If the concept of PO has any validity, environmental and economic crises will soon rock global capitalism. Anti-capitalistic movements will emerge and socialism will once more be a force.
Even now, if you scan the world for successful adaptations to post-peak, would you choose the US or Cuba as a model? The US is currently in fantasyland as far as Peak Oil is concerned. Theoretically, capitalism could adapt to expensive energy, but what signs are there of any preparation?
In the past, capitalism has shown great resilience; it's been able to adapt and reform its way out of any number of crises. But will capitalism be able to survive the coming crisis? I have my doubts.
To adapt to a crisis, the capitalist leadership must be able to see the shortcomings of the system and tinker with it enough to avert a revolution. But current US leadership is beset by hubris and is incapable of objective analysis.
Even among the pro-capitalists on the board (most with high IQs), we only hear Reaganesque feel-good slogans about capitalism. This will not cut it in the future.
PeakOil is You
New economic system for post-peak ?
by gg3 » Mon 07 Mar 2005, 06:04:23
Bart: or we could end up going for Fascism.
---
As MonteQuest well pointed out, capitalism is not identical with free enterprise. You can have a perfectly successful and profitable business that is stable for decades, but in capitalist terms it's a failure because it does not generate sufficient surplus (40% ROE) to attract investors.
Free enterprise means just that: the freedom to start and operate an enterprise as you choose.
No one in their right mind nowadays believes that this is an inherent evil, or that all productive enterprises should be owned by the state or by state-sanctioned collectives, or that the personal possessions of individuals should be confiscated or otherwise collectivized. In fact those positions are straw-men, and cheap substitutes for a reasoned arguement, and they should simply be ignored.
Capitalism is one particular subset of free enterprise, in which entrepreneurs attract outside capital and provide a return on that investment. In the abstract this isn't a problem. In practice it leads to the creation of vast entites whose actions have global impacts, and which are able to externalize costs (such as ecological damage and resource depletion) with virtually no accountability.
In libertarian terms the existence of "legal persons" (incorporated entities) with powers vastly exceeding those of any combination of real persons, corrupts both the market and the political process and must therefore be strictly limited.
If someone wants to argue in favor of the proposition that para-statal behemoths should be able to continue to foist externalized costs upon the general public, let's have at it.
---
Wealth vs. excess:
In the abstract there's no problem with individuals having vast personal wealth far beyond their actual needs.
In practice there are two fatal flaws.
One is the creation of aristocracy. The entire premise of our republic was that power is evil, power corrupts, and therefore power must be divided and subjected to checks and balances. Beyond a certain point, a surplus of money becomes an excess of power. The money itself isn't the problem (yet), the power it confers *is.* As a result, an economic aristocracy has arisen to fill the void of political aristocracy. But regardless of economic or political, the result is the same: extreme concentration of power that is anathema to a truly free people.
Two is the issue of distributional equity. In the past one could argue that wealth at one end of the spectrum did not cause poverty at the other end because the pie kept growing, and the rising tide lifted all boats. Anyone who was willing to work could get ahead, and the social safety net could take care of those who fell through the cracks.
However, what happens when the pie stops growing? That's the consensus of opinion about peak oil and similar Malthusian crises: No more growth. No more rising tide that lifts all boats.
At that point, material wealth becomes a zero-sum game: one person's gain is another's loss. If there are 100 people and a fixed supply of 100 widgets that does not grow, and I have three widgets, two other people have none. They can work as hard as they like, but they will still have none.
Here the "hoarder" standard becomes relevant: accumulation beyond a certain point is hoarding, in effect getting something you don't need and can't use, and thereby preventing someone else from having something they need in order to get by.
What do you do about someone who, in time of crisis, has a million cans of soup, a million half-gallon bottles of milk, a million loaves of bread, a million pounds of vegetables, a million pounds of rice, a million pounds of beans, a million bottles of ketchup, a million pounds of ground beef, and so on for another 992 items on the great grocery list...?
Notice that my list here comprises one thousand types of items, and a million of each item: in other words, a thousand million things, which in USA numerical usage, is a billion things.
Just let the implication of that sink in.
