Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category

« Older Entries

From 2017 – and getting truer

Monday, December 9th, 2024

Watching an empire crumble is a slow process. The inertia of so much money, infrastructure and so many people makes the unraveling seem to go quite slowly.

But that same inertia, once in motion, also makes the motion formidable and harder and harder to stop as times goes on.

The world’s order is changing and the United States is slowly dying as a super power. But, it is still early days and most folks haven’t gotten the news. Certainly, most of the U.S.’s public are innocent of such awareness.

Today, I read a financial newsletter I follow and I read the following:

“The Moscow stock exchange will soon issue nearly $1 billion-worth of yuan-denominated bonds. It could become the start of a new financial system not based on the US dollar, analysts say.

Russia will issue the 6 billion yuan (about $900 million) bonds with a five-year maturity in December or January. The Central Bank says it is testing the water for future investments.”

The analyst writing the newsletter went on to say that the U.S. has been bringing this situation upon itself for a long time with its relentless deficit spending.

I’ve been listening to this slowly developing story for years now and it is not hard to understand once you get past the fact that following it is like watching paint dry.

The U.S. creates and sells bonds that are treasured (no pun intended) around the world because the power of the U.S. economy backs them and the U.S. has never, never defaulted on a bond.

But, every year the U.S. goes more into debt.

And every year, the U.S. sells more bonds than last year and then uses the proceeds from the new year’s sales to pay off the bonds from earlier cycles.

Do you know the phrase, “Check Kiting”? You should look it up, if you don’t.

And as the U.S. goes more and more into debt, the probability rises that one day it will not be able to pay the bonds due from previous cycles.

This is a real and growing concern for some nation states who hold large amounts of their funds in the forms of (supposedly) safe U.S. bonds. China is certainly tangled in this web.

If the U.S. defaults, the money they hold in U.S. bonds goes ‘poof’!

The U.S. dollar is the world reference currency. Most large international transactions are done using U.S. dollars as the common medium of exchange.

As I said, the world is changing and major players are slowly initiating changes to get away from:

(1) U.S. Hegemony via its currency

(2) The growing danger that the U.S. will default

They are setting up mechanisms which allow exchanges of goods and services without using the U.S. dollar as the common medium of exchange.

Countries are working to reduce their risk through exposure to U.S. bonds.

BUT WAIT – THERE”S MORE (as they shout on infomercials)

There’s another even more insidious story running through the historical narrative developing in the U.S.

The U.S. is quite literally being looted by its own 1%’ers.

The gap between the wealthiest and the middle and lower class is growing rapidly in the U.S.

The new Tax Law that President Trump and the U.S. Republicans are so excited to be passing just now is a blatant legislative device to further disenfranchise the middle and lower classes of their slice of the American pie.

Something as large and powerful as the U.S. will not crumble quietly. Their military is still the most powerful on the planet. Their currency is still the global reference currency. Their bonds are still held by much of the world.

Sometimes, when I sit by the beach in Sumner, which is a beach town adjacent to Christchurch, New Zealand, where I live, I look out at the vast South Pacific stretching away and I think to myself that I ‘m so glad that I’m here so very far away from the conflicts and power-centers of the world.

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, Financial, Wealth Disparity | No Comments »

Asymmetrical Warfare, anyone?

Sunday, December 8th, 2024

Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was assassinated on Wednesday, December 4th, in New York City.

One of the first articles I read about this event was on Reuters. Here’s a paragraph from the article:

“UnitedHealth is the largest U.S. health insurer, providing benefits to tens of millions of Americans, who pay more for healthcare than people in any other country. Thompson, a father of two, joined UnitedHealth in 2004 and became the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group, in April 2021.”

A link to the article: https://www.reuters.com/…/unitedhealthcare-ceo-fatally…/

I found this paragraph notable. And it tweaked my pattern recognition sense.

