JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

The land that rewards failure

Mark Steyn hits the spot:

“America is now the land that rewards failure– at the personal, corporate, and state level. If you reward it, you get more of it. If you reward it as lavishly as the federal government does, you’ll get the Radio City Christmas Spectacular of Failure, on ice and with full supporting orchestra. The problem is in that abolishing failure, you also abolish the possibility of success, and guarantee only a huge statist sucking swamp. From Motown to No Town, from the Golden State to Golden Statists.What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and decay to California are applied to the nation at large?”

 

Mark Steyn, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, p 219.

Steyn delivers the depressing punches with rare wit.


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (65 votes cast)
The land that rewards failure, 8.4 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/77gfyka

105 comments to The land that rewards failure

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Mark Steyn’s commentary is about the communication of reality in society.

    We can easily define a useful measure of reality using an accountants assessment of a societies financial status: ie. National Debt.

    Is the nation in the black; or are politicians borrowing more money to fund any and all proposals for spending and pork barreling?

    On another thread “the Euro Spring” I wrote about an aspect of spending at government level and for some reason it has had a lot of hits.

    Maybe people have identified with the very simple fact that Politicians seem to feel empowered to spend our taxes, the product of our work, with impunity.

    It appears that politicians feel no obligation to spend our money wisely and I think the reason is : THEY ARE NOT UNDER ANY EFFECTIVE SCRUTINY.

    The media is complicit in keeping us ill informed about the world.

    If they had applied proper scrutiny to Government spending and alerted the voting public to graft, corruption, waste and mismanagement we could started to formulate a Spring Revolution here.

    Without information we are powerless to do that.

    What we need is a Gigantic waste meter on display on TV to show the county’s financial status day by day.

    A constant reminder of how much National Debt we are saddled with and the annual interest bill attached would be very powerful information.

    Politicians would cringe.

    It works: Just ask the Health Services Union which is now looking at reform perhaps?

    00

  • #
    Mike

    Is Australia much different?

    At least there is still some innovation in mist parts of America. Australia has turned into a land of mineral rent seekers.

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Mike

      I agree, America is moving to find solutions; some areas of the US have adopted a low wage zone system that allows their manufactured goods to compete with overseas low age countries.

      In Australia our politicians gloat over good luck and try to sell us the idea that we have arrived.

      There is nobody on the steering wheel of the Aussie Bus and we are going to be unprepared for the future.

      00

    • #
      Bulldust

      The advantage of being a country heavily reliant on primary industry is that it is difficult for anyone to take those advantages away from you, short of an invasion (much like we whities did a couple hundred years ago *cough*). You can’t move the arable land to China or the iron ore desposit to India. In essensce everything else is relatively mobile.

      With heavy manufacturing (for which the USA was king for several decades) you are heavily reliant on expensive capital investment to stay at the forefront. Inevitably a developing country comes along with a cheaper workforce and builds new blast furnaces and steel rolling mills etc, and beats you at your own game.

      Soon “Made in China” will evolve into a badge of a quality product (as Made in Japan did before it), and then some other country will take over as the low-end manufacturing powerhouse for the world. It is a quite natural cycle which results from incomes rising in a country as it becomes more productive, and eventually prices itself out of the market.

      Fighting these global market forces is an exercise in complete futility. So be thankful Australia has primary resources which can sustain our economy while other developed nations falter. Unfortunately the world has recognised this fact and invests here because of our economic stability and highish interest rates. This exacerbates the exchange rate problem, which drives more jobs offshore (see banking, airline mechanics, clothing and chemical manufacturing etc)…

      As I have said before, when the crapola hits the proverbial fan, the Aussie dollar will dip somewhat, but not as much as in the past IMHO, resource prices will drop, and mining will get slammed. The real job pinch will be when the construction jobs associated with big mining & petroleum projects evaporate. Far more people are employed during the construction phase of mineral projects than when they are operational. This is particularly the case with LNG projects where a construction phase may employ thousands, but only a hundred or so are required to operate the plant.

      00

      • #
        brc

        The disadvantage of being resource-rich is that politicians grow fat and happy on the royalties and spend their days conniving up ways to divide the proceeds of others capital investment and hard work.

        I’m not in the mining industry, but I do bristle when I hear that they are ‘not innovative’ or any other such put-down. For a start, efficient miners can come up with ways to improve the efficiency of the mines with technology. And for a second, each mine has a very long ‘feeder’ in which a lot other businesses exist to serve the needs of the mine. I’m not talking about bartenders and brothels, I’m talking about the supply chain that goes to supply them. Sure it isn’t as sexy as making ipods but it still is a supply chain. And as bulldust says, it’s hard to take it away.

        But what can be taken away (or at least eroded) is the comparative advantage of the mining. The only way this can be eroded away is by bone-headed politicians passing ever more laws to pander to special interest groups and to try and attach as many leeches to the operation as possible. It’s quite possible to make even highly attractive mineral deposits not worthwhile when both taxation and business uncertainty becomes too high. For once a politician like Bob Brown gets some danegeld out of the miners, it’s only a matter of time before he comes back for some more, to shower on his supporters in fit of capital destruction.

        00

        • #
          Bulldust

          Totally agree with all the comments BRC. Luckily we aren’t there yet in Australia and mining is still thriving. As for technological advances, Rio Tinto now has the capability to run large portions of its operations in the Pilbara remotely from a command centre near Perth airport. I have colleagues that have seen it first hand. Apparently it is a bit like a scene out of the old movie War Games, with a dozen or so screens around each operator, and a massive set on the wall depicting the entire operation. Amazing stuff. One does wonder if the syatem can be hacked by the likes of Anonymous… that might have interesting results O.O

          00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Mark Steyn does not get to the nub of the problem – the privately controlled Central Bank – the US Federal Reserve.

    He talks about the USA going bankrupt sometime in the future, but the position with the USA is that it is bankrupt and has been since 1933.

    The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260, [See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594 under the "Trading With The Enemy Act" [Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917], and as codified at 12 U .S.C.A. 95a.

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Kevin Moore
      February 2, 2012 at 6:25 am

      He talks about the USA going bankrupt sometime in the future, but the position with the USA is that it is bankrupt and has been since 1933.

      Kevin; I’m an engineer and I like functional definitions.

      For example: “Money” is defined as a “medium of exchange” — that is, you can exchange it for goods.

      Question: Are US $100 bills money?

      Functional Test: Take a suitcase full of them (nearly) anywhere in the world and see if you can exchange them for goods.

      Result: You can, so US $100 bills are Money.

      So, what is the functional effect of “bankrupcy” in the sense you are using it? What difference has it made on anything real? How would you functionally determine if someone or some country were bankrupt?

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi BobC

        That is brilliant.

        I can see a point to the comment Kevin has made in that we are now living in a Bank Faerie Land.

        While-ever the Faerie Land Bank continues to function everything is OK at the international

        level but all round the western world the contributors to Faerie Land Bank have seen their

        life’s savings disappear somewhere into Bank World, seemingly gone forever.

        There are of course two problems. The first is that Bank World did seriously collapse.

        The second is that nobody was punished and the system is UNCHANGED.

        00

      • #
        • #
          wes george

          Hang on a second here!

          Kevin Moore [and snip] believe that the Federal Reserve is controlled by evil Jewish bankers:

          All the primary owners are branches of European establishments. Foreigners, almost entirely Jewish, control the United States Money supply. They literally own exclusive rights to the dollar and simply enter dollars into their banks books to make money which they then lend back to us at a profit

          But they might be wrong:

          Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

          [snip, the link did not support that outrageous claim. Please be more careful. _ Jo]

          [snip, inflammatory, unneccessary - Jo]

          So I find it very confusing that they’ve latched on to Ron Paul critique of the whole Federal Reserve Banking System as the way to salvation, when, in fact, from the best I can tell he and Crakar [snip inflammatory]

          i see this nation (USA) as nothing more than a dictatorship thrashing around in the water as it slowly drowns.

          The home of the free and land of the brave has now become the home of the poor and the land of the slave and you only have yourselves to blame for that. You voted for incompetent fools, you allowed these fools to intentionally do what they have done.

          So watch this video Kevin and Al Crakar recommend…and remember it’s not a secret cabal exposed, but based on information the Federal Reserve freely published about itself and ask yourself what’s wrong with this video presentation and what might it have in common with other apocalyptic theories like CAGW:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qyg9MFCP1ls

          1. It forgets to mention that in the years since 1913 when the Fed was created the US has become the richest country in the world and the rest of the planet hasn’t done too shabbily either.
          2. It forgets to mention that price inflation doesn’t really matter because wage inflation has kept pace. It doesn’t really even hurt retired people on fixed incomes because people plan for inflation in their retirement portfolios.
          3. All interest is local. When you borrow money to buy a car in Whoop Whoop, SA, it doesn’t matter to the Bank of Whoop Whoop that the Fed created that money out of thin air, if they lend it to you they can’t lend it to someone else. Interest is the rent you pay for sitting on someone else’s money. It is not evil sin against God, but a fair reward for the risk they are taking on you. If there was no interest incentive no one would loan you anything just for free.

          [BUT, why should some lucky sods get to create the dollars for nothing that you and the bank of whoop whoop have to pay interest on? If you or I did that, we'd be jailed for counterfeiting. If the state did it, at least the bountiful ability to create money from nothing would be spread potentially to benefit the citizens, but if a cabal of private banks is given the right, what do they give us in return? It sure isn't a stable economy. A select few can profit from the creation of sovereign dollars. That is not "one law for all". Jo]

          4. We are all – even the poorest person reading this – richer by far than our great-great grandparent in 1913. Even if your great grand parents were millionaires in 1913 and you’re just a working sod today you’re still richer because when your arteries clog or you have a major car accident, we can patch you back together again. Value: Priceless.
          5.. It forgets to mention that all money is a symbol of exchange based on a social contract between buyer and seller on the assigned value of the currency. We could use rat turds for money if we all simply agree to it and the system would work just the same.
          6. I volunteer to relieve BobC of that suitcase full of totally worthless $100 bills.

