What is wrong with the New World Order. The Global Government Debate Thread

[christo-f]

 

 

 

131 - US States Renamed For Countries With Similar GDPs

Frank Jacobs on June 10, 2007, 10:37 AM

 

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21182

 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a convenient way of measuring and comparing the size of national economies. Annual GDP represents the market value of all goods and services produced within a country in a year. Put differently:

 

GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports – imports)

 

Although the economies of countries like China and India are growing at an incredible rate, the US remains the nation with the highest GDP in the world – and by far: US GDP is projected to be $13,22 trillion (or $13.220 billion) in 2007, according to this source. That’s almost as much as the economies of the next four (Japan, Germany, China, UK) combined.

 

The creator of this map has had the interesting idea to break down that gigantic US GDP into the GDPs of individual states, and compare those to other countries’ GDP. What follows, is this slightly misleading map – misleading, because the economies both of the US states and of the countries they are compared with are not weighted for their respective populations.

 

Pakistan, for example, has a GDP that’s slightly higher than Israel’s – but Pakistan has a population of about 170 million, while Israel is only 7 million people strong. The US states those economies are compared with (Arkansas and Oregon, respectively) are much closer to each other in population: 2,7 million and 3,4 million.

 

And yet, wile a per capita GDP might give a good indication of the average wealth of citizens, a ranking of the economies on this map does serve two interesting purposes: it shows the size of US states’ economies relative to each other (California is the biggest, Wyoming the smallest), and it links those sizes with foreign economies (which are therefore also ranked: Mexico’s and Russia’s economies are about equal size, Ireland’s is twice as big as New Zealand’s). Here’s a run-down of the 50 states, plus DC:

 

California, it is often said, would be the world’s sixth- or seventh-largest economy if it was a separate country. Actually, that would be the eighth, according to this map, as France (with a GDP of $2,15 trillion) is #8 on the aforementioned list.

Texas’ economy is significantly smaller, exactly half of California’s, as its GDP compares to that of Canada (#10, $1,08 trillion).

Florida also does well, with its GDP comparable to Asian tiger South Korea’s (#13 at $786 billion).

Illinois – Mexico (GDP #14 at $741 billion)

New Jersey – Russia (GDP #15 at $733 billion)

Ohio – Australia (GDP #16 at $645 billion)

New York – Brazil (GDP #17 at $621 billion)

Pennsylvania – Netherlands (GDP #18 at $613 billion)

Georgia – Switzerland (GDP #19 at $387 billion)

North Carolina – Sweden (GDP #20 at $371 billion)

Massachusetts – Belgium (GDP #21 at $368 billion)

Washington – Turkey (GDP #22 at $358 billion)

Virginia – Austria (GDP #24 at $309 billion)

Tennessee – Saudi Arabia (GDP #25 at $286 billion)

Missouri – Poland (GDP #26 at $265 billion)

Louisiana – Indonesia (GDP #27 at $264 billion)

Minnesota – Norway (GDP #28 at $262 billion)

Indiana – Denmark (GDP #29 at $256 billion)

Connecticut – Greece (GDP #30 at $222 billion)

Michigan – Argentina (GDP #31 at $210 billion)

Nevada – Ireland (GDP #32 at $203 billion)

Wisconsin – South Africa (GDP #33 at $200 billion)

Arizona – Thailand (GDP #34 at $197 billion)

Colorado – Finland (GDP #35 at $196 billion)

Alabama – Iran (GDP #36 at $195 billion)

Maryland – Hong Kong (#37 at $187 billion GDP)

Kentucky – Portugal (GDP #38 at $177 billion)

Iowa – Venezuela (GDP #39 at $148 billion)

Kansas – Malaysia (GDP #40 at $132 billion)

Arkansas – Pakistan (GDP #41 at $124 billion)

Oregon – Israel (GDP #42 at $122 billion)

South Carolina – Singapore (GDP #43 at $121 billion)

Nebraska – Czech Republic (GDP #44 at $119 billion)

New Mexico – Hungary (GDP #45 at $113 billion)

Mississippi – Chile (GDP #48 at $100 billion)

DC – New Zealand (#49 at $99 billion GDP)

Oklahoma – Philippines (GDP #50 at $98 billion)

West Virginia – Algeria (GDP #51 at $92 billion)

Hawaii – Nigeria (GDP #53 at $83 billion)

Idaho – Ukraine (GDP #54 at $81 billion)

Delaware – Romania (#55 at $79 billion GDP)

Utah – Peru (GDP #56 at $76 billion)

New Hampshire – Bangladesh (GDP #57 at $69 billion)

Maine – Morocco (GDP #59 at $57 billion)

Rhode Island – Vietnam (GDP #61 at $48 billion)

South Dakota – Croatia (GDP #66 at $37 billion)

Montana – Tunisia (GDP #69 at $33 billion)

North Dakota – Ecuador (GDP #70 at $32 billion)

Alaska – Belarus (GDP #73 at $29 billion)

Vermont – Dominican Republic (GDP #81 at $20 billion)

Wyoming – Uzbekistan (GDP #101 at $11 billion)

[christo-f]

"The New, New World Order"

 

A number of fairly strong opeds out of China over the last week or so discussing the "coming new world order". This is for two reasons, at the recent ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi Clinton said that the territorial dispute over the South China Seas was a national interest to the US (them there are strong words). China has recently labeled it a "core interest" of China. Other core interests are Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, and we all know how strenuously defensive China is regarding those issues.