You see, on my business card, I call myself a ‘futurist’. And to me what a futurist is, is a person with good predictive pattern-recognition skills. Of course, there’s a lot of room in that definition for errors and unwanted hallucinations as well; so caution is always recommended.

Regardless, the paragraph triggered something in me.

In addition to the already stated fact of the assassination, the paragraph adds three additional facts:

1. Brian Thompson is the CEO at UnitedHealthcare
2. UnitedHealthcare is the largest US health insurer
3. Americans, pay more for healthcare than people in any other country.

Each of those are, indeed, facts. But it is the possibility of a causal relationship among them that draws one’s attention.

The assassination could have been a crime of anger or passion.

And, if so, we’ll probably soon know enough because those who commit crimes under such duress are seldom good and planning and covering their tracks.

But then, it might also not have been crime of anger or passion.

And, if it was a meticulously and well planned assassination, then I think we need to consider if it is a harbinger of things to come.

To get some insight into that question, we need to ask ourselves what viable remedies are available to the poor and middle classes of the United States as they wrestle against the ever growing power and control of the very wealthy over their lives?

Well, they can vote. They can make signs and go out and march and protest. And and they can write letters to the Editor.

Meanwhile, the wealthy have used their wealth and influence to ensure the passage of laws like “Citizens United”; which effectively gives corporations the rights of people and allows them to donate as much as they want to the individuals and political parties they favor.

And the size of those donations has, in turn, brought a significant number of law-makers around to seeing things the way that their donors see them. In other words, they’ve effectively bought control of our legislative processes.

And so, as wealth more and more flows upwards in a rigged and controlled system, what viable recourses do lesser mortals actually have?

In 2014, a billionaire, by the name of Nick Hanauer, issued a warning to his fellow billionaires. He said, “No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history were wealth accumulated like this, and the pitchfork didn’t eventually come out.”

Link: https://www.politico.com/…/the-pitchforks-are-coming…/

It would seem that the fellow who killed Brian Thompson in NYC was concerned about greed in the US medical insurance industry.

The bullet casings he left behind at the murder scene had “Delay”, “Deny”and “Depose” written on them. A clear reference to a major criticism often voiced about the medical insurance industry’s efforts to avoid paying claims.

When I read the three facts cited in the paragraph, above, I couldn’t help but wonder if the writer put them together like that intentionally as a bit of subliminal editorializing.

Was he suggesting a cause and effect relationship among the three facts? Consider them again:

1. Brian Thompson is the CEO at UnitedHealthcare
2. UnitedHealthcare is the largest US health insurer
3. Americans, pay more for healthcare than people in any other country.

So, back to the question of what options do the people on the wrong end of the power and money equation have?

Have you heard of Asymmetrical Warfare?

Asymmetrical Warfare refers to conflicts between belligerents with significantly different capabilities. In such conflicts, the weaker side will often employ unconventional methods to offset their disadvantages.

As the rich and powerful continue to increase their wealth, to the detriment of the rest of us, those who are looking into how to effectively oppose them may be beginning to think asymmetrically.

Consider the situation:,

The locations of the wealthy and powerful are often well known.

But the reverse is generally not true. There are literally millions and millions of us poorer people.

In an asymmetrical conflict, a defender has to guard against every possible attack vector whereas an attacker only has to find one avenue that works.

And ask yourself what is the most valuable thing that the wealthy and powerful have?

The one thing that lets them enjoy their wealth and power?

The answer is their LIFE.

And no matter how much wealth and power one might have, none of it matters – if you are dead.

And is there a better way to signal to the wealthy and powerful that there are limits to how far they can push the rest of us into a corner?

When Brian Thompson was killed the other day, I found myself wondered if I was seeing the first instance of Calculated Asymmetrical Warfare writ-large.

But, maybe not. Information, so far, indicates that Brian Thomson’s killer left quite a few traces behind himself and that he may be tracked down soon.

—–

Now, least anyone thinks I’m writing all of this to advocate calculated asymmetrical resistance through assassination, I want to say that I am NOT.

