Skip to content

Pluto Controls The Economy

April 7, 2014

… KRUGMAN “INCREASINGLY CONVINCED”.

So as not to hurt the feelings of the mighty, careful pundits prefer the word “oligarch” to the word “plutocrat”. Similarly, the word “leader” is substituted to “oligarch”.

(For example Fortune Magazine has a list of 50 world “leaders”, with luminaries such as false prophets Bill Clinton, a 200 million dollar conspirator, and the Silicon Valley billionaire, U2 “Bono”… and a whole slew of American CEOs, with a token European CEO added, although there are more top 50 EU than USA companies.)

Oligarchy = government of the few, clearly incompatible with democracy, rule of the Demos ( = People). Plutocracy = rule or power of Pluto, god of wealth and hell. So Plutocracy is a particular type of Oligarchy. What we have right now is the latter, not just the former.

How did it happen? The fractional reserve system associated to a central bank is clearly at fault. Several of the early American president hated the idea, particularly president Jackson (who said on his death bed that to have kept it at bay, and especially the Rothschild, was his proudest achievement).

What is that system? It allows private individuals (the bankers) to loan money they don’t have, knowing that the government will back them up, if something goes wrong.

The system was abused in the 1920s, as bankers lent to speculators (say, themselves) to play the financial markets, they became enormously rich, and then many crashed. President Roosevelt outlawed this behavior. Clinton and his “committee to save the world” (Rubin, Summer, Greenspan) re-established what Roosevelt has outlawed. The performance was repeated, but, this time, Bush and Obama forced the public to pay the bankers so that they would not crash their banks.

The financiers connected to the governments came out of the 2008 crisis stronger than ever. They don’t mind that the economy is starving out of money, as long as they themselves have as much as they need.

They actually wish that normal people are starving for money; that’s part of their hellish side. It forces the whole society to view as more precious than they otherwise would, what all too many financiers justify as the ultimate reason for life as they practice it, greed.

Much of what’s above was published by the New York Times, as a comment to “Oligarch and Money”. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/krugman-oligarchs-and-money.html?

Hopefully I will find the time to develop more remarks in a fuller essay about Paul Krugman’s change of mood. He now admits that:

“conventional wisdom doesn’t come from nowhere, and I’m increasingly convinced that our failure to deal with high unemployment has a lot to do with class interests.”

In other words, Paul is increasingly seeing the light. It seems it was well worth sending hundreds of censored comments in his neighborhood, over more than a decade.

PA

Tar Canada

April 3, 2014

Maybe the idea is that, when palm trees grow on Baffin Island, and crocodiles have replaced Polar Bears, Canada will be doing better?

At some point of decay into plutocracy, one may expect that careful forethought and the search for truth be replaced by brazen malice from rat-like actors, obsessed by the cheese, greed, and tar.

Absolutely corrupt ideas rule absolutely, as plutocratization keeps on pressing on. They will look grotesque, but making fun of reason is central to the barren rejection of wisdom they promote.

Russia and Canada, ultimately, will profit from massive warming (or so many of their leaders hope). Hence their enthusiasm at helping it along.

 

From NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/opinion/is-canada-tarring-itself.html?

START with the term “tar sands.” In Canada only fervent opponents of oil development in northern Alberta dare to use those words; the preferred phrase is the more reassuring “oil sands.” Never mind that the “oil” in the world’s third largest petroleum reserve is in fact bitumen, a substance with the consistency of peanut butter, so viscous that another fossil fuel must be used to dilute it enough to make it flow.

Never mind, too, that the process that turns bitumen into consumable oil is very dirty, even by the oil industry’s standards. But say “tar sands” in Canada, and you’ll risk being labeled unpatriotic, radical, subversive.

Performing language makeovers is perhaps the most innocuous indication of the Canadian government’s headlong embrace of the oil industry’s wishes. Soon after becoming prime minister in 2006, Stephen Harper declared Canada “an emerging energy superpower,” and nearly everything he’s done since has buttressed this ambition. Forget the idea of Canada as dull, responsible and environmentally minded: That is so 20th century. Now it’s a desperado, placing all its chips on a world-be-damned, climate-altering tar sands bet.

Documents obtained by research institutions and environmental groups through freedom-of-information requests show a government bent on extracting as much tar sands oil as possible, as quickly as possible.

