Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

There is nothing wrong with Russia. It is much more liberal a country nowadays. It may also be worth mentioning that it was one of the first countries to break out of the Soviet Union.

- Money can be anything that can be reused as money later on. Since it is capitalists that actually produces something, e.g. a shoemaker, who need money as tools to produce their shoes (because he needs to buy leather, shoelaces, threads, etc and other capitalists who produce those may already have shoes and be unwilling to trade for shoes), it is up to those capitalists to decide what money they are going to use.

---

Lol, Russia is a dictatorship run by a crony capitalist kleptocracy, and nothing like a free market. If there is any country that resembles a mafia state it is Russia.

The Soviet Union broke up because the other republics broke away, starting with the Baltic states - Russia was one of the last. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissol...e_Soviet_Union

Your definition of money is a tautology. A stable economy requires some monetary standard - it can't be just left to the market. Even advocates of free banking, where banks could issue their own notes, have in mind a rule that would set either the price of currency (eg in terms of gold) or the supply of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking

If you had studied any financial history, rather than talking off the top of your head, you also would know that the period before modern central banking was characterised by frequent financial crises, mainly due to banking panics. If there was no central bank we would face the risk that we could lose all of our savings simply because some rumour caused a run on the bank.

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1800650]

Money can be anything that can be reused as money later on. Since it is capitalists that actually produces something, e.g. a shoemaker...
--A shoemaker is an artisan not a capitalist. Capitalists provide the 'capital' -could be cash, could be a loan, could be an asset like a factory building- that can be used to make shoes. Where an artisan may make two or three pairs of shoes a day (ad charge a high price for his or her craft), a factory can make 10,000 or more, and get this, the capitalist doesn't even need to take his coat off when the working day begins or show up at the factory gate at 6am, because it is the machines and the workers minding the machines who make the shoes. This distinction, between the artisan and the worker is so basic one wonders why you think an example from the 13th century is still applicable in the 21st.
And, if you did read accounts of the medieval world as it left feudalism behind, be it Marc Bloch or Fernand Braudel you would be able to trace the emergence of money out of barter, and accept that the need for a state controlled currency followed endless crises and small wars fought over the contested validity and quality and availability of specie in the emerging mercantile capitalist world of them days.

because communists want to control everything and they want to have monopoly for everything. There is only place for one monopoly, usually.
- Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention. If a company does a good job rendering its services then I cannot see why it shouldn't be the main provider of those services. It then does not need any laws who protect it from competition, which is not the case when it decides to lower it's services' quality.
--You have completely ignored the point that I was making about the fact, and it is a fact, that in the relatively unregulated US economy of the late 19th century 'free markets' -not Communism!- enabled monopolies to emerge, precisely because the capitalists crushed their competition or bought them out. Rockefeller was the master of this, and if you think about it, he was approaching every small entrepreneur who wanted to open a retail gas station or drill for oil and 'made them an offer they can't refuse' -but offering money rather than a 'Corleone'. It is not about the quality of the company, but the operation of the market and bear in mind it was the politicians who believed in competition who passed the law that was eventually used to break up Rockefeller's empire (in 1911).
As for the Mafia, it emerged in Sicily because of a lack of government, in the absence of responsible rule by local nobles in the 18th century and particularly following the demise of the Kingdom of Napes and Sicily when 'Italy' was 're-unified or more accurately created in the 19th century. So when you write Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention in fact it is precisely in countries where 'markets are free from government intervention' that organized crime flourishes. And if you describe the USSR as not a 'normal country' you find that the distribution of commodities entering the market from inside or outside were controlled by 'the party' which money could easily corrupt so that the Russian mafia could get its hands on desirable goods -eg Belgian chocolate- buy it cheap and sell it dear to someone organizing a wedding or a birthday party -another example of how markets can support crime when crime and the markets are not properly regulated.

- I never said Thatcher was either good or bad. She was a politician after all, and she found herself living in an abnormal country. She did bring the UK out of a crisis caused by the communists.
--If I understood this incoherent garbage I could respond, but I don't, so I can't.

Money is a tool that is meant to facilitate exchange of goods. Just like no sane shoemaker is going to collect hammers to ensure he can feed his family in case of a crisis, they are not going to collect money in order do do that either, as during crises lack of money is usually not the problem. - Lack of goods is. There was times in Poland when everybody had literally shit-loads of money. The only problem was that it would be worth nothing and you were unable to buy anything as nobody was willing to trade for it. Financial crises are not real crises for the nation. They are only crises for communist states.

A shoemaker does not make shoes only because he likes it. He makes them to get make a living. In civilised countries that means getting money.

The Russians hated the Soviets just like everybody else. Learn history. (Only not from Stavros's red books)

Artisan still exist and I used a shoemaker as example but I could have just as well used an independent prostitute or baker... The problem with factories as they grow bigger is that apart from money they require other tools than those required in on their production floors. If the said shoe-shop grows into a factory, the shoemaker who established it indeed no longer earns his wage by physically making shoes. He now has agreed with others who are working for the factory and only provides the assets you mention, namely tools, the factory building, materials, etc... It is still up to him to decide, however, what sort of currency he uses in the whole process. He may be using gold, shiny stones, bitcoin, pieces of plastic with a face and a number drawn fancily on them, or all of them at once, and because it is his factory, he knows which currency he ought to be using much better than the central banker communist.

