04-03-2011, 11:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2011, 11:47 AM by turtledude23.)
I don't know where that article got alot of its info from, I saw very little of that content in the video, in particular the part about the anchors being shocked, they seemed rather skeptical about what he was saying. But lets look at his credentials
"he predicted the market collapse"
Oh wow! Really? He predicted that the thing everyone in on knew from the start would collapse (unregulated derivatives) would collapse? He must be psychic.
"he predicted the housing market would collapse"
Whoa, he knew banks giving loans to people who can't pay them back would lead to that? Remarkable.
Sarcasm aside: being able to predict what's inevitable do to a systematic flaw is nothing amazing. Years from now when oil peaks everyone will be like "holy crap, all those environmentalists and documentaries were right, why didn't we do something sooner?". All human action whether starting a war or contributing to "the market" is based on free will and probably can't be predicted, Ra talked about probability/possibility vortices - not definite outcomes. War-peace cycle? Give me a break, lets look at it systematically: the US has has a perpetually growing military since after WW2/Truman, Eisenhower warned about how this large military would be bad, and since the Korean War the US has been getting involved in other peoples wars or starting their own in order to keep the military-industrial complex growing, 2 of these recent wars were started for oil, oil will continue to be less available and demand will keep going up. This leaves 2 options for the U.S.: use their vast resources to be a world leader in renewable energy, or keep starting long, expensive wars in oil-filled countries. Given the influence of oil companies and "defence" contractors and the STS interests of people running the military the latter is the more likely route of action. Wars are planned years in advance with these modern bully war examples, if financial sector people really wanted to know when the next big war would be they'd ask one of their friends in the white house, not some guy with some model of prediction they know nothing about.
Why is that when someone predicts something bad will happen people assume it will be true and pay attention, but when someone predicts something good its alot more scrutinized?
"he predicted the market collapse"
Oh wow! Really? He predicted that the thing everyone in on knew from the start would collapse (unregulated derivatives) would collapse? He must be psychic.
"he predicted the housing market would collapse"
Whoa, he knew banks giving loans to people who can't pay them back would lead to that? Remarkable.
Sarcasm aside: being able to predict what's inevitable do to a systematic flaw is nothing amazing. Years from now when oil peaks everyone will be like "holy crap, all those environmentalists and documentaries were right, why didn't we do something sooner?". All human action whether starting a war or contributing to "the market" is based on free will and probably can't be predicted, Ra talked about probability/possibility vortices - not definite outcomes. War-peace cycle? Give me a break, lets look at it systematically: the US has has a perpetually growing military since after WW2/Truman, Eisenhower warned about how this large military would be bad, and since the Korean War the US has been getting involved in other peoples wars or starting their own in order to keep the military-industrial complex growing, 2 of these recent wars were started for oil, oil will continue to be less available and demand will keep going up. This leaves 2 options for the U.S.: use their vast resources to be a world leader in renewable energy, or keep starting long, expensive wars in oil-filled countries. Given the influence of oil companies and "defence" contractors and the STS interests of people running the military the latter is the more likely route of action. Wars are planned years in advance with these modern bully war examples, if financial sector people really wanted to know when the next big war would be they'd ask one of their friends in the white house, not some guy with some model of prediction they know nothing about.
Why is that when someone predicts something bad will happen people assume it will be true and pay attention, but when someone predicts something good its alot more scrutinized?