          Now, that said, I’m worried about where the global monetary system is heading and there is a lot of fear out there. But most of it has to do with socialist governments borrowing more than they can possibly tax out of their citizens, not with how the Federal Reserve actually works. In fact, we wouldn’t be having this conservation about how screwed America is if Obama and the Democrats hadn’t run up trillions of dollars of debt in just 3 years. Even then most of the debt hasn’t actually occurred but is planned for the next decade, so it ain’t gonna happen.

          I’ve been investing in equity markets all my life and fear is normal. It’s like skydiving, if you aren’t scared you’re nuts. But taking risks is how capital is created. If you can’t sleep at night. Sell the lot, buy Krugerrands and stitch them into your mattress.

          Debt in itself isn’t tragic, it’s your ability to repay it that matters. Britain’s national debt was about 15 times their GNP after the War of 1812 and the Empire thrived for another 140 years just fine because they were able to wrench that wealth out of their colonial Empire.

          Today we create wealth – not by exploiting colonies – but through creative innovation based upon technological and cultural evolution. THAT’S WHY WE ARE ALL SO MUCH BLOODY RICHER TODAY THAN 1913. Sorry, for the all caps, but we are so fat and ignorant of the past we have no sense how tough life was before evil capitalist industrialism and the global monetary “conspiracy” gave us so much free time to be fat and stupid.

          I’ll admit that I don’t understand the monetary system well and there are serious cracks appearing in the foundation, but somehow I think we’ll muddle through to the other side simply because there are so many new ideas in the world that are coming at us faster and faster every day. Any one of them can dramatically change the whole history of humanity almost over night, like the PC did in the 1980′s and the Internet did in the 1990′s and like coal seam gas and fracking is doing right now, these kinds of quantum leaps in productivity keep the global economy one step ahead of whatever demons are chasing us and there is no sign that technological progress is slowing. In fact, it’s acceleration.

          So when some idiot who believes this:

          Of the 4 previous presidents that wanted to end the federal reserve banking system all 4 are now dead…..shot dead that is.

          Even though 3 of the American presidents assassinated were killed decades before the Fed existed… and this dweeb wants to sell us an economic and monetary catastrophe theory, some how I don’t trust their motives.

          [This Federal reserve bank is the 4th version of "Fed Reserve" in the USA. This war over money has been going on for centuries. The power to create money from nothing legally is arguably one of THE most important powers a civilization can issue. -- JN]

          I smell something rotten and I think that just like radical Greens, Al Crakar and Kevin Moore can hardly wait for western civilisation to collapse. But I doubt they’ll live to see the day.

          America is down on her luck. She has poor leadership today. (so do we!) But only someone totally ignorant of her past and future potential would punt that she’s down for the count.

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Ah Wes another worthy example of you rejecting reality and substituting it with your own twisted version.

            I will only respond to the defamation you have afforded me and let Kevin respond in his own way.

            Firstly please provide links to where i have clearly stated that the people of the Jewish faith own all the banks in the world.

            Secondly this quote cannot be attributed to me

            Who has the authority to rule, God or tyrants? There is in reality only One Law.

            Also i take offence to the suggestion you make that i support radical Islam, various terrorist groups and Shari Law.

            Thirdly this is a short and brief definition of what the Koran says as translated to me by an Imam it is not my interpretation.

            the Koran states that Alah will return and slay the devil (Jewish God) and all who pray to him. All Muslims will go to heaven then Alah will turn to all the christians and say “look you f%^&^d up, you were praying to a false god..

            Fourthly

            Oh, yeah, Kevin Moor and Al Crakar also really, really hate America and believe that both Australia and the US are dictatorships.

            So I find it very confusing that they’ve latched on to Ron Paul critique of the whole Federal Reserve Banking System as the way to salvation, when, in fact, from the best I can tell he and Crakar really want to totally destroy the Western world and everything we stand for.

            This is just complete nuts and really does not deserve replying to.

            Fifthly

            Of the 4 previous presidents that wanted to end the federal reserve banking system all 4 are now dead…..shot dead that is.

            It would appear that Wes is a slow learner as it has been explained to him previously that there is no difference between a private bank and the Fed Reserve.

            I request the comment by Wes be removed, i will also be contacting the mods of this blog for information regarding Wes’s identity so as i can commence filing defamation charges against them.

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Al Crakar and Kevin Moore

            I simply wish to put your comments here in context with your earlier comments. Did you not say:

            According to the Koran there are only two religions (well 3 i suppose but let me explain). The two religions are Islam and the jewish religion, Alah is God and the jews pray to the devil. The koran states that there was a John and there was a Mary (just like the bible) but Jesus or Isiah was not the son of god as a god in immortal and cannot bear children. Instead Jesus was a prophet just like Mohammed.

            ….the Koran states that Jesus did not die on the cross some other poor smuck did in his place…

            These are your words, if they are defaming you, perhaps you should sue yourself.

            You are welcome to believe in whatever God (peace be upon him) you wish, but since we are talking about America (aka, the Great Satan) it is important that your own testimony be entered into the record so that we can fairly judge the value of what you recommend for the future of America.

            All opinions are valuable. But only in context. It is important that all your opinions are a matter of public record in this debate so that we know who is who.

            You should announce where your allegiances lie . There is nothing wrong with who you are. Be proud, my friend!

            Here, I shall go first!….

            I am a Christian Australian whose fundamental allegiance is to 1. Australia 2. The Anglosphere, which is the allegiance of English speak countries that evolved from Brit/Scot/Irish/Welsh culture and common law and 3. Western Civilisation and all that it stands for especially values of The Enlightenment and scientific methodology. 4. Human liberty and the free market of ideas, capital, goods and services. (not necessarily in that order depending on the crisis.)

            There. Everyone now knows my bias. So I may join the debate with no secret agenda. I want to see Australia and America overcome their challenges.

            Why do you not declare who and what you stand for clearly and honestly yourself?

            Are you ashamed?

            Or are you trying to deceive us?

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I think I previously asked Crakar if he was a Muslim and he said NO.

            In another context he later claims to have had part of the Koran translated for him by an Imam.

            Have I been deliberately mislead.

            How does a non Muslim get to interact with an Imam.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Wes,

            You are a complete and utter moron…………..

            Just so everyone is aware i received an email from a certain individual asking me to refrain from discussing certain topics as it may leave them vulnerable and open to attack either now or in the future. I understood the persons position on this so i apologised for my comments and promised not to stray into that area again.

            I was assured the same type of email was sent to Wes however judging by the way Wes has gone off topic once again to discuss similar things either this person did not send an email to Wes or Wes is too stupid to keep his mouth shut.

            The mere fact that his comments have been allowed through and have not been removed at my request indicates to me that this person did not email Wes with teh same request. So now we have rules for one and rules for another, and i do not wish to partake in any more stupidity by Wes.

            Before i go i will reply to a couple of comments by Wes and others so as not to seem rude.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Wes,

            In comment 3.1.2.1 you stated many things which i have covered previously however:

            They also support radical Islam, various terrorist groups and Shari Law, which means they might have some religious objections with “usury.”

            Complete with a link to SOPA that does not support your claims, this statement by you is defamatory and in a court of law i would take you for everything you have.

            Lets dissect this statement by you.

            Radical Islam:

            What is radical islam Wes? Do you consider the IRA to be radical catholics? Of course, maybe you consider the christians who are sick and tired of waiting for the end times so they are pushing for WW3 and nuclear armageddon so they can be invited in on up to the big house? Once again of course not and the reason why is because these religions do not allw for the slaughtering of innocent civilians so they are simply “Radical” Wes. The same works for Islam, there is no “radical Islam” there is just “radical”.

            You then claim that i support terrorist groups, now Wes this is a pretty big call by you when you consider the way the world is at the moment. Now i am not going to tell you what i do for a living because it is none of your fucking business but suffice to say that what i do has a direct impact on the exact opposite of what you claim. Wes you are an idiot, a moron, a retard, a big mouthed stupid ignorant pathetic individual.

            Now onto the claim that i support Sharia Law, to be honest i do not know why you included this, maybe you just ran out of bullshit i do not know. I suspect you think Sharia Law is a terrorist thing because of the Taliban and the man on TV told you so however nothing could be further from the truth.

            I suspect you have no idea what Sharia Law is and when you consider that i spent 12 months in a country that applies Sharia law then compared to you i am an expert.

            Of course you do realise that Saudi Arabia (KSA) have Sharia Law which is significant but more on that in a bit.

            In KSA they have the following problems Wes:

            There is no alchoholic fuelled violence, death, no teenagers staggering teh streets in the dead of night throwing up.

            There is no drugs of any kind, no drug induced deaths or addictions, no crimes related to addicts trying to feed their habit. There is no trafficking of drugs.

            There is no single mothers, no women with 5 kids to 6 different fathers.

            There is no rape, there is no crime.

            There is no lives destroyed by gambling addictions Wes.

            If you wish to date a Saudi girl you will need to be chaperoned every time until you get married (what a silly bunch of poeple they are hey Wes).

            Every Saudi man gets a house for free when he gets married.

            Every saudi citizen gets free high class medical care

            Every suadi man has a job, even the dumb ones they are the police, so here is a tip if you ever get the chance to drive in the KSA and you survive the experience then dont run a red light otherwise you will get an Uzi shoved in your throat by the dumbest person in teh country.

            I could go on back back to Sharia law and Saudi arabia, do you Wes put petrol in your car? If you do then you are supporting sharia law, in fact any country in the world that buys oil from Saudi Arabia is in fact supporting sharia law……………..as i have said many times Wes YOU ARE A MORON.

