h a l f b a k e r yOutside the bag the box came in.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The way I understand it basically a countrys gold reserves
have some influence over the the worth of their currency.
The problem with the environment is that it is very hard to
put a monetary value on it so that when a company finds oil
or a forrestry company wants to come in and log the
forest
they can do this very cheaply, especially if its in a very poor
country where there are vast amounts of wilderness.
If the current system of using gold as a factor of a countrys
wealth was replaced by using wilderness areas this would
surely provide some incentive to protect them.
The definition of a wilderness area would have to be defined,
probably as an area with a biodiversity over a certain amount,
these areas could then be enlarged by taking good care of
the environment and make that country richer.
When it is looking like the economy is going down people
instead of converting their money to gold would start buying
up wilderness land, wilderness land is alot harder to steal than
gold too.
Please tell me if i've got this compleatley wrong, and even if I
have would it still be possible to do in the current system.
Tradable Emissions Credit
http://www.epa.gov/...ne/htm/article1.htm
One example of assigning a value to the environment. [jutta, Sep 29 2002]
One view of the economy.....
http://www.rense.co...eral29/ringring.htm
makes you wonder where its all leading [briandamage, Sep 29 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I fear the only way you're going to save the wilderness is through some sort of environmental fascism. Watch the countercultural mobs struggle with that one, eh. |
|
| |
Gulherme, some pocket change for you. Then I must run from the tar pit least I get stuck. |
|
| |
Gold reserves are like poker chips. |
|
| |
They're meaningless on their own. |
|
| |
It's the timing of what is done with them relative to what every one else is doing with theirs (and quite a bit more) that makes them what they seem to be. They're good only when you call them in or hedge that you will call them in. <chew thoroughly> |
|
| |
Fort Knox does not have room for that many trees. |
|
| |
We think we value yellow gold but we don't and we don't really know it collectively. |
|
| |
We are rewarded by the 'comptrollers' (those we let make decisions and allow influence over us) for our degree of oil usage. This has given us perceived wealth; Use of oil. We sort of know this on par with a cliché but as a population we carry on with a gross under appreciation of the consequences of this. |
|
| |
Valuing oil isn't bad. It's just complicated. |
|
| |
We hang on to the system of yellow gold with encouragement from the comptrollers because that is what we're familiar with and respond to. |
|
| |
Money's value is like quantum physics. More like observing an electron's position.
If you stop it in its tracks you can't see what you're looking at. |
|
| |
In lead power nations money's value comes from the process of always changing hands. This is where oil comes in. |
|
| |
Oil literally lubricates the economic machinery that helps money change hands. The rate and volume that money changes hands = the perception of wealth. Which leads me to the next part that gives a good thunking. |
|
| |
Our US economy's wealth is not based on production of goods or how much gold we own but rather (this bites now) consumption of goods. |
|
| |
<whispers very quietly> It's like the ultimate ordained ponzi scheme></whispers very quietly> |
|
| |
The more we buy, the healthier the economy. Period. |
|
| |
Water that runs deep and swift is usually healthier to drink. Shallow stagnant water is mucky water.
The strength of our economy responds like this also. |
|
| |
It's probably more accurate to say that a country that has had a healthy economy over a long period of time most likely owns a lot of gold to show for it. Rather than a factor of a country's wealth is it's gold reserves. In very over simplified terms keep in mind. |
|
| |
A free 'gold' coin for you: |
|
| |
Don't wait for economic trends to motivate what you invest in. Invest in land as soon as you have the money to make a down payment assuming you haven't got credit debt. Don't worry about getting the best bargain as long as it is reasonable and you are able. Only then diversify... |
|
| |
<chops hands off to stop here> |
|
| |
What Hollojam said.... and gold isn't worth the paper its written on (see link) |
|
| |
...and most of it's not even written on paper anymore, it's all just floating round the banking system in electronic format.
