"We're In Trouble": Alan Greenspan

The problem with your idealisms is the utter hypocrisy, contradictions, conflict, and utter contempt it breeds.

If the world is indeed amoral which I certainly believe it is I think it would just be easier to drop all the pretenses and let things play out naturally. There really is no need for facades.

people generallyl tend to live beyond their means when credit is available, hence the way this evil has been institutionalized. The gov goes broke, YOU/WE go broke. Fair??? Broke, what for? Warfare, social programs that do not work? To put everything into persepective,did you know that the real costs of medicaid/medicare and other entitlement have passed the 100 trillion mark while the US GPD is a mere 7 trillion or so?
seekingalpha.com/article/139841- … 0-trillion

the difference is that when an individual is naive enough to borrow up to his ears, he is the only one going under and possibly the businesses that took risks. When a gov can borrow as if there are no tomorrows, we now have the to big to fail on life support at the taxpayers expenses. Great!

Indeed, one has to wonder why ALL religions prohibit(ed) usury. It is a tool for wealth transfer, as simple as that.

Competition and the fall of man into idocracy

Hatred and anger are big obstacles to share one’s 2 cents… but empathy and cooperation do help a lot. This one below is a must listen… democracy you said?

Aldous Huxley in a speech given to Berkley in which he admits that dystopic novels “Brave New World” and “1984” were not just fiction, but blueprints for two types of controlled and enslaved societies.

“The prophetic Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, speaks to an audience at University of California, Berkeley, surrounding the use of terrorism and pharmaceuticals to create willing slaves out of the population.”-- Aldous Huxley
archive.org/details/AldousHuxle … Revolution

cooperation when understanding the true meaning of free will will rarely be a problem. Cooperation and statism and its monopoly cohorts always will.

Did you listen to greenspan?

Blah blah blah. I don’t really care why you think usury is bad. For all you know, I agree with you. My point is that in order to prevent usury, you have to


and this makes your position self-defeating.

This is my whole point. You say all these sunshiny things about how we all have to cooperate and stop coercing each other, but when prodded just slightly, you got all these ideas of basic practices that need to be outlawed and how society has to be reformed whether everybody is on board with the reforms or not.

Just like every other ‘can’t we all just get along’ type. What you really want is for everybody to do what you tell them.

Which was the first thing I said.


it is impossible to reform education without first teaching kids that competition always leads to a major upheaval that can/will cause the death of the entire species (thats where we are now, so my example is irrefutable)… trends are just exponential… hence voluntarism makes a LOT of sense. There are only two choices comprised within the same idea. Violence/warfare is the most a direct and fastest. Changing mindsets peacefully takes a lot more time. Unfortunately time is money… there lies the deceptive framework we live in.

nope, people have to understand that taxation will always allow any gov to borrow up to its ears. The founding fathers knew this and why is US constitution against taxation? This is the dilemma that all nations face equally. yet you dont care…? Dont you care of being impoverished by the powers that be? The USD today is a mere 2 cents worth. 98% inflation or hidden tax in order words. This is extremely coercive.

People surely do not get along when too preoccupied by their survival (and a currency losing its purchasing power through inflation - gov borrowing- increases existential insecurity). It makes them neurotic. When individuals are not given the chance to create, explore their own creative abilities I mean (outside the influence of whatever feudalistic structure), they just go amok.

I dont think you really understand the tenets of free will, ideas of Frediric Bastiat, thomas paine, etienne de la boetie and Hayek, to name a few.

The DNA machine restructuring their genetics is the education they need, on a cellular level.

Of course, it isn’t forced. People have the option to be buttugly, lazy and lethargic fucks who never volunteer or anything.

That’s an oxymoron.

forget about just anything with DARPA in the picture, most pro AI folks are misguided

must watch: DARPA Exposed (video) youtube.com/watch?v=iq2V_LkgRdo

genetic engineering tends t make one look at the rosy picture… but AI weaponry will not leave many alive on the planet. Have you listen to Robert Dunking, transhumanist big shot, yet? The ultimate threat right now is precisely transhumanism, not the knowledge itself, but the predatory brains behind it.

