>> How are they meant to avoid being screwed? They cannot unless we have a system in place to provide a saftey net for them, and others who are like-wise unable to work through no fault of their own...<<

So you want... job insurance for 100% of society? How do you propose to ensure government-placement for everyone? Isn't that dependent upon available job openings?

>>Of course capatilism doesn't forbid social security and other "socialist" policies (like education and health care) its jsut that right wingers tend to decide these thoughts are against their point of view...<<

How many "right wingers" do you know who are against social security and education? The difference between the right and the left in the USA is that the right is so far left they only want to expand these programs slightly and the left wants the programs to be unlimited in size and wealth distribution.

>> but your post Phssthpok insinuates that you don't think the system is changing, or at least you don't want it to.<<

His point was that this system has achieved unprecedented success. Regardless of relatively minor changes dependent upon circumstance, the fact remains that one system has allowed for greatest wealth explosion the world has ever seen. Regardless of whether you think socialism or some fascist state would be cozier in your head, the point is that capitalism has allowed for this wealth generation and no other system has. There is no evidence that some fundamentally different system would be ideal for some other situation. What we know is that this system has had greater success than any other. That's all we've established; this does not include some silly notion that if capitalism works under certain conditions than certainly some socialist policy would be ideal under others!

>>I do not advocate those systems, you twit.<<

You advocate precisely what I argue against: Massive government institutions running all industrialization in a country. Oh wait you don't CALL them government institutions, you call them massive NGOs under complete government control... ie, government institutions.

>>That says it all. You think all Chinese people must be communists. <<

No. I merely stated that it is clear from your delusional rantings and having never replied to a single point of content that you are horribly indoctrinated into this jealous hate of capitalism.

>>First, it isn't communism that is to blame for our current economic woes.  It is the scarcity of resources which is to blame,...<<

No. It is not. Read a book you schmuck.

>>But that is besides the point.  This 'explosion' as you called it is the point I want to respond to (whether it is really of 'wealth' is arguable, as what wealth itself is has come into question, but, again, this is besides the point).  <<

Standard of living across a nation is a pretty simple baseline to start from. If you had one, perhaps you would have a better comparison and less whining about how it's everyone across the globe's fault you're poor.

>>Whatever kind of explosion it may be, it has revealed the extent to which we are UNDERdeveloped, not developed - that is, this explosion in our capabilities as a species has given us a clue as to what ELSE, or what MORE, or what BEYOND, we may accomplish.<<

You're right. We'll all cry tonight after delicious meals, driving home in awesome cars, relaxing on comfortable furniture in climate-controlled spaces while watching and listening to massive and high-quality crystal-clear entertainment systems because we realize how underdeveloped we are and how horrible life is.

>> In another sense, this 'explosion' as you call it has been like a single candle lit, revealing to us to that we are standing before a thousand other unlit candles at some sort of alter within some sort of cathedral.<<

I suspect you're referring again to the magical robots that the West has developed but refuses to share with the world out of greed.

>>Now, instead of looking at the alter, we keep lighting more and more candles.  We don't care about the alter or the cathedral.  We are simply obsessed with the stupid little candles, not for what purpose we are lighting them.  We're as blind as we were before we started ligting them.<<

...If lighting the candles is wealth creation, that's the whole point you dolt. I'm not going to entertain your stupid and pointless analogy. You use such ridiculous references because you can't argue your point in reality so vague analogies have to be used to stretch things. You're arguing that we're creating too much wealth without focusing on... the alter? or the cathedral? Kid, we create wealth because it results in all of us having a higher standard of living. It's simple. It's an end in and of itself. An end that benefits our whole society. You would rather we all... take drugs and expand our consciousness? You have to be high on something, because you're not even coherent.

I love the claim that concern for freedom, human rights, and human dignity is the reason we need to give up freedom, human rights, and dignity. Clearly giving them up will enhance them! Kid's on drugs.

"If lighting the candles is wealth creation, that's the whole point you dolt." "This is called progress."

