Secularism is the religion of the age ("age", as a period of 120 years, is what "seculum" means). It can tolerate superstition, or many, but just that way: as tolerance.
What we have instead in Iran is a superstition masquerading as a republic. But the public ought to be free to think about whatever, in whichever way, and conduct its life accordingly, after democratic debate, whereas the superstition orders them to believe in its arbitrary credo. Moreover, that arbitrary credo is so incredibly primitive, so tribal, obscurantist, sexist and anti-intellectual that it makes the European Middle Ages seem more enlightened in many ways. Thus, there can be no compromise. The Qur'an, which contains some horribly fascist orders, has to release its grip on the Iranian public.
Once this is done, or on its way, France, and, or the USA, or, better, both together, should formally guarantee the secular Iranian republic its security, with a formal defense treaty, including the nuclear weapons umbrella.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Profit madness...
Statements such as “For one, the private economy invests each dollar of earnings more efficiently than the government spends the taxes collected. have to be put in context[”http://learningfromdogs.com/2009/12/29/government-spending-and-hamburgers]. Always.
Say the “private enterprise” is a casino in Las Vegas. So is it “more efficient” to put up another massive tower in Vegas than to give money to researchers at NIH looking for a cure for cancer or aging? Is it more efficient to send Vegas money to some tax heaven, than to have the Federal government pay some private enterprise to make thousands of millimetric bodyscanners, and pay for more efficient intelligence services?
I am very far from a statist fanatic. The US gov should not have saved General Motors, for example. It should be sold to Renault (if the later is still interested by devouring it).
But, ultimately, in a democracy, it’s the government that calls the shots, not the rich. In the later case, when the Rich calls the shots, all the shots, it’s called a PLUTOCRACY. And, in the fullness of time, it does not work as well. History, and theory, show.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Say the “private enterprise” is a casino in Las Vegas. So is it “more efficient” to put up another massive tower in Vegas than to give money to researchers at NIH looking for a cure for cancer or aging? Is it more efficient to send Vegas money to some tax heaven, than to have the Federal government pay some private enterprise to make thousands of millimetric bodyscanners, and pay for more efficient intelligence services?
I am very far from a statist fanatic. The US gov should not have saved General Motors, for example. It should be sold to Renault (if the later is still interested by devouring it).
But, ultimately, in a democracy, it’s the government that calls the shots, not the rich. In the later case, when the Rich calls the shots, all the shots, it’s called a PLUTOCRACY. And, in the fullness of time, it does not work as well. History, and theory, show.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
GOLD MAN SACKS AND SAYS: CLAP AND TREAD.
(Similar but larger essay on Wordpress to come soon)
GOLD MAN SAYS: CLAP AND TREAD. OFF WITH ITS HEAD!
Obama's USA, right now, intends to reduce emissions only with a "Cap and Trade" system. "Cap and Trade" was used, supposedly successfully, in the USA, to reduce acid rain. However, Europe controlled its acid problem without "Cap and Trade". Regulations can work better. After all, there are just regulations for toys, cars, house appliances and medical drugs. One does not do "Cap and Trade" with carcinogens. why to do it with something even more dangerous?
Oh, we shall cap the number of slaves to one million, and then trade them? No, we shall not. Why? Because trading slaves is bad, that's why. This is what happened in Europe: too many free pollution permits were given, well, for free. That was embarrassing. Europe was saved by its enormous pre-existing energy taxes and regulations.
Then "Cap and Trade" has been used in the European Union for 5 years, for CO2 reductions, and it has been hard to implement. Many a European company turned it into an outrageous subsidy (sometimes through elaborated misrepresentation of their previous emissions). "Cap and Trade", in Europe, is a second order effect on the reduction of CO2 production, the main effect being regulations, and taxes on fuel, energy, and now carbon (in France for the later).
The great advantage of "Cap and Trade", for the USA, is that it is a subsidy to the usual suspects, led, of course, by Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, also known as "Government Sachs", is the true government of the USA, motivated not by what the American rabble wants, but by the profit motive. "Cap and Trade" will make Gold Man richer, so Gold Man is all for it, so it will happen. What should progressives do? Well, denounce loudly but support meekly, because a bit of progress is better than none.