 

Secondly after the sinking of the ChonAn the US and ROK held huge exercises off the east coast of the Korean peninsula where the USS George Washington (a Nimitz Class nuclear powered air craft carrier), around 20 other vessels including subs and F-22s took part. They were originally going to hold the exercise in the Yellow Sea, which would be like China holding exercises off the coast of Santa Cruz.

 

Along with this you have the US telling China how to value its currency. China is growing in power and has been talking about its "peace emergence" for a decade now. recently with the announcement of intention to build an aircraft carrier, moves to create a trilateral north east Asian economic community, becoming the 3rd country to put a man in to space..., and then shooting satellites out of the sky, etc., China is actually starting to put theory in to practice.

 

Historically when you have a shift in power in the world you have conflict (GB and Germany being the perfect example, many would also argue that the jihadist period was a result of the end of the Cold War).

 

So, with the chance of a New, New World order of bi-polarism, China and the US are brushing up closer to each other and there are a few little sparks starting to fly!!

 

 

 

 

The below article is an oped taken from the Chinese People's Daily, which is a fully government owned news outlet. You can responsibly take this as the official Party line.

 

 

Fallacy on "China economic responsibility" has to lambaste

15:49, July 29, 2010

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91342/7085864.html

Of late, there has been a sudden rise in the number of varied versions of the "China economic responsibility". Some Westerners have even turned their anxiety and dissatisfaction with China into their claim for the country's "irresponsibility". In their views, it seems as if all "hard nuts" in the world were related to China and it were only up to China to "crack" them.

 

The "China economic responsibility" does not mean a new theory but a sort of the "mirror" to show Westerners' recognition of China in the new situation and it is essentially the same kind of stuff with the uncertainty on China's development as some Westerners have often referred to.

 

For a long time, some Westerners have set forth a basic definition for China's development: Not to let China rebuild a set order and in the meanwhile to prevent China to sabotage the existing system. And the best solution is, however, to let China assume more responsibility in maintaining the existing system. If China does otherwise, that would mean "irresponsibility". The strategic point of the "China economic responsibility" lies in the very attempt of some Western figures to harness or "hitch up" China under the name of responsibility.

 

China's integration into the world is acceptable to the West. Moreover, it is up to China to integrate into the Western-led world system and assume more duty or responsibilities, which Westerners are unwilling or unable to shoulder. To put it bluntly, Westerners very much want to shirk off their burden and let people of China carry for them. This is particularly true to the United States and its intention is obvious due to the global financial crisis and its own decline in strength.

 

The existing international setup, nevertheless, cannot do without the participation of China and other new emerging nations in its rapid development and growing might and especially when China was strong enough to stand rock-firm and contribute in pulling the world economic recovery. It is owed to the active participation of these emerging nations that a global response to the financial crisis has scored substantial attainments as today.

 

 

So, some Westerners have begun worrying with a deep "sense of loss": Will China with an ample, great growth potential can ultimately enable itself to overtake them and proceed to do away with the existing West-dominated system? And will this practice lead to more losses to Western interests? This psychological anguish, which they have failed to be discarded for decades when dealing with China, have now started to relapse.

 

The existing international rules and order have been drafted in Western nations for the historical reason, and also chiefly used to maintain their national interests. China has already integrated itself into this global system. But it now not only able to maintain the order of this system but also to develop itself within this system. China's integration will inevitably inflict a greater impact on the system. This point is prominent in the global financial setup reform in the wake of the financial crisis. More importantly, China will also exert an impact on the existing distribution pattern.

 

With the understanding of this essential point, it is easier to get to know why there are more assertions on "China economic irresponsibility" fallacy at the time when China has taken up more and greater responsibilities than ever before, and China's friction with the West would also lessen.

 

On its argument with the West on the "China economic responsibility", China should get psychologically prepared for its running-in with the West. To view superficially, Western nations have on the whole agreed to the overall trend in the world political multi-polarization, but it is actually no easy job to determine the status of the West in the multipolar world.

 

It is essentially a complex issue relating to the extent of benefit transfer. Therefore, on the issue of how to look at the nation's future development, the mutual recognition of China and Western nations will have to undergo a period of "running-in" in years to come. And the "China economic responsibility" is likely to come up in varied, diversified ways and it will even exist throughout the process in which China is moving to a power of the global rank.

 

By People's Daily Online and its author is PD senior editor Ding Gang

[christo-f]

i'll get to it in a second.. but first i gotta point out.... you gotta do something about the red text for answers inside a quoted text block. its hard as balls to try to respond to it.

 

Sure, but I'm keeping my answers commie red, Mao damn it!

