Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. If humans were massively interested in wealth then armies wouldn't exist.

    If they were massivley interested in wealth then welfare systems would be irrelevent to their productivity.

    If they were massively interested in wealth accumulation they wouldn't have children.

    etc etc

    People just don't care that much about amassing wealth. I mean, look at your own behaviour - how much energy and effort do you put into becoming richer is it the prime focus of your life? I mean posting on here is a waste of your wealth accumulating time, isn't it?

    Not if they can accumulate more wealth by gaming the welfare system

    than they can by working

    that's the whole point FFS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And for 99.9% of human history people had children to provide for them when they could no longer provide for themselves

    having children is the ultimate in storing wealth for the future

    when you are young fit and healthy you store the surplus food you cannot eat or preserve in your children who then feed you when you are too old to feed yourself.

    All this is pretty basic human nature - which probably explains why you don't 'get it'

    :blink:

  2. Then why did humans live in more or less the exact same unrelenting squalor for the entirety of their history up until that point?

    hmmm?

    Humans have worked to accumulate surpluses for thousands of years.

    Domestication of plants and animals began about 10,000 years ago

    the 'Neolithic revolution'

    prior to that humans were hunter gatherers and if they could gather and store a surplus they would do so.

    :blink:

  3. The empirical record proves you completely wrong.

    Until about 200 years ago, humans didn't bother accumulating wealth.

    Nope.

    Only if you think the point of such a system is to produce wealth.

    But only a complete ******wit would think that.

    This statement is complete and utter garbage

    stater.jpg

    :blink:

  4. The technicalities of this are irrelevant and no one understands them, because you can come to any number of interpretations based on your own political and economic viewpoint.

    At the end of the day the BOE is printing money and giving it to the Government.

    As it is impossible to print real wealth, this process is devaluing the sterling reserves of all individuals and companies via inflation

    which is constant and far higher than the fiddled figures portray.

    The only reason they are largely getting away with it currency wise is because the US and Eurozone are doing exactly the same thing.

    IMHO

    :blink:

  5. When people are free they may generate wealth. Or they might go to sleep under a tree.

    The thing people want is freedom to choose which one.

    To become free.

    Humans aren't that bothered about wealth. Never have been.

    Left to their own devices humans work hard to accumulate the necessities of life

    And if they can produce a surplus they will generally do this in order to cover themselves against unforeseen shortages in the future

    In Socialist states there is no incentive for anyone to work harder than the absolute minimum they can get away with

    which is why Socialism inevitably fails.

    You are talking to someone who gave up work because the state took so much from me that I was better off not working

    and there are 8 million people economically inactive in the UK now

    Failure is built into this type of system.

    :blink:

  6. Did you buy your new car with cash or credit?........new cars are fine for those that want to and are able take on that extra monthly cost, or are flush with cash, but when insurance, tax and fuel are rising faster that you can keep account of.....sometimes needs must, cut your cloth to fit your coat...choices...what we would like and what we can realistically have are two different things......sometimes paying the rent/other debt, buying food, travelling to work and keeping warm take priority. ;)

    I bought my first and probably only new car in 2007 from an internet car company

    because it effectively cost less than the price being charged by dealers for a second hand, previous model.

    This was because the car was taxed, had 12 months recovery, new tyres and would not have to be MOT'd for 3 years and was 1 year newer.

    When I showed the dealers the internet price they just said they couldn't match it - because they knew the next person through the door would be quite happy to pay over the odds.

    :blink:

  7. It wasn't for money.

    It was freedom.

    When people are free they generate wealth

    when they are slaves they do as little as they can get away with.

    This is why they end up holding a gun to people's heads

    and why people risk death to escape these societies

    :blink:

  8. But the whole point of this thread is that those Nordic states that have far more extensive social welfare models than the US are more prosperous than the US.

    How is this to be explained? Surely the US with it's more limited welfare system should be the most prosperous?

    There is something wrong with your notion that a large welfare system automatically leads to economic failure.

    Countries with relatively small populations and lots of natural resources can be quite wealthy despite the system

    At the end of the day, the 'success' of the Nordic states can't wipe out 100 years+ of repression, mass murder and complete economic failure.