SELLING OUT:
But then here comes Paul Krugman. Among many raging American "conservatives" Krugman has an extreme leftist reputation, but many of the policies he has advocated recently, or opinions he has presented, the elected leaders of the European right would reject with horror as intolerably right wing. An example is the zero interest rate policy, a lamentable give away to banks. Krugman supports it, in spite of its disastrous effects on the saving rate, American seniors, the dollar, stable currency rates, and the unfair cheapening of the USA.
So now Krugman has turned into a herald for Goldman Sachs (See the annex below on Gold Man Sacks and Cap & Trade). In Unhelpful Hansen
James Hansen is a great climate scientist. He was the first to warn about the climate crisis; I take what he says about coal, in particular, very seriously.
Unfortunately, while I defer to him on all matters climate, today’s op-ed article suggests that he really hasn’t made any effort to understand the economics of emissions control. And that’s not a small matter, because he’s now engaged in a misguided crusade against cap and trade, which is — let’s face it — the only form of action against greenhouse gas emissions we have any chance of taking before catastrophe becomes inevitable.
With all due respect, you are making an Americano-American reasoning here. Hansen is right, you are not. "We have no chance of getting a carbon tax for the foreseeable future", you say. Who is "we"? WE, all of use, have just one planet, one biosphere, and the USA, or more exactly the American oligarchs and plutocrats and their factories in China are polluting it to death.
The average American produces 24 tons of CO2 per person, the average French produces 6 tons. The French don't live four times better, but close. It's directly related. When all you do is waste, all you get is hate.
The rest of the world has implemented plenty of various taxes, for example on gasoline, etc. Even China has augmented enormously its gasoline tax in the last 18 months. Moreover, China has made its own increasingly stringent European laws on carbon emissions (although an electric car in China will emit 231 grams of CO2 per kilometer, whereas it would emit only 21 grams in France; American cars emit, in the average 333 grams, and the latest european regulation are for 120 grams…)
France, not content with its formidable taxes on energy, is introducing a carbon tax, on top of them, January 1, 2010, in 3 weeks. If the USA will not listen to reason, it goes without saying that carbon taxation on imports could be used as a way to demolish the industry of the USA, or whatever is left of it, after the Obama administration has subsidized it to death (this is an allusion to the 70 billion dollars injected by Obama in thoroughly inept General Motors… Ah, long gone are the days when an astute GM and a Jew hating Ford worked for Hitler, producing most of some of the types of vehicles Hitler's armed forces used, while naïve American GIs battled them on the ground… Where is the subtlety of old gone? Wall Street's world control is slipping, dissipating as carbon smoke in thin air…)
Europe introduced colossal taxes on energy long ago. Even Norway, which produces more oil per person than Saudi Arabia, has colossal energy taxes. In many European countries the price of gas is close to ten dollars a gallon (although oil is intrinsically cheaper there, being closer to cheap production centers).
Europe had "Cap and Trade" for years. It was a formidable subsidy for polluters. The carbon market is based in Paris. Even then, the French regulators were unable to prevent various misuses of the system. In the USA, Goldman Sachs will be in charge. Great. You will get the usual "Clap and Tread". Everybody applauding Gold Man Sacks treading on the people.
Praying at the feet of Goldman Sachs does not help. The rest of the world is increasingly fed up with the American attitude. I will expand my complaint on my site.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
GOLD MAN SAYS: CLAP AND TREAD. OFF WITH ITS HEAD!
Obama's USA, right now, intends to reduce emissions only with a "Cap and Trade" system. "Cap and Trade" was used, supposedly successfully, in the USA, to reduce acid rain. However, Europe controlled its acid problem without "Cap and Trade". Regulations can work better. After all, there are just regulations for toys, cars, house appliances and medical drugs. One does not do "Cap and Trade" with carcinogens. why to do it with something even more dangerous?
Oh, we shall cap the number of slaves to one million, and then trade them? No, we shall not. Why? Because trading slaves is bad, that's why. This is what happened in Europe: too many free pollution permits were given, well, for free. That was embarrassing. Europe was saved by its enormous pre-existing energy taxes and regulations.
Then "Cap and Trade" has been used in the European Union for 5 years, for CO2 reductions, and it has been hard to implement. Many a European company turned it into an outrageous subsidy (sometimes through elaborated misrepresentation of their previous emissions). "Cap and Trade", in Europe, is a second order effect on the reduction of CO2 production, the main effect being regulations, and taxes on fuel, energy, and now carbon (in France for the later).