 

 

 

you dont have to be 'rich...' that is the thing. anyone can do it. i wanted to use michael moore, and a few billionaires for examples because they easily have the means and the agenda to do what you want them to do. they have the money and they have the ideology. what more could you want? in fact they have so much extra cash its nuts. the first thing these clowns should be doing is leading by example instead of looking to big brother for answers to their pet projects. just shows they are hypocritical idiots who dont want to put their money where their mouthes are. they are all to busy investing in monsanto, merck, halliburton, and other companies all the while denouncing the rich and in moore's case.. denouncing the stock market all together.

but this is not to say... all the average middle class greenies cant do the same. and actually many do.

in fact it is quite the trend in the US these days to move out of urban areas. there are mcmansions popping up all over america in rural areas. if these people would just build a small little 1500sq ft 3/2 instead of a 5000 sq ft mansion, they could buy 50 acres to preserve as they see fit instead of just 2 acre and a big ass house. imagine if 10,000 like minded greenies moved to a certain area and created essentially 'nature preserves.' this is a much better solution than sovietized, nationalized, poorly run, poorly stewarded national 'parks.'

 

i dont get what is so weird about this line of thought. people do it all the time. but doing it to have a nice place to hike or look at is just absurd. i guess because it violates the existing govt-greeny paradigm. shooters do it all the time. private clubs buy hundreds and thousands of acres to preserve in order to have a pristine environment to shoot on. hunters do it all the time. they pool money together in teh form of a club or by renting hunting leases. thousands and thousands of people do this every year on thousands and thousands of acres of land. why is it so absurd to suggest that if hikers want to walk through the woods they should pool their money and buy it or rent it from someone who offers such a service?

 

Yeah look, I'm aware of what you're saying, I'm just a little taken aback by your rants that really are beside the point here. We're talking about an economic model, not what pisses you off about rich and famous celebrities. So, yeah, I get idea and I agree in principal. If people have the means, do something about it. But then again, people are paying taxes right now so there is a sound justification behind them expecting their tax dollars to be spent properly. However I will never argue against the wastage and ineptitude that seems intrinsic to government.

 

It's not that I don't understand it's that I feel your model, as it is communicated here has some fundamental floors in its simplicity. I'm just having trouble getting you off the anti-celeb rants to nail you down on a few key questions. but below we have one.

 

if anyone chooses to purchase property, they would obviously buy it from the owners of the property. if the govt owns it... they would purchase from the govt.

 

will answer this further down the page.

 

 

and why all this 'merc' talk?

anyone who does something for money is a 'merc?' should we have a draft?

i mean, i get my bread from a 'merc' baker and i get my shoes from 'merc' shoe sellers.

 

Oh dude...., merc is slang for Mercedes Benz, just the same as saying Benz.

 

 

 

this is a silly line of reasoning. as you assume that ALL land has a super interest for 'multinational interests.' if this were the case... why can people even afford to buy their own houses? why do privately owned family farms exist? wouldnt all the multinationals just out bid everybody and force them all to live in 200 sq ft apartments in some urban block some where?

 

Silly line of argument, come on mate, you are not that simple. We're talking about preserving national parks and by extension land that is cared for by public funds for public interests, right? Pretty sure that was the starting point here.

 

US river systems, imperative for the national economy in private hands that can shut them down. Let's take that further, one little old man, or a "greenie" saves up and buys a 100 meter stretch of the off the lower mississippi at Vicksberg. They want to save the fish so they shut their little part of the river off to any and all boat traffic.

 

One person just crippled the US economy.

 

 

 

Think of what private interest can do; Mearsk buys the stretches of water where Botany Bay and Sydney Harbour opens out in to the ocean and say that only their own vessels can use this piece of water, no exceptions. Every other shipping interest operating out of Sydney is now owned by one company, the industry is under a monopoly for ever more because of two small purchases of property. The more expensive you make that purchase the more you encourage this completely legal and economically rational business decision.

 

Hundreds of thousands of auxiliary uses and businesses gone, hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, the whole industrial base of eastern Australia disrupted.

 

 

 

but if the conservationists had george soro's and warren buffett, two prominent liberals, and two of the richest men in the world, they should not have problem outbidding the 'multi nationals.'

 

Do these guys and the other handful even give shit about nature conservation? If they don't then there is no chance for the less wealthy. Secondly, I don't think they have the kind of credit line that Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Chevon have when they ask the bank for a loan of 500 billion to preserve land when the bank is being fronted by Rio Tinto who say "We can turn this $500bn loan in to $1.5tn when we dig it up for the iron ore under the grass!".

 

Mearsk, INTC, SinoTrans and P&O create a consortium to buy a line running through the Great Barrier Reef for $300bn. They dig a channel to allow shipping through the reef thereby cutting 10% off all maritime transit to the East Coast of Australia for ever more. Not only will the Reef die (one of the 7 natural wonders of the world) but all those who make a living off of it with diving tours, fishing, tourism (all small ma and pa industries) go out of business while a few offshore companies save millions upon millions. The tourist industry of Queensland could not bid against major companies like that. There is absolutely no chance.

 

Another example, China Investment Corporation, a state owned company with $2tn in sovereign wealth behind it buys all of Central Park NYC. Put barbed wire and high walls around it and a big roof over the top of it. Use your imagination.

