My mom was listening to the radio and someone on there was talking about it.
My mental state is very lacking right now so i will have to cut the prelude short on this one.
Hopefully some good discussion / info to come…(and possibly future man)
Let’s ask:
Is the environment really headed for a crash?
Yes.
More and more pollution.
More and more overconsumption of resources.
More and more destruction of life and nature in general.
The economy is simply the leeching of the environment.
The economy is the ability to produce “goods”.
For bloody fuck’s sake, “goods”, not “bads”.
Holy fuck! They make so many tanks, and all that shit, so much shit, but are they making “goods”? Even when they give birth, aren’t they just taking a crying, bloody, skin coated, human shit?
Nobody spanks their god damned ass.
God damnit!
I’m ranting now.
God damn, those god damn basterd shits!
[b]FUCK!
FUCK FUCK FUCK![/b]
besides dan’s ummmm witty response,
I must say the chances of a world’s economic
meltdown is actually pretty good.
The leading economy in the world is the U.S and
its going down. Almost every single economic indicator
is going down. The fact of the matter is over the last 6 years
over 30% of all the U.S. economic growth has been the
housing sector and that is clearly turning downward
these days and the economic growth over the last
6 years was weak as it was soooooo. We should have a
a depression by midyear next year and that will drag down
every body else.
Kropotkin
Probably not. 
The economy won’t collapse unless someone wants it’s to…
So the answer to the question is: If it benefits someone really powerful.
Keep in mind the ‘news’ is meant to scare you – don’t be. We’re in good shape… just meditate and shit.
the world’s economy will not crash unless the socialist totalitarians (democRATS) of the world take money out of the economy through taxes.
-Imp
Don’t be so confident and sure. You yourself may one day need very much socialism. You may one day need public money to live. We are all vulnerable, socialism is a humane system that recognizes this. Capitalism is for the hardy and rough and tough and strong.
Money is not economy.
Money is a form of debt, it is paper, it is fantasy.
Also, what makes you think democrats are socailist totalitarians?
Actually, capitalism is for the mafia… 
Go on economist.com
They’ve been saying we’re all doomed since 2001. You’ll find excuses in the later issues.
Money is not a fantasy, though wealth may be. Money (ie, currency) is a medium of exchange. It is not a form of debt once transferred.
In the US, money does now (post Nixon) require faith. While our currency was tied to gold, it represented something - even if it was only a nominal interest in gold reserves. Today, it represents nothing other than our individual and collective faith that inflation will not skyrocket, thus making our currency more valuable as tinder than a medium of exchange.
Actually yopele,
I am going to have to side with Squiggle man here, with one small difference.
Money does not have value. To believe that paper currency or gold have value, is to subject your judgement of value to the definitions provided by society, so you don’t necessarily make the judgement, it is made for you.
Monetary systems are group, (social), fantasy.
Here’s the test for the premise: At the moment that humanity ceases to exist, does paper currency or gold still carry a value?
No, it can’t.
Does anything still have value?
Is the world ecomony headed for a crash?
Probably not. Economic crashes are relatively rare, and despite how it may seem in the developed West, the world economy is actually getting stronger as less developed nations begin to ‘catch up’. Even in the developed West the likelihood of a devestating crash is quite remote. You can blame those nasty socialist totalitarians that Impenitent likes to blame for all the worlds ills for this as well. Those darn social safety nets proping up economies - how I hate that. 
I of course didn’t hear the radio program Drift’s mom was listening to, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just a bit of alarmist hyperbole responding to the now inevitable eclipse of the American economy on the world stage. Some people are still under the impression that the world revolves around the US. 
Only those things which continue to maintain life. Which is the inherent difference between the natural world and humanity.
The natural world resides with the rational realm of reality.
Humanity exists only within the realm of its own deluded perception of paramount importance to the rest of creation.
Fundamentally different division, however infinitesimal.
Mas, it is simply a question of whether anything aside from life may have value. I hold that it can - or could.
All right, I see your distinction.
If clan X has water and clan Y needs water, the medium of exchange is valuable to clan Y. Does it matter to clan Y that it is a clan of snails?
Edit: The question never was, what has eternal value? I (and you) live in a world where humans exist. If we didn’t, sure…money might very well be a fantasy. But it’s not. And I don’t see how you can support ~'s claim, unless your support is a result of the fact that money (or medium of exchange) is merely temporal. But everyone knows that. Thus ~ has merely lucked into stating a truism.
charity is the work of churches not government
seperation of church and state?
those darn thieves stealing peoples hard earned money via taxes, how I hate that
-Imp
i judge the answer of a question on ILP by how many support a answer and how many facts they put behind it. i realize u cant belive everything you hear,but the compilation of all i’ve read seems too balance itself out.
i should check that web site…
Obviously I can’t argue against your assertion of temporality.
To me this “monetary value” becomes illogical when it supercedes rational understanding of purpose. The aspect of materialism, and I am certain you are hedging your social contract perspective forward, comes to a point, in a secular capitalism, whereby the possessor is now the possessed.
To my perspective, it then becomes tantamount to mindless stupidity, because the possessions have more legitimacy, by proxy of “assumed value” predicated upon the social judgement, than the human who worked to obtain the possession.
Wouldn’t you find that scenario disagreeable from a logical perspective?