            So to answer your question do i support Sharia law, well not quite it does have disadvantages but compared to our decadent society it is not bad. I think we could get the best from both, combine them together and we would have something quite good.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            KK,

            You said

            I think I previously asked Crakar if he was a Muslim and he said NO.

            In another context he later claims to have had part of the Koran translated for him by an Imam.

            Have I been deliberately mislead.

            How does a non Muslim get to interact with an Imam.

            No you have not been delibrately mislead KK you are an idiot that is all.

            00

          • #

            HAPPY TO HELP EVERYONE.

            CHALLENGE FOR crakar24: Crakar please explain to KinkyKeith how boys could ever interact with girls, since girls are not boys so interaction must therefore be impossible by his logic. Whilst you are busy fighting against KK, as insurance against any potential flanking attacks by others I hereby loan you $1,000,000 repayable at 5%pa interest.

            CHALLENGE FOR KinkyKeith: KK please explain to Wes how his allegiances do not justify his opinions, but rather his opinions and allegiances are justified only if in practice they lead to good results, hence stating allegiences is little more than a reverse ad hominem and an argument from authority which cannot advance any rational discussion of any subject. I also wager $50,000 that you will lose an argument with crakar24 about boys and girls this year, which may seem like such a random event from such an unexpected source that you could not refuse the wager!

            CHALLENGE FOR Wes George: Wes please explain to Crakar24 how Sharia law could work in Australia and guarantee that there “is no rape, there is no crime”, when Sharia law requires a woman claiming rape to provide multiple witnesses to her crying out for help to prove the sex was not due to her enticement before it will even investigate the suspect, and also grants a husband permission to kill his wife if he suspects her of cheating on him since that is an “honour killing” which attracts little more than a fine. Whilst you are busy fighting against crakar, I have intelligence reports indicating you will experience flanking attacks by others so as insurance against this I hereby loan you $1,000,000 repayable at 5%pa interest.

             

            Ahh, chaos, disruption, a vicious circle of bitter dispute in which I will make $150,000 regardless of who wins, my work here is done. United they may stand, but divided I will take dividends! Continue as you all were.

            00

          • #
            wes george

            So to answer your question do i support Sharia law, well not quite it does have disadvantages but compared to our decadent society it is not bad. I think we could get the best from both, combine them together and we would have something quite good.

            OUR decadent society???

            Sorry, mate, you got the wrong country. I think I speak for most of us here when I say Australia will adopt Sharia Law into Australian Law over our dead bodies.

            I think OUR decadent society might have a bit more fight left in it than you think.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQI5fdVCvlU&feature=related

            But thank you for coming clean about your true beliefs. :-)

            We’ll remember to consider all your comments in light of the fact that you (and Kevin Moore?) would impose some variety of Shari Law on Australia culture if you could.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Wes,

            In case you havent noticed i [snip] am not commenting, as you are not the full two bob you failed to get the hint as always. So rather than leave you in suspense i will respond this last time.
            [snip]

            Lets assume we take all the good bits from our society and throw out all the bad, things like alchohol abuse, drug abuse, prostitution, gambling addiction, violent crimes and ensure that we dont get single mothers with 6 kids pulling in a wage greater than mine without having to do a minutes work.

            [snip resolved in private emails]

            00

          • #
            BobC

            crakar24
            February 3, 2012 at 9:09 am

            [On Saudi Arabia:]

            There is no rape

            As it happens, I have some personal experience that can shed some light on this remarkable statement.

            Back in the dark ages (I mean the 1960s) when I was going to college, my two roommates and I rented the penthouse apartment in an old converted sanatorium. (I recall we paid $65/month for 3 bedrooms, a kitchen and living room. The apartment was all by itself on the roof with a great view of the steel mills.) The only other students in the entire building were an unmarried mother (with one infant boy) going to college with government assistance and a student from Saudi Arabia.

            The mother held a party once at which, naturally, the other students in the building were invited. The Saudi managed to be the last to leave, and when he was alone with the woman (except for her child, that is) he attempted to rape her. Through the application of trickery and clever use of force, she managed to eject him from the apartment, locked the door behind him, and called us.

            After checking in on her to see that she was OK, we called on the Saudi at his apartment. We expected him to be contrite and appologetic. He was not. It was his unshakable belief that, since she had obviously had sex with another man while out of wedlock, she had no right to refuse him whenever he choose. In fact, she had no standing to complain even if he used force.

            We tried to explain to him that this was a serious crime in America. He would be thrown in an unpleasant prison for a number of years, and deported to Saudi Arabia in disgrace when he got out.

            No effect.

            By this time, we had run out of patience, and, while my mates held his arms to the wall (with his feet dangling above the floor) I had a serious tete-a-tete session with him. I promised him that, if he tried to rape our friend again, we would come round and break his legs. If he succeeded in raping her, we would kill him.

            I think he believed us, as he was fairly frightened. HOWEVER, he still maintained that he had every right to rape her.

            Not knowing just how we could deal with such an inflexible mental state, we just made sure from then on that he stayed away from our friend, and that she had the means to solve the problem if he didn’t.

            Of course there’s no rape in Saudi Arabia — there isn’t an act against a woman that would be defined as such.

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Thanks Bobc

            A picture is worth a thousand words and that says it all.

            For the last forty years in Australia we have been forced by political correctness to try and be “tolerant” of new immigrant behaviour.

            Police have been “encouraged” to go easy on certain immigrant groups and the

            resulting deterioration in law and order has been appalling. In NSW the culmination

            of the new approach to ethnic understanding was a rape which held newspaper

            headlines for a long time and left a definite stench around the behaviour of non

            Christian immigrants from Arab countries.

            The driving force behind all this unpleasantness is the belief by politicians that

            by overlooking problems they will ingratiate themselves with certain ethnic groups.

            The benefit in examining all of this is that it sheds light on the fallibility of

            human reasoning and may help us to make better decisions in all areas life that are

            controlled by politics.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Well bob that settles it you meet one person from saudi arabia who felt he had the god given right to rape women. Of course this piece of anecdotal evidence is no match for real life reality….hmmmmmmmmmm….where have i heard that before.

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Folks

            There have been claims made that Shari Law protects women from rape by Muslim men.

            Sydney Newspapers Carried the Following Information

            “The Sydney gang rapes were a series of gang rape attacks committed by a group of up

            to fourteen Lebanese Australian men led by Bilal Skaf against European Australian

            women and teenage girls, as young as 14, in Sydney Australia in 2000″ .

            Further “” in court transcripts Judge Michael Finnane described the rapes as events

            “you hear about or read about only in the context of wartime atrocities”".

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Global Bankster,

            You got a good racket going there!

            And you make a good point.

            ….please explain to Wes how his allegiances do not justify his opinions, but rather his opinions and allegiances are justified only if in practice they lead to good results, hence stating allegiences is little more than a reverse ad hominem and an argument from authority which cannot advance any rational discussion of any subject.

            When you argue with idiots after a while you’re just as idiotic as the idiots. ;-)

            Let’s be clear. I’m not on about “advancing a rational discussion” with Crakar about whether introducing Sharia Law into Australia would lead to good results or not.

            I’m on about the fact that Crakar and Kevin Moore have made hundreds of political, ethical and economic claims in comments on Jo’s blog for months now and before this week no one knew they were Islamic chauvinists secretly promoting a radical transformational agenda for Australia by making us cultural more like Saudi Arabia. The irony is that they both love ridiculous conspiracy theories about the West, but they were, in fact, a daft little conspiracy themselves!

            It’s the deceit I object too.

            Al Crakar and Kevin Moore need to remember that whenever the topics of politics, economics and culture comes up it’s important that they don’t pretend that their argument is fair dinkum when the context which animates it, Islamism and Sharia, are hidden from the debate. That’s like me arguing to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities while pretending I’m Iranian!

            Internet anonymity sometimes requires long digressions in threads to establish who really represents what.

            Allegiances never justify anyone’s opinion, rather they inform the debate.

            Now that we all know who is who, my work here is done.

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Wes,

            Your comments as usual are slanderous, childish and express your complete ignorance.

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Kevin Moore,

            I’m glad you’re here. Crakar has totally come clean about who he really is. He’s done the right thing.

            But who are you?

            Did you or did you not claim this is a fact:

            Foreigners, almost entirely Jewish, control the United States Money supply…. The owners of this bank have been responsible for instigating all the major wars and depressions in the last 100 years. They own the bank, they own the dollar and they own all the major media channels, the military industrial complex and most politicians, judges and cops.

            So, if this is true why don’t we just kill all the Jews?

            Oh, wait, Al Crakar said that’s the master plan according to the Quran.

            in the end the Koran states that Alah will return and slay the devil (Jewish God) and all who pray to him.

            OK, that seems to be a pretty clear statement from Al Crakar.

            But I’m still a tiny bit confused. You said:

            Your comments as usual are slanderous, childish and express your complete ignorance.

            Childish and Ignorant I’ll wear that.

            But Slanderous seems to be an admission that you are ashamed of what you have said. How can your own words slander you?

            You slandered yourself?

            By definition no one can’t slander you by quoting back your own words as what you said you believe. That’s called evidence, not slander.

            What you really mean is that you’re angry you can’t drop Islamic rhetorical bombs one day and then the waltz into a thread about American society the next pretending you’re just a nice Ron Paul supporter.

            You want us all to live in the moment with no reference to your past comments.

            You’re not really ashamed of who you are, you just think your evangelicalism would be so much more effective if we though you were something other than what you are.

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Wes,

            Why should I be ashamed? If it was Latvians or Eskimo’s who owned the banks I would say so.

            Yes, I stand by the statement quoted, facts are facts.So why do you get so violent with your language when the truth is told? Come up with some evidence other than slanderous ranting to show the statement to be false?

            The rest of your rant as addressed to me is just chidish, vicious, slanderous crap!

