Interview 1038: Financial Survival in the New Technological Order
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
In this week’s Financial Survival conversation Alfred and James discuss the incredible technological developments that are transforming the world as we speak. From the “citizen score” database of the Chinese oligarchs to 3D printed guns to the cashless society, we examine the technological double edge sword and debate which way it’s going to slice in this freewheeling discussion.
SHOW NOTES
Chinese media says India’s economy will surpass China’s
China’s GDP is “man-made,” unreliable: top leader
India-China bilateral trade set to hit $100 billion by 2015
China’s one-child policy could be causing its trillion-dollar housing boom—and its eventual bust
China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
3-D Printed Gun Lawsuit Starts the War Between Arms Control and Free Speech
Why The Powers That Be Are Pushing A Cashless Society
More US Cities Are Cracking Down on Feeding the Homeless
The Bank of Japan needs more time to reach its 2 per cent inflation target
Fed’s Bill Dudley: The Fed Doesn’t Fully Understand How QE Works
Filed in: Interviews
When cash is outlawed, only outlaws will use cash…
As always, these discussions with James and Alfred Adask are raw, thoughtful, illuminating and off-the-cuff.
It’s scary to think that the U.S. will start registering people to simply use the internet. I can see why many of the U.S. technocratic elite grovel and salivate over the Chinese model (Mark Zuckerberg I’m looking in your direction).
The 3D-printing case is also very, very important. I wouldn’t hold it past criminals in black robes at the Supreme Court (after all look at Citizens United) to side with the government as the government always defends itself and its interests. These people are merely extensions of the State, as any decision going against it would undermine the very raison d’être of the state.
that comment about black people…
I wish we had video to see your face James, lol. It got a bit quiet after that one.
“homogenous” ? 😉