Consider that I could have just as easily written a crime or a spy novel in which all of the same ideas were spelled out in huge detail.

And if I had, no one would have thought that I was advocating for violence.

If this wasn’t so, then we’d have to begin now to arrest at least half the novelist and screenplay writers working today.

No, I am simply describing a pattern that I see – that very well might manifest.

There is, undeniably, a large and increasing gap between the wealth of the rich and powerful and the rest of us.

In the past, such over-the-top inequality has finally resulted in mass violence. Just think about the French Revolution.

No, at some point the obscenity of wealth beyond all reason or need and the resulting poverty of the rest of us will create its own calculus.

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, CounterCurrents, CrashBlogging, Financial melt-down, Social Breakdown, Terrorism, Wealth Disparity | No Comments »

220824 – Meetup Group sample discussion

Wednesday, August 24th, 2022

I run two Meetup discussion groups. One is a local group for people living in or near Christchurch, New Zealand, where I live. The other is a global group intended for people outside of Christchurch. These Meetup Groups can be found here:

www.meetup.com/christchurch-existentialist-discussion-group/

www.meetup.com/existentialism-discussion-group-international/

Below is a post-meeting comment/discussion regarding a recent meeting. I’m sharing to see if readers here might find this sort of thing of interest. If so, then please consider joining. But, before you do, please carefully read the group’s mission statement to ensure your intents are compatible with ours.

===================
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They provides a good opening to render much that was obscure in last night’s discussion into a clearer light.

From here on I’m going to refer to Existentialism using a big ‘E’ to prevent excessive typing. I’ll toss in other acronyms as I go along, if they seem helpful.

First, our group is called the “E Discussion Group”. But, that doesn’t imply that everything we discuss is part of, or a reflection of, E theory.

One definition of ‘E‘ I read just now on-line says:

“A philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.”

I would also add that Es perceive existence as having no apparent meaning. And that, as a consequence of this, they then grapple with how to accommodate themselves to the situation. I.e., how to cope with Existential Angst.

So, I think we laid a fair bit of stuff on the doorstep of E last night. Stuff that didn’t properly belong there.

So, as I conceive it, E says nothing about whether life and consciousness are good or bad and whether they should be preserved or not. E doesn’t care if we survive here or not. All such is irrelevant from the POV of E because E’s central observation is the apparent meaninglessness of everything.

I liked that someone made the point that ‘existence precedes essence’.

——

Now I’m turning this discussion away from E and into a general discussion.

So, here we are on a small planet somewhere out in the middle of the vastness. We are recently evolved semi-smart monkey-like creatures (RESSMLC) and, by many appearances, we’re well on our way to trashing the only planet/biosphere we have and causing a major reset to ourselves and the other life-forms here.

Existence doesn’t care. It is for me, hard to imagine that existence even knows we’re here.

So, we’re very much in our own self-created mess. And our discussion centered upon how to understand our situation and what, if anything, can be effectively be done about the mess.

We discussed authoritarian (A) vs. democratic (D) governments in relationship to our problem. Some would say that A governments are inherently more effective at getting all the ducks marching in the same direction. But A’s take away too much of our personal freedom to be worth their addition efficiency. Or, as someone said, would life be worth living if we did get humanity into a viable Steady-State Balance with the Planet’s Biosphere (SSBPB) but then we had to live here without any personal freedoms?

The question of getting into a SSBPB and how we govern ourselves are independent issues.

The first issue is utterly stark (unless we hold an optimistic view; such a Logan does). Either we achieve a SSBPB or we suffer a massive an unnecessary planet-wide reset.

The 2nd issue of how we should govern ourselves is much harder to discern or to discuss effectively.

Why? Because we are discussing ourselves. We are the RESSMLC. We do not understand ourselves very well at all.

We discussed benevolent dictatorships and perfectly balanced and fair democracies – as if these ideas were plausible.