Actually the pro-tar fuel Canadian government has been destroying libraries, just as emperor Julian did in 363 CE. Lest someone gets a critical mind from reading books.

Climate change’s impact on Canada is already substantial. Across Canada’s western prairie provinces, an area larger than Alaska, mean temperatures have risen several degrees over the last 40 years, causing releases of greenhouse gases from melting permafrost and drying wetlands. The higher temperatures have led to the spread of the mountain pine beetle, which has consumed millions of trees. The trees, in turn, have become fodder for increasingly extensive forest fires, which release still more greenhouse gases. Given that scientists now think the Northern Hemisphere’s boreal forests retain far more carbon than tropical rain forests like the Amazon, these developments are ominous. At least the Harper government has indirectly acknowledged climate change in one way: It has made a show of defending the Northwest Passage, an increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that winds through Canadian territory.

Nevertheless, the Harper government has shown its disdain for scientists and environmental groups dealing with climate change and industrial pollution. The government has either drastically cut or entirely eliminated funding for many facilities conducting research in climate change and air and water pollution. It has placed tight restrictions on when its 23,000 scientists may speak publicly and has given power to some department managers to block publication of peer-reviewed research. It has closed or “consolidated” scientific libraries, sometimes thoughtlessly destroying invaluable collections in the process. And it has slashed funding for basic research…

With a deft Orwellian touch, Canada’s national health agency even accused a doctor in Alberta, John O’Connor, of professional misconduct — raising “undue alarm” and promoting “a sense of mistrust” in government officials — after he reported in 2006 that an unusually high number of rare, apparently tar-sands-related cancers were showing up among residents of Fort Chipewyan, 150 miles downstream from the tar sands. A government review released in 2009 cautiously supported Dr. O’Connor’s claims, but officials have shown no interest in the residents’ health since then.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

Dr. O’Connor’s experience intimidated other doctors, according to Margaret Sears, a toxicologist hired by the quasi-independent Alberta Energy Regulator…

PA

Climate Deterioration Update, March 2014

March 31, 2014

All this is well known, and was described years ago by serious people.
Yet one has to understand this about the poisoning of the atmosphere with unbalanced levels of CO2:

1) The warming is still accelerating overall. Although it has slowed down in the atmosphere, that’s more than compensated by an acceleration in the oceans (where most of the heat and CO2 goes). The situation with the atmosphere is equivalent to that of boiling water: the temperature does not grow, but the transfer of energy keeps on going.

2) Warming in the oceans could, and will, liberate methane hydrates, with enormous warming potential. That could be sudden and devastating, complete with tsunamis.
This methane gun could discharge, any day. Then the warming crisis would feel equivalent to World War Three.

3) So far the warming is only one degree Celsius, globally, in one century. It’s expected to reach another two degrees, fast.

4) A one meter rise of sea level will be devastating, and is guaranteed.

5) All this is complex: the warming of the Pacific Ocean has accelerated trade winds (with now 4 times their old energy), the warm water has been flushed by the Coriolis force, to the South West, thus cooling the water off California by upwelling, creating thus an anti-cyclone, hence drought there.

6) Indeed, as predicted years ago by Patrice Aymé, much of the energy of warming is going into potential (low and high pressure) and dynamic effects (winds and convoluted jet stream causing the intrusion of polar air way south on the Eastern sea board of the USA, among others).
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/immoral-co2-curve/

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climate-risk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html?

American Pluto Surrendering Monkeys

March 28, 2014

Men were born equal, and, for millions of years, they evolved as equal beings. However, civilization has made possible for a few to have everything, and for the rest to live in chains. As a few gather extraordinary powers, it is easy for them to gather even, and ever, more. Against this effect, plutocratization, society has to be organized, as priority number one.

Antique Rome failed that way.

For centuries, except for slaves, and the Native Americans who were stolen and massacred, Americans were rich. At least Americans were very rich relative to Europeans or anybody else in the world (yet, slavery and holocaust stayed a worm of horror inside the fruit). There was plenty of land to grab on the ever expending frontier.

Up to the end of the Nineteenth Century, land was distributed, for free (basically) by the government. As this came to an end, the first billionaire appeared, Carnegie, who wrote that wealth ought to be redistributed, because those who had acquired it acquired it only thanks to the state.