    As many people have pointed out many times

    if Socialism is so fantastic how come millions of people risked death trying to escape from paradise to the evil capitalist west?

    :blink:

  9. What I find surprising about this thread is that some HPC members have only just cottoned on to the fact that the BoE is printing money to fund directly (well, as directly as possible without the masses understanding what's going on) the government's deficit.

    Printy printy.

    Let them eat cash.

    The line is that the BOE is printing money and giving it to the 'Banksters'

    which of course is utter rubbish.

    The BOE is printing money and giving it to the Government

    :blink:

  10. Ha ha! For someone claiming to understand the history of science you haven't the first clue.

    I own and have read many books on both Newton and Einsteins theories.

    Einsteins model of gravity as a curvature of space time completely replaces Newtons theory based on forces

    Newtons theory is only an approximation and his model bears no relation to reality

    This does not mean that Newton wasn't a genius

    arguably he was the greatest thinker who ever lived

    but his theory was not the 'truth'

    it was just a convenient mathematical model that could be used to approximately describe reality.

    :)

  11. Newton wasn't and isn't wrong. His theory is demonstrably true at non relativistic velocities. Einstein modified Newton's law of Gravitation at those extremes. He did not falsify it or overturn it.

    Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word 'theory'? By your disingenuous usage quantum mechanics is 'just a theory' yet it is one of our most successful models.... its predictions have been tested to one part in 10^12 and they have never been shown to be false. But to you it's 'just a theory'...

    No - he didn't modify it

    Einstein completely overturned Newtons model.

    The point I am making, which you are trying hard to ignore is that MMGW is only a theory

    and unless it can accurately predict actual outcomes then the probability that it is correct is extremely low.

    :)

  12. I see, so your 'analysis' (such as it is) of Lockwood's work is to selectively choose any sentences which, out of context, could possibly support your pre-determined bias.

    I'd hoped you might understand the conclusions Lockwood reaches... Silly me.

    Anyone who truly understands anything about science knows that theories are just that

    And anyone claiming that MMGW is the truth or reality is a liar.

    The NASA article I linked to stated that more research was needed which is fair enough because basically - no one really knows.

    Before Einstein, had I stated that I believed Newton was wrong you would have called me an idiot and a gravity denier.

    Theories are just theories and if as in the case of MMGW they are totally unable to predict actual outcomes then the probability of them being correct is approaching zero.

    Climategate clearly showed that the data was being manipulated to fit the theory - which should have at least made MMGW supporters a bit less fanatical

    but at the end of the day it really isn't about science, it has now become a weird pseudo scientific cult that is being exploited by politicians for their own ends.

    So stop worrying and have a think about who is manipulating you and for what reasons

    :)

  13. Read the Mike Lockwood papers I posted several times.

    No one knows.

    But - here's an abstract from one of his papers

    Abstract/Summary

    Recent research has suggested that relatively cold UK winters are more common when solar activity is low (Lockwood et al 2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 024001). Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29) and records of past solar variations inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (Abreu et al 2008 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 L20109) and geomagnetic activity data (Lockwood et al 2009 Astrophys. J. 700 937–44) suggest that the current grand solar maximum is coming to an end and hence that solar activity can be expected to continue to decline. Combining cosmogenic isotope data with the long record of temperatures measured in central England, we estimate how solar change could influence the probability in the future of further UK winters that are cold, relative to the hemispheric mean temperature, if all other factors remain constant. Global warming is taken into account only through the detrending using mean hemispheric temperatures. We show that some predictive skill may be obtained by including the solar effect.

    On this basis, if AGW is correct we should be pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible in order to prevent another mini ice age which certainly would be a disaster for humanity as food Global food production would plummet.

    :)

  14. There you go with your comprehension problem again!

    No, I did not claim that the sun's output does not vary over time. You claimed that the sun clearly undergoes considerable, unpredictable variations in its output. It does not. It exhibits a fairly regular cyclic variation of about 0.1% with a period of roughly 11 years, and it has steadily (and predictably) increased in brightness by about 30% over the course of the Earth's history. While minor fluctuations probably do occur, the sun does not and cannot exhibit the considerable, unpredictable variations that you claim. The only way that the minor fluctuations in the sun's output can have a significant effect on the Earth's climate is through feedbacks such as ice albedo and greenhouse gases.