I submit that our inherent human natures, shaped as they are by our evolutionary heritages, makes such ideas laughable. Few of our species have risen above simply acting out our biological imperatives to go forth and breed and consume.

The world, as we see it now, with all the various forms of governments, wars and injustices is simply a reflection of how we are now in the aggregate.

We are making progress, as evidenced by the rule-of-law, human rights, democracies and the various personalized and institutionalized forms of compassion we have implemented. But least we get too dazzled by these signs of progress, we only need look around and see how very much of the world is still struggling in darkness.

One said:

“Holding political power is immoral because it necessarily strips the authenticity of individuals by threat of violence or violence itself, and it is this immorality that we must contend with in our actions day to day. The only way to minimize this immorality is through democratic means, spreading political power out and making a more egalitarian society.”

I love this. In the best of possible futures, I see this. Such a system holds the greater good for all of us up as a goal to be manifested.

But I temper my enthusiasm with the observation that to achieve such systems, the implementors will have to intentionally and consciously transcend their own unconscious evolutionarily derived human natures. And, if they implement such systems. they will have to make laws and exert intentional legal force to hold the new structures against the onslaughts of those who still want to have things their own way. Those who want political power, the power of excessive riches, the power to rule over others and the power to insist that their personal views and needs should transcend the greater good for all of us. It will be a very long time before such people go away.

And, in the mean time, the clocks are ticking away as the train we are all on travels steadily toward the brink of a massive global reset.

(See: https://samadhisoft.com/philosophy-index/the-train-ride-to-hell-theory/)

We are, most of us, just Nero fiddling while the fires are gathering in Rome.

——

So, as I’m wont to do, I bring us back to considering what we can change and what we cannot change.

And I bring us back to considering that at the end of all our struggles, what most of us are seeking, in so very many different ways, is a sense of subjective peace for ourselves here in this unfathomable world we find ourselves in.

The only treasure you really have are the years still left to you between now and when you die.

Focus on what you can change and simply accept the rest as it is.

And with what you can change, seek your own subjective peace and self-understanding. That’s not a self-serving as it might sound.

Increasing your own subjective peace inevitably renders you more porous to the others around you. And if your actions make others unhappy, then your newly porous nature will open you to feel what they feel. And any subjective peace you have will lessen as theirs does.

Posted in Climate Change, Corruption, Human Rights, Rising Ocean Levels, Social Breakdown, The Perfect Storm, Water Shortages, Wealth Disparity, Weather deterioration | No Comments »

The state of the U.S

Thursday, July 23rd, 2020
A letter to my son who lives in the U.S.  Basically, it is a statement of how I think things got to where they are now in the States.

—————————–
I feel your pain, my son. There is a lot of terrible stuff going on in the world and in the U.S. just now.
 
I don’t think Hillary is or was the answer. I don’t think Democrats, as they are now in the U.S., are the answer. From my POV, Democrats and Republicans are basically the same.
 
The fights between these two parties are to see who is going to run the U.S. They are not fights between good and evil. They are fights between two corrupt groups; each of whom wants to control and benefit from the wealth of the richest country in the world.
 
People think of the U.S. as a democracy. But, it hasn’t been a democracy for some time. Laws like those that give corporations the same rights as citizens and laws that remove any limits of how much rich people and corporations can donate to political parties are plain evidence that the votes of the rich and of the corporations clearly weigh far more than the votes of the average man. One has to be in serious denial to not see this.
 
All I can say for Hillary is that if she had been elected, I expect that the looting of American would have gone on quietly; as it has been for the last four or five administrations. Most of the presidents who have been elected in recent decades in the U.S. have been quiet figureheads put into place to give the semblance of presidential leadership while the gathering and looting of the national wealth continued by the party in power at that moment.
 
The middle and lower classes in the U.S. have been getting poorer for decades now. It began in the mid-70’s. And since then, the wealthy have been getting more and more of the pie.
 