The great advantage of "Cap and Trade", for the USA, is that it is a subsidy to the usual suspects, led, of course, by Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, also known as "Government Sachs", is the true government of the USA, motivated not by what the American rabble wants, but by the profit motive. "Cap and Trade" will make Gold Man richer, so Gold Man is all for it, so it will happen. What should progressives do? Well, denounce loudly but support meekly, because a bit of progress is better than none.
SELLING OUT:
But then here comes Paul Krugman. Among many raging American "conservatives" Krugman has an extreme leftist reputation, but many of the policies he has advocated recently, or opinions he has presented, the elected leaders of the European right would reject with horror as intolerably right wing. An example is the zero interest rate policy, a lamentable give away to banks. Krugman supports it, in spite of its disastrous effects on the saving rate, American seniors, the dollar, stable currency rates, and the unfair cheapening of the USA.
So now Krugman has turned into a herald for Goldman Sachs (See the annex below on Gold Man Sacks and Cap & Trade). In Unhelpful Hansen
James Hansen is a great climate scientist. He was the first to warn about the climate crisis; I take what he says about coal, in particular, very seriously.
Unfortunately, while I defer to him on all matters climate, today’s op-ed article suggests that he really hasn’t made any effort to understand the economics of emissions control. And that’s not a small matter, because he’s now engaged in a misguided crusade against cap and trade, which is — let’s face it — the only form of action against greenhouse gas emissions we have any chance of taking before catastrophe becomes inevitable.
With all due respect, you are making an Americano-American reasoning here. Hansen is right, you are not. "We have no chance of getting a carbon tax for the foreseeable future", you say. Who is "we"? WE, all of use, have just one planet, one biosphere, and the USA, or more exactly the American oligarchs and plutocrats and their factories in China are polluting it to death.
The average American produces 24 tons of CO2 per person, the average French produces 6 tons. The French don't live four times better, but close. It's directly related. When all you do is waste, all you get is hate.
The rest of the world has implemented plenty of various taxes, for example on gasoline, etc. Even China has augmented enormously its gasoline tax in the last 18 months. Moreover, China has made its own increasingly stringent European laws on carbon emissions (although an electric car in China will emit 231 grams of CO2 per kilometer, whereas it would emit only 21 grams in France; American cars emit, in the average 333 grams, and the latest european regulation are for 120 grams…)
France, not content with its formidable taxes on energy, is introducing a carbon tax, on top of them, January 1, 2010, in 3 weeks. If the USA will not listen to reason, it goes without saying that carbon taxation on imports could be used as a way to demolish the industry of the USA, or whatever is left of it, after the Obama administration has subsidized it to death (this is an allusion to the 70 billion dollars injected by Obama in thoroughly inept General Motors… Ah, long gone are the days when an astute GM and a Jew hating Ford worked for Hitler, producing most of some of the types of vehicles Hitler's armed forces used, while naïve American GIs battled them on the ground… Where is the subtlety of old gone? Wall Street's world control is slipping, dissipating as carbon smoke in thin air…)
Europe introduced colossal taxes on energy long ago. Even Norway, which produces more oil per person than Saudi Arabia, has colossal energy taxes. In many European countries the price of gas is close to ten dollars a gallon (although oil is intrinsically cheaper there, being closer to cheap production centers).
Europe had "Cap and Trade" for years. It was a formidable subsidy for polluters. The carbon market is based in Paris. Even then, the French regulators were unable to prevent various misuses of the system. In the USA, Goldman Sachs will be in charge. Great. You will get the usual "Clap and Tread". Everybody applauding Gold Man Sacks treading on the people.
Praying at the feet of Goldman Sachs does not help. The rest of the world is increasingly fed up with the American attitude. I will expand my complaint on my site.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, November 26, 2009
WHAT TOO BIG OUGHT TO MEAN.
An amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act (currently before the House Financial Services Committee):
..." would empower federal regulators to rein in and dismantle financial firms that are so large, inter-connected, or risky that their collapse would put at risk the entire American economic system, even if those firms currently appear to be well-capitalized and healthy."
Some have proposed thus to limit each single bank to 1%, or 2% of GDP. This is not enough, not to say outright naive.
Indeed, however small, if the banks all conspire, and are all allowed to invest in the same non productive derivatives, they will still divert capital away from the real economy to imaginary profits justifying indecent and damaging bonuses, while starving the real economy.