---
As MonteQuest well pointed out, capitalism is not identical with free enterprise. You can have a perfectly successful and profitable business that is stable for decades, but in capitalist terms it's a failure because it does not generate sufficient surplus (40% ROE) to attract investors.
Free enterprise means just that: the freedom to start and operate an enterprise as you choose.
No one in their right mind nowadays believes that this is an inherent evil, or that all productive enterprises should be owned by the state or by state-sanctioned collectives, or that the personal possessions of individuals should be confiscated or otherwise collectivized. In fact those positions are straw-men, and cheap substitutes for a reasoned arguement, and they should simply be ignored.
Capitalism is one particular subset of free enterprise, in which entrepreneurs attract outside capital and provide a return on that investment. In the abstract this isn't a problem. In practice it leads to the creation of vast entites whose actions have global impacts, and which are able to externalize costs (such as ecological damage and resource depletion) with virtually no accountability.
In libertarian terms the existence of "legal persons" (incorporated entities) with powers vastly exceeding those of any combination of real persons, corrupts both the market and the political process and must therefore be strictly limited.
If someone wants to argue in favor of the proposition that para-statal behemoths should be able to continue to foist externalized costs upon the general public, let's have at it.
---
Wealth vs. excess:
In the abstract there's no problem with individuals having vast personal wealth far beyond their actual needs.
In practice there are two fatal flaws.
One is the creation of aristocracy. The entire premise of our republic was that power is evil, power corrupts, and therefore power must be divided and subjected to checks and balances. Beyond a certain point, a surplus of money becomes an excess of power. The money itself isn't the problem (yet), the power it confers *is.* As a result, an economic aristocracy has arisen to fill the void of political aristocracy. But regardless of economic or political, the result is the same: extreme concentration of power that is anathema to a truly free people.
Two is the issue of distributional equity. In the past one could argue that wealth at one end of the spectrum did not cause poverty at the other end because the pie kept growing, and the rising tide lifted all boats. Anyone who was willing to work could get ahead, and the social safety net could take care of those who fell through the cracks.
However, what happens when the pie stops growing? That's the consensus of opinion about peak oil and similar Malthusian crises: No more growth. No more rising tide that lifts all boats.
At that point, material wealth becomes a zero-sum game: one person's gain is another's loss. If there are 100 people and a fixed supply of 100 widgets that does not grow, and I have three widgets, two other people have none. They can work as hard as they like, but they will still have none.
Here the "hoarder" standard becomes relevant: accumulation beyond a certain point is hoarding, in effect getting something you don't need and can't use, and thereby preventing someone else from having something they need in order to get by.
What do you do about someone who, in time of crisis, has a million cans of soup, a million half-gallon bottles of milk, a million loaves of bread, a million pounds of vegetables, a million pounds of rice, a million pounds of beans, a million bottles of ketchup, a million pounds of ground beef, and so on for another 992 items on the great grocery list...?
Notice that my list here comprises one thousand types of items, and a million of each item: in other words, a thousand million things, which in USA numerical usage, is a billion things.
Just let the implication of that sink in.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
by gg3 » Mon 07 Mar 2005, 06:46:41
I frequently see references made here to people building up stockpiles of supplies, and vowing to guard them with force if anyone should try to take them. Then comes the illogical extrapolation based on the idea of "property" as an abstraction: i.e. if it's wrong for someone to take your stash, it's wrong for someone to take the stash of the Man on the Hill.
Believe me, your stash is pathetic compared to that of the Man on the Hill. You have a few bags of rice and beans and a few guns & some ammo. He has billions of things, and weapons you can't even dream of. You have as much in common with him as an ant has with a hippopotamus.
The Man on the Hill is not your wealthy neighbor. Your wealthy neighbor might have one decimal place more than you. The Man on the Hill has four decimal places more than you. If you don't know what four decimal places look like in terms of real physical stuff, you should try the exercise of counting it out, using tangible physical objects. Preferably something small and cheap like grains of rice.
Let one grain of rice = $100,000 in net equity.
You own your house? Have a hundred thousand in net equity? Count one grain of rice for yourself. Give yourself another grain of rice for your retirement accounts and stock portfolio even if they're worth less than another hundred thousand.