            [lets get the tone back to a gentlemanly level. I'll begin sniping with wild abandon] ED

            00

          • #
            BobC

            According to crakar24 (here), Saudi Arabia is an utopia.

            For women, not quite:

            Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia:

            All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Depending on the guardian, women may need their guardian’s permission for: marriage and divorce; travel, if under 45; education; employment; opening a bank account; elective surgery…

            The World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity. It was the only country to score a zero in the category of political empowerment.

            Women’s freedom of movement is very limited in Saudi Arabia. They are not supposed to leave their houses or their local neighbourhood without the permission of their male guardian, and company of a mahram (close male relative)
            .
            Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia

            Women are generally discouraged from using public transport.

            Women have limited access to bus and train services.

            And, let’s not forget the Mutaween — the religious police, who locked school girls in a burning building and let them burn to death, because they weren’t wearing proper clothing to be outside.

            And, since we were talking about rape, there’s the “Qatif girl” rape case: A women who was gang raped by 7 Saudi men was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 90 lashes — when she appealed, the appeals court doubled the sentence “as punishment for the heavy media coverage of the event in the international press regarding the treatment of women in the KSA and Saudi judicial practices”. (Nothing like the “rule of law”, eh?)

            Eventually, the King pardoned the victim, because of the international outcry. So, some justice is available in the KSA if the international press is involved.

            Yep, a women’s “utopia” all right. I don’t think my encounter with a Saudi man in the 1960′s was atypical of attitudes in the Kindom.

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            BobC,

            I read the words of Crakar24 that you provided a link to and conclude that you are maliciously and slanderously misrepresenting his arguement.

            Nowhere in the link to Crakar24 that you provided are the words rape or utopia mentioned. Your arguement is therefore slanderous and mendacious. Your use of the word utopia in quotation marks is libelous.

            [in post 3.1.2.1.5 above Crakar24 says about Saudi Arabia (KSA):

            There is no rape, there is no crime.

            Your charges of mendacity, slander and libel are misplaced. Apologize for the mistake or I'll put you in moderation.] ED

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Okay, I skipped through his words too quickly – I apologise. But where is the word utopia?

            [Thank you I appreciate the response. Unless there is another meaning to a lower case "utopia", I don't see anything there to be upsetting. Thank you again.] ED

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Kevin Moore
            February 5, 2012 at 4:59 am
            BobC,

            Your use of the word utopia in quotation marks is libelous.

            Your grasp of the meaning of “libelous” is dubious.

            Look up scare quotes:

            Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

            As in my second usage of “utopia”. (Meaning “not a utopia”, in case you still can’t get it.)

            Quotes can also mean that the quoted word is being referred to as a word, not a reference to the word’s definition. This is called the Use-Mention distinction. That covers the use of quotes in this post.

            Your response to an imagined insult to Islam is positively CAIR-like. Coincidence?

            Besides, who needs to insult Islam when you have countries like the KSA demonstrating what it stands for to the whole world?

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The short answer is that your suitcase full of $100 bills will only attract half as much in goods as it would a while ago.

        There is the same amount of “wealth” in the US, in terms of capacity and materials, but if you double the money you effectively half the value of dollar, so you need twice as many dollars to purchase a given chunk of capacity and materials.

        Central banks are trying to solve the credit crisis by reducing the purchasing power of bank savings (which are measured in dollars), and personal incomes (also measured in dollars). On the other side of the coin, the actions of the central banks are reducing the Government Tax take (also measured in dollars), so the Government needs to think up new taxes (carbon tax, anyone?) to keep its income on an even keel.

        The slight of hand in this trick is the propaganda that money = wealth. It does not. Wealth is owning real tangible assets that will keep their desirability. Money is only a transient way of describing that desirability in comparitive terms.

        00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        “…The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and
        distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a
        maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United
        States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or
        underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific
        performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

        Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a
        security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or
        underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the
        debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve
        Act for ever paying the principle.

        Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free
        and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
        “Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of
        Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held
        legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
        “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the
        federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties,
        assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to
        the Federal Reserve System.

        http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

        In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United
        States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any
        other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral
        and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the
        federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private
        property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against
        the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal
        territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit
        organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been
        transferred as payment to the international bankers…..”

        http://www.apfn.net/doc-100bankruptcy.htm

        00

      • #
        crakar24

        Technically you are both right and Rereke does a good job in 3.1.3.

        Kevin is right when he says the US is bankrupt because of the banking system and the reason why is simple. If the US government borrows $100 from the Fed reserve, the Fed gives them the money at interest. If the US government give the Fed the $100 back they still owe them the interest component but there is no money to pay the interest.

        Think about it…………….If i print all the money that is in existence and i give it to you and i charge you interest on that money how are you to pay it back PLUS THE INTEREST. They only way you can pay back the interest is by borrowing more money which then incurs more interest.

        Simply put if i put ten marbles in a jar and rattle it around as much as i want there will still only be 10 marbles………….there is no 11th marble.

        The following story is by Michael Rivero

        Any five-year old child knows that if you put ten marbles into a tin can, you can only take ten marbles back out. No amount of wishful thinking, dreaming, or praying, will yield that eleventh marble from inside that can. That eleventh marble does not exist. It never did, and it never will. All discussions about the eleventh marble are the product of imagination. The eleventh marble is a fantasy.

        Private central bankers issuing the public currency as interest-bearing loans operate on the belief that they can put ten marbles (dollars) into a tin can (the world) and magically get 11 marbles back out. Thus, we may conclude that the bankers are dumber than five-year old children! But unlike five-year old children, the bankers will take your home, your business, and your nation when they don’t get that eleventh marble! The spoiled child may cry and throw a tantrum, but that will be the end of their upset. The spoiled banker, however, in his or her arrogant rage that they cannot have the eleventh marble their imagination says must still be in that tin can, may start a war before they will admit that eleventh marble was never really there.

        Economies are like tin cans. Before you can take a marble out, you must have put a marble in. Nobody can give you a marble that does not exist, yet this simple reality is lost to the priests of that fantastic religion called banking in that unholiest of temples called the IMF. Their religious doctrine seems to be that there must always be an eleventh marble inside the tin can, and that the tin can unfairly withholds that eleventh marble, indeed cheats them of their right to the eleventh marble, purely out of spite. That faith in the existence of the eleventh marble, unseen and improvable, is the article of faith the religion of banking rests on. It is far easier to burn the heretics than to question the dogma.

        Today we see the bankers, having already retrieved their ten marbles from the tin can, flogging the world for that missing eleventh marble. Greece does not have that eleventh marble, so they turn to Germany and ask, “Do you have an eleventh marble”, and Germany replies, “Sorry, but the bankers already took the ten marbles they put in our tin can, and we are searching for an eleventh marble ourselves. Try the Americans.” The Americans, of course, have only just surrendered the last of their ten marbles back to the bankers and are looking under seat cushions for that missing eleventh marble nobody seems able to find.

        But the eleventh marble will never be found. After all that mayhem brought down on the tin can there still will be no eleventh marble. It does not exist. It never did, and it never will.

        The problem with all modern reserve banking systems is that the moment the first bank note goes into circulation as the proceed of a loan at interest, more money is owed to the banks than actually exists. Ten marbles have been put into the tin can, but the bankers see 11 marbles owed back to them. Sooner or later the non-existence of that eleventh marble will create a crisis of faith. People will stop believing in the religion called private central banking, and that crisis of faith will bring the system crashing down, as did the Temple of Baal in ancient times when the Syrians saw through the priests’ trickery. This evil magic of creating money out of debt was a fraud all along, as fraudulent and silly as the idea that one can put ten marbles into a tin can, and take out eleven.

        In ages to come economists will look back at this failed experiment in debt-based currency, and dump it into the same category of human folly as Tulip mania, The Nation of Poyais, Credit Mobilier, the Great South Seas Company, and Mortgage-Backed Securities.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Of course BobC makes a valid point in that money is still money no matter how bankrupt or close to it you are when he says.

          Question: Are US $100 bills money?

          Functional Test: Take a suitcase full of them (nearly) anywhere in the world and see if you can exchange them for goods.

          Result: You can, so US $100 bills are Money

          You should restructure it like this however:

          1, Take a suitcase full of money anywhere in the world and see if you can exchange it for a loaf of bred.

          2, How many loaves can you buy?

          3, Number of loaves < or = 1, if else jump to 1.

          4, Now you are bankrupt

          In other words the more you borrow the more you print the more you print the less it is worth until one day your money is so worthless you are bankrupt

          Cheers

          00

          • #

            Take a suitcase full of money anywhere in the world and see if you can exchange it for a loaf of bread.

            In the 70′s I read an absolutely wonderful book, written inside a jail. It was by Albert Speer, the only German Government Minister to plead guilty at Nurmeburg.

            The book was titled Inside the Third Reich.

            Speer was Minister for Armaments during the War, and prior to the War, he was Hitler’s, (thus Germany’s) chief architect.

            He was speaking of the levels of inflation in Germany as Hitler was coming to prominence.

            Speer mentions a case of the price of bread, tens of thousands of Deutschmarks.

            The story was of a woman who took a basket full of just money, all stacked in high value notes to the local bakers shop to but one loaf of bread. The shop was closed, and realising she had forgotten something, she placed the basket full of money on the step of the closed bakers shop, and walked around the corner to her home to pick up what she had forgotten.

            When she returned to the baker’s shop, all that money was still there, only someone had stacked it all neatly on the step.

            The basket had been stolen.

            Fast forward to recent times. Sound familiar with respect to the value of money.Witness Zimbabwe.

            Sometimes, paper money is absolutely worthless.

            Tony.

            Reference – Inside The Third Reich – Albert Speer.

            00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Crakar, there was a time when the authorities (religious/secular) forbade the charging of interest on loans. Maybe it was not such a bad idea after all, forces you so save up to buy stuff (assuming no-one will lend you money for free) … what a concept!

