfortable -- that
the rational interests of business really aren't that far apart from the
interests of society at large.

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/234.html

Despite wide disagreements over the precise definition of capitalism,
and arguments over which economies are capitalist and to what degree, a
set of broad characteristics are generally agreed on by both advocates
and critics of capitalism. These are a private sector, property rights,
economic growth, economic mobility, unequal distribution of wealth,
competition, evolving entrepreneurial networks and social arrangements,
and the existence of free markets like the labor market.

(Advantages of Capitalism)

Collection of wealth in relatively few hands serves a function that in
the end benefits all.

Capitalist economies concentrate wealth in the hands of those that are
the most productive in terms of providing goods and services that
society values.

The prospect of becoming wealthier than others serves as an incentive to
produce.

A significant cause of poverty is the lack of capitalism.

Capitalism hasn't been properly implemented yet.

Wealth distribution concentrated in the hands of the minority of
individuals is the natural outcome of capitalism since being more
productive than others is a matter of being willing to exert oneself and
most people are naturally content to "just get by" with minimal effort.

Financial markets and banks where most wealth is stored act as a means
of redistribution of wealth (see banking and stock market). Some say
that this causes the simple dollar amounts assigned to a persons "net
worth" to be completely misleading and inflated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Several years ago, a Black economist named Thomas Sowell conducted a
study on why Africans and American Indians fell behind Europe and Asia.
What he found is that for 10,000 years, farming was the primary means of
supporting oneself. Europe and Asia go East-West, while Africa and the
Americas go North-South. Climate remains the same as you go east-west,
but changes as you go north-south. As such, any farming-related
invention in Spain could be used in France, Germany, Poland, Russia,
etc. as long as you stay on the same latitude. Thus, Europeans and
Asians could exchange farming innovations, while Africans and Indians
could not because farming changes as you go north or south.

Looking at history, we find that for a long time, empires appeared only
in the “center of the world” – the Middle East and east Mediterranean,
which is at the crossroads of Europe, Africa and Asia.

Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Persia and the Ottoman Empire are
all from that region. Meanwhile, several major religions came out of
Israel. Why? Because the people of that region were able to absorb the
knowledge from almost the whole Eastern Hemisphere, while others were
more isolated.

As water travel improved enough to allowed ships to travel around the
world, countries with access to oceans began to dominate – Spain,
France, England, Portugal and even the tiny Holland. These countries
were then replaced by the United States, a country with a constant flow
of immigrants from all over the world.

It is true that not every country located in key location is going to be
a mega-power, since there can only be very few super-powers. But history
shows that the only countries that succeeded are the countries located
in places that allowed them to borrow knowledge.

Take a look at Germany. It is located in the middle of Europe, allowing
it to borrow knowledge from West, East, South and North Europe. Yet, it
does not have easy access to non-European countries. Thus, it has always
been a successful country, but never emerged as a super-power for a
significant time (a few years in the 1940’s is not a long time).

In the view of anti-globalists, each country should isolate itself and
find an “indigenous” solution. To suggest that any knowledge can be
gained from the evil Western morons is racist.

I disagree. All the people of the world can contribute and those who
keep themselves isolated from others will be left behind. Some of the
isolated Pacific islands did not even know how to make fire when they
were invaded just a few centuries ago. That is the by-product of isolation.

I also disagree that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world and
if one country succeeds, another must fail. There is no manna from God
that needs to be divided. Natural resources are treated by people who
don’t understand economics as the source of wealth. Yet, no respectable
economist would make such a ridiculous statement. Modern economies
become rich because they invest, develop and improve products and
services. Only tiny nations with vast amounts of natural resources, such
as Kuwait, can rely on God’s gifts.

Since embracing world trade and moving away from Communist policies in
favor of what is increasingly a free-market, China has become a major
producer of world goods. We do not suffer because Chinese are doing
better today than 25 years ago. We benefit from it because we can buy
goods that are cheaper or better or just more desirable. Likewise if
Africa, North Korea and all the other countries embrace proper economic
policies, including free-trade and globalization, we will again benefit
from the products of their brains and labor.

Development is truly a win-win preposition. The people who invent,
develop or improve goods can make a profit, while all others can now
benefit from better or cheaper goods. And it also frees up companies and
people currently producing undesirable goods to produce other products.
Thus, not only will the West not suffer if the Third World develops its
economy, it will actually benefit greatly. The theory that there is a
conspiracy by the West to keep the Third World down is preposterous for
the simple reason that the West would benefit from development of Third
World countries, much the same way it benefited from economic progress
in China and India, as well as Japan, South Korea, Spain and Greece in
past decades.

When the United States signed a free-trade agreement (NAFTA) with
Mexico, it was claimed by anti-globalists that (1) Americans will be
starving on the streets of New York and Los Angeles because all jobs
will be stolen by Mexicans; and simultaneously that (2) Americans will
get rich robbing Mexicans.

