What "truth", where?

You are an idiot. Go away.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

What "truth", where?


It would seem hidden in plain sight to your eyes.

You are an idiot. Go away.

I've heard said that it takes one to know one.

--Damon

Do you not want more money in your pocket with more opportunity to buy
another ride?

Freedom is held hostage for reasons economic, including free energy. Why
not reform the economic system that limits us all?

www.planetization.org/soulutions.htm

dgr wrote:

Damon Hill wrote:

What "truth", where?

It would seem hidden in plain sight to your eyes.

...from 'your' truth....

You are an idiot. Go away.

I've heard said that it takes one to know one.

How clever.

--Damon

Do you not want more money in your pocket with more opportunity to buy
another ride?

You are ignorant of the real world.

Freedom is held hostage for reasons economic, including free energy.
Why not reform the economic system that limits us all?

'Free energy' ???????

www.planetization.org/soulutions.htm

You and chewy will get along well.......

...it takes one to know one.
Not clever, fact.

"dgr" <nim@nsgci.net> wrote

...it takes one to know one.
Not clever, fact.

You should write a book.

Don W.

dgr wrote:
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
|| dgr wrote:

snip

||| Freedom is held hostage for reasons economic, including free
||| energy. Why not reform the economic system that limits us all?
||
|| 'Free energy' ???????
|
| Yes, free energy technology is withheld for reasons economic.

Eh? I /looked/ for the smiley but didn't find one...

Are you saying that you'd like to have the technology without cost?
There are costs associated with developing and distributing any
technology, as well as with incorporating that technology into
practical products.

On the other hand, if you're saying that the products should be
delivered with no cost to you, then you'd better be the first person
in line because the producer will soon be without the resources needed
to produce more.

And, of course, there's no reason you can't develop your own energy
technology inventions/innovations and share them freely.

Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Capitalism is the problem. Planetization has the Soulution.

Pass it on.

dgr wrote:

Capitalism is the problem. Planetization has the Soulution.

Pass it on.

Greetings.

In the spirit of capitalism ...

As the self-appointed Dux per Congregatio de Propaganda Noster Fide, i
must inform you that anyone interested in the Arizona Energy Industry,
solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, biomass and biofuels,
geothermal power, all forms of green energy, even nuclear power, or just
the curious, may want to pay attention to http://www.energy-arizona.org .

Trolling is ... bad, but it does afford conversation otherwise unspoken,
but then this may not be a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

This was posted from within a free country. God bless the U.S.A.!

.dpcdpnf

dgr wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| dgr wrote:
||| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
|||| dgr wrote:
||
|| <snip
||
||||| Freedom is held hostage for reasons economic, including free
||||| energy. Why not reform the economic system that limits us all?
||||
|||| 'Free energy' ???????
|||
||| Yes, free energy technology is withheld for reasons economic.
||
|| Eh? I /looked/ for the smiley but didn't find one...
|
| No smiley because I'm quite serious in my economic reform proposal.
|
|| Are you saying that you'd like to have the technology without cost?
|| There are costs associated with developing and distributing any
|| technology, as well as with incorporating that technology into
|| practical products.
|
| Energy, both free and otherwise is an in-common good/service to be
| paid for with money issued to everyone based on the cost of
| in-common goods and services. Cost is a relative perspective based
| on the division of goods and services. A foundational income will
| solve all resource problems/bottlenecks.

No, it will not and cannot provide what does not exist. Neither can it
make plentiful that which is scarce. Nor can it provide products no
one produces. To intimate otherwise is dishonest at worst and foolish
at best.

A "rational" economic planning system was tried by the Soviets. One is
obliged to consider that their Central Committee was essentially
well-informed and well-intentioned. The experiment was a success and
yielded the information that such macro systems perform less well than
chaotic micro systems based on stakeholder self-interest.

|| On the other hand, if you're saying that the products should be
|| delivered with no cost to you, then you'd better be the first
|| person in line because the producer will soon be without the
|| resources needed to produce more.

| Resources necessary for the production of in-common goods/services
| are withheld for reasons economic.

In specific cases, probably so. In the more general sense, however, I
have seen that when compelling evidence is presented, resources are
generally available. If your experience indicates otherwise, then it
may be that you are either addresing the wrong party or have failed to
make a convincing case. Addressing the correct party and making the
convincing case are your responsibility.

Market-based systems move the decision-making to, or at least very
close to, the individual level. Resources are made available to those
who make convincing cases for (sell) what they have to offer. If you
cannot educate, inform, and motivate people to buy your product/idea,
then no resources will be (or should be) forthcoming.

|| And, of course, there's no reason you can't develop your own energy
|| technology inventions/innovations and share them freely.
|
| Indeed. All I need are the resources currently being withheld by
| current economic theory.

Not a good answer. This appears to be a classic 'I would have done
what I know I should have done except that <something> prevented me
from fulfilling my responsibility'. Parents and teachers around the
world recognize it as the 'Dog (sheep/llama/dingo/camel/yak/etc) ate
my homework' excuse.

"Economic theory" does not withold resources. People (either as
individuals or in groups) can provide or withold the resources they
control according to whether they think providing those resources
would serve their perceived self-interests.

I would suggest that it may be in /your/ self-interest to discover
where /their/ self-interests lie.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

dgr wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| dgr wrote:
||| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
|||| dgr wrote:

||
|| <snip
||
||||| Freedom is held hostage for reasons economic, including free
||||| energy. Why not reform the economic system that limits us all?
||||
|||| 'Free energy' ???????
|||
||| Yes, free energy technology is withheld for reasons economic.
||
|| Eh? I /looked/ for the smiley but didn't find one...
|
| No smiley because I'm quite serious in my economic reform proposal.
|
|| Are you saying that you'd like to have the technology without cost?
|| There are costs associated with developing and distributing any
|| technology, as well as with incorporating that technology into
|| practical products.
|
| Energy, both free and otherwise is an in-common good/service to be
| paid for with money issued to everyone based on the cost of
| in-common goods and services. Cost is a relative perspective based
| on the division of goods and services. A foundational income will
| solve all resource problems/bottlenecks.

No, it will not and cannot provide what does not exist. Neither can it
make plentiful that which is scarce. Nor can it provide products no
one produces. To intimate otherwise is dishonest at worst and foolish
at best.

A "rational" economic planning system was tried by the Soviets.

One is
obliged to consider that their Central Committee was essentially
well-informed and well-intentioned.

The experiment was a success and
yielded the information that such macro systems perform less well than
chaotic micro systems based on stakeholder self-interest.

|| On the other hand, if you're saying that the products should be
|| delivered with no cost to you, then you'd better be the first
|| person in line because the producer will soon be without the
|| resources needed to produce more.
|
| Resources necessary for the production of in-common goods/services
| are withheld for reasons economic.

In specific cases, probably so. In the more general sense, however, I
have seen that when compelling evidence is presented, resources are
generally available. If your experience indicates otherwise, then it
may be that you are either addresing the wrong party or have failed to
make a convincing case. Addressing the correct party and making the
convincing case are your responsibility.

Market-based systems move the decision-making to, or at least very
close to, the individual level.

Tesla.

Can you come up with a downside that will prove me wrong?