Count ten grains of rice for your wealthy neighbor who has a million dollars in net equity, and is your present idea of what "rich" means. Give him another ten grains for his other investments even if they're worth less than another million.
Now you want to know about the Man on the Hill with the cool billion? Count ten thousand grains of rice. And keep track of how long it takes you to count 'em out. Ten thousand grains of rice to your two.
And no growth means there aren't going to be any more grains of rice created.
By the way, the guy who you hire to do household repairs or mow your lawn, gets 1/10 of a grain of rice, or perhaps 1/20 of a grain of rice. If you don't want to try chopping up grains of rice, you can represent this with a few grains of salt.
The vast majority of the US population has somewhere between a few grains of salt and a half grain of rice.
And most of the world's 6-something billion humans? Maybe one speck of wheat flour each.
---
By now you should have five piles on your kitchen table:
In one pile, a speck of wheat flour. That's what your average person in the world has.
In another pile, a few grains of salt or a half-grain of rice. That's what your semi-skilled wage-worker in the USA has.
In another pile, two grains of rice. That's you, skilled and successful.
In another pile, twenty grains of rice. That's your rich neighbor who was formerly your idea of what "wealthy" means.
In the fifth pile, ten thousand grains of rice. That's the Man on the Hill with the cool billion, the real member of the new aristocracy.
---
If you want to look at it as lines on a graph, your semi-skilled wage worker has a mark that's a fifth of an inch high. You have a mark that's one or two inches high. Your rich neighbor has a mark that's ten or twenty inches high. The new aristocrat has a mark that's 10,000 inches, or 833-1/3 *feet* high.
---
At some point, difference in degree becomes difference in kind. The word "property" does not even begin to describe what that 833-1/3-foot-high mark on the graph represents.
---
The logical question this brings up is, When is "enough", enough? And, when is "too much" pathological?
---
And so, a modest proposal.
The money supply grows through fractional-reserve lending at interest. This is ultimately what makes possible the formation of capital, which in turn is used for investment, which in turn enables publicly-traded corporations to grow. Until we hit the point of no growth in real goods and services. At which point any further growth in the money supply is merely inflation.
Therefore, after the economy collapses, do away with the entire system of fractional-reserve lending at interest, and other abstracted and derivative forms of monetary instruments.
Freeze the money supply at whatever level it was at when the collapse hit.
Then allow it to increase only at the rate provided by the net influx of solar energy to the planet.
We shall see what kind of economics and policies emerge at that point.
Believe me, your stash is pathetic compared to that of the Man on the Hill. You have a few bags of rice and beans and a few guns & some ammo. He has billions of things, and weapons you can't even dream of. You have as much in common with him as an ant has with a hippopotamus.
The Man on the Hill is not your wealthy neighbor. Your wealthy neighbor might have one decimal place more than you. The Man on the Hill has four decimal places more than you. If you don't know what four decimal places look like in terms of real physical stuff, you should try the exercise of counting it out, using tangible physical objects. Preferably something small and cheap like grains of rice.
Let one grain of rice = $100,000 in net equity.
You own your house? Have a hundred thousand in net equity? Count one grain of rice for yourself. Give yourself another grain of rice for your retirement accounts and stock portfolio even if they're worth less than another hundred thousand.
Count ten grains of rice for your wealthy neighbor who has a million dollars in net equity, and is your present idea of what "rich" means. Give him another ten grains for his other investments even if they're worth less than another million.
Now you want to know about the Man on the Hill with the cool billion? Count ten thousand grains of rice. And keep track of how long it takes you to count 'em out. Ten thousand grains of rice to your two.
And no growth means there aren't going to be any more grains of rice created.
By the way, the guy who you hire to do household repairs or mow your lawn, gets 1/10 of a grain of rice, or perhaps 1/20 of a grain of rice. If you don't want to try chopping up grains of rice, you can represent this with a few grains of salt.
The vast majority of the US population has somewhere between a few grains of salt and a half grain of rice.
And most of the world's 6-something billion humans? Maybe one speck of wheat flour each.
---
By now you should have five piles on your kitchen table:
In one pile, a speck of wheat flour. That's what your average person in the world has.