And as the rich get richer, they spend more on donations to political parties and candidates. And, not amazingly, those parties and candidate vote in laws that benefit their donors. Wealth is essentially ‘buying’ the American democracy.
 
This is not a function of the Democrats or the Republicans. They are both pushed up against the same trough to get what they can.
To see why America is getting poorer and more unstable, we only have to look to see why it was getting wealthier up until the 70’s and why it began to get poorer after that time.
 
And the answer is that then corporations realized that rather than manufacturing things in America, with its well paid workers and strong unions, they could make the same things in the far east in China and cut way down on manufacturing costs. And that, in turn, made their profit margins go way up.
 
So, from the POV of the big corporations and the wealthy, this was a no-brainer, a win-win. They shifted manufacturing to the far east and began making way more money.
 
But no one, seemingly, thought about what effect this would have on America in general. America had been a manufacturing powerhouse all through the 50’s and 60’s. America made things. America manufactured wealth. We made excellent things, we sold excellent things – and life was good.
 
But when manufacturing went overseas, the American dollars, that would have been spent on America workers, and which would have then circulated around inside of the America economy, went overseas to pay for the manufacturing and a lot of cheaply made shit came back.
 
The net effect was that America began to bleed money towards China at the same time that American corporations began to make higher profits from having lower manufacturing costs. But overall the net was that America was losing money and getting poorer. And the money being lost was coming from the middle and lower classes and the profits from lower manufacturing costs was accruing to the wealthy.
 
For awhile the middle and lower classes were happier. They now had places like Walmart where they could buy stuff cheaper and that gave them the impression that life was getting better. But it was an illusion.
 
Union busting began in earnest after that because with manufacturing gone overseas, the unions had little power to negotiate for American workers. And the corporations were happy to bust the unions because that meant they could pay their U.S. workers even less which lead to more profits for them.
 
One particularly nasty side effect of this gutting of American industry by sending manufacturing overseas was that all this money that was going to China, allowed China to build up and ENORMOUS balance of trade with the U.S. They were putting money into their banks hand-over-fist. And that, my son, is how they went from being a third-world military power to a first-world military power in a few decades. And America paid for it. American corporate greed for lower manufacturing costs has trashed the middle and lower American classes and made China a world power. And all of that happened right under our noses.
 
You won’t see this discussed much in the U.S. when folks are analyzing what’s going wrong. Why? Because both parties, Democrat and Republican, are complicit in the entire business.
 
Once big money realized that they could buy votes to get the laws they wanted, they began doing so and they ended up owning the souls of most politicians. And as they got more and more of the laws they wanted, they ended up controlling the American political system better and better. And the rich don’t care of America is being gutted during all of this. They are walking away richer and that is all they care about. It is simple human nature.
 
You are probably wondering what this long essay has to do with rioters, Black Lives Matter, COVID-19 and Trump?
 
Well, it is necessary to understand how we got to where we are now
American is a failing empire. And has been for decades now.
Wealth is bleeding out because the country is not longer a net wealth creator. And, of the residual wealth (which is still a hell of a lot) that remains, much is being looted year by year in unreasonable corporate profits, massive bonuses for corporate bigwigs, off-shore tax avoidance schemes, and tax-relief schemes for the wealthy that are enacted by the political parties that those same wealthy folks helped put into power with their donations.
 
There’s no other way to say it. The country is owned by the rich and it being looted by the rich. The much cherished ideas of one-man-one-vote and equality for all are increasingly just mirages.
 
But these things don’t happen overnight. They take decades to slowly unfold.
 
But, before we get into the heart of things, do you know how the U.S. government finances itself from year to year?
 
Each year, the U.S. sells bonds. These bonds don’t payback a huge amount when they mature but they do have one attractive property. They ALWAYS pay back what they promised and they have NEVER failed to do so.
 
The U.S. is still regarded as the wealthiest nation in the world and the U.S. dollar is the de-facto reference currency of the world.
 