    Edit: Oops, missing "not".

    I already explained why they are unpredictable and you clearly did not understand the article.

    'Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.'

    You have absolutely NO IDEA what effect variations in sunspot activity may have on the Earth's climate

    because NASA does not make that claim.

    Perhaps you know more than they do.

    :blink:

  15. Ah, diddums. Can dish it out, can't take it.

    Yes, it is.

    I don't think you are, not in an intellectually curious way. Your a priori opinions will trump any scientific findings you read. Indeed, I could you point you to this free online book which an interested layman could read if they were curious about global warming. Yet I know full well that you won't, or if you do you'll stop with outrage at the first thing you think you can disagree with.

    I support it because it's reality. You deny it because the anti-AGW propaganda has framed global warming as a left-wing cause.

    'I support it because it's reality'

    It's a scientific theory.........

    As to trading insults, if you were certain of your cause you would not be so upset by people challenging your beliefs

    the same applies to all religious fanatics.

    :blink:

  16. Hey Game_Over,

    You claimed upthread that the sun clearly undergoes considerable, unpredictable variations in its output. I've asked you to substantiate this claim, but you haven't. I therefore call ******** on your claim. You just made it up, didn't you, as you do most of your "arguments".

    To be honest I lose track of your, Fluffy, Kurt and others rants.

    So are you then claiming that the Sun's output does not vary over time???

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    This is a NASA link, I know it's not the Guardian so you will say it's all lies

    but at least I tried.

    :blink:

  17. What utter garbage.

    AGW was theorised in the 19th Century whereas the extremely high temperatures on Venus were not established until the advent of space probes.

    It was the advent of Earth orbiting satellites and planetary probes that triggered this wave of alarmist hysteria

    and the fact that the theory fitted the objectives of a particular political ideology turned it into the monster it became.

    :blink:

  18. Because of the denialists.. If we had embarked on a serious program to replace coal with nuclear power starting in the 1980s when the problem of global warming became apparent, then coal could have been phased out worldwide by now.

    Denialism applies to a range of fields - Global Warming, Evolution, Vaccines, Nuclear power and yes, the Holocaust, in which people use similar rhetorical techniques to deny reality. Such as:

    - Claiming that people are toeing the line to keep funding

    - Dismissing large amounts of solid evidence in favour of small amounts of fragmentary evidence

    - Quote mining with little or no context

    - Refusing to engage in detailed or substantive written debate.

    - Accusing opponents of being fanatics or close minded whilst never, ever listening to what they say.

    If you don't want to be called a denialist, don't act like one.

    Hmm. A mirror might be handy for you th this point.

    The term is very offensive and was chosen for this purpose.

    And I don't think quoting leaked E-mails or one of the founders of the Green movement is 'quote mining'

    Also, since when was I an advocate for any form of Global Government?

    In addition, as you have mentioned it, there is also mounting evidence that Vaccines cause damage to children, the least of these being the huge otherwise unexplained rise in the incidence of Autism.

    Individual vaccines may be tested and proved harmless, but the effect of multiple vaccines is largely untested and also there are numerous documented cases of faulty batches which have caused serious harm to the recipients.

    I am not anti-science - I have been interested is science and technology all my life

    I have also been equally interested in history and this shows that time and time again bogus scientific theories have been used to impose all kinds of totalitarian ideologies on humanity, with terrible consequences.

    You may be choosing to ignore this fact, but I suspect the real reason you fanatically support this theory is because you support its totalitarian objectives.

    :)

  19. Well when such possibilities were mooted the Scientists didn't have access to satelites or the plethora of measuring devices available to today to measure infrared and UV radiation. In addition the Victorians didn't have the benefit of space probes to go and measure the constituent parts of the Venusian atmosphere. ;)

    A very poor example - even by your standards

    It wasn't an example of scientists being proven completely wrong - there are thousands of these

    it was a reference to the fact that this was one of the discoveries that led to the theory of MMGW.