Yet, by any objective measure, Free Trade, in general, and NAFTA, in
particular, has been a spectacular success. Not only did trade with
Mexico triple in 10 years, but unemployment also went down to historical
lows at 3.9% The manufacturing output of the United States increased by
41% in the 10 years following NAFTA, compared to 34% in the 10 years
preceding it. [Daniel T. Griswold, 2004. After 10 Years, NAFTA Continues
to Pay Dividends. [Online. Cited May 8, 2004] Cato Institute. Available
from the World Wide Web: (http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-08-04.html)]
Moreover, the Economist (United Kingdom) reported that despite the
outcry about outsourcing of American jobs, "at the national level, more
jobs are outsourced to America than the other way around. American
workers, in other words, are net beneficiaries of outsourcing (it goes
without saying that consumers always were). And in the cross-border
trade of white-collar services, a chief concern, America's surplus with
the rest of the world is not shrinking; it is growing." [Economist,
April 7, 2004. When Good News Spells Trouble. [Online. Cited May 14,
2004] Available on the World Wide Web at:
(http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2572245)]
Additionally, many jobs are created in the United States as a result of
outsourcing. For example, cheaper goods are sold in higher volume, which
means more jobs for salespeople, advertisers, store managers, drivers
and transporters of the goods, store janitors, and all the other people
associated with shopping or that surround shopping centers (e.g., a
restaurant in a mall that benefits from an increasing number of visitors
to stores).

As the longest economic boom in American history came to an end due to
(1) economic cycles; (2) bursting of the hi-tech bubble; (3) September
11; and (4) Corporate scandals, some have begun to blame free trade
agreements. Yet, compare this recession to others. Unemployment never
rose above 5.6% and the recession was one of the quickest in history.

Mexico similarly benefited from the tens of thousands of jobs created
there. Mexicans who work for American companies were not the only ones
who enjoy the by-products of NAFTA. More jobs means higher demand for
workers, while the supply of workers remains the same. As employers, of
any nationality, are faced with fewer and fewer job applicants, they are
forced to raise salaries to attract workers. It also forces employers to
provide better benefits, and generally to refrain from behavior that may
drive their employees to competitors. Thus, foreign investment benefits
everyone and not just those working for foreign companies.

Compare NAFTA to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, raising tariffs on
more than 200 products, causing not only the American economy, but
economies world-wide to spin into a Depression. As a result of tariffs,
cheaper or better foreign goods could not make their way into the United
States, while American goods could not be traded overseas without a
severe competitive disadvantage. Already, farmers could not participate
in the prosperity of the Roaring-1920’s because of the Fordney-McCumber
Tariff of 1922, causing tremendous hardship for rural communities while
everyone else was prospering. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the
same economic devastation in the urban and suburban areas as the
Fordney-McCumber Act caused among farmers. In the wool industry alone,
the 1930 Act caused 60,000 people to lose jobs after the tariffs on wool
rags was increased by 140%. [Lawrence Reed, 1998. Great Myths of the
Great Depression. [Online. Cited May 10, 2004] Mackinac Center for
Public Policy. Available from World Wide Web:
(http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)] Politicians
thought that they could force Americans to buy U.S.-made goods, thus
solving the problem of increasing unemployment. However, international
trade is a two-way street and, naturally, foreign countries raised their
tariffs as well. Additionally, foreign companies operating in the United
States were often forced to close doors, resulting in job losses in
industries from sales to advertising.

Within months after the enactment of the 1930 Tariffs, unemployment
skyrocketed from around 6% (roughly where it was before the Stock Market
Crash of 1929) to almost 15%. [Richard K. Vedder & Lowell E. Gallaway,
Out of Work, Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America.
New York University Press, 1993, 1997, p. 78.]

Without the previously established foreign traders, many goods could no
longer be sold. While facilities, man-power and even reserves were meant
for pre-tariff days, there was no market for the goods produced. Thus,
prices plummeted. The price of a bushel of wheat went down 70%. Overall,
consumer prices dropped 25%. [Ibid.]

The above has proven true all over the world. Countries that rejected
globalization and the free-market have suffered.

Additionally, it must be said that the point of working is not merely to
work. If that were true, then why not make the whole population to just
dig useless holes and then fill them up? The point of working is to
produce goods and services that others want. If Mexicans or Chinese can
create products that are better or cheaper or just more desirable than
those made by American companies, then American businesses should either
improve or do something else that consumers actually want. To force
consumers to purchase goods they don’t want makes the world economy
worse. By letting each company or country to produce the best goods –
“best” as judged by what consumers choose to spend money on – we make
the world economy better for the simple reason that everyone is
producing better goods, thus the overall world product becomes better.