 

Rosatom buys patches of land in outer NY, Virginia, Washington, Mississippi and San Fran. Builds a research reactor in each for medical research. In three years 4 cheaply built reactors have melt down and destroy massive tracts of land (think chernobyl). They only destroy private land, lots of it and that means that all of these millions of private citizens have to take the company to court one by one or organise one massive Class action. That will take years and in that time Rosatom pics up and fucks off back to Moscow where the courts in the US can't touch them. This is all based around private land, has nothing to do with the state other than legislation and enforcement of property rights. 4 major Us cities fucked because there was no regulation on how land can be used. The sate cannot put pressure on Russia because it's a private matter and because the US doesn't have a taxation system that allows the military to have leverage throughout the world the govt couldn't do anything even if it wanted to.

 

 

 

nothing.

they have been doing it in the US for years. foreigners have been buying or attempting to buy US ports for decades. i always hear farmers talking about out west, of the cattle land in private hands, the japanese own the most of it.

 

Actually, it's not that simple. China tried to buy some of your deep water ports a while back so they could control them. Washington knocked it back on the grounds of national security. Why? China buys the port and then says only Chinese shipping companies can use the port. Say goodbye to industry and jobs. your anti-monopoly laws stop private interest from doing that now, if you rearrange the usage of land the way you want anti-monopoly laws go out the window and China will own your economy and national security in a fucking week. It will be a mad scramble between Russia, China to see who fucks the US first.

 

 

i believe a navy would be included in a 'national defense' strategy.

 

A navy that simply protects the coastal approaches of the US or a navy like the one that you have now that can protect US interests away from you territorial waters?

 

 

 

 

 

 

one mans 'destroy' is another mans 'beauty.'

 

look, people do this all the time.

whenever someone buys a peice of property and begins digging on it to put in a foundation, he 'destroys' it. whenever we put waste into a land fill, we 'destroy' it. if theoretically, a paint factory, could buy a lake and dump paint into it, i guess it could. but how efficient is this? how much paint could a paint factory dump into a lake and keep it contained? how long would this operation be able to stay in business? my guess is not to long. seems to me it would be hard to keep this from contaminating water supply that is claimed by others, it would result in run off, etc etc.

 

This would be case by case for industries and so on. but I can take you to countless places in bicycle riding distance from where I live to show you companies that have been pumping shit in to the water ways for the last 20 years. So just on physics alone, yeah it's definitely a sustainable practice. As for leaking in to water ways and fouling private land, that is a much too broad question, some one has to own the land before they can prosecute. If there is no private ownership and there are no floods for 20 years in a region the lake will be fucked long before it makes to to private property and at that point 20 years of profit may outweigh the cost of legal action. If there are no private owners within two miles of the lake, goodbye lake and all the wildlife that has any kind of dependence on it. Company runs for thirty years, makes $25m, closes shop and puts the property on the market. No one buys it for ever more because the lake is full of mercury and arsenic and the soil is full of lead and oil. company made a profit, land can sit idle for ever, they made their money off it 5000 times over.

 

Not sure that's such a wise policy. This does happen to a certain degree now and we call it govt incompetence. We remove all govt responsibility and all you do is make the practice legal. I'm not saying it's going to happen to every lake and the world will turn in to China. But I believe that a lot will be destroyed, far more than is due to govt stupidity.

 

Another perspective is that private industry won't give a shit about yellowstone, Grand canyon, the Rockies and so on. The conservationists will then look at it and work out that if they don't buy it, except for a few small strategically placed lots the govt will be left holding it and forced to be responsible for its upkeep so it don't get sued by the small land owners for wild fires, dumping, etc. etc. That means we're back to square one and your tax dollars have to pay for national parks.

 

 

 

your logic also includes a 100% govt success rate in prosecution and conviction on 'environmental' crimes. just because they pass a law doesnt create utopia. it can be only a mild deterrent to irrational behavior. they have laws against murder, but there is still murder. the difference being in the private lawsuits against a company instead of a govt going after a company for damages... is the people actually have a stake in the claim. the govt doesnt. no one in govt loses if they dont properly prosecute a polluter. who is better to hold someone accountable for damages? a property owner or a bureaucrat?

 

No, you're missing a key variable, the govt has more resources to fight against big money than the individual does. I agree that they may not be the best at it in the world and it aint no utopia but in a democracy the govts that want to stay in power do better than those who don't care enough.

 

 

 

there are plenty of theories of how property and liability suits would be settled. competing courts and arbitration is the most common theory put forth by anarcho capitalists... im not well versed, but can send you links if you really want to hear more on it.

 

Nah, without trying to sound like a tool, I really don't care enough. I'm having this discussion for the sake of it.

 

 

 

what? my example of the property rights being respected in a free country and being disregarded in a collectivist country..... is not representative of reality? what planet are you living on.

 

the soviets collectivized the entire damn country for the most part. if the soviets wanted to put in building and a person didnt want to sell their property, what do you think they did, built around the property owner? get a grip dude....

maybe we should ask the people in the gulag what happened to the 'hold outs.'

