Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/7/2012 6:36 PM
Get Ready for a Wall Street Crash because This is how the USA Parts Supply Shortage will become our Hyper inflation event.
This will split the European Union away from the USA and the Federal Reserve alliance that’s been in place since the end of WW2 and was the foundation for the dollar as world trade currency. Once This BRIC/China alliance is formed with France the PIIGS and they are formally trading with the Yuan instead of the dollar the dollar bond traders will leave the dollar for the Yuan and the dollar will devalue like a rock!!! Get Ready for a Wall Street Crash because This is how the USA Parts Supply Shortage will become our Hyper inflation event.
New French Socialist President Seeks to Unite with BRIC and End the Dollar
Outsourcing was Part of the Plan to Make the USA Dependent and Breakable
By Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/7/2012 10:00 PM
Outsourcing was part of the plan to make the USA Dependent and Breakable, so what will happen here is all our Equipment: Case International Harvester, Caterpillar, John Deere, Ford new Holland, plus all the car manufacturers, plus all the After Market parts suppliers like NAPA, O’Reilly’s - all these Manufacturers Import ALL the Parts they assemble their equipment with. We will see these parts become almost unattainable when the dollar loses its reserve currency status as these BRIC Suppliers who we Import our parts supplies all together reject the dollar exchange at the rate we have been operating at. Our result will be much like Iceland's was in 2008, only way bigger a civil unrest because Iceland was only 98,000 people. We are 311,000,000 and reducing their level of abundance will be way bigger a deal than what it was in Greece or the other PIIGS countries that tried austerity only to reject it and vote for the Socialist like they did in France hoping for a return to their abundance. However, it won't happen as the BRIC nations are only gathering them for the Slaughter later. We have seen this before in that region. First you promise them the moon for control over the resources. Only to bait and switch to the oppressive famine and strife that depopulation is all about. And this is not a conspiracy they are talking about today as a remedy for Earth’s salvation, like a Collective Salvation you know!!!
Seven big problems for 7 billion people
Sometime on Monday, Oct. 31, the world's population is projected to hit 7 billion. Is that numerical milestone a cause for celebration or concern?
A little bit of both, according to the United Nations Population Fund. The organization, an international development agency that promotes the right of every person to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity, on Wednesday released a report detailing the achievements and setbacks faced by an ever-crowded world.
How we respond now will determine whether we have a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future or one that is marked by inequalities, environmental decline and economic setbacks, according to "The State of World Population 2011" report.
In response to the report, msnbc.com asked seven notable figures to identify some major problems — and potential remedies — confronting a world with 7 billion inhabitants. Here's what they had to say:
[SlantRight Editor: The rest of this article lists a person MSNBC lists their version of an expert that lists a problem followed by a solution. These guys have Eco-Marxist concepts that deal with an earth view with Eco-Marxist solutions; such as dumbing industry to reverse Climate Change, control farming methods for food, control people by via birth scenarios, finding ways to force people depopulation and the like.] (By James Eng; msnbc.com; updated 10/26/2011 10:46:46 AM ET)
Paul Ehrlich on depopulation: 'We're going to go over the top' - audio
Paul Ehrlich, American professor and bestselling author, talks to John Vidal about population decline. Professor Ehrlich voices his concerns about depleting global resources and discusses his predictions for the future of our planet.
Paul Ehrlich is known for his outspoken stance on overpopulation. Although he was not the first to raise the alarm about population issues – concern had been widespread in the 1950s and 1960s – his approach brought the issue to a new level of media prominence.
[SlantRight Editor: In the audio file Paul Ehrlich talks about predicted ecological disasters – which BTW, his time table has never panned out – that he believes Eco-Marxist solutions will save the world by depopulating it. You will have to go to the link to listen to Ehrlich.]
Society is faced with a profound dilemma – one that is sharpened considerably by the twin threats of financial crisis and climate change. The dilemma is this: to resist economic growth is to risk economic and social collapse, but to pursue it is to endanger the ecosystems on which we depend for long-term survival.
For a long time this problem has gone unrecognised in mainstream policy or in public debate. When reality begins to impinge on the collective consciousness, the best suggestion offered has been to somehow separate growth from its material impacts (and continue to do so while the economy expands exponentially.)
But this proposition has to be tested. Against historical reality, technological possibility, demand for future resources, ecological targets, and the social and economic forces that drive society forwards.
The analysis by Chris Goodall described in the Guardian this week is an essential starting point to address the most critical question of all: can a society based on growth really make that separation fast enough to avoid ecological catastrophe? This is exactly the kind of analysis that is often sadly lacking at policy level and desperately needed as the basis for a green economy.
In short, it's quite clear that there is considerable potential for technological change. And we already have at our disposal a range of useful options: renewable, resource-efficient, low-carbon technologies capable of weaning us from our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. These options have to provide the platform for the transition to a sustainable economy. But the idea that they will emerge spontaneously by giving free reign to the market is patently false. So while Goodall's analysis is valuable, there is only cold comfort in these statistics. ('Peak stuff' message is cold comfort – we need to embrace green technology; by Tim Jackson; guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 November 2011 06.37 EDT)
The world's most renowned population analyst has called for a massive reduction in the number of humans and for natural resources to be redistributed from the rich to the poor.
Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University in California and author of the best-selling Population Bomb book in 1968, goes much further than the Royal Society in London which this morning said that physical numbers were as important as the amount of natural resources consumed.
The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.
"Most of the predictions [in Population Bomb] have proved correct [SlantRight Editor: That’s a lie, the Population Bomb is false propaganda]. At that time I wrote about climate change. We did not know then if it was warming or cooling. We thought it was going to be a problem for the end of this century. Now we know it's warming and a problem for the beginning of the century; we didn't know about the loss of biodiversity. Things have been coming up worse than was predicted. We have the threats now of vast epidemics".