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Usury:

            1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
            2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
            3. [Archaic] Interest charged or paid on a loan.

            There are several passages in the Bible referring to usury in a bad light – the most famous being Jesus overturning the tables of the money lenders in the Great Temple.

            It is still banned under the Cannon law, of the Catholic Church. However, since Cannon law was dispensed with by the Protestants, during the Reformation, it now pays to be Protestant.

            Usury is also specifically banned in the Qur’an: The ayats in the Qur’an and the various hadiths on the subject make it clear that it is not only forbidden, but forbidden in the strongest terms. It is referred to as ‘war against Allah and the Messenger’ and as being ’30 times worse than adultery.’ – not done in polite society, then.

            It is interesting (no pun intended) that “the crime” is the charging of interest, not the borrowing or lending money.

            In Muslim society, a poor man may go to a rich man with an idea for a business. If the rich man likes the idea, and thinks that the poor man can achieve what he plans, then he will lend him the money to get started. The poor man is then honour bound to repay the loan, and invariably will do so well within the agreed term of the loan. No interest is charged for the loan, but the rich man knows that he will always have an ally in the (previously) poor man. Thus are longterm business relationships formed. Angel Investors in the West, work with a similar model.

            00

          • #
            Dave

            Rereke

            No interest is charged for the loan, but the rich man knows that he will always have an ally in the (previously) poor man.

            The Romans were doing this prior to the arrival of the phophet in 570 CE some 800 years earlier. Was this just a carry over of ideals through nomad travels that this Quarysh tribes member happened to witness?

            Nothing has changed really to the present! But reasons for this may have been different!

            Is this current granting of huge amounts of money a reward for the CAGW camp and it’s GAIA followers in return to have a backer when things turn pear (or is that pare MaxL?) shaped and the GLOBE cools?

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Dave,

            I didn’t wish to imply that loans made without interest were a Muslim idea. What I meant to explain was that most religions and philosophies shun the notion of profiting from a loan in monetary terms.

            In non-western societies, the loan is made because the successful application of the money to create something new, benefits society as a whole, and everybody gains. Making sufficient money from the new venture to repay the loan is a secondary obligation on the borrower, but one that allows the original sponsor to assist somebody else into another venture.

            The irony of this is that the West (and the USA in particular) want the practice banned by international law, because they say that it is money laundering, and helping to finance terrorism – go figure.

            00

          • #
            Dave

            I agree,

            My worry is the new cult of government lending (grants) money (in Australia) to gain favour for new ventures by like minded individuals who will support them later in whatever is required.

            Is this the ultimate payola of the green renewable energy schemes (religion) and its rulers?

            Sorry – I read your post too quickly!

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Interest is “rent” paid on money.

            If I own an asset like a car or a ship or a house why should I let someone use this asset for free?

            Even if I loan my car to my brother, its not really for free, because if later my car is in the shop and I need a ride somewhere I would feel cheated if my brother refused to help me. Even, if we never mention it. Gifting is part of the human economy.

            But if I loan my house to strangers I have to ask for rent because someone using my assets means that I can’t use it to produce income elsewhere and I also have to include into that rent the wear and tear on the asset as well as pay for the insurance… (cover my risk.)

            Money ( Capital ) is exactly the same. It’s an asset.

            If I loan someone money, I can’t use that capital to earn me money elsewhere and I will insist on being rewarded for taking the risk that the person I loan my capital to won’t use it to create more wealth, but instead lose the lot…

            Of course, if I loan someone money I will ask for them to put up collateral too. (If my brother wrecks my car while he’s borrowing it, I would expect him to pay to have it repaired, even if we didn’t talk about it when I tossed him the keys.)

            Colateral isn’t an evil trick to turn worthless suitcases of $100 bills into some valuable hard asset like a house because it’s highly unlike that a borrower will go bankrupt if his collateral assets are rising in value. If a borrower has a successful business or job and he gets in temporary cash flow problem I’ll likely lend him more money to get past this phase and onto wealth creation.

            When a business fails or a property loan is defaulted chance are extremely high the lender will be left with a loss because the colateral won’t be sufficient to cover.

            Capital markets are just like a free market in anything. It’s a social contract between two parties that is perceived by both sides as a benefit. Without the incentive to make a profit no one would be in the farmers market giving away free fruit.

            And it’s why we are such a rich nation today.

            In non-western societies, the loan is made because the successful application of the money to create something new, benefits society as a whole, and everybody gains. Making sufficient money from the new venture to repay the loan is a secondary obligation on the borrower, but one that allows the original sponsor to assist somebody else into another venture.

            Islamic banking is based on exactly the same profit motive as western banking, only they arrange the payments against the loan to avoid “interest” in order to comply with Sharia law.

            For instance, if you want a bank to help you buy a house, the bank buys the house and sells it to you at a profit. That profit is roughly the amount that you would have paid in interest to a western bank.

            Say you want a loan to start a business, in Sharia law you have no choice but to make the bank your defacto business partner so that it can share in the profits. The end result is the same as an interest loan, but in the West you simply have more choices, because you are free to choose whatever kind of banking arrangement fits your needs. You might not want to share your profits with the bank, but simply pay off the loan with interest because you believe that will be less expensive.

            Imagine if Bill Gates had borrowed a million dollars from an Islamic bank to start Microsoft. He agrees to share 2% of Microsoft’s profit for 30 years. Gates would have got a far better deal with a normal interest loan from Bank of America.

            The idea that Islamic banking is about the ‘successful application of the money to create something new, benefits society as a whole” is exactly the same reason why free markets of capital, ideas, goods and services work whether they are Islamic or not. Western markets are all about creating wealth at the individual level and this benefits society as a whole.

            The idea that “making sufficient money from the new venture to repay the loan is a secondary obligation on the borrower,” may be the necessary religious posture, but it’s just a pose. End result is the same, accept for if you default on a loan in Syria or Egypt you might have your legs broken or you might not if your brother is married to someone who knows the manager at the bank. It’s a system that works based upon very personal loyalties in tribal societies where familial honour and personal requital are always on the table next to the contract.

            That’s why the West rejects Shari Law Banking, because it is a system unto itself, complete with its own implied quiet justice. Western banking is a highly regulated and impersonal commodity, you know what the rules are exactly going in (or your solicitors do) and the dispute resolution process has no recourse to actions outside the law.

            For instance, Islamic banks can’t pay people with saving accounts interest on their money, so instead they give “gifts” to valued customers unregulated by any rules other than who the bank’s management feels deserves a gift and when they might deserve a gift and how much that gift might be. In practice, it works just like an interest rate on a savings account but because it is totally unregulated it’s open to corruption and can be used to launder money, wield influence and other nefarious practices.

            In both western banking and Shari Law banking the deck is stacked in favour of the lender and surprisingly this is the way it has to be or banks would risk failure. Why?

            Because when you borrow money you are “renting” an “asset.” Unless you are a huge corporation the arrangement is never a contract between equals. The bank gives you a suitcase of cash for an elaborate promise you’ll pay it back with interest. You get the cash. Bank gets the promise. Human nature being what it is some tiny percentage of people who promise to return the money with interest live to rue the day.

            Imagine if you went to your local fruit market and some bloke was selling melons for $5 but he was allowing anyone with just 10 cents to take one home as long as they promised to come back every day for the next 60 days and give him another 10 cents. He’d quickly sell out his mellons and just as quickly go broke unless he had everyone sign contracts promising collateral if they defaulted. If he was a nice guy who believed it was “a secondary obligation” for you to pay him whenever you feel like it, some large percentage of people would take the mellon and for various reasons just never get back to paying their full debt.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Finally someone with intelligence , logic and common sense rises above the stupidity.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Sorry my last comment was meant for Truth seeker

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Truthseeker
            February 2, 2012 at 3:53 pm
            Crakar, there was a time when the authorities (religious/secular) forbade the charging of interest on loans.

            That’s still the case in Islamic countries.

            Maybe it was not such a bad idea after all, forces you so save up to buy stuff (assuming no-one will lend you money for free) … what a concept!

            Yep, those Islamic countries are really leading the world in the creation of wealth and new products and technologies. /sarc

            What makes an idea or method of organization “good” or “bad” is not whether you like it, but what its effects are.

            00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Kev sez:

      The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260

      Oh really? Order 6073 mainly 1) required the banks to operate under license from the Federal Reserve, and 2) put a freeze on gold trading and export.

      How exactly does presidential order 6073 imply that the USA was bankrupt in 1933?

      I would have thought the run on the banks reputedly started by JP Morgan caused the extant insolvency of the banks to become exposed, and the subsequent Great Depression might be interpreted as national bankruptcy, but not the presidential order.

      If I take the time to check all the other presidential orders you cited, am I also going to find they say nothing like what you claim they say?

      00

  • #
    Rob

    Symptoms of pathocracy are well understood, and documented by Lobaczewski in his book Political Ponerology. The normal person expects justice and when it doesn’t happen one loses faith, becomes hardened, bitter or even apathetic towards others. Compassion or empathy – the human bond – is neutralized when we see injustice go unpunished, rewarded or even glorified. All this has a dehumanizing effect on the general public and creates divisions, partly explained by Beltrand Russell’s book, Science and it’s Impact on Society.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    “The land that rewards failure”

    So you mean Canberra then

    00

  • #

    All u need is 1 socialistic minded president to carry out the dreams of George Soros, Van Jones, and other Marxist minded politicians and u end up with the US mired in trillions of dollars worth of debt,green govt. loans to companies who only give large campaign contributions and a energy policy that is destroying the backbone of captialism. Also, unions making companies pay workers $30.00 an hour labor, 100% medical payments and big retirment plans, then it does not take a wizard long to understand the demise of the US economy. 4 more years of Obama and the US will be more like a 4th rate country try to find its wasy. Destroy jobs, the middle class and the walls come tumbling down. Humphtey Dumptie is killed during the process.No jobs, no taxes paid with excessive govt. spending spells doom for a nation that once led the world.