The notion of integration in the mathematical sense has to be introduced. This is a known problem with carcinogens. To limit each given carcinogen below a threshold is not enough. By piling up carcinogens under the threshold, one can get large carcinogenicity. Thus Germany has introduced an overall integrated carcinogenicity limit. France, and the EU will soon follow suit (under scientific pressure).
So, by analogy, what should be limited is the overall risk to the system, and that should evaluated by checking how much risk is in the global system. An obvious way out is to regulate derivatives by limiting leverage, certifying each and every single derivative, and distinguishing commercial operators from speculators (who should be more limited in leverage).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
..." would empower federal regulators to rein in and dismantle financial firms that are so large, inter-connected, or risky that their collapse would put at risk the entire American economic system, even if those firms currently appear to be well-capitalized and healthy."
Some have proposed thus to limit each single bank to 1%, or 2% of GDP. This is not enough, not to say outright naive.
Indeed, however small, if the banks all conspire, and are all allowed to invest in the same non productive derivatives, they will still divert capital away from the real economy to imaginary profits justifying indecent and damaging bonuses, while starving the real economy.
The notion of integration in the mathematical sense has to be introduced. This is a known problem with carcinogens. To limit each given carcinogen below a threshold is not enough. By piling up carcinogens under the threshold, one can get large carcinogenicity. Thus Germany has introduced an overall integrated carcinogenicity limit. France, and the EU will soon follow suit (under scientific pressure).
So, by analogy, what should be limited is the overall risk to the system, and that should evaluated by checking how much risk is in the global system. An obvious way out is to regulate derivatives by limiting leverage, certifying each and every single derivative, and distinguishing commercial operators from speculators (who should be more limited in leverage).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Saturday, October 17, 2009
ESSENCE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
For millennia, the STATE controlled the currency. Now, though, most of the currency is controlled by a few private individuals, the bankers. The fractional reserve system is set up that way. This is actually a devolution of civilization.
And it happened before: the French Ancient Regime let private individuals be in charge of taxation, the Fermiers Generaux ("General Farmers"). This led directly to the French revolution of 1789. I have developed this theme, and many related issues, on my sites.
Now, again, this has got to stop. Bankers cannot just create the currency, and lend it to their friends and themselves, with the connivance of the government, artificially boosting GDP, joining insult to injury, has is the case now. Enough is enough.
Now, of course, this is not all what is wrong with the economy. There is a global economic crisis due to globalization (a form of re-colonization), one caused by increasing energy and ecological problems, and one caused by insufficient technological and scientific progress, considering the piling up of problems, and one caused by the related dissemination of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
And it happened before: the French Ancient Regime let private individuals be in charge of taxation, the Fermiers Generaux ("General Farmers"). This led directly to the French revolution of 1789. I have developed this theme, and many related issues, on my sites.
Now, again, this has got to stop. Bankers cannot just create the currency, and lend it to their friends and themselves, with the connivance of the government, artificially boosting GDP, joining insult to injury, has is the case now. Enough is enough.
Now, of course, this is not all what is wrong with the economy. There is a global economic crisis due to globalization (a form of re-colonization), one caused by increasing energy and ecological problems, and one caused by insufficient technological and scientific progress, considering the piling up of problems, and one caused by the related dissemination of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Saturday, September 26, 2009
FRAYING IN AFFRAYING AFGHANISTAN
Bob Herbert correctly notice in the NYT: "The difference between the public’s take on Afghanistan and that of the nation’s top leadership is both stunning and ominous. A clash is coming."
As I have argued on my sites, to win a war, one needs first to know what one is fighting for. Or then have an immense military superiority. We do not have the later: scaling up what the French did in Algeria to the populations, we would need 500,000 [# of French soldiers] times 36 [population Afghanistan] divided by 6 [population Algerians at the time], namely three million men.
The French won militarily in Algeria, and, although "Algeria is France" (as used to be said), they left. They were just plain tired of waging a conflict, and argue about superstition.
So are we going to send three million men to dominate 36 million Afghans? So we can lose a few years later?
Unlikely.
Obama does not know what he is doing in Afghanistan, as shown by his completely self contradictory statements about Islam there (which is, according to him, and the fact of the Afghan constitution, what we are defending there, he means, what he views as the good Islam, except he does not like the law about raping women, and forcing them to enjoy it officially...)