These factors mean that buying U.S. bonds is one of the safest things a rich individual or a foreign government can do with their excess wealth. Every year, the U.S. sells U.S. bonds and folks ALWAYS buy them.
 
The U.S. sells bonds each year to the generate the money it uses to run the country next year. Each year, as the size of the national budget goes up, the U.S. sells more bonds to cover it.
 
Does this sound familiar? In banking terms it is called “kiting checks”. The U.S. is essentially paying for the increasing costs of running the country by selling bonds to stay ahead.
 
But, here’s the rub. They can’t do this forever.
 
And given that the U.S. has been bleeding money for decades and getting poorer, the country is getting to be like a big cardboard store-front. There’s not as much real wealth standing behind the cardboard as they’re used to be. And there’s less every year.
 
There is going to come a big, final show-stopper event when the U.S. finally can’t pay back on the bonds it sells. It is going to be a major world-shaking default.
 
The entire world of finance knows about this. They have known for years. And all it will take to bring the U.S. to a full stop is for entities to stop buying U.S. bonds. If they stop, then the U.S. won’t have enough money to run and it won’t have enough money to pay back on the bonds it sold previously and BOOM – big toast.
 
It hasn’t happened yet because if the U.S. defaulted then a lot of countries like China, which holds large amounts of U.S. bonds, would also get badly hurt – because they would not get payed back on their bonds.
 
But everyone knows that things cannot go on like this. The U.S. is standing on financial sand that is seeping away from under its feet. China and the others are buying less and less U.S. bonds each year to minimize their exposure to the problem. China and Russia are trying to rework in the international financial system to make their currencies the de-facto reference currencies so they can get away from the U.S. dollar and make themselves more powerful.
 
So, year by year the U.S. is in a worse and worse financial position. As I said, the U.S. is a failing empire and the irony is that it took out its own ‘greed-gun’ and shot itself in the foot when it chose to sent its manufacturing overseas.
 
Meanwhile, the rich-listers and the multi-national corporations in the U.S. are locking up the political system by buying the politicians left and right to pass the laws to benefit themselves. Why? So they can loot what they can of the remaining U.S. wealth.
 
Son, don’t forget that these folks are wealthy enough that borders don’t mean squat to them. They can buy their way into most countries if they are wealthy enough. So, if the U.S. crumbles into anarchy, they will just move away.
 
So how does all of this backstory relate to what’s going on now? Well, several unusual things have happened all at once in recent years.
First, the normal pattern of voting in one party or the other to continue to the looting has been broken.
 
The American public can sense that the American empire is failing. They may not be able to articulate, it as I have, but they clearly know that they are getting poorer and things are not right. Hence, they were not happy to just put in another figurehead president, like Hillary, to continue with business as usual (make that looting as usual). And in a major surprise, they elected Donald Trump.
 
A billionaire, a businessman, a reality TV host and a serious narcissist. People were tired of more of the same and they wanted big change and he promised it – in big bold letters.
 
But, as a billionaire, was he really the one we should trust to reverse things back to the America that we remember when the country was getting richer and things were good? No matter if electing him was logical or not. The American public wanted a change and he was it.
 
The second factor was the Covid-19 virus. Who could have predicted that? It has come out of left field to body-slam the world.
 
And then the third factor was triggered when George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis.
 
The first and third factors reveal a deep and growing instability in the way things are being run in the U.S.
 
If things had been handled better and the U.S. had not beggared itself by sending its manufacturing offshore and if the rich hadn’t essentially ‘bought’ the house and senate votes, then I strongly doubt that conditions would have been right to elect someone like Donald Trump. He would have just remaining a self-impressed wealthy showman with a trophy wife.
 
And if the U.S. had really tried to embrace its minorities and had not just kept sweeping the racism problem back under the rug each time it arose, then things like Minneapolis probably would not have happened. And, if they did, they would not have been part of a large pattern that has been ignored over and over again.
 
