Money is not motivation...

Arminius · July 9, 2014, 12:19am

You disagree?

Okay, that’s internet. Internet is agreement or disagreement, but nothing else. Who cares?

But where is your argument, your counter argument?

The proof you mentioned will follow. But okay: maybe there is no proof, what is your proof then? There is no counter proof.

Eric_The_Pipe · July 9, 2014, 2:22am

Not yet. You haven’t given me a reason to.

No one cares.

Against what? At this point it is theorizing. I counter with, it is not true.

I cannot prove you wrong, with a counter, because you have provided nothing to prove you right.

Arminius · July 9, 2014, 8:20am

Is there a little misunderstanding? If so, then please excuse me. If not, then please excuse me.

gib · July 9, 2014, 9:58pm

Arminius:

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don’t see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

Arminius · July 10, 2014, 8:10pm

gib:

Arminius:

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don’t see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new “human species”).

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

Eric_The_Pipe · July 10, 2014, 9:12pm

Arminius:

gib:

Arminius:

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don’t see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

I suggest you read Knowledge and Power by George Gilder. He might be able to dissuade you from this notion. It’s a really great book about information theory and economics.

Arminius · July 11, 2014, 2:42pm

Eric_The_Pipe:

Arminius:

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Arminius:

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

I suggest you read Knowledge and Power by George Gilder. He might be able to dissuade you from this notion. It’s a really great book about information theory and economics.

Thank you. I don’t know George Gilder. But information theory and economics can be brought together also in that sence I do. What I do is quite similar to that what Peter Mersch does. Do you know Peter Mersch?

gib · July 11, 2014, 2:47pm

Huh? That makes no sense. Reducing the number of children in a family means more resources are freed up to be spent on other things–even for the rich–and somehow by freeing up these resource, the rich end up getting richer more slowly? And this slowing of getting richer happens only for the rich? Huh?

(I’m not even going to ask about the “new human species” thing).

Arminius · July 11, 2014, 4:07pm

That makes very much sense. I think you have not understand what I said.

First you agree:

Then you disagree (see above: “That makes no sense.”), although I did not change my statements.

The conclusion can be that e.g. (a) you have misundsertood me, or (b) you fear the power of the 1%, or you, or (c) you want to attack me personally (ad hominem), if so, then this would largely adjoin off-topic.

I am not interrested in off-topic posts!

Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

Maybe you don’t know what that really means.

In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. Have you never heard of the fact that the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening?

phyllo · July 11, 2014, 5:14pm

GNP France 2011 = 2.8 trillion US dollars
GNP Italy 2011 = 2.2 trillion US dollars

Which corporations have greater assets?

gib · July 12, 2014, 6:45am

Arminius:

Gib:

Arminius:

Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new “human species”).

Huh? That makes no sense. Reducing the number of children in a family means more resources are freed up to be spent on other things–even for the rich–and somehow by freeing up these resource, the rich end up getting richer more slowly? And this slowing of getting richer happens only for the rich? Huh?

(I’m not even going to ask about the “new human species” thing).

That makes very much sense. I think you have not understand what I said.

First you agree:

Gib:

If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

Then you disagree (see above: “That makes no sense.”), although I did not change my statements.

The conclusion can be that e.g. (a) you have misundsertood me, or (b) you fear the power of the 1%, or you, or (c) you want to attack me personally (ad hominem), if so, then this would largely adjoin off-topic.

I am not interrested in off-topic posts!

Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

Maybe you don’t know what that really means.

In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. Have you never heard of the fact that the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening?

That makes no sense.

Eric_The_Pipe · July 12, 2014, 11:48am

Arminius:

Eric_The_Pipe:

Arminius:

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Arminius:

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

I suggest you read Knowledge and Power by George Gilder. He might be able to dissuade you from this notion. It’s a really great book about information theory and economics.

Thank you. I don’t know George Gilder. But information theory and economics can be brought together also in that sence I do. What I do is quite similar to that what Peter Mersch does. Do you know Peter Mersch?

I do now! Sadly, I am unable to read German… Know an English source?

Arminius · July 13, 2014, 2:24am

You know that Peter Mersch writes in German? That’s interesting. Maybe he also writes in English. I don’t know. Try to google his name. Another source are my posts here in this forum.

But beware, trolls are everywhere (did you notice the rime?), and only they decide what “makes sense” and what “makes no sense” in this forum!

Joining information theory and economy makes sense (not for trolls, but for us), but I don’t think that everyone who calles himself an “information theoretician” or an “economist” is really an information theoretician or an economist. I don’t know George Gilder. Maybe you can describe that man a little bit.

James_S_Saint · July 13, 2014, 2:49am

phyllo:

h of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.
GNP France 2011 = 2.8 trillion US dollars
GNP Italy 2011 = 2.2 trillion US dollars

Which corporations have greater assets?

The Rothschilds, for example, could buy both of those countries outright and not even feel the loss.

American corporations are limited and never get above $1 trillion. It’s the “old families” who have the serious money (100’s of trillions).

Arminius · July 15, 2014, 8:46pm

James S Saint:

phyllo:
h of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.
GNP France 2011 = 2.8 trillion US dollars
GNP Italy 2011 = 2.2 trillion US dollars

Which corporations have greater assets?
The Rothschilds, for example, could buy both of those countries outright and not even feel the loss.

American corporations are limited and never get above $1 trillion. It’s the “old families” who have the serious money (100’s of trillions).

For comparison: the current world GNP = 70 trillion US dollars.

Those corporations can easily circumvent that limit of 1 billion US Dollars, for example by joining together with other corporations, by forming a super-corporation, a super-company, a super organisation (similar to a super organism). There are ways and paths enough to do this. the difference between them and the ordinary people is already so great that one can almost speak of two different human “species”.