 

Actually, that last red passage of mine about the USSR is misplaced, I didn't read what you wrote correctly and was more referring to what you had written earlier, I was referring to some stuff you said a few posts back. But still, go fuck yourself anyway ;)

 

 

 

i addressed this before... but the answer is 'who cares.' these are mere 'technical' problems. like 'how do you build a bridge...'

individuals compete all the time with 'multi nationals' and it seems that everyone gets a long. walmart is located over there and the middle class neighborhood is located over here.

you seem to imply that just because a 'multinational corp' has money that it also wants to buy every sq foot of the US or the world. if this is the case.... why is currently keeping multinationals from owning ALL the non govt owned forest land in the US right now? there is no law against it. why dont they own all the forests and private acreage in the US? answer:

in three parts.

 

1. you must have someone who wants to sell.

2. you must have someone who wants to buy.

3. you must come to an agreement.

 

it doesnt matter how much money a 'multinational corp' has... if someone doesnt want to sell, then they cant buy it. and a multi national isnt going to suddenly start buying up land just to have it.

 

 

Oh duuuuuUUUDE, you're doing my fucking head in here%^%#$^#&@%

 

It's called potential and conservation. We're talking about preserving shit like national parks, natural wonders and animal species, right? Shit man this all came from you saying that private interests are better at managing national parks than the govt. Shit you carried on about it enough!!

 

My core examples, as I started out with are places like Kakadu, Great Barrier reef and so on. Full of natural resources worth trillions. If it was free for anyone to buy these pieces of property off the govt the mining companies would move in, outbid any other conservation interest as they have better credit ratings than most of Europe combined and would tear the place up for 20 years, make trillions and leave.

 

Now if you want to talk about all land being open to buyers no matter what, the Chinese and the Russians would come in and buy the mississippi and all your deep water ports and your country would be finished in a fucking week.

 

Land has strategic value that economic interest doesn't consider. Land has an environmental value that is many times secondary to commercial value. I don't think I need to convince you of that.

 

 

 

 

 

the govt, however, when they created the national forests and parks across the country, when they built the TVA dam system with 50 something nuclear plants (so much for govt being 'environmentally friendly) nuclear power when regulated properly is one of the cleanest sources of fuel around and you'd need a squillion wind turbines and solar cells to match the efficiency of one nuclear power facility with current tech. .... they displaced thousands of people and destroyed hundreds if not thousands of communities. they kicked people off of their property that they loved and stewarded for centuries... for it to become part of a 'national forest' or national 'park' just so someone can say that 'the environment' is being protected.

 

I really don't care about this shit, I'm not discussing govt competency here. I'm discussing your economic model.

[angelofdeath]

Yeah look, I'm aware of what you're saying, I'm just a little taken aback by your rants that really are beside the point here. We're talking about an economic model, not what pisses you off about rich and famous celebrities. So, yeah, I get idea and I agree in principal. If people have the means, do something about it. But then again, people are paying taxes right now so there is a sound justification behind them expecting their tax dollars to be spent properly. However I will never argue against the wastage and ineptitude that seems intrinsic to government.

 

 

my 'rants' are relevant to the topic because the most influential voices in the environmental movement are also very rich and they cant even practice what they preach. which in turn to a large extent renders them insignificant babbling idiots. if you have it within your own power to do something positive to promote your ideology and movement and you dont do it with your own private means shows how little you actually care... they would rather violate the rights of others, tax them, regulate them, tell them how to live their lives and throw them in jail if they dont agree with them.

i have a problem with this. these people are the topic of various rants because they are running my life.

 

Oh dude...., merc is slang for Mercedes Benz, just the same as saying Benz.

 

hahahhaha... woops

 

 

Silly line of argument, come on mate, you are not that simple. We're talking about preserving national parks and by extension land that is cared for by public funds for public interests, right? Pretty sure that was the starting point here.

 

it is not a silly line of argument. there is plenty of privately owned land that is MORE beautiful than the smoky mountain national park for instance. land in the pisgah national forest is indistiguishable from a forest that is privately owned in the same county.

 

your line of reasoning says that if a private interest owns a valuable peice of property they will use it for illogical means and 'destroy' it just because they CAN and because they are sinister and not because it makes no economic sense whatsoever. if half of the great smoky mountain national park was sold today, it would not be clear cut and strip mined any more than the land bordering it in private hands would be cleared and strip mined.

 

if companies solely exist to go around to 'exploit' the environment, clear cut it, and strip mine it, they can surely do this with all the land that they are ABLE to purchase at present, if we follow your reasoning, but they DONT. there is plenty of privately preserved land in the US. so much in fact its ridiculous that it is silly to even think that private interests exist solely to exploit the environment.

 

do you really think that an evil corporation would really sit around and wait till the govt puts a for sale sign on the grand canyon and then they will begin frothing at the mouth to pay 1 million an acre for the canyon to dump their waste when they can dump it for 500$ an acre in the desert landfill somewhere? its absurd reasoning.

 

US river systems, imperative for the national economy in private hands that can shut them down. Let's take that further, one little old man, or a "greenie" saves up and buys a 100 meter stretch of the off the lower mississippi at Vicksberg. They want to save the fish so they shut their little part of the river off to any and all boat traffic.