In another pile, a few grains of salt or a half-grain of rice. That's what your semi-skilled wage-worker in the USA has.
In another pile, two grains of rice. That's you, skilled and successful.
In another pile, twenty grains of rice. That's your rich neighbor who was formerly your idea of what "wealthy" means.
In the fifth pile, ten thousand grains of rice. That's the Man on the Hill with the cool billion, the real member of the new aristocracy.
---
If you want to look at it as lines on a graph, your semi-skilled wage worker has a mark that's a fifth of an inch high. You have a mark that's one or two inches high. Your rich neighbor has a mark that's ten or twenty inches high. The new aristocrat has a mark that's 10,000 inches, or 833-1/3 *feet* high.
---
At some point, difference in degree becomes difference in kind. The word "property" does not even begin to describe what that 833-1/3-foot-high mark on the graph represents.
---
The logical question this brings up is, When is "enough", enough? And, when is "too much" pathological?
---
And so, a modest proposal.
The money supply grows through fractional-reserve lending at interest. This is ultimately what makes possible the formation of capital, which in turn is used for investment, which in turn enables publicly-traded corporations to grow. Until we hit the point of no growth in real goods and services. At which point any further growth in the money supply is merely inflation.
Therefore, after the economy collapses, do away with the entire system of fractional-reserve lending at interest, and other abstracted and derivative forms of monetary instruments.
Freeze the money supply at whatever level it was at when the collapse hit.
Then allow it to increase only at the rate provided by the net influx of solar energy to the planet.
We shall see what kind of economics and policies emerge at that point.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
by Jack » Mon 07 Mar 2005, 08:14:16
Interesting analysis, gg3.
I perceive two issues, though.
First, If I am to defend my few little grains of rice against those with a mere grain of flour, how do I justify - or merely arrange - to confiscate the 10,000 grains of the man on the hill? Given the numbers, it seems to me I'd be better off casting my lot with him than with the masses.
Second, some of those "men on the hill" would include (ahem ) Saddam - who had billions - as well as the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. If a resdistribution is considered equitable, wouldn't those who support such action need to be staunch defenders of the war in Iraq? Because, gg3, taking Saddam out of the equation will give the Iraqi people a chance of getting some of the money that went to him.
Or does the redistribution only apply if the billionaire is an American?
I perceive two issues, though.
First, If I am to defend my few little grains of rice against those with a mere grain of flour, how do I justify - or merely arrange - to confiscate the 10,000 grains of the man on the hill? Given the numbers, it seems to me I'd be better off casting my lot with him than with the masses.
Second, some of those "men on the hill" would include (ahem ) Saddam - who had billions - as well as the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. If a resdistribution is considered equitable, wouldn't those who support such action need to be staunch defenders of the war in Iraq? Because, gg3, taking Saddam out of the equation will give the Iraqi people a chance of getting some of the money that went to him.
Or does the redistribution only apply if the billionaire is an American?
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
- Jack
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by smallpoxgirl » Mon 07 Mar 2005, 11:45:51
Excellent post gg3!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I')f a resdistribution is considered equitable, wouldn't those who support such action need to be staunch defenders of the war in Iraq?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I')f a resdistribution is considered equitable, wouldn't those who support such action need to be staunch defenders of the war in Iraq?
The problem with the Iraq war was not that it uprooted Sadam. Sadam was a prick. He was a prick that the US helped prop up for years. The problem is that thousands of people...people who don't even have a speck of flour...are getting robbed and killed. You think that pile of Sadam's is going to go to the Iraqi people? Wake up and smell the coffee. That pile of Sadam's is going to Haliburton. It's going to American petroleum magnates. The problem with the Iraq war is that it is literally the armed robbery of one nation by another.
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by bart » Tue 08 Mar 2005, 07:39:49
Yes, gg3, socialism vs fascism -- that may be how it plays out in the future. In fact during the 30s, that was exactly how many people did see the political situation.
Interesting essay on free markets and capitalism. Your suggestion about basing currency on solar energy sounds like Technocracy. Are you involved with them? Somebody ought to help bring them back to life -- one of the most interesting... and strangest... political movements I've run across. Technocracy might have a new lease on life after PO.