Globalization alone is not enough. Countries must also create
business-friendly environments. When countries impose huge tax rates
upon business and investors, they simply chase them away – and get no
tax revenue at all. Is it any wonder that Cameroon (60% income tax),
Ethiopia (89%) and Zimbabwe (45% plus another 30% surcharge on top of
that) are poor?! [http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3011]

When huge taxes are imposed, it causes (1) corruption by people trying
to avoid being robbed by the government; (2) withdrawal of investment.
Withdrawn investment means development of oppressive monopolies (since
there is often not enough after-tax income to be divided among multiple
companies), high prices (to allow companies to pay taxes and still get a
return on their investment) and low salaries (again to pay taxes and
also because companies don’t have to compete for workers in a high-tax
environment that causes monopolies to emerge).

The movement against free trade is nothing more than xenophobia and
racism. The anti-globalist left hates Westerners. The anti-globalist
right hates Third World people. Both are trying to isolate themselves
from the world through high tariffs and high taxes. Neither the
anti-globalist left nor the anti-globalist right is democratic,
preferring that power-hungry, often-corrupt politicians decide for the
people, rather than to allow the people themselves to decide what they
want to buy, who they want to work for and where they want to invest.

http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=324

I am in doubt of Peak Oil concept. I listened to some interviews on the
globalpublicmedia.com
and found that those people all spread all sorts of unsolicited evidences
and claims, for example
using water in human body as an awkward analogy to the oil & gas, converting
to localized
communities, immobilized cities when there is no oil, alternative energy
source like solar & wind
won't save the earth etc. These claims erodes the credibility of the peak
oil advocalists.

I am suspicious these to be a propaganda compaign by the oil & gas industry
in order to justify
their price manipulation and to pop up the gas prices.

"doog" <doog@toz.it.na> wrote in message news:420C3BCC.4040701@toz.it.na...

Clearly, peak oil/mass death is a byproduct of monied madness. Peak oil
claims are designed to justify mass death in order to ensure the health
of monied madness.
===
Money is a new and terrible form of slavery, and like the old form of
personal slavery it demoralizes both slave and slave-owner, only much
more, for it frees the slave and the slave owner from personal, human
relations with one another. — Nikoli Tolstoy, What Must We Do?, 1886
===
Pelatiah Webster says of this paper and the continental currency: "We
have suffered more from this cause than from any other cause or
calamity. It has killed more men, pervaded and corrupted the choicest
interests of our country and done more injustice than even the arms and
artifices of our enemies." — John Knox, United States Notes, "Paper
Money A Cause of the Revolution," 1899
===
The love of money is the mother-city of all evils. — Diogenes, Apothegm,
c.350 BC
===
Revolted by the unscrupulous pursuit of wealth that marked the age, and
shocked by the splendor and luxury of some clergymen, Saint Francis of
Assisi, denounced money itself as a devil and a curse and bade his
followers despise it as dung. — Will Durant, The Age of Faith, 1950
===
"So I say to you, use your worldly wealth to win friends for yourselves,
so that when money is a thing of the past you may be received into an
eternal home. . . "No servant can be the slave of two masters; for
either he will hate the first and love the second, or he will be devoted
to the first and think nothing of the second. You cannot serve God and
Money." The Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed at
him. — Jesus (Luke 16, NEV)
===
Let there be a small country with few people,
Who, even having much machinery, don't use it.
Who take death seriously and don't wander far away.
Even though they have boats and carriages, they never ride in them.
Having armor and weapons, they never go to war.
Let them return to measurement by tying knots in rope. [Let them not
need Money. — Raquel]
Sweeten their food, give them nice clothes, a peaceful abode and a
relaxed life.
Even though the next country can be seen and its dogs and chickens can
be heard,
The people will grow old and die without visiting each others land.
—Tao Te Ching (#80), Translated by Charles Muller
===
Money is the sinews of war.
— Tacitus, Cicero, Plato, Massinger, James Payn, Libanius, James VI of
Scotland, Arthur Murphy, Plutarch, John Lyly, George Peele, George
Farquhar, Carlyle, Thomas Fuller, John Fletcher, Rabelias, Arthur Hull,
O. Henry, Michael Scott, etc., etc.
===
In Utopia all greed for money was entirely removed with the use of
money. What a mass of troubles was then cut away! What a crop of crimes
was then pulled up by the roots! Who does not know that fraud, theft,
rapine, quarrels, disorders, brawls, seditions, murders, treasons,
poisonings, which are avenged rather than restrained by daily
executions, die out with the destruction of money? Who does not know
that fear, anxiety, worries, toils, and sleepless nights will also
perish at the same time as money? What is more, poverty, which alone
money seemed to make poor, forthwith would itself dwindle and disappear
if money were entirely done away with everywhere. — Saint Thomas More,
Utopia, 1516
===

Why not simply call for an end to monied madness and learn to share for
the good of all our relations? How? Talk about ways to end monied
madness in order to live free from monied madness.

http://www.usuryfree.net
http://www.reformation.org/moneychangers.html
http://www.abolishmoney.com

All in-common goods/services free for the good of all.
Barter all un-common goods/services.

Hope this helps

Pass it on