But factor two, the Covid-19 virus has been the real show-stopper. It has pushed our fragile systems, globally, right to the edge relentlessly and it has pointed up a very deep truth that everyone, especially our politicians, needs to learn.
 
And that is that the virus is part of a reality that doesn’t care what we think, what we believe or what we hope. Like gravity, it just happens and we have no choice about it – none. We either work with it ‘as it is’ or we deny how it is – at our own expense.
 
Donald Trump and many other leaders believe that the world and reality are shaped by their charisma, their leadership and the force of their personalities. When those sorts of beliefs come up against the virus, they are not going to win – it isn’t going to happen. Anyone who doesn’t realize that we have to work around the virus ‘as it is’ – is simply is simply in denial of reality.
 
Reality doesn’t care what we think. Gravity doesn’t ask our permission to do what it does and neither does something like this virus. It is programmed by evolution to do one thing and no matter how many speeches are given that ‘it will go away’ and no matter how many meetings are held trying to balance of the health costs vs. the costs to our economies, it will still just do just what it does because it doesn’t care. It doesn’t even know we are here. It doesn’t know anything. It just does what it does.
 
People like Trump and all those who resist face-masks and social distancing are just walking into the whirling blades of this thing with nothing but denial and bravado in hand.
 
So, what’s a person to make of all of this?
 
Damned if I have a good answer, Son. But I do think it settles the mind and gives some sense of clarity about what’s going on if you have the larger backstory and can see a bit of how things got to where they are.
 
Trump thinks he’s destined to be a great world-changing leader. I think he’s got a bit of Mussolini in him. But he is clearly a product of his times.
 
The U.S. is coming unraveled. And at such times strong leaders emerge and their natural response is to clamp down and to try to hold things together. But Trump’s also got an election coming up and he wants badly to win it. So, he’s playing the cards he’s got. And Law and Order is a big card just now and it clearly appeals to his base.
 
Regarding Portland: Portland belongs to the folks that live there. If they have a democratic governor and mayor, it is because they elected them. And if those leaders choose to deal with the demonstrators as they have been, then that’s their right. And if the locals don’t like it, then they can vote it more law and order oriented governors and mayors. Isn’t that the American way?
 
There’s no place in that equation for outside Federal interference – except that it represents a way for Trump to play the Law and Order card loudly to rally his base and create the impression that he’s saving the world from liberal anarchy.
 
Sending federal soldiers to ‘democrat’ cities? Really?
 
He’s attempting to manufacture a bogus war between liberal and conservatives for his own purposes. And I suspect it has to do with getting re-elected though that is looking less and less likely. And if he cannot win the election, how about he just blows by it by creating a small civil war so he can claim that the nation is in such turmoil that an election is not possible?
 
All this also serves as a way to distract from the fact that for all of his bluster, Trump’s handled the Covid-19 situation abysmally.
 
Yesterday’s headline said that Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. have no
w exceed 140,000 but Trump claims things are getting better.
 
The U.S. is a failing empire and these sorts of things happen in failing empires.
 
If you are on the inside of the empire and your entire life, family and livelihood depend on stability and predictability and things are falling apart all around you, then I can see how easy it is to get caught up in the good-guy, bad-guy, liberal, conservative rhetoric.
 
It is a game that is currently driven by one man’s desire to dominate the situation and retain the presidency and he will do whatever it takes to it it – even if he pulls the country down around everyone’s ears.

Your asked if I have better suggestions?
  • If he would just back off and govern for the good of the people.
  • If he would stop with all the conservative against liberal agitation.
  • If he would start doing whatever it takes for the U.S. to beat the virus as New Zealand has.
  • If he would start rolling back all the laws that benefit the rich against the poor and middle classes.
  • If he would block the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid taxes and hide their money offshore.
  • If he would work to bring manufacturing back into the country.
  • If he would stop unlimited campaign financing so that the elected representatives represent the voters who elected them rather than those who donated massive amounts of money too their campaigns.