I just agree with you Randy. Better explained than I did:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros
www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote: > You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of > scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies > designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited > resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing > today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie > can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially > restricting its growth. > > > > This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because > they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people > are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of > their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they > think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on > and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is > rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a > slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he > slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice > does he fix the swing. > > > > In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the > limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will > contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no > limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most > would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and > you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie > and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we > need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that > will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just > causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in > the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. > Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the > money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s > growth? > > > > It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of > progress today. > > > > Ransom > > > > *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM > > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? > > > > Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle > artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of > accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a > little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing "an > automobile is coming". We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress > even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a > new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions > and reap the benefits. > > I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of > us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As > I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and > use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. > > We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we > can ask them to give us something back. > > We can share . > > I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and > no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. > > I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and > provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as > workforce do that just for the paycheck. > > I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to > reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many > years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt > there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those > who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation > not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly > quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see > hope at least in the long term. > > In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to > enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we > may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it > will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, > might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need > do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes > can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have > believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a > TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The > changes have been remarkable and swift. > > I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely > require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to > our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not > to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take > many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of > employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will > become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be > greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be > much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a > guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. > > As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will > be bright. > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? > > In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The > > percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in > > labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish > much > > as many ex-auto workers can tell you. > > > > I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once > > jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical > > change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade > > deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export > > industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase > in > > part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. > > > > Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as > the > > US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic > > upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com > <cchayniepub...@gmail.com?>] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? > > > > You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but > these > > sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of industry. > > Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any > > opposition to this solution "does not make sense." But you wouldn't try to > solve > > any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose > > science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your > > solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there is > no > > way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could > opt-out. I > > sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask > that > > you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, and > > your proposed solution. > > > > Craig > > > > > > On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > > > I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent > > > unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is > > > one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a > > > large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the > > > results are fascinating. > > > Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be > > > seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major > > > difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does > > > not make sense. > > > > > > Thanks for linking the video. > > > > > > Adrian Ashfield > > > > >