    [No need to yell with all bold type thnx Steve. Mod oggi]

    00

  • #
    Rob

    “…at that time the economy of the United States will be going down and the next boat people will be Americans leaving America looking for work abroad.” – Jacques Attali in his 1990 book “Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order”

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That might explain the increase in the number of West-Coast Americans who are learning Mandarin.

      I hope they are also learning about Geography – it is a long row across the Pacific.

      00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    MEMBERS

    There is enlightenment coming, it will be a cleansing wind throughout academia. This is just the tip of an iceberg that will sink the titanic of AGW, and all those on board. They are of the dark ages.

    Ask Dr David Evans, see his expose at Jo Nova science blog (au). Go to Tallbloke (uk). Go to Judith Curry (com).

    The greatest fear I have is polluted minds around me. What have we become, men, who give their minds to others for safekeeping. We should pity ourselves, as well as them.

    My countrymen are in danger, we have never had such wide divides between us, it is threatening division and insurrection. It must stop. We are close to solving the mystery of climate, we have most of the pieces now, and great minds will complete the puzzle soon. The Greens are deluded, we will prove it.

    I am but a troubadour, with a spatha of iron will. By His grace.

    Yours sincerely,

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ———————————————————————–

    Thus far, the science of atmosphere has rested on the paradigm of Greenhouse.

    It is a misinterpretation of the observations of the French scientist Baron Fourier by Arrhenius in 1896. It is that misconception, of previous known physical laws, that has polluted our perceptions of the Earths’ atmosphere into the modern ages.

    To shift that invalid principal, one has to offer a different perception born of observations and proved in the universal application of it, within a symbolic syntax (maths).

    This is the crux of the matter:
    The current paradigm demands our atmosphere is gas in an enclosed house.
    The correct principle is that the enclosure itself is the whole of the atmosphere. Consider the greenhouse roof to start at the Earths’ surface and end at the top of our atmosphere.

    The invalid greenhouse principle is false when subjected to the principle of conservation of energy. They cannot explain why it is so except for the introduction of a new invalid principle.

    As we have always done, when our knowledge of the universe of physics reaches the end of our ability to predicate, we fear the unknown. We naturally conserve our existence and fear is a mechanism of this conservation.

    It must be so, that earth, water, air, are different forms of the manifestation of energy in mass. The perception of a greenhouse allows a supposition that the energy equation of the equilibrium of mass can be different in its different forms of manifestation.

    Baron Fourier would be aghast.

    ——————————————————————————

    The presiding Justice in this case is the reasoning of man.

    It is a fundamental practice of man that we fail. We once conceived a Sun around a flat Earth. Each generation enters the revolving door of ignorance.

    What man on Earth has never been mistaken? Not I, not you. Yet each generation of man, believes anew. It is a bias, of the overarching preservation of dignity, that we can omit no wrong.

    Our planet, a moon of the Sun, exists in a bath of space, its atmosphere and oceans are the gifts that gave us life.

    Why do men around me, fear the Earth that created them? Is it the fundamental fragility of man and our inability to control the Universe that leads to thoughts, so fearful, we close our minds and hide in caves?

    The first law of science related the energy in mass. Our ancestors told us it was so, by observational reasoning. Like a rebellious teenager we have rejected this fundamental nature of our universe. It is so, we cannot add more energy to Earth, a script, derived before the evolution of man.

    Greenhouse, were used in cold Europe for the enhancement of biological life. Why wouldn’t a man, think an analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, with the atmosphere as its vessel? It is a belief without truth.

    The enclosure of Earth is its atmosphere. The whole of the atmosphere is a window of safety it protects us from the damaging rays of the Sun.

    Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the mass of Oceans, and radiation cannot enter the mass of Atmosphere. It is the enhancement under pressure of the kinetic energy of the Sun that gives us warmth.

    Our Atmosphere cannot create radiation, it cannot create kinetic energy, it cannot add extra heat to itself. We are bathed in the temperature of space it attracts our destiny, Cold.

    The truth of this reasoning cannot be judged. But they, the gods in white coats claim deity and cannot be wrong.

    It is the inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.

    ————————————————————————————–

    (Re•duc•tion•ism)
    noun
    1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation

    Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

    Reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the mystics that has been created by Science of Atmosphere, without relating it to their understandings.

    I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me have also helped some of the greatest minds in the field to understand the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.

    The article, Roger posted on Baron Fourier nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different compositions, in the crust of the Earth.

    Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Roger posted that graph about the temperature throughout the atmosphere as stratified. Then, looking back on Fouriers’ observations, it was obvious carbon meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.

    I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only and hence a new perspective. But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pump, thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.

    To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t. Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my limited understandings, enough to conceive an idea, and Hans Jelbrings’ comments to me were enlightening. Willis Eschenbachs’ perpetual motion machine made me think real hard. He is admirable.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/#comments

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/28/keith-seitter-on-the-uncertainty-monster/#comments

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Of course, AGW didn’t make it, it’s DOA. It is deceased for this very reason:

    They added a new invalid principle to greenhouse, Co2 forcing, but,

    They could not, even with that, explain how physics, models greenhouses, when it’s hotter on the outside.

    You cannot match the Science of Physics, to an incorrect philosophical perception of greenhouse.

    We are back where we started;

    “Why wouldn’t a man, think and analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, it’s vessel, the atmosphere?”

    The inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ————————————————————————————————————

    The troposphere is the condenser, the tropopause is the separation device and the stratosphere is the fridge cabinet of outgoing heat, cooling incoming rays, as they warm to the gravitational pressure of the atmosphere, after preceding through the thermostat of the mesospause, and then onto the thermostat of the tropopause, before again heating closer as pressure increases at the Earths’ surface, until the force of pressure on the thermodynamics of the enhanced potential energy completes the system back to the separation device of the tropopause.

    I predict no warming by greenhouse, but certainty of cooling by refrigeration.

    “Markus, you are but a troubadour, why do you think you can relate Philosophy to the Science of Physics?”

    I can’t, but it seems, neither can they.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    Richard Betts| January 28, 2012 at 5:34 am | Reply

    Hi Judith

    Thanks for highlighting the Huffington Post article – I agree it’s a good article.

    You ask “Can someone remind me why we need the IPCC AR5?”

    Later in the article you have the answer:

    “the uncertainties need to be spelled out, if not resolved, and especially those elusive feedback effects which account for the wide range in estimated warming this century.”

    The IAC noted that AR4 could have done a better job in spelling out the uncertainties, at least in WG2. There is a real effort going in to this in AR5 – and indeed you can already see early evidence of this in the recent SREX report, which had more nuanced messages on droughts and hurricanes than AR5, including a more careful application of likelihood estimates (only using them when confidence was high enough, hence the downgrade of the drought statement).

    At the WG2 lead authors’ meeting last month, one of the TSU members gave us a great talk on care in assessment writing – basically being very precise about what the literature is actually saying, what the evidence actually is and how well it agrees, and being careful on reflecting the scope of literature sources accurately (region, timescale, etc etc). I can see the WG2 leadership making a real concerted effort to avoid the problems of AR4.

    markus | January 28, 2012 at 6:01 am | Reply

    Dear Richard,

    I’m hope I’m not being rude by addressing you directly but, I’ve noticed a rather large Mammuthus has entered the room. Do you think AR5 should possibly address some of the science that has unexpectedly created it, before the stampede arrives.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    What is truly astonishing is the admittances they haven’t got it right for a decade. And we are destroying ourselves over it?

    They should have left their bias at the door, of the scientific hall.

    They cannot predict, no more than a biased wit.

    Do you know volcano eruptions, warm Earth?

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ——————————————————————————————————

    They should not call themselves a scientist, if they are so biased, that it completely blinds them to truth of fact. There is nothing to proselytise in science, nothing at all. They really are a disgrace to their profession. And right now I really don’t care if they end up being lampooned.

    They kept pushing crap into the face of my fellows, they will be held up to ridicule in front of their peers.

    There has been enough destruction in our society, over the rubbish the greens have been trying to push down our throats, and it is going to stop. They are delusional; they have harmed my countrymen greatly.

    You tell me what peace has been over our lands during the last 3 – 4 years. One lesson that will be learned from all of this is the disgusting manner in which climate scientists appealed to authority as their reasoning. Academics my bum. Idiots that cause disquiet amongst men.

    I do not want children being taught incorrect paths of reasoning. Lefto academia, have infiltrated learning and they are the greatest pollution facing us. I want my brothers’ children, free of rhetoric.

    I want them taught to think for themselves, so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe, and have freedom of thought, to love mankind.

    Damn them, and their entitlement.

    ————————————————————————————————

    By the knowing that I know, a proclamation is made.

    Arrhenioushansenous has been slain, by the hand of a man.

    Rejoice, for the fear of climate is no more.

    The most powerful force in the universe is the reasoning of a man.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward off the horns.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    ——————————————————————————————

    Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    —————————————————————————–
    He cannot be denied.

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      buzzkill…..

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      I Bring Good News

      Be true to yourself, is all he asks, you’re his son.

      Thank you Mary, for them.

      I am the spirit of man.

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Whew. Whatever you are on, you should try cutting it some more …

      00

      • #
        Dave

        you should try cutting it some more

        It’s hard to do this with a ride on mower – they only go down so far!

        I’m on a different grass lawn here!

        00

      • #
        markus

        Rereke:

        Face to face, I’d be cutting you up some.

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          My gravitar may show a dagger, but a pen (or a keyboard) is my weapon of choice. Words are far more deadly than steel. ;-)

          I actually appreciate your philosophical musings … I was being wry – an attempt at humour (note the English spelling).

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Is that a threat? Or an invitation to share?

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          So…. you’re a hairdresser?