Aside from the economics issues raised by the previous posters, you've also got the problem of each country only having a finite amount of land mass which it can convert to wilderness. And you know what politicians and economies are like. They always want more money. Once all the uninhabited areas have been designated as wilderness they'll either change the definition so as to include all the urban areas or they'll start trying to snatch large areas of land from neighbouring countries. It can only end in tears. |
|
| |
Its all fun and games untill sombody looses an eye |
|
| |
[Gulherme] Many generations from now planet earth may likely become an interactive museum preserve. |
|
| |
[briandamage], I was holding my breath after posting my anno. Thanks for getting me off the hook with your thorough follow up. Can you believe how we just buy into this? Talk about fuzzy logic. Makes me feel like a worker ant in a giant Amazon colony. <feeling lighter> Hey. But its all relative right? Whew! |
|
| |
//fun and games untill sombody looses an eye// |
|
| |
Or as long as you have more people below you. |
|
| |
Buy a forest somewhere cheap. Get some very good weather data. Sue the governments of those countries polluting your forest for damage to your forest. Use the money to buy more forest and maintain the existing ones. Watch the price of forested land go up making deforestation less of a bargain to explotative companies.
Simplistic, but I like it. Have a croissant tree. |
|
| |
<shakes head sadly> Environmental fascism.
Your words are noble, m'colleagues, but doomed. As my dear Dad says, no use farting against thunder. I have personally listened to BP's top PR man tell me how environmentally-aware investors will in time force companies to pursue greener policies, and I personally told him to fuck off. No, it all points back to control, No.10 / White House / Lodge style control to coerce this fulminating fuck & his mates to look after the planet. It won't be easy, but there's the political imperative of our generation laid out for you. In this light 9/11 and associated tightenings of Control can be seen as a good place to start. |
|
| |
What worried me most about the PR man was his eyes: he believed himself. |
|
| |
Can't eat gold, or fuck it burn it or anything. Afaiac, it's pretty much useless. We can make nests out of paper, and that is exactly the value of it, but better nests can be made of dried grass. I thought that among humans, the gold standard was already defunct, and the global financial system was a vast network of debits and credits, complicated by weird and obscure accounting techniques, and further complicated by the psychology of something called the market, whatever that is, and that's why the stock market, whatever that is, is crashing, whatever that means. But what do I know? I'm just a rabbit. Give me a place to live, with nice food and water and companionship, and I'm happy. Wilderness would be fine, but humans need to get stuff out of it that they can sell in exchange for other stuff, in order for it to be of value to them. And then it stops being wilderness, eh?
|
|
| |
Applause Sophocrat, I would certainly *buy into an economic scheme of that kind if it were possible. |
|
| |
I still fear the scheme as you described, would work theoretically only for a limited time though. Granted it could be a long time. As our system stands now it revolves around the concept of future generations continuing the business of consumption as the force that turns the wheels of our economy. |
|
| |
If we were able to attain the desired end result ending our need in having such system in the first place wouldn't the system then collapse? Or would we be able to shift gears out of it with proper planning? And if we did eliminate need for this type of commodity wouldn't that steer us right back into carbon fuel use and sudden expansion: The old system? On such complex issues I may miss points of context so please let me know if I just posted this as if my head were in the sand. |
|
| |
My simplistic quite ignorant idea has cartwheeled out of
controll and threatens to start a global economic shift
that will rock this earth to its very foundations..... The
mind whirls. |
|
| |
Just make forest credits tradable at a certain ration with
terrorism credits. You cut down X trees in my country
and I blow up Y buildings in your country. That should
even things out. |
|
| |
If you want more money (ie, more wilderness) and your country is too small, invade a neighbouring nation. This would expand the amount of wilderness and therefore more cash reserves. |
|
| |
But then again, it might cost you your current reserves to declare war to a nation with a larger population and military might. |
|
| |
Hmmm. Well. I think that the best thing would be to make energy the cash reserve against which money is drawn. In this way one can only do economic transactions if there is energy to back it up. Since people naturally use cash conservatively then so would they use energy conservatively. Cracking. |
|
| |
what this country needs is a better educational system... |
|
| |