But he agreed with the Royal Society report that said human population and consumption should not be divided. "[They] multiply together. You have to be deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away the rich to the poor. But in the US we have been doing the opposite. The Republican party is wildly in favour of more redistribution, of taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich." (Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges; by John Vidal; guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 April 2012 06.19 EDT)
Extract from an interview on population with Sir John Sulston – audio
Sir John Sulston, the author of a Royal Society report entitled People and the Planet, reacts to comments by author and climate sceptic Matt Ridley: Audio Download of Sir John Sulston mocking Ridley.
World population needs to be stabilised quickly and high consumption in rich countries rapidly reduced to avoid "a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills", warns a major report from the Royal Society.
Contraception must be offered to all women who want it and consumption cut to reduce inequality, says the study published on Thursday, which was chaired by Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston.
The assessment of humanity's prospects in the next 100 years, which has taken 21 months to complete, argues strongly that to achieve long and healthy lives for all 9 billion people expected to be living in 2050, the twin issues of population and consumption must be pushed to the top of political and economic agendas. Both issues have been largely ignored by politicians and played down by environment and development groups for 20 years, the report says.
"The number of people living on the planet has never been higher, their levels of consumption are unprecedented and vast changes are taking place in the environment. We can choose to rebalance the use of resources to a more egalitarian pattern of consumption ... or we can choose to do nothing and to drift into a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills leading to a more unequal and inhospitable future", it says. (World needs to stabilise population and cut consumption, says Royal Society; by John Vidal, environment editor; The Guardian, Wednesday 25 April 2012 – There is More)
9.15am: The Royal Society has published today a landmark report - 21-months in the making - that it says is the "first substantive offering" in its 350-year history on the topic of the "impacts of human population and consumption on the planet".
The report (pdf, 5.7MB) lays out nine recommendations for, what it hopes, will "be a springboard for further discussion and action". In doing so, it appears to imply that rising consumption levels need tackling ahead of rising population levels:
In the short term it is of the utmost urgency to reduce consumption and emissions that are already causing damage, for example greenhouse gases, deforestation, and land use change amongst others. Furthermore, unless the goal is a world in which extreme inequality persists, it is necessary to make space for those in poverty, especially the 1.3 billion people living in absolute poverty, to achieve an adequate standard of living.
The intertwined issues of consumption and population have, of course, long been cornerstones of the wider environmental debate. But, in recent years, the consensus among environmental commentators seems to have moved towards the view that over-consumption is, indeed, the more pressing concern. In 2011, when the human population reached 7bn for the first time, a major report by French national agencies concluded rather bluntly that "the rich must stop consuming so much". (Does consumption need tackling before population?; by Leo Hickman; guardian.co.uk; 4/26/12 – There is More)
[SlantRight Editor: The above link is a list of Guardian articles promoting the Eco-Marxist agenda.]
[SlantRight Editor: The above link is about consumer consumption is an evil that is bring the world to the brink of disaster by depleting the world’s resources beyond that word used by Eco-Marxists to dredge up fear in the heart’s of humanity; i.e. “sustainability.” Use your imagination on how an Eco-Marxist plans to limit human consumption so that the earth has a sustainable cycle for human existence.]
Now consider how long we have before we consume enough of Earth’s natural resources so that human life is no longer sustainable. If The Story of Stuff is accurate, we know that 30% of Earth’s natural resources have been consumed in the past 30 years. Let’s use a conservative estimate of 10% for our global consumption of natural resources in all the previous history up to 1975. Just a guess, but it would appear to be a conservative estimate. This means that we have consumed 40% of Earth’s total natural resources up to this moment in human history. No matter how you graph this data, you will generate a consumption curve that is exponential. With a little extrapolation, you would also realize that the human population is likely to consume another 30% - 40% of Earth’s remaining resources within the next 10 years. This means that sometime before the year 2020, mankind will have consumed 80% of Earth’s natural resources.
Many would probably like to assume that we have until 2020 to fix this problem, but this also assumes that we don’t run out of some essential resources before then. What happens if 100% of drinkable water, forests, or coal runs out before then?
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the only way to achieve sustainability in any environment is to consume only what can be replenished or replaced at an equal rate. Not only is our current rate of consumption unsustainable and irresponsible, but our rate of consumption over the next few years will be catastrophic and unconscionable. Does anyone really believe that with a continuously expanding world population, that our consumption rates will stabilize or actually start reversing?
The only way to reverse this spiraling abyss would not only be to halt consumption at their current levels, but we would actually need to reduce our consumption levels to those of nearly 50 years ago. And how do you accomplish that when the world population is continuing to expand out of control with more and more people are uneducated, starving, and suffering?
The Earth experience involves learning everything from conscious evolution to sustainability. Learning to replace what we have destroyed and depleted is part of this experience, but more importantly is learning how to balance our existence with nature.
How do we move the entire world consciousness from irresponsible over consumption to responsible under consumption overnight? If you live outside the matrix and in any form of reality, then you know this is not possible while the world is controlled through greed and self-indulgence. It’s also not realistic to think that these control factors and the PTB [SlantRight Editor: Conspiracy Theory thoughts on Powers That Be] are going to disappear and everyone else is going to achieve a sufficient level of belief and understanding overnight. As you can see, with only our patterns and addictions to over consumption and not even taking anything else into consideration, the world as we know it is unsustainable and spiraling rapidly into total catastrophic collapse. (Social Economic Impacts: Over Consumption; by Timeline to the Future; There Is More)
Edited by John R. Houk
Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.