          00

    • #
      wes george

      Bravo, Marcus! Bravo!

      I really did enjoy that.

      You’re our Walt Whitman. :-)
      and your last post was a climatological Leaves of Grass!

      Lo, I or you,
      Or woman, man, or state, known or unknown,
      We seeming solid wealth, strength, beauty build,
      But really build eidolons.

      The ostent evanescent,
      The substance of an artist’s mood or savan’s studies long,
      Or warrior’s, martyr’s, hero’s toils,
      To fashion his eidolon.

      Of every human life,
      (The units gather’d, posted, not a thought, emotion, deed, left out,)
      The whole or large or small summ’d, added up,
      In its eidolon.

      The old, old urge,
      Based on the ancient pinnacles, lo, newer, higher pinnacles,
      From science and the modern still impell’d,
      The old, old urge, eidolons.

      The present now and here,
      America’s busy, teeming, intricate whirl,
      Of aggregate and segregate for only thence releasing,
      To-day’s eidolons.

      These with the past,
      Of vanish’d lands, of all the reigns of kings across the sea,
      Old conquerors, old campaigns, old sailors’ voyages,
      Joining eidolons.

      Densities, growth, facades,
      Strata of mountains, soils, rocks, giant trees,
      Far-born, far-dying, living long, to leave,
      Eidolons everlasting.

      Exalte, rapt, ecstatic,
      The visible but their womb of birth,
      Of orbic tendencies to shape and shape and shape,
      The mighty earth-eidolon.

      All space, all time,
      (The stars, the terrible perturbations of the suns,
      Swelling, collapsing, ending, serving their longer, shorter use,)
      Fill’d with eidolons only.

      The noiseless myriads,
      The infinite oceans where the rivers empty,
      The separate countless free identities, like eyesight,
      The true realities, eidolons.

      00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Like most Americans I share a great deal of affinity with the Aistralians. It is no coincidence that in the United States Mick “Crocodile” Dindee is so popular.

    America is a nation whose unrivaled success was the culmination of the fulfilled dreams of the less fortunate from every corner of the world. The same people who made America great are the same people that the whole world turned its back upon.

    Every ethnic group which has ever clung to these shores of limitless opportunity have realized a degree of success and fulfillment unmatched in the history of humanity.

    America is the world and it’s future.

    The hard work and the entrepreneurial spirit of all who have landed upon the shores of this land so blessed in every way imaginable are an inspiration to the world as a whole as well awhile those who dares to dream of a better future.

    America is not ready to throw in the towel. As an American I say to the world that if life is analogous to a towel then do not tread on me! We are a tolerant and forbearing soviety but we don’t take shit from anyone, period!

    America is not perfect and we readily admit it. We have risen as a nation from every knock down we have sustained and we will continue to do so. If and when we do go down we will go down swinging. That is what winners do and that is who we are.

    00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      Apologies for the typos but I would rather die on my feet as an American than take shit from anyone! That includes those who wage an unrelenting and selfless campaign against the greatest scam the world has ever seen!

      Truly, my blood is boiling!

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Eddy, the harshest critics, the ones that make the deepest cuts, are American, and the criticisms are almost invariably directly at politicians and the government bureaucracy who are very valid targets for critique. The more general the comment the less it applies to the real world. This is especially true of criticisms and the broad brush ones can be dismissed accordingly.

        00

      • #

        And I’d have your back every step of the way.

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And I’d have your back every step of the way.

        That goes for me too, Buddy.

        00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry

        Eddy, we are known as the land of the free, as well mate.

        00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the ABC is on the attack again with Graham Readfearn leading the charge of stupidty:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3807130.html

    He spares no insult attacking Monckton and Jo Nova but fails to lodge a single coherent or logical argument, so I posted (assuming it gets up):

    Hardly surprising that this appeared on a professional smear site (DeSmog). I waded through all your ad hom attacks and insinuations, but I fail to see a single logical argument. BTW please explain what you mean by a “climate sceptic.” Is this someone who does not believe climate exists? The ABC is plumbing new depths here…

    WARNING: Any fair minded individual will find Graham’s post quite offensive. Little surprise that it originated at DeSmog…

    PS> I have emailed it to Jo, in case she hasn’t seen it yet.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    So, OK — What effect do these superfluous monetary theories have, anyway? This reminds me of those theories that, because the US flags in some courtrooms have fringe borders, that therefore that court operates on Admiralty law, and you have many fewer rights under that. But lo! Decisions in those courts are still made according to US Common and Statutory law (and you can look them up to verify this). The type of flag has no effect.

    Kevin says that nobody owns their land, anymore — but what has changed operationally? (“Operational” is the word I was looking for above, not “functional”.) I can still buy land, occupy it, build on it, plant on it, harvest it and sell the harvest for profit, and sell it to others and keep the proceeds. The supposed fact that my land has been “hypothecated” by the Federal Reserve Bank has no effect on anything that I can do with it. It is a distinction without meaning.

    Kevin says that “the United States Federal Government exists today in name only”, but that government employs millions of people, collects taxes, constructs roads, runs the Navy, Army and Airforce, makes laws and enforces them, etc., etc., etc. If that is “in name only” then language has no meaning and we are through the looking glass.

    crakar24: Your parable in 3.1.5 seems to compare wealth to marbles and concludes that, as marbles cannot be multiplied by loaning them out, neither can money loaned create wealth. But what is wealth, and is it like marbles? (Here are some parables to compare to yours.)

    Rereke gives an operational definition of wealth: “Wealth is owning real tangible assets that will keep their desirability.” By this definition, it is undeniable that we are far more wealthy today than most people were 100 or 200 years ago. We also achieve many benefits from this increased wealth: We live longer, healthier lives; are better fed and more comfortably housed; we have the ability to travel the world in a few days time, at a cost that the majority of people can afford, etc., etc.

    So, obviously, wealth is created. Does money create wealth? I would say that wealth is used to create more wealth. Money is easy to confuse with wealth, since the operational definition of money is “something that can be exchanged for goods” (e.g., “real tangible assets” — wealth). When money and wealth can be exchanged for each other, it is easy to conflate them. Lending money at interest is only sustainable is much of the lent money is used to create wealth.

    There may be problems with some types of money — inflation and/or manipulation for example, as Rereke points out. There are problems with some kinds of assets also: A hundred pigs is obviously a valuable asset, but I’m not ready to take delivery.

    The Federal Reserve is a kind of “National Bank”. The US has also experimented with “free banking”, (when banks could, among other things, print their own money) after President Andrew Jackson disolved the then National Bank.

    **********************************************

    My own theory: Money is operationally defined as “whatever can be exchanged for goods”, but why do people accept pieces of paper (or records in a bank computer’s memory) as money? It only works because everyone agrees to it — it is a shared delusion, but one that enables civilization and its economy to work with extended (far beyond tribal) groups of people.

    Equating intrinsically worthless pieces of paper (or records in a computer) with real goods is obviously irrational. It only works because everybody has agreed to share the delusion. The fact that, hundreds of years ago, most people would not have accepted such things as money is irrelevant to the present. All that is required of money is that they accept it now.

    There are many such delusions that we share that have enabled Human civilization to span the planet and generate the cornucopia of goods we now enjoy.

    Since these delusins are not rational, they can take many forms. It is not necessarily a good thing to think too much about these shared delusions.

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      The short answer is that money works because it makes transactions easier and cheaper. That is its real value. Everything else is just rhetoric.

      00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      You are talking plain sense Bob. People of all “classes” are much wealthier than those belonging to the same classes were say fifty years ago. That wealth is expressed in terms of assets such as residential, commercial, industrial or farming property.

      Most Australians own or are in the process of owning one or more properties. That is one measure of material wealth and only a fool would blame fiat money for his self imposed relative poverty should he think of hiding a pile of paper money under the bed or in an investment that does not, over the medium to long term beat inflation.

      Another way to be in charge of your own wealth creation is to start your own superannuation fund. A few years ago my sons were operating a business in a rented factory. They had noticed that some years their super fund, depending how the stock and property market was moving, would hardly move at all. I suggested that they take their money out of the super fund, run by a big international bank, ING, and set up a government approved Self-Managed Super Fund, and then get the Fund to buy the factory. The business now pays rent to the Super Fund. They did this before the GFC and they have since added another two factories, rented out to other businesses.

      It seems to me that if one really wants to create personal wealth via the capital appreciation route one is only limited by one’s imagination. In fact that is one strategy to beat the banks if the “wicked” fiat money system is one’s hangup.

      Apart from accumulating wealth, lifestyles today, for every parameter, are so much better, as you say, than in even the more recent past.

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      BobC, (and others),

      Have you ever been to a farm estate auction? Especially one that has been a working farm for say a couple of generations. These auctions provide examples of real wealth. True that the total sold is a fleeting conversion of that real wealth to cash, the lesson learned (if you think and watch what is being sold) can offer insight. You’ll see farming equipment, tools and machinery to repair the farming equipment, more items to take care of the production harvest and storage of crops. You’ll see items to manage the house, the family, the animals, you’ll see items both new and especially old because old things can still be useful. Some of our best inventions and industry came out of these humble but capable people.

      I could go on but I think you’ll see my point:
      Virtually nothing like the above happens in modern life. People don’t keep tools, they don’t repair things, our hobbies no longer involve building and repairing (stop by your local hobby shop and ask how well stick built railroad or airplane stuff is selling). In less than a generation or two, we are not self sufficient, people go about their lives needing cash to live because they (and all society) have become highly specialized. Their income is derived through this specialization (check their C.V.), their spending is to specialists. We are totally dependent on cash because we aren’t self sufficient. I think many people have a sense for how vulnerable they are because of how society has evolved. This fear is repressed, but can be manipulated by crafty politicians, and “reformers”.

      Some of us even recognize how the pushers of AGW may have tapped into this fear.