The backlash led by the two Roosevelt against the fortunes made around 1900, was accompanied by the just society (GI Bill) that had to follow World War Two (nobody was to argue with 11 million armed young men trained to kill in the name of democracy).

However, American plutocrats gathered immense wealth overseas around World War Two. Unleashed, starting under Nixon, those worthies, thanks to their ownership of the Main Stream Media, persuaded the Commons that “class struggle” was an obsolete notion. So here we are.

Crimea Worse Than Iraq?

March 28, 2014

In a sense, yes. I already said this. Obama repeated it in Brussels:

“Even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system,” said the commander-in-chief in a major foreign policy speech at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels. “We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain.”

Obama, of course, knows much better than that. The case the USA made before the U.N. was a insult to the world, built on fake intelligence, wishful thinking, children cartoon, unreal biology, and outright bullshit. It was delivered by Colin Powell because, as Dick Cheney put it eloquently, Powell could lose a couple of points off his poll numbers.

Yet, the point had to be made that Putin is worse. To the rage of pseudo-leftists. Yet, excitation is not always smart politically.

Obama said what he said, about Iraq, because he had to make a crucial point… And everybody knows he is on the record against the Bush war in Iraq, as a Senator.

“Even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system.” True. France warned Bush and his minions not to go to the UNSC again, because they would be vetoed out in a special way that would remove the vague authorization from the UNSC they had.

“We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory.” True.

“We did not grab its resources for our own gain.”
It would have been a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Although I was fanatically against the Iraq war, especially its second phase, under Bush, and although I think war crimes trials ought to be held against Bush and company, and although I have been furiously critical of my friend Obama, I can understand why he had to say what he said about Iraq.

It’s a question of context. It’s a point that had to be made. I made it on my own site, a while ago.

Because it’s the truth. As Dante noticed, there are various circles of hell. That’s all Obama said.

And so it is true that the first annexation of a piece of a country since 1938 is a whole new game. It simply did not happen again… Wait…Actually that last successful ethnic cleansing and annexation, before Crimea, was Stalin’s ethnic cleansing and annexation of ancient East Prussia.

Do I see a pattern? Maybe it’s a habit?

Reliability Big Bang

March 26, 2014

Commenting on the excellent:
http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/26/which-parts-of-the-big-bang-theory-are-reliable/

I guess I will have to get more subtle with my own “Universe: 100-billion years old?” (Hahaha) Yet “BICEP2 can really only tell us about the late stage and exit from inflation”.

In any case, thank you for this detailed analysis on how certain we are of the various elements of the concept of Big Bang. This is the sort of subtlety that needs to be taught to the public: that there are degrees of certainty in science. And even on physics.

By preaching the Big Bang as if it were a religion, as many scientists have done in popular shows (latest on “Cosmos”, complete with multiverse, presented as part of our “address”!) one did a disservice to science, or even to reason itself… And there could be a backlash, if the public discovers that they were lied to. So the earlier the subtleties are taught, the better.

Biosphere’s Oligarchic Crash

March 24, 2014

In the France of the Ancient Regime, the aristocrats constituted 2% of the population and paid no, or little tax. Louis XVI tried desperately to make them pay tax, for nearly 20 years, until he basically had to launch the Revolution to do so.

How do this .1% achieve their power? By their control of the media. Thousands of my comments sent to one of the most famous newspapers in the USA, were censored. On the Huffington Post, only 8 of my comments were ever published(!)

Talking too negatively about the plutocratic mood is not something to encourage, think our Lords and the papers they finance.

One should not imagine that this nascent oligarchy will be as innocent as those which preceded it before. Oligarchy is inimical to advanced thinking, and progress: this is why the Roman empire collapsed.

We, Earthlings, are in desperate times, as resources of old are disappearing, and the biosphere is degenerating (literally) under our assaults. The fact that only a few are acquiring control of all thinking, or more exactly propaganda, is bound to make our civilization increasingly stupid, and thus unable to find the solutions we need. To wit, the research budget of Obama lowers fusion research spending by 17%. (It is entirely possible that fusion will turn out to be the only viable long term solution.)

It’s not just that the hereditary oligarchs are stealing us, and our children’s future. They, and the stupidity they foster, are destroying the biosphere itself…

PA

[Comment sent to Krugman editorial.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/opinion/krugman-wealth-over-work.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 ]