 

this is also silly. while this could possibly happen, so could a meteor hitting the earth and wiping us out tomorrow.

do you realize how MUCH money a company could make if they controlled the mississippi river to facillitate trade?

its absurd reasoning to think that a company WOULD do this. there are plenty of private roads in america. think of shopping malls. shopping malls all hold it within their power to cut off the roads to everyone so they cant get to stores... but why dont they? because the shopping mall owner would lose money. its basic economics. entreprenuers are in the business of making money and providing services not losing money and denying services. (this is the general business practice of the govt to lose money and deny services)

this is like saying that rail road owners in the late 19th century would simply just cut off the entire section of a country from crossing it. or that if rail roads were in private hands (as they originally and for the most part still are)they would deny everyone rail service. companies satisfy customers. they build railroads to satisfy them. they dont build railroads to refuse services, make their customers unsatisfied, and lose money. (unless you are amtrak)

 

the mississippi river model would probably best be privatized as everyone involved in mississippi river traffic, fishing, anything involving homesteading of the mississippi would be privatized and shares would be divided among these people forming the mississippi river corp. it is then in their interest to steward the river and maintain trade lanes as it is in their own greedy self interest to do so.

 

 

Hundreds of thousands of auxiliary uses and businesses gone, hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, the whole industrial base of eastern Australia disrupted.

 

your 'monopoly' would also be out of business because they have no customers.

dont you realize how much the company would make by serving those engaged in commerce rather than shutting down the entire commerce apparatus?

 

you can make your same case for anyone that owns any property anywhere at any time.

 

a typical objection to private roads is similar to your harbor example.

a private road owner builds a road across the country east to west cutting the country in half and forbids anyone to cross it going north and south.

but there is nothing stopping anyone from tunneling under the road or building a bridge over top of the road. (libertarians do not believe in the ' ad colon ' (i know im spelling that wrong) that says if own the surface you own a descending cone into the center of the earth and a widening cone into the sky)

 

Another example, China Investment Corporation, a state owned company with $2tn in sovereign wealth behind it buys all of Central Park NYC. Put barbed wire and high walls around it and a big roof over the top of it. Use your imagination.

 

that sounds about like central park now.

think about it. look at the crime that takes place on this park.

but look at disney world. where would you rather meet me at 3AM? central park or disney world? the public park or the private park? the private park provides security because if people are getting killed and robbed at disney world they lose money. no one loses money if people are killed and robbed in central park.

 

Rosatom buys patches of land in outer NY, Virginia, Washington, Mississippi and San Fran. Builds a research reactor in each for medical research. In three years 4 cheaply built reactors have melt down and destroy massive tracts of land (think chernobyl). They only destroy private land, lots of it and that means that all of these millions of private citizens have to take the company to court one by one or organise one massive Class action. That will take years and in that time Rosatom pics up and fucks off back to Moscow where the courts in the US can't touch them. This is all based around private land, has nothing to do with the state other than legislation and enforcement of property rights. 4 major Us cities fucked because there was no regulation on how land can be used. The sate cannot put pressure on Russia because it's a private matter and because the US doesn't have a taxation system that allows the military to have leverage throughout the world the govt couldn't do anything even if it wanted to.

 

maybe we can just pass a law against other countries bombing us.

problem solved. no more war.

 

This would be case by case for industries and so on. but I can take you to countless places in bicycle riding distance from where I live to show you companies that have been pumping shit in to the water ways for the last 20 years. So just on physics alone, yeah it's definitely a sustainable practice.

 

 

but you missed the most important point. there is essentially no proper application of liability law on the books that holds these people accountable and upholds private property rights.

so you cant keep confusing what private business dumps on unowned or govt owned land or on private land with no liability with my system of 100% liability for anyone that dumps crap on other peoples property. they can keep dumping the crap onto un owned land like the river, because it costs 0. they arent liable for what they are doing essentially. in my system people own the water rights, fishing rights, property rights, traveling rights, whatever other rights and the company would be held liable, pay for damages and told to cut it out. so lets say dumping trash into public river = 0 cost. this is sustainable. dumping trash into a river owned by others costs 500,000$ per pound of shit they dump.... how long would they continue to do it? not to mention, they would have an injunction against them telling to cease and desist.

 

 

Another perspective is that private industry won't give a shit about yellowstone, Grand canyon, the Rockies and so on. The conservationists will then look at it and work out that if they don't buy it, except for a few small strategically placed lots the govt will be left holding it and forced to be responsible for its upkeep so it don't get sued by the small land owners for wild fires, dumping, etc. etc. That means we're back to square one and your tax dollars have to pay for national parks.

 

if you dont have private ownership or appraisal or find out how much someone will pay for something, then how do you know how much it is actually worth?

 

i'd be willing to bet if the govt announced that they are selling yellow stone tomorrow... if environmental groups had any salt they would snatch it up ASAP... some how and care for it better than the govt did.

 

if national park land really isnt worth shit, then the market will determine. it is what the market does.

 

 

No, you're missing a key variable, the govt has more resources to fight against big money than the individual does. I agree that they may not be the best at it in the world and it aint no utopia but in a democracy the govts that want to stay in power do better than those who don't care enough.

 

but the govt creates no wealth. it only takes wealth from others. it can borrow wealth, therefore indebting tax 'payers' (serfs in reality) or can artificially create money out of thin air because they have monopoly powers to create money (federal reserve system)

 

so if a thief has 100 million dollars, all stolen, do THEY really own it or is it the rightful property of the owners that they stole it from?