I don’t see how the DNA machine is related to AI weaponry.

DNA machine is the counter to the transhumanist idiocy. Transhumanists want to upload their brains into a computer, DNA machine gives them an option of embracing reality instead of uploading their brains into a computer.

there will be no need for a DNA machine for the masses because up to 80-90% of world population could/will die by AI. Some of the survivors may/will adopt a mad max life style, while the elites lives hundred of years.

look for transhumanist big shot robert dunkin at the bases confrence lectures on utube, at the end she speaks of a depopulation agenda. More seriously what DARPA is up to should be talked about on MSM 24/7. But they prefer political circus.

Competition and the end game.

The DNA machine is still needed for the elites. I question the wisdom of secret societies who honestly believe satan is real.

The masses are evil, and the elites are evil, so the question of who is more evil is a valid one.

Game theory is where society is a chessboard and we’re all pawns.

Alan Watts would say that is good, that it is good God is just using us as pawns in a board game, and we should rejoice in it.

I don’t care about any of that. Tell me how you’d do away with usury without using coercion to enforce the banning of it, or your position is incoherent.

The mentality toward usury could change overnight if people were told the truth about it, they just need to access the real numbers. The world debt was 500+ trillion at the end of 2000 while the GDP a mere 70 trillion… long term liabilities are so much worse. It is like saying that the US national debt IS 15TN but long term liabilities are 100TN. Greenspan is right when saying we are in troubles. Central banks just need to raise the interest rates and we ALL go under.

if you do not care, so how can you say that my position is incoherent? You do not care about economics, so you cannot have any valid point of view I am afraid. Do you find normal that stockbrokers can bet on sinking a firm as soon as it revenues decline, called naked short selling? Well, it is perfectly legal.

People will always fight each other when they are squeezed by monopolies, treated like serfs/market assets, and feel powerless to change what is. 4000 years of human history we have had the same problem, yet you tell me that my position is incoherent when talk of a thinker like Hayek or bastiat. There goes taxpayers money just for killing. And you are not the only one who does not care. If taxation and usury were abolished financing wars would be history.

The Pentagon wants at least $12 billion to fund AI weapon technology in 2017
businessinsider.com/the-pent … 15-12?op=1

You argued that we need to stop coercion and live in a cooperative society.

Now you’re arguing that usury needs to be outlawed.

Outlawing things is coercion.

So your position is incoherent.

I don’t care about your reasoning for why usury is bad, because that has nothing to do with why your position is incoherent. Your position is incoherent because you condemn coercion, while advocating it. It’s not a question of economics, it’s a question of basic logic. This will me my third time explaining this to you. Hell, more if you count that I was alluding to it in my very first reply.

All your talk against coercion is just happy-sounding shittalk when you’re advocating banning economic practices you don’t like.

That must be what you’re doing instead of reading my posts that you reply to; making me repeat myself this many times.

You do not read me well nor understand that I am dealing with another paradigm, any freedom advocate would agree with usury prohibition since it operates as a wealth transfer. More seriously, again, if people could access the real numbers they would decide to prohibit it as it is a crime against humanity.

It is just like murder, and prohibit/outlaw murder … is it right or wrong? If you say here that it is wrong, then you are correct, I am incoherent.

Prohibition doesnt means that some people will still not resort to it, we cannot prevent transactions between consulting adults anyway. It is like taking drugs at own perils. Just like now, world govs are in debts up to their ears at OUR own peril.

If you do not see what I mean here, sorry… a crime is a crime and must be outlawed.

Id really like to hear the main TV broadcasts talking of the real US/World debt, there would be a revolution within hours… coercion? incoherence?

We are in this mess because 85% of population do not comprehend economics. Do you?