Good... perhaps I can try my approach from the angle opened up by the problem of writing off capital investments in a "debt saturated" western economy:
The bailout of the large financial institutions was an example of the kind of 'panic' that results when a massive write-off of capital investments occurs. In that instance, there was a choice as to whether to bailout the debt-loaded population so they could service their debts, or whether to bail out the financial institutions so they could, for example, foreclose and evict the population from their homes and let those homes be overtaken by squatters, weeds, mildew algae growing in their swimming pools. The system made a decision: Evict the population and centralize assets in the hands of the financial institutions. If you recall during this period there were serious proposals in the major financial press for the government to mobilize the physical destruction of "excess" housing resulting from the centralization of real wealth. This was an "intelligent" decision from some interests' perspectives and it was a "stupid" decision from others' perspective. Of course, the new-homeless didn't care whether it was intelligent or stupid -- conspiratorial or accidental -- it was just downright evil from their perspective. Viewing the system that made this decision as exhibiting unenlightened self-interest, we can invoke my saying "Never attribute to sheer stupidity that which can be explained by unenlightened self-interest." In other words, the system was acting "intelligently" here but only from some perspectives. There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the proper development and deployment of LENR. It is "intelligent" in that sense and it has no incentive to become "enlightened" about its self-interest. There are therefore two questions in modeling this "intelligence": 1) What is the actual authority structure? 2) What is the actual incentive structure? Analyze those two structures and something might be done. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's > benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and > apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The > West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many > parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add > something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of > oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible > outcome. For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the > cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit > goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, > resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad > debt. > > Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators > and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think > what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling > to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and > a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless > the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the > West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort > will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how > the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution. > > Ed > > On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: > > Dear Jed, >> >> On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>> Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first >>> world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, >>> since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we >>> import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a >>> tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear >>> power plants. >>> >> >> You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on >> lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. >> However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. >> I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) >> perception of how the world is "managed". >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rob >> >> >