    Had planetary probes not shown Venus to be as it is - the theory of MMGW would not have been necessary.

    :)

  20. But if your assertions that scientists always refuse to change their theories because that would cost them funding were correct, this could have not have happened.

    You can't have it both ways. Not whilst retaining a shred of credibility, anyway.

    And maybe you should do some reflection on a subject you clearly have no clue on, like climate science?

    Another example of flawed logic

    They were proven wrong so had to come up with a theory to explain why they were wrong.

    They could hardly not admit they were wrong once planetary probes returned data which contradicted their theories.

    :blink:

  21. So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all? In which case, why are we not all frozen solid? Why is Venus so hot, given that it receives about the same surface radiation as Earth?

    Interestingly, the scientific consensus was that Venus would be very Earth like and was probably covered in Oceans.

    Of course reality was completely different to what scientists predicted.

    So they then went off completely in the opposite direction.

    Some careful reflection on the huge shortcomings in their own understanding of what is going on wouldn't be a bad idea

    IMHO

    :blink:

  22. Most climate denialism comes out of the USA, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. The propaganda effort is a global one to make sure that there are no global agreements to reduce emissions, and it's been highly successful.

    Of course, the denialists also want to make sure that no country goes it alone. Because if they succeeded then it would be a bad example.

    Yes, as long as it applies equally to every power source. i.e. every power source must fully internalise all costs (i.e. no CO2 emissions allowed). And NIMBYs should be sent to reeducation camps.

    More left wing nonsense

    how can there be global emissions agreements when China and India are building hundreds of coal fired power stations and the west is about to go on a shale gas bonanza.

    And using the term denialist reeks of fanatisism and is deeply offensive as it attempts to characterise people who do not believe in the theory of MMGW as being similar to people who deny the holocaust.

    People like you are fanatical, deeply intolerant and wedded to the idea of an all pervasive totalitarian state.

    Have a nice day.

    :)

  23. You have to be uber-thick not to put 5+5 together when you find out they also have coal-fired power stations billowing out zillions of tons of their falsified CO2-con-'pollution'

    - on constant tickover to produce electric when the propellors stop turning! Forces prices up even more as propellors are 'double subsidised' minimum for land-owning class GREED.

    Chem-Trails since 1950's (around time they start GREENIE (bogieus) 'measuring') > aluminium in atmosphere > more clouds/seeding moisture > more CO2 (same effect as in tropics areas!)

    Greeny, seeding, measures, clouds etc

    - are all linked to Biblical words/expressions etc (which 'they' per-vert for evil purposes)

    CHEM-TRAILS

    shah-lohm ah-leh-chem: Hebrew:

    This form of greeting was traditional among the Ashkenazi Jewish communities of Eastern Europe.

    The appropriate response is "Aleichem Shalom

    Hmmmmm - some 'coincidence' that one! :rolleyes:

    Thanks, but this isn't helping.

    And if the Jews controlled everything, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have arranged for millions of Jews to be murdered in the last Century

    :blink:

  24. Thank you for your concern and I didn't take it in a patronising or condescending way :)

    I really wish you were right, I really wish MMGW isn't real. Unfortunately, its reality hasn't anything to do with politicians - the physical science is sound.

    Out of interest, did you apply the above thinking when people (on here and in other places) were warning about the impending financial crisis in the run up to 2007/8? Did you research the issue and apply some critical thought of your own? Or did you dismiss the warnings as "propaganda and outright lies"?

    Sorry but your logic doesn't follow here.

    The TPTB were telling us they had ended boom and bust - so if I didn't believe anything they said I would be expecting a crash surley?

    As it happens I correctly predicted a crash on the scale of the 1930's because such an outcome was the inevitable consequence of the policies being pursued.

    The one question I can't answer is, did the economists who said nothing know what was coming or are they all just charlatans.

    We now have TPTB creating a false threat - Global Warming and you have people here trying to convince you that it is just another scam.

    It is you and others here who have been taken in by the propaganda not me/us.

    :)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.