No.  Wealth creation is not progress.

"freedom, inclusiveness, human rights, human dignity" - these are what makes the growth of wealth possible; these are what fosters innovation.

Why do you think America won the space race?  Moron.  You think wealth creation is progress?  No.  Wealth creation is merely a by-product of the  progression of liberty.

But now, over the last 20 years or so, the progression of liberty has been reverted due to increased regulations on economic activity, shrinking middle-class, diminished economic opportunities, international standardization of authoritarian models of business and government.

And people are actually surprised economic collapse is the result.  Does each generation need to learn the simple fact that LIBERTY is progress, and wealth growth is merely the by-product?

You seriously advocate everyone living in living units designed by and distributed by the government and having basic services provided by some global government and you call this economic freedom? You're an idiot.

aka Marxism -.-

To bad we have at least 2-3 more economic stages to pass through before we remotly consider such a social enviroment.

Actually, i do have formal education in economics, enough to know that it IS doable.  Manufacturing OGLUs for profit.  Who is the customer?  The CUSTOMERS will be governments, who will see clearly that it is more cost-effective to purchase OGLUs and provide free / cheap REMOTE land for OGLU communities than it would to have to police, educate, provide health care for the poor.  It's like this:  your governments can keep spending billions on band-aid solution social programs indefinitely, or they can seek out my company's services to actually solve their social problems.  But it won't be cheap.  I will be charging as much as I possibly can from those stupid, greedy, corrupt, rich twits - a little dose of their own 'medicine' for once.  Ahh... poetic justice.

And, mark my words, socialist governments like yours will be lining up to pay for it with your tax dollars, lol.

Xeno said, "Wealth creation is not progress."

And then smoked a bowl of crack. Which he bought with welfare.

Yes, clearly men are motivated by the abstract notion of "progress," not by the good the wealth they create does society (and thus themselves, as the more they make the more society rewards them for their contribution).

And xeno, clearly.

The whole problem with trying to jump straight to this

Actually you still missed the point xeno. OGLU's are NOT the path of least resistance. They move completely opposed to established infrastructure. They are the path of greater resistance. Thus will never come to pass. No amount of speculation and theory will change that fact. The concept was dead before it was even imagined.

"I would propose the higher-maintenance cost be mitigated by smart-design - that is design that diverges from the current practice of planned obsolescence.  In short, OGLUs would not be designed like the dishwashers, automobiles, and mobile phones of today.  They will be designed to function with minimal need of maintenance or replacement for decades if not generations."

Incorrect, they will still need to be maintained and kept care of. It is easier to simply let someone else handle the problem than having to worry about it yourself.

"First, each OGLU could function well enough on it's own in its particular weather / climate region."

You seem to forget that there are only so many sourses of energy to choose from. Solar and wind specifically. Geo-thermal and wave electrical production will still require massive power plants to achieve the desired results. Furthermore the technology pales in comparison to using fusion power in the coming century. More efficient, greater capacity, and makes use of current infrastructure. It will be the desired choice. You have lost the OGLU argument on that basis alone. There are other ways to crush the argument in terms of manufacturing processes, urban development, and governing policies but I doubt those will be needed.

"and each OGLU would have an ample storage capacity - the whole foundation of the OGLU / AGLU would basically be a rechargeable battery, capable of producing enough electricity essential basic living for months, without any additional input of energy."

Again, the technology just isn't there. There is no reliable means to store electrical energy on that scale. GM has been trying to make a car that can store enough energy to handle it's storage capacity and has failed utterly after several billion dollars of investment. It offers no benefit over using the current grid using more efficient energy sources instead and has to many cons to be viable.

You're trying to argue for sustainable living on a home by home basis. I'm arguing on a city by city and country by country basis. On changing an entire planets means of energy production by building a few power plants vs trying to put every man, woman, and child into some box in a tree! Are you beginning to see just how SILLY it is to argue that your way is better when compared to the vastly more efficient and easier alternative?