The drain of this grotesque war on treasure, morals, morality, and logical coherence, let alone lives and limbs cannot be sustained...
As I have argued, the war is waged not because of Al Qaeda, or the Taliban: these are just pretexts. But the truth can only be left unsaid...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
As I have argued on my sites, to win a war, one needs first to know what one is fighting for. Or then have an immense military superiority. We do not have the later: scaling up what the French did in Algeria to the populations, we would need 500,000 [# of French soldiers] times 36 [population Afghanistan] divided by 6 [population Algerians at the time], namely three million men.
The French won militarily in Algeria, and, although "Algeria is France" (as used to be said), they left. They were just plain tired of waging a conflict, and argue about superstition.
So are we going to send three million men to dominate 36 million Afghans? So we can lose a few years later?
Unlikely.
Obama does not know what he is doing in Afghanistan, as shown by his completely self contradictory statements about Islam there (which is, according to him, and the fact of the Afghan constitution, what we are defending there, he means, what he views as the good Islam, except he does not like the law about raping women, and forcing them to enjoy it officially...)
The drain of this grotesque war on treasure, morals, morality, and logical coherence, let alone lives and limbs cannot be sustained...
As I have argued, the war is waged not because of Al Qaeda, or the Taliban: these are just pretexts. But the truth can only be left unsaid...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
PECK ON BECK NOT
Krugman observes that: "I’d say that Feldstein was channeling Glenn Beck, except that since the Feldstein piece came first, it’s the other way around. So as I said, maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Beck."
[Marty Feldstein, a well known economist has been going around, saying, and writing in prestigious editorials that one could not afford to fight the greenhouse effect.]
Beck had an excellent piece on the influence of big bankers, in particular Goldman Sachs, on the political process, in particular the White House. He was standing at the blackboard, and drew an elaborated diagram, which was correct, as far as I knew.
I also know that it required a lot of courage to do so. In my own microcosme, I was harassed and punished by bankers-with-bonuses, just because I emitted similar truths (they threatened and insulted me through email and the Internet, and got me banned from websites). I had to pinch myself to observe that was really happening, and not just a nightmare.
So I can understand the sort of risk that Beck took by drawing that diagram, and going on a long piece about plutocrats. He got many bonus points from me then.
I can understand that Beck wants to depict himself as a clown to divert attention from his grave objections to an ancient regime which is going straight towards the wall of the tsunami of rising seas… He can always justify himself by saying later that he said whatever, being a clown, and thus innocent of any gravitas versus big bankers with offices in the White House (Rahm Emanuel, and various Golman officers...)
Nevermind that Beck is ironical about global warming when it snows in New York. It is an amusing contrast. It is to scientists to explain, and pound down on, the point that the warming is mostly concentrated in the polar regions, and that there is the Achilles Heel of the entire climate: if you bust the frig, the temps are going to shoot up. And the seas will follow…
PA
[Marty Feldstein, a well known economist has been going around, saying, and writing in prestigious editorials that one could not afford to fight the greenhouse effect.]
Beck had an excellent piece on the influence of big bankers, in particular Goldman Sachs, on the political process, in particular the White House. He was standing at the blackboard, and drew an elaborated diagram, which was correct, as far as I knew.
I also know that it required a lot of courage to do so. In my own microcosme, I was harassed and punished by bankers-with-bonuses, just because I emitted similar truths (they threatened and insulted me through email and the Internet, and got me banned from websites). I had to pinch myself to observe that was really happening, and not just a nightmare.
So I can understand the sort of risk that Beck took by drawing that diagram, and going on a long piece about plutocrats. He got many bonus points from me then.
I can understand that Beck wants to depict himself as a clown to divert attention from his grave objections to an ancient regime which is going straight towards the wall of the tsunami of rising seas… He can always justify himself by saying later that he said whatever, being a clown, and thus innocent of any gravitas versus big bankers with offices in the White House (Rahm Emanuel, and various Golman officers...)
Nevermind that Beck is ironical about global warming when it snows in New York. It is an amusing contrast. It is to scientists to explain, and pound down on, the point that the warming is mostly concentrated in the polar regions, and that there is the Achilles Heel of the entire climate: if you bust the frig, the temps are going to shoot up. And the seas will follow…
PA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)