 

 

 

Now if you want to talk about all land being open to buyers no matter what, the Chinese and the Russians would come in and buy the mississippi and all your deep water ports and your country would be finished in a fucking week.

 

i'd submit that the body that is in charge of defense of the US would own these strategic points...

but if you want me to concede... then i'll concede. if we can have private property rights and liability laws against polluters and no govt parks, etc... i'll compromise and allow only US military and/or defenders of the US to control whatever strategic points they want including ports, etc.

 

Land has strategic value that economic interest doesn't consider. Land has an environmental value that is many times secondary to commercial value. I don't think I need to convince you of that.

 

i tend to agree... but in reality something is only WORTH what someone is willing to give you for it.

put another way.. if you own a house.. you value it more than the market value of the house otherwise you would sell it. if you value the market value in cash more than the house, then you sell it.

if someone will only pay 1 million for a national park but you 'think' its worth more... it will eventually find its hands in the person who values it the most.

high bid always wins.

 

in summation a quick and easy way for the average poor person who would be concerned about the environment and wanted to 'do something' would be to invest in a company that is in control of managing the national park they want to protect. instead of paying their taxes with a penalty for non payment, they can just invest in a company, voluntarily, charged with managing a national park. the company is accountable to the shareholders to abide by what they want. im sure a big land management corp would develop to tend to and steward large tracts of 'environmentally' sensitive property.

they liberals would then not have as much of a hard decision of deciding whether they want to forget the island vacation to buy a mosquito swamp in louisiana or a rattle snake infested desert waste land. they can invest in a company whose business is to serve customers and shareholders to steward various national parks. i'd imagine they would be run as a non profit entity.

i know i know... then environment haters would then buy the company and violate the corporate charter and business plan and turn the company into a polluting, strip mining, clear cutting machine.

 

im not exactly sure how all protection of various sensitive lands would take place in a free society... because people come up with all sorts of things.

perhaps another way in addition to the myriad of other arrangements i already said....it would be a system where people own various contiguous tracts and hire a management company to run it.

in turn white water rafters, hunters, (forbidding hunting in national parks if a major pet peeve of mine) hikers, back packers, campers, bird watchers, etc, would be willing to pay for use of the land. this way people who want to use the land pay for it as opposed to the current system now where your neighbor pays for your way to hike in the national forest.

[angelofdeath]

PS....

i agree with you on nuke energy. some how that line got deleted... i missed some of your posts trying to quote and color your responses against mine.

 

but... my point, just to clarify is... try telling the sierra club or an 'eco terrorist' that nuclear energy is good.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Learn how to drink and you'll understand.

 

:cool:

[angelofdeath]

"But you see AOD (or any other potential haters), if I don't want to participate in the life that is our civilization, I will be wiped out. I will die. How long does it take to die of starvation, 60 days? I don't own any land! "

 

i wanted to address this further from a few pages back...

 

first off, ownership isnt everything and isnt even a good thing for many people. which is why you can rent land. ownership comes with various responsibilities some dont want and even comes with liability.

 

secondly...

if you dont want to work for 'money' or engage in consenting capitalist acts between consenting adults, that is engage in a free market economy or you will die... is just a further extension of the nature of life itself.

if we romantically zapped all industrial capitalism and private property off the face of the earth... you would still have to work to provide yourself with food. of course our living standard would be reduced to cavemen, but leaving this aside. you still have to produce to survive. you have to engage in some type of activity to keep your self from dying. so while you may think capitalism is 'slavery' in the same sense so is life.

capitalism is just a means of exchange bounded by private property. in another words you cant sell or barter with something you dont own and you cant infringe on anyone elses rights.

working for 'money' is just a means that has helped increase the living standard of humans out of stone ages. in stead of trying to find someone who will sell you an apple in exchange for your computer services... the barter process is simplified by the market figuring out that there are certain things that people will use as money. historically it has been precious metal coins. this is how money came about. a valuable compact commodity that is easily traded and highly valued by nearly all and can be used to exchange easily for a good or service instead of trying to constantly deal with the 'double coincidence of wants' (guy with an apple looking for computer services finding a guy who wants an apple who offers computers computer services)

its just the most economical means to facilitate trade.

 

just sayin'

[christo-f]

You only perish if you don't know your're animal.

[Cool_Hand]

I think the idea really is we all talk so much about the wrong, the so-called eventual new world order and the downward spiral of our humanity so much we forget what is around us. I think there are probably 5 1/2 Billion too many humans on this earth and everyone is indeed given the right to exist and breath and freely think, which makes the preservation impossible and the collapse inevitable.

 

 

Our nature, which is all that may (or in some case does not) embody us is great, we all love to make our minds and make our own ripples in this world and I am thankful for just that. It is unfortunate and a true shame that money scales that to such horrible degree's where we see our world and just about every thing in it get perverted, destroyed, used and not replaced, abandoned, and trampled with out care. This attitude and normality that we see everyday is something that we can not change.

 

Personal interest is government, sometimes it is a great personal interest that benefit's others, but mostly it is the opposite. Ours, and their governments decisions are so biased and so beneficial to groups or persons that there is no way of a good outcome. You are the same, you are a government and a management of the same principals, you benefit or suffer at your own hands via the decisions you make. Your told that it is the way it is, it is normal, and that is what to expect until your lungs no longer hold air.

