It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Lee the Pea wrote (see)
SQTMS = Sub-Quality Thread Material Stu?Hehehehe
SQTMS = Sub-Quality Thread Material Stu?
FMPL - like! (Although hope i don't! erk)
Wasting time ??
This is Stu's life you are dismissing so readily
STU - in answer to your question..... no I don't think that the whole of the nation should avoid credit because many people can manage it.
It's like drink.
An alcoholic should probably avoid.
I don't need to.
If you have an addictive personality you probably find many things to become addicted to. I can see that. But it is you and only you that chooses to follow the media crap.
Well, I watched the first "technology" video, where it talks about beaming energy down from geostationary solar panels in space. It mentions a lot of advantages and no disadvantages. Clean safe energy, infinitely renewable, with no greenhouse emissions, no pollution or radioactive waste, etc. Sounds good.
Then I went to wikipedia and read a balanced discussion of the topic, which acknowledges those points, but also considers the costs of putting a (say) 80,000 ton solar power station into orbit, the damage that the fuel of the vast number of rockets to get it up there would do to the upper atmosphere, the capital costs, and so on. They seemed to feel it might be a goer, if we could mine the materials to build it from the moon or the asteroids. Eventually.
I think the tendency of the ZM video to present only one side of the picture, with no mention of costs or timescales, tells me what I need to know. I see they are raising funds, not to build a solar power station, but to make yet another film.
Mike TZM is about using technology to benefit the whole planet and provide what we need in the most sustainable way. It is dead against the consumerism that has blighted the USA and us. Theyt are for the abolishment of "money" for a start. Please Mike watch one of the videos (I know they are long). Thing is we have technology to craete stuff that will last and meet the "needs" of all. You got a very wrong picture I am afraid.
I am gonna look for summat for you that will hopefully demonstrate what TZM is truly about.
here you are Mike off there own webpage
Corinthian wrote (see)
- but capitalism needs to be managed by the people who we vote for in our interests as the electorate not in the interest of the financial elite– because largely our interests are not congruent.
Can you see the situation getting better or worse Corinth.? I can only see a financial elite continuing doing what it is doing regardless of the rest of us tbh. I cannot see a time when they will really start listening. They demand we consume with scant regard to our planet and world poverty. If us humans cannot create a better system than that, I will hang my head in shame about being human . TZM at least considers the planet and puts human needs squarely where they belong - in first place.
mike - I would really like you look deeper into it with an open mind which I know you generally have. It is not perfect but nothing humanly produced is. The good thing is , the focus is squarely on human needs and the sustainability of the planet. Nothing inherently wrong with technology -it can be used for good or "evil". We tend to invest in technology to destroy people or mooch around a distant rock. Let us look after the earth and its inhabitants please!! That is what I say.
Nowt inherently wrong in a planned economy it depends what the plan is and what the plans are based on and who or what determines the carrying out. We can use our scientific (social and physical) to be the determinants of what is done. Any vagueries (and there will be some-lol) will be researched furter. Decisions can be based on that.
Stu - it seems cyclical, we're like that pube circling the plug hole and when we eventually gurgle down the drain something else will emerge in its place. I've no idea what it will be - and to be honest, I don't really give a shit, because I'll be worm food by then
I will try my damnedest to keep alive until summat better comes along.
personally I think we will be fucked up in five and forced into an alternative. Would prefer folk acted towards one sooner but am doubtful most of the time.
nicely put, Corinthian.
I agree, and would only add that it was made worse because the landlord felt free to gamble like that, because he knew the government had passed a law saying if he lost it all, they'd bail him out. That must never happen again.
STU - wrote (see)
mike - I would really like you look deeper into it with an open mind which I know you generally have.
We agree on more than you might imagine, I think. I too don't fully believe in the "free choice" that people talk about.
Where people are claiming benefits and avoiding work, for example, or buying giant tellies that they don't really need, (or even for that matter cheating on their parliamentary expenses or paying themselves excessive bonuses), I am not inclined to put it all down to "greed" or "idleness" -- I think a lot of it is the culture they find themselves in and the way the system works. I don't think we can "resocialise" people not to be like that -- because the problem isn't them being like that in the first place. And I don't think we can just "change the culture". How? We just need to change the way the systems work, for example the benefits system or the governance of top executives pay.
Personally, I don't think capitalism is the problem -- it's the greenest, most productive, most efficient system we have.
the government is increasingly a puppet of the financial elite, surely. I can only see it being the case. Isn't that the nature of the free market many seem to so dearly love? We wouldn't want the state interfering and controlling it would we? -lol
They are all part of the same crowd.
We certainly don't want the state controlling it directly -- then it really is exactly the same people being the government and the financial elite -- the worst possible situation. Better separation of the two is what you need, stop them colluding.
Mike I wish government would truly represent the needs of those who put 'em into office regardless of the financial elite. We are under the eliute's control. Big banks threaten to pull out of the country if we ask them to pay there fair share of tax. Companies pull out if they are asked to contibute to wider social benefit or simply because they can employ some poor sods for 50p an our and not have to offer them decent working conditions. They have governmen by the balls under this system. I wu;ld like to believe otherwise but honestly do not find enough to convince me.
this is what we have in my opinion-lol (only a couple of minutes) apart from I see capitalism per se not just a form of it as a problem (to me it is inherent )