Growth: Consumer

Japan is a small, overpopulated country. The UQ (aka UK) Ltd is similar. Relatively small with a large urbanised population. This country has been producing too many cars for a population that does not want and cannot afford them. Export has met with its problems too reflecting that the global population has already become too large. A large population does not equate to a large consumer market, potential or otherwise. The concept of producing a greater (global) population just to buy a greater number of products had long ago reached the end of the no-through road.

More and more consumers 'wanting' everything today as advertising has been so successful. Everybody 'needing' the unnecessary. Credit leading to debt. The illusion is that the requirements are all affordable, even though debt is required for 'possession'. Not ownership. The consumer 'owns' their debt and is solely responsible for it. The 'possession' is paid for with virtual money that creates more debt. Payment for the merchandise has been made by the lender to whom the consumer is in debt. Interest raises the cost of the 'unnecessary' item. This is growth. The interest on the debt makes the capital borrowed just...

bigger

A debt can be 'created' in moments, but the settlement of that debt can take...

years

It is quite probable that noises will be made about (global) population growth. Similar in principle to revealing the global deficit in money (there isn't any) and anyone who imagines that creating money by printing it or lending Virtual Money can ever solve the problems is delusional. Money has always been used as a controlling entity. Religion has done the same. Belief systems control billions of people. Population growth needs absolute control of that population. Create a dependency on money and controls are then in place.

Create the situation and provide the solution:

Control

Amazingly simple cattle prod principle, but it always works.

Selling a product (theoretically) returns any development and production outlay (with profit) only if the product can be sold. Blind greed could never allow the prediction of ultimate failure in the theory as all its flaws are effectively invisible, but they have always been there (and are still) to be seen. There are not enough people working in jobs that actually create required products of necessity. There is a very large difference between technological advancement producing interesting ideas and 'encouraging' potential consumers to buy those ideas as products when they don't need them.

• A very simple illustration can be made by considering the purchase of a new and faster car. The time taken to travel from A to B may be a little shorter, but the increase in traffic results in congestion and snails' pace travel. All the 'power' under the bonnet cannot be experienced. All that money wasted on buying a product that may have potential though can never be realised.

Even though a product may be desirable: advertising has made awareness of its existence happen to promote the belief that it is necessary. It demonstrates the concept of parting people from their money. Moving it about. Winners and Losers is becoming all too apparent. Jobs in the services and financial industries just move the fixed wealth around. When it's all been moved from poor to rich, the rich must turn upon themselves. Even the blind will see one day, but only when their wealth is threatened. They'd rather die than give up their money.

• The host will turn on the parasite. Survival of the fittest. The parasite (Winner becomes Loser) is devoid of the essentials for life and can never ever be fit let alone survive and is totally dependent on the host (Loser becomes Winner).

A thirsty man in a desert will pay any amount for a drink of water. King Midas would die of thirst, but he changed his ways.