Stupid World

[mashman]

I'd say that's because they weren't clever enough to become something more advanced than a stone aged society completely unable to take advantage of the possibilities offered by the 20th century let alone one capable of responding to any sort of disaster.

But it's not all that's available to them. In fact a massively inefficient water maker is probably one of the very last things they'd want.

Nope. I'd rather use whatever I had at hand to survive, and that's exactly what would happen.

Bit harsh given that all they need is investment. I guess they don't have anything that anyone else wants and therefore are nothing more than a stone aged society because of the lack of available to them.

I'm sure the people that are dying of cholera might see things differently.

Good for you.

[blue rider]

.........

I believe a fair wack of forest was in fact destroyed in that disaster, yes. That'd suggest a fair bit of firewood should be fairly readily available, no? In any case the cheapest effective method of producing heat would seem to be the best approach, yes?

actually deforestation in Haiti is a big problem and has been so for some time....

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


continue

[Ocean1]

Which linky did you follow?

The one you plucked the graph from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...nergy_invested

How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers. A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.

The money when it is created is plucked out of thin air. There may well be an asset that its creation can be valued against, but given that you end up paying back approx x times the value of a house or $x of interest, those x's are plucked out of thin air and created as debt. That debt has to go somewhere and it usually goes towards creating more money x times over i.e. plucked out of thin air time x. Believe what you will, but it is an infinite resource.

Nope. It's as finite as the assets it represents. If it isn't money representing the value of an existing asset or the part of an asset represented by borrowed money then it doesn't get pulled from anywhere. You're no better at that shit than you are at inventing watermakers, I'd find something else to become an expert in if you don't want to look any more silly than you already do.

I wonder how much the wood costs? I wonder how long it will last? And yes, as I have stated repeatedly, the cheapest effective method would be the best... and from my perspective given that they're "cleaning" water to drink/survive, I care not how efficient the method is. Get it yet?

Why would you assume it costs anything? Seeing as how the only people wanting it can't pay for it I'd be surprised if there was any market for it at all. As for how long it'll last I have no idea, I'd say a bigger problem would be teaching them they have to use it. And how.

And yes, I get it, you don't care how effective or practical your ideas are, you're still right.

[mashman]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/...on-production/

an interesting read, again

but but but but but but human nature denies that those sorts of things can take place, even though they did take place, the really can't take place .

Good read muchos grassy arse.

[Ocean1]

actually deforestation in Haiti is a big problem and has been so for some time....

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


continue

Yes, but if easy money is a good enough reason to destroy your forests then I'm pretty sure it's OK to burn enough of it to boil water until you can develop a better plan, no?

[Ocean1]

Bit harsh given that all they need is investment.

Correct. Like everyone else they need to invest in their own future, because nobody else can do it for them.

[mashman]

The one you plucked the graph from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...nergy_invested

Will give that a read a little later.

Nope. It's as finite as the assets it represents. If it isn't money representing the value of an existing asset or the part of an asset represented by borrowed money then it doesn't get pulled from anywhere. You're no better at that shit than you are at inventing watermakers, I'd find something else to become an expert in if you don't want to look any more silly than you already do.

Fuck off. QE, must buy bonds, oh where do you get the bonds from, oh the govt creates them (out of thin air) with the promise to pay a higher rate than they're actually worth at the time of issue . I'm not looking to be an expert, but I can accept money for what it really is and it's anything but the definition you give to it these days... which is just plain naive.

Why would you assume it costs anything? Seeing as how the only people wanting it can't pay for it I'd be surprised if there was any market for it at all. As for how long it'll last I have no idea, I'd say a bigger problem would be teaching them they have to use it. And how.

And yes, I get it, you don't care how effective or practical your ideas are, you're still right.

Given that they've survived so far, I'm guessing they're using it. Tis a shame that they need to pay for anything given the shit they're in. Yet another moronic rule of the free market economy.

It ain't a case of being right, so no, you don't get it.

[mashman]

Correct. Like everyone else they need to invest in their own future, because nobody else can do it for them.

Do you mean print their own money?

[bogan]

ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... I'm sure they wouldn't if noone had given them anything else to use .

Its a bit like giving out free vaccine, but filling half of them with just water. Helpful to some, but you're still an arsehole for halfassing it.

[Ocean1]

Fuck off. QE, must buy bonds, oh where do you get the bonds from, oh the govt creates them (out of thin air) with the promise to pay a higher rate than they're actually worth at the time of issue . I'm not looking to be an expert, but I can accept money for what it really is and it's anything but the definition you give to it these days... which is just plain naive.

So, bonds is the way government borrows money to pay for shit, yes? So there's actual assets connected with the money, yes? Can you tell me what percentage of the money currently in circulation in the economy doesn't represent assets?

Given that they've survived so far, I'm guessing they're using it. Tis a shame that they need to pay for anything given the shit they're in. Yet another moronic rule of the free market economy.

So they've got fuel and they're surviving, so what's all the bullshit about?

And they don't have any money, so they're obviously not paying for anything.

And a free market is the only possible sort, anything else isn't a market, fool.

It ain't a case of being right, so no, you don't get it.

But it is a case of being right. And you're not. So stop pretending that you've got all the answers for problems you actually know fuck all about.

[mashman]

Its a bit like giving out free vaccine, but filling half of them with just water. Helpful to some, but you're still an arsehole for halfassing it.

Cheeky fuckknuckle... I care not how accurate your statement is (even if your example is shit) you almost made me cry.

[mashman]

So, bonds is the way government borrows money to pay for shit, yes? So there's actual assets connected with the money, yes? Can you tell me what percentage of the money currently in circulation in the economy doesn't represent assets?

Where does the asset (bond) come from? I can't tell you how much represents the value of the assets on the planet. But given that they can manipulate the price of anything they wish too, including the value of the debt, I see that as a moot question. ALL money is debt because it carries interest and is created from the promise of even more debt.

So they've got fuel and they're surviving, so what's all the bullshit about?

And they don't have any money, so they're obviously not paying for anything.

And a free market is the only possible sort, anything else isn't a market, fool.

Dunno, some folk decided that I was talking about something entirely different... although I did learn some stuff and did extra reading too.

Yes but the stuff they could do with costs money that they don't have even though the could really do with it.

But it ain't free.

But it is a case of being right. And you're not. So stop pretending that you've got all the answers for problems you actually know fuck all about.

Not for me it isn't. And I certainly shan't honour that request.

[gwigs]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333998/?ref_=sr_1
A good watch for people interested in what is going on ....
100 mpg in 1947...

[gwigs]

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/e...s/?page_id=787
This guy....They killed him...

[Scuba_Steve]

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/e...s/?page_id=787
This guy....They killed him...

Well patent exists... I'll leave someone more technical/enthusiastic than I to read through it