In a normal country Rockefeller would not be able to make offers one wouldn't be able to refuse. He would be hanged. If I am to believe your words, Rockefeller was one of the first greedy communists who wanted to control everything. Which explains why shortly afterwards, in 1913, financial punishment for work a.k.a "Federal Income Tax" was legalised.

Mafia is symbiosis where a business gets legal protection from government in exchange for something else. In a normal country, where police does their job and enforce laws, such symbioses would simply not exist. The King is King, pretty much irremovable, it has all the wealth he may want so bribery is very unlikely, and all he has to do is make he is running a country of law and order rather than a democratic one - where "the bigger bunch tells everybody else what to do and what not to do".

Only about 10% of population is capable of abstract thinking. Apparently you are not in those 10%. You also seem to see everything either as "black or white" and the world is usually "of one of the shades of grey". Don't worry if you cannot understand everything you read. In a normal country, you would probably be able to do something that suits you and still make a decent living out of it.

So, it appears you don't know the difference between an artisan and a capitalist. It appears you don't understand how money replaced barter, and how only government has been able to create the stable currency that everyone -producers and consumers- wants, accepting that a strong currency is dependent on the performance of the economy.
You don't seem to understand how the Mafia originated in Sicily owing to the absence of government, and regard John D. Rockefeller as a 'Communist' which undermines any credibility you think you have when it comes to discussing economics. You keep talking about this (mythical?) 'normal country' without defining what it means, but I guess that is what 'abstract thinking' produces. If you really think I see everything in 'black or white' then you have not been reading my posts.

More to the point, the President, earlier this year, lifted regulations on coal companies in the US that had prevented them from dumping slurry from excavations into local rivers and streams. The regulation was there because people wanted the environment protected, the regulation was lifted to reduce costs to coal companies, but why are the companies so uninterested in being good 'corporate citizens' and indifferent to any damage it might do to their reputation? Because they don't care. How can you explain the difference between your wonderful capitalists who 'do the right thing' and therefore do not need regulating, and those who, in the real, as opposed to the abstract world, do not?

Coal mines are built to mine coal, not to care about their reputation or environment. If someone is concerned about the slurry they produce then they sould invent technology of mining coal that does not pollute the environment. If use of the new and cleaner technology is economically justified, mines will employ it without any government intervention. Again, let miners do their jobs. They know much more about mining than any federal officials. If the mines' customers disagree with their ways, they can always refrain from buying coal. Apparently the US president knows much more about how economy works than you do and prefers that miners do their jobs and inventors of new technologies do theirs rather than discouraging them from doing anything at all with silly restrictions. I am not sure which one but there was another US president who would say that government cannot solve any problems. It can only create them.

There are millions of tons of coal under the ground in the UK & it's some of the best in the world, it as a high sulphur content.

The company I used to work for operated trains conveying coal from Kellingley Colliery to Drax Power Station, trains departed every two hours 24 hours per day conveying about 1,520 tons per train. Total distance was 9 miles, journey time with an eco friendly locomotive was about 23 minutes! Costs to the environment were negligible!
Now Drax mainly burn wood chippings, known as bio-mass, imported from Scandinavia & the US. it takes 3 trains of bio-mass to every one train of coal to generate the same amount of power!
This, of course, was mainly down to our friends in Brussels & fucking ECO-warriors! You can't save the world unless you start using monopoly money!

Funny how it's always outsiders slagging the Russians off?
Never hear many Russians slagging their own country off? Most of the programmes I've watched show Russians are staunchly proud of their origins. As I befriended one for over seven years & met many others only confirms my thoughts.
Some cunts been watching the BBC news too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Coal mines are built to mine coal, not to care about their reputation or environment. .

---

Who then, was responsible for Aberfan? According to Enquiry in 1967-

Blame for the disaster rests upon the NCB [National Coal Board]. "This blame is shared (though in varying degrees) among the NCB headquarters, the South Western Divisional Board, and certain individuals.

“There was a total absence of tipping policy and this was the basic cause of the disaster."

It criticised the lack of legislation regulating the safety of tips or guidance from the Inspectorate of Mines (my emphasis)
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...aster-12025544

Politicians from the statutory NCB, of course, who clearly did not know about mining. Had there been no NCB, the disaster would not have happened. Miners had seen it coming 3 years before the tragedy struck, but of course, the commies from the NCB knew better where to dump the waste, didn't they? - Yet another argument against state-owned companies...

Of course, if politicians were keeping out of economy, miners would have had jobs for as long as private companies wanted to mine UK's coal. The problem was, the other state owned business would not be able to operate their trains with coal and wood from abroad would it...? Add global warming and more communists from Brussels to it and it turns out that UK's coal and miners are baaaad.

Don't blame everything you don't like on communists RedVex! You've left most of them behind in Poland, there aren't many here & none working for the EU!