<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
However, a clever society should then produce higher value goods on its
freed up productive capacity.<br>
<br>
This is my argument when I tell people that 700 acres of hemp when
harvested and processed<br>
for nutraceuticals has the same 5 million dollar plus value as 23,000
acres of lentils, one of the higher value agricultural commodities.<br>
<br>
Which is better.... to expand and compete with a high value to start
from or claw for the last dollar to spend to<br>
make a marginal return from repeating past patterns.<br>
<br>
In an ever more wealthy society the value of the basic goods should
continue to reduce in value in order for<br>
money to be available for new high value goods.<br>
<br>
How are you going to pay for a life-long body regeneration plan if you
spend 70% of you disposable income on<br>
food, clothes and shelter. If the technology is perfected to create the
life-extension industry I would say that<br>
perhaps 40-95 % of the average annual income might initially be
required to pay for it. My first 8 digit calculator in 1970<br>
was 125$ and not 2$ as it is now. someone has to re-arrange societal
economics to pay for the technology to<br>
be developed.<br>
<br>
These nanotech/infotech based "santa claus" machines we talk about are
going to render most productive capacity<br>
of the ordinary kind obselete, but those people and resources are going
to have to move up the food <br>
chain to create and service the new technology.<br>
<br>
But I do like to see a need to level out the value for service
globally so that all citizens can afford the newest<br>
technological wonders. You can't buy distance education and internet
access to your computer and blackberry<br>
on 7 cents/day of income. You can't travel from your hovel in
ethiopia to anywhere new and interesting on 7 cents/day<br>
and so forth. I know someone will point to China and say.. not so...
but there is a realistic limit to that argument.<br>
<br>
MFJ<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="midee50357e0511120902h117ca41bk2865d37275ed7968@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">See: Executive Intelligence Review<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html"><http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html></a><br>
<br>
Wal-Mart both reflects, and is, a major driving force for America's<br>
deadly implementation of the Imperial Rome model. Unable to produce<br>
physical goods to sustain its own existence, the United States, like<br>
Rome, sucks in imported goods from around the world, using, in this<br>
case, a dollar that is over-valued by 50-60%. America has been<br>
transformed from a producer to a consumer society. From the 1940s<br>
through the early 1960s, through its technologically-advanced<br>
manufacturing-agricultural economy, America produced new value that<br>
contributed to mankind's advancement. Through a "post-industrial<br>
society" policy, the bankers have pushed Wal-Mart to the top of the<br>
heap, so that it is now the world's largest corporation, with $245.5<br>
billion in sales last year. Wal-Mart, which produces no value-added<br>
whatsoever, dominates the geometry that governs the U.S. consumer<br>
society. America consumes goods that others produce, which Wal-Mart<br>
markets. Wal-Mart dictates, through its demand for low prices, that<br>
its suppliers outsource their production to foreign nations, further<br>
ripping down America's battered domestic manufacturing and<br>
agricultural capability, in a self-feeding process.<br>
<snip><br>
</></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>