I'm not convinced by the distinction between free enterprise and capitalism. If I remember correctly, "free enterprise" is a term originally thought up for propaganda value, because "capitalism" had acquired such a bad reputation.
In either case, it means that private capital owns the means of production (factories, farms, etc.) and that production is carried on for the purpose of earning a profit. This economic system originated in Europe in the 1500-1700s, suceeding feudalism. Over the centuries, it developed its own social forms, ideas and politics. It is a complete, self-reinforcing system. The dominant class is the capitalist class which wrested power from the land-owning classes.
(The language sounds pretty leftist doesn't it? But if you read standard works from earlier periods, you'll find that "capitalism" and "class" are common terms. It's only in modern times that using these terms has been equated with leftism.)
What you call free enterprise seems to be an idealized portrait of small business. I think a more scientific and less value-laden term would be "market behavior." Markets occur throughout history, usually with social or political controls. And you're right, the value of small markets seems to be well established now.
I also would agree with your attack on "para-statal behemoths ...[which] foist externalized costs upon the general public."
But beyond this, I sure don't know. Since I'm not a politician, I don't need to have all the answers, thank God.
I think sustainable technologies and small communities are a big part of the answer. The Marxist analysis of current politics and economics seems to answer a lot of questions. And I respect those Libertarians and business people with integrity. Most of all, I love history.
Interesting essay on free markets and capitalism. Your suggestion about basing currency on solar energy sounds like Technocracy. Are you involved with them? Somebody ought to help bring them back to life -- one of the most interesting... and strangest... political movements I've run across. Technocracy might have a new lease on life after PO.
I'm not convinced by the distinction between free enterprise and capitalism. If I remember correctly, "free enterprise" is a term originally thought up for propaganda value, because "capitalism" had acquired such a bad reputation.
In either case, it means that private capital owns the means of production (factories, farms, etc.) and that production is carried on for the purpose of earning a profit. This economic system originated in Europe in the 1500-1700s, suceeding feudalism. Over the centuries, it developed its own social forms, ideas and politics. It is a complete, self-reinforcing system. The dominant class is the capitalist class which wrested power from the land-owning classes.
(The language sounds pretty leftist doesn't it? But if you read standard works from earlier periods, you'll find that "capitalism" and "class" are common terms. It's only in modern times that using these terms has been equated with leftism.)
What you call free enterprise seems to be an idealized portrait of small business. I think a more scientific and less value-laden term would be "market behavior." Markets occur throughout history, usually with social or political controls. And you're right, the value of small markets seems to be well established now.
I also would agree with your attack on "para-statal behemoths ...[which] foist externalized costs upon the general public."
But beyond this, I sure don't know. Since I'm not a politician, I don't need to have all the answers, thank God.
I think sustainable technologies and small communities are a big part of the answer. The Marxist analysis of current politics and economics seems to answer a lot of questions. And I respect those Libertarians and business people with integrity. Most of all, I love history.
-
bart - Tar Sands
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Re: New economic system for post-peak ?
by Tanada » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 21:49:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', 'I')n the long run, it seems that the real problem is not peak oil, but the idea of sustainable infinite growth = capitalism, which is totally non-sense.
I assume most of the people would be enligtened after post-peak about this fact.
Therefore I propose a new economic system to replace Capitalism, for discussion. I haven't thought about this deeply, so never mind if it is crap.
Could we create a different economic system where "free market" is a principle, but a person can own at most some specific amount of wealth. Overpassing this limit is illegal, you have the spend the excess wealth in some limited time, and reduce your wealth. Otherwise government forcefully takes it and uses it for some good purpose(HIV research, aid to starving Africa, etc)
That would limit the incentive for growth.
e.g. once a "Bill Gates" goes over this limit(for example $1 million), he should be forced to spend the excess wealth he has, and reduce it to $1 million. Therefore in the end Microsoft would be owned by millions of people. Does this also kill the incentive of Microsoft to develop new products?
Is there a fundamental problem with this approach?
One problem would be, what happens when nearly everybody becomes rich and owns $1 million? This seems like everybody is equal, too much like Communism.