      We should endeavor to revive and pass these abilities to our progeny. They need to know more about how to be self reliant. They need to know how food ends up on the table, they need to know how stuff works. They need to be “rugged individuals”!

      00

  • #
    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Ask yourself this question, “If you were given a monetary printing press
      and a legal contract to print and issue all the money you would ever need to
      run your household at no cost to you, would you, instead, give that printing
      press and contract to a banker and agree to borrow your money from him, to
      be repaid in full with interest?” I don’t think so. The government has
      done exactly that. The most awesome power America has is the power to
      CREATE, using as collateral the future productivity of its Citizens, all of
      the currency and credit we would ever need to run our government,
      prosperously! Instead, America has legislated away this priceless power of
      monetary and credit creation to a group of primarily foreign, self-serving
      bankers! According to the Supreme Court, this transfer of power is in
      direct violation of the law.
      http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy27.htm

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        According to the Supreme Court? Your link does not prove your claim, it is yet another conspiracy site.

        According to the Supreme Court, this transfer of power is in
        direct violation of the law.

        If it were true as you typed it, don’t you think something would be happening to straighten out the “direct violation of the law”? Or do you sit there and imagine that we are simply a country full of rubes that live in perpetual lawlessness?

        FIND ME A LINK TO ACTUAL QUOTES FROM REAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES! Otherwise you are a damn fool liar.

        I always like how some people find a tidbit here and there, connect the dots with a piece of shoestring then claim they know a secret that is just mind boggling.

        Even if this whole bank conspiracy is true and that they own the USA, they own the people, they own the corporations, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT! Oh I know, your going to live with it that’s what.

        00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        If anyone watches the documentary linked to by Rob,this in part is what they will learn -

        When you borrow money to buy your home or anything, where do you think the money comes from? The answer is that Banks create it out of nothing then lend it to you in exchange for real assets, namely your home, your labor, your car or other assets.

        The banks have taken ownership of most peoples homes, mainstream media, major corporations and the government through fraud. They create money out of nothing and exchange paper and digital money for real assets.

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          OK this is getting absurd.

          If I need a mortgage, this is because I don’t have money. So I willingly let the bank borrow money or print money (I really don’t care I just want to live in a house). Do you think it’s fair that I get to live in a house? What do you think the alternatives are THAT I LIVE THERE FOR FREE?

          When the bank pays cash for the house that I need 30 years to repay, do I receive a benefit LIKE LIVING IN THE HOUSE? OF COURSE I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

          GAWD this is getting tiresome……….

          By the way, most large banks are publicly traded on the stock market. If you think it is so easy for them to make money the way you describe, why don’t you invest in them?

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            PS. I have a couple of new rules:

            If Kevin Moore puts up a link, I DON’T read it.

            If Kevin Moore suggests I read any other links because he agrees with them, I DON’T read them.

            And I have a few pointers for new readers:

            If anyone wants me to believe they are sane, don’t agree with what Kevin Moore posts.

            If you agree with the crap he links to then we don’t have anything in common. It isn’t even good for humor value.
            .
            .
            .
            I’ve met many wonderful people here from all parts of the world. I truly enjoy the wisdom of the wise, the perspective of the perceptive and the sharing of life experiences born from experience and education.

            Kevin Moore is not among that group.

            00

      • #
        BobC

        Kevin,

        I realize you don’t understand banking. That doesn’t mean it is some evil conspiracy to defraud you. It is what it is because it works. The Human race has spent 5000 years developing the modern banking system.

        Try reading some background information on the history of money and banking, instead of just conspiracy sites. See here, here, and here for starters. Follow the links at those sites for more detailed information.

        You also might try “Secrets of the Temple” — a history and analysis of the Federal Reserve. Look up some books on “free banking” as well, to get a rounded view.

        I’m interested: If you think the current system is so bad, why don’t you tell us how you would arrange the monetary system? Be sure to explain how mortages and venture capital would work in your system — without those, we would have to save all our lives to buy a house (to retire in), and most high-tech companies wouldn’t exist (we wouldn’t have these computers and the internet to communicate with each other, for example).

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Mark and Bob C,

          Kevin Moore lost me when he claimed that the entire US money supply was controlled by an evil Jewish conspiracy and that Americans are their slaves.

          After that it’s impossible to take anything he says seriously.

          When Kevin and Crakar randomly attach their diseased reasoning to some rational critique worthy of our consideration — such as Ron Paul’s criticisms of US monetary policy — they damage it simply by association.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipazRmzwaQ&feature=related

          With friends like these who needs enemies?

          00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Facts are Facts [SNIP] First you must understand the meaning of “fact” Self-editing is required to post here. Do be careful ED

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Wes, observant as always.

            .
            .
            ..
            .
            .

            .Wait a minute, WHAT if you’re a Jewish banker working to secretly counter all the Nazi mis-dis-information?

            00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I’m interested: If you think the current system is so bad, why don’t you tell us how you would arrange the monetary system?

          Complaining is far easier and you don’t have to stick your neck out. There’s no shortage of complainers. But I can’t find anyone who can fix the problems.

          So Kevin Moore, how would you fix the problem?

          00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        “The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying”

        http://thecrowhouse.com/ChrisHedges.html

        00

  • #
    Dave

    The land that rewards False Success

    This is Australia (Gang Gajang is better than Midnight Oil) – we get rewarded for this – MSM love it! The Pink Batts, Clunkers for Cash, Build Desal Plants etc etc etc

    I get a grant to investigate Green Renewable Power Plants – TICK $
    I get another grant to manufacture Renewable Power Plants – TICK $
    I get another grant to construct a Renewable Power Plant – TICK $
    I get paid not to supply grid when I produce – overload -TICK $
    I get paid when ever the wind blows – TICK $

    But had to import the Windmills, but still got a TICK $
    Got CO2 Credits (sold onto to others) TICK $

    Is it rewarding FAILUE or Stupidity???? All I see is the latter!

    TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Now I am looking at WAVE power TICK TICK TICK – the bank account is adding up just nicely!

    00

  • #

    Hey, are any of the Nova commenters attending Mark’s speaking engagement in Brisbane?

    If so, then I’d like to have a chat. Look for the person accompaning the blonde.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Great piece by Walter Starck in Quadrant

    How much ill-founded concerns over climate change have already cost is difficult to estimate; but, in Australia alone a full accounting of direct expenses and benefits forgone would have to already be at least somewhere in the order of $100 billion over the past decade. Worse yet, the bills for ongoing costs and lost benefits have only begun to come in with new charges being added at an accelerating rate. All the while, government deficits worsen and the global economic situation teeters ever closer to collapse.

    Although the climate alarm has suffered a major loss of credibility with the electorate, the true believers are still desperately pushing it and it retains at least pro forma political and media support from those too far out on the limb to retreat gracefully. Regardless of all this, the political momentum of climate change is fading and the bedrock reality is that we are not going to power a modern economy with sunbeams and summer breezes.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/01/the-real-threat-of-climate-change

    00

  • #

    More taxpayer funded failures within view at GM Holden’s Elizabeth plant that’ scaling down its owrkforce in response to falling demand and “the rising Australian dollar”.

    Notwitchstanding the unfavourable Australian dollar, there’s also the Carbon tax that adds to the cost of making stuff in Australia. The Elizabeth plant consumes about 700,000 GJ of energy a year (source: Greenhouse office report for year to June 30, 2010) for an annual production of 90,000 vehicles. At a CO2-equivalent of about 50 kg CO2/GJ (Government figure for natural gas, because I’m not privvy to the source distribution of energy consumption) and $23/tonne CO2 emissions, that adds about $60 in costs to every car made at the plant.

    Very important: That CO2 tax cost is only for what is added at the Elizabeth plant. GM Holden don’t make all the vehicle components for those 90,000 vehicles a year at Elizabeth. Far from it. Unless GM is screwing the component suppliers to absorb the costs of the carbon tax, the CO2e input for production and transport is going to be far higher than that for the energy input at Elizabeth.

    I suspect that the Carbon tax input would total somewhere around $400 to $500 per vehicle. There is well over a tonne of materials in the car; most of it (by mass) steel, metal alloys and glass; all of which are energy intensive to produce as a raw material from ore/scrap and to form into some of the tens of thousands of components that make up each car. Aluminium is not referred to as “solidified electricity” without good reason.

    Silicones, used in some plastics and for adhesives, sealants and as “silicone rubber” are also energy intensive to produce, but the amount (by mass) in each vehicle is comparatively small. IIRC, it takes something like 50 MJ/kg to produce the silicon of chemical grade that’s sent overseas to process into silicones. 10kg of that per car, and the carbon tax adds another couple of dollars to the cost of production.

    Keep in mind that the carbon tax amount effectively increases for overseas buyers as the value of the dollar increases, making exports less viable.

    David Evans is more of an expert on Greenhouse gas bistromathics than I. Perhaps he can add more definitive figures and views.

    The perversity of this failure is that the taxpayers will probably end up having to pay (by some form of subsidy to GM) the carbon tax for vehicles and engines exported by GMH.

    00

    • #

      mea culpa

      I don’t know what I did to get the $60 figure ($59 was still in the calculator display but the paper through the shredder) but I cannot reproduce it today. I did at least 3 times prior to posting so I must have erred in the same manner 3 times. I check my calculations before posting but although the brain was spinning, the clutch must’ve been slipping.

      Fortunately, before re-using what I did previously, I check again. With a “fresh mind”, so to speak. That’s not a matter of routine but one of conscience and understanding that we all make mistakes.

      This time, I won’t tell you the result. The data quoted are OK for the purpose. Work it out yourself.

      00

  • #
    slimething

    Interesting. Not one mention of the dollar being the world’s reserve currency and the consequences of it. The party is over.

    Glad I listened to Peter Schiff and bought lots of gold.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZaHNeNgrcI

    00