 

So it doesn't matter, nwo or not, it or they(nwo, worldbank, euro-union) cannot and will not hold water indefinitely and that is what the past has taught us. The folks who got it right where the ones with no scale or model for success, for wealth, for health, or any meter in which to judge or become in want of others. The human nature to just breath, live, eat, sleep, procreate, swim, run, learn etc, is lost for the time being. The endless riches we consume and lust after will not last here, this earth is to rugged and us; the weak link of it all, far to fragile to make it last.

 

My personal outlook is to wait for the final straw to fall to break the camels back, until then carry on with learning, working, and taking in all I can. Stay positive, but not too positive, remember that all that is good is equally bad. There sure could be a whole lot less people here but you nor I are willing to pull a trigger or press a button, then forget about it, it is out of your hands, just look at your two hands and occupy them with things that occupy you.

 

Cheers

[ALLFATS]

hello.

[Zig]

thought this one was funny:

 

http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-am-conspiracy-theorist.html

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. That's not a label I gave myself. My parents named me when I was born. The media, politicians, and political "scientists" named my political views when they discovered them and needed a box to fit them in. I am not supposed to call myself a conspiracy theorist. Labels are used to attack your opponents with. Pro-life becomes anti-choice. Pro-choice becomes anti-life. Truther becomes conspiracy theorist. I do not care.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. You do not see me on TV as a political commentator. You do not see my opinion in a column in the newspaper. You don't find me in your local university. I do not have political representation in my government, along with millions of others who do not vote. Politicians, journalists, activists and scientists are afraid of being associated with me. When they are, their funding is withdrawn, they are no longer invited on TV, their papers are not accepted for peer review, and their careers are ended. Politicians take great care to distance themselves from me. I do not care.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. When 9/11 happened I did not rally behind Bush. I did not want a War on Terror. I did not buy their story. I blamed the CIA, I blamed the neo-cons, I blamed the Mossad, I blamed shape-shifting reptilian aliens that secretly control our politicians. And nobody got hurt when I did. Nobody went to bed hungry, nobody had his house destroyed, nobody's children were killed, nobody had his face disfigured, nobody had his arms ripped of, no child became an orphan and no mother gave birth to a deformed child when I refused to believe it.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. Please do not call me a liberal. That would be very insulting. I do not want to be associated with those people. I never rallied behind a man that bombed a country with cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium for a genocide that did not happen. I did not vote for a man who bombed medicine factories in Sudan, who imposed sanctions on a 3rd world country that killed 500.000 children, and I certainly did not want more troops to be send to Afghanistan.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. Please do not call me a conservative. That would be very insulting. I do not want to be associated with those people. I never rallied behind a man that gave Iraq the go-ahead to invade Kuwait and then stabbed the nation in the back and began a decades long campaign to destroy it. I never rallied behind his son who invaded two innocent nations based on lies.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. I have all sorts of crazy theories that you never believed. Global warming being a fraud. Building 7 being blown up. Depleted uranium causing a genocidal death toll in Iraq. Vitamin C curing cancer and heart disease, and cannabis being helpful for your health instead of harmful. Pharmaceutical drugs being worthless, and studies done into them being frauds. Politicians secretly building a world government. Secret yearly meetings in 4 and 5 star hotels determining the faith of our planet. Whenever I'm shown to be right, you take my theories away from me. They're no longer conspiracy theories. In fact, they never were. You deny they were ever even mine. Go ahead and pretend they were yours all along if you want, just make yourself useful for once. I do not care.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. I am not half as embarrassed by the shape-shifting reptiles in Buckingham palace, mind control chemicals in the air and the Sasquatch in my backyard as you should be by the children going to bed hungry, men having their wives ripped apart and infants being born with bulging tumors where their eyes should have been. When your children see what world they inherited they'll come to you. When the people whose families you felt had to be killed, for your safety under the motto of collateral damage come to you you'll have to defend yourself. My conspiracy theories were their common knowledge, and my conspiracy theories are your children's new reality. I hope you'll have an explanation ready. My explanation can be found all around the internet. If I were to run for office it would make me unelectable, my ideas are not salonfähig, and Noam Chomsky would not want to be associated with them. However, if your children or the victims of your lust for revenge were to come to me, it would take me 5 seconds to log in and show them what I tried to tell you, year after year.

 

I am a conspiracy theorist. And it makes me more proud every day.

[WIDGETHEMIDGETUAC]

the new world order is a horrible idea...

 

and the evil fucks behind it are even worse.

 

any religious political or government is corrupt, and lets not forget our corporate giants.

 

to bold?....not at all.

[toluene_causes_tumors]

does anyone else think it's funny that russia and new jersey have similar GDPs?

[Zig]

yea hilarious

[wearekilluminati]

come the fuck on people.......................................talk relevant..........

[BlueberryBuds]

A one world government is necessary if WE are every going to become an intergalactic civilization.

[Spaceman Spiff]

This man thinks so too.

 

 

Edit: Super props to anyone who knows who said the quote at the bottom.

[Lesbian Fisting]

Morbo