Another problem:
The economy can grow only at the rate of population. Therefore this may push even population up faster. Now, we have to put a legel limit on the number of births.
Is this utopia?
What do you think?
Is it possible that we are stupid enough to stick to Capitalism after peak-oil is all over?
Is it our destiny to hit peak-whatever after we hit peak-oil?
I assume most of the people would be enligtened after post-peak about this fact.
Therefore I propose a new economic system to replace Capitalism, for discussion. I haven't thought about this deeply, so never mind if it is crap.
Could we create a different economic system where "free market" is a principle, but a person can own at most some specific amount of wealth. Overpassing this limit is illegal, you have the spend the excess wealth in some limited time, and reduce your wealth. Otherwise government forcefully takes it and uses it for some good purpose(HIV research, aid to starving Africa, etc)
That would limit the incentive for growth.
e.g. once a "Bill Gates" goes over this limit(for example $1 million), he should be forced to spend the excess wealth he has, and reduce it to $1 million. Therefore in the end Microsoft would be owned by millions of people. Does this also kill the incentive of Microsoft to develop new products?
Is there a fundamental problem with this approach?
One problem would be, what happens when nearly everybody becomes rich and owns $1 million? This seems like everybody is equal, too much like Communism.
Another problem:
The economy can grow only at the rate of population. Therefore this may push even population up faster. Now, we have to put a legel limit on the number of births.
Is this utopia?
What do you think?
Is it possible that we are stupid enough to stick to Capitalism after peak-oil is all over?
Is it our destiny to hit peak-whatever after we hit peak-oil?
Your plan has a fundamental problem that is nearly identical with all such plans. You make the presumption that the goal of infinite growth on a finite planet is something new that only came upon the human race as the result of discovering abundant easily accessed energy sources.
That is not at all the case. Humans as individuals, tribes, city-states and nation states have always sought to grow in influence/power compared to whomever their rivals are. Eliminate wealth as the status ,marker and it will just be replaced by some other status marker to show who is 'most desirable' and who is homeless.
IOW growth is an innate human desire and you can't get rid of it without genetically engineering all future generations to lack that trait. The difference is through the vast majority of history muscle power was the limit of personal power. even the best Roman and Chinese imperial trebuchet/Catapult/Ballista were ultimately loaded and energized with muscle power. Gunpowder when it was introduced first supplemented and then replaced raw muscle as the best way of winning a fight and replaced it with skill in handheld gunpowder burning weapons. That meant the geekiest guy in the tribe could be the most successful provided he had he skill and reflexes to kill or intimidate all his rivals. The old saying is a Gun makes everyone equal because it doesn't take strength to pull the trigger, just accuracy to hit what you are aiming at.
Humans successfully adapted to gunpowder and its later versions because it still boiled down to human against human in dominance games. Steam power changed the equation far more by providing the ability to transport a small highly skilled army hundreds of miles in a few hours which meant a small specialized force could defeat a large part time force through superior skill and equipment. Railroads and steamships mean nation states can become arbitrarily large and force their desires on surprisingly large numbers of the poorly equipped.
But in reality even that is somewhat an illusion. The real key to dominating other people amounts to a willing use of ruthless force, and a long term commitment to do so. The government of the USSR from 1917-1987 was very successful as a government because it had both of those traits. The British Empire of the 19th Century or the French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte, or even the Roman Empire of the first century AD all shared these traits. So long as you are ruthless and committed you can gain and hold power. Mussolini for example ruled Italy from 1922-1943 without being particularly bloody as authoritarian leaders go. Not a wonderful guy, but not a brute for brutish sake like Hitler or Stalin.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: New economic system for post-peak ?
by asg70 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 21:54:14
What was the point of bumping a thread from 12 years ago? That guy is long gone.
BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)
HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
- asg70
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 4289
- Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28
Re: New economic system for post-peak ?
by Tanada » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 23:49:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asg70', 'W')hat was the point of bumping a thread from 12 years ago? That guy is long gone.
Perhaps I did it just so you could whine about me doing so?
On the other hand perhaps you have something to say about my post, rather than whining about the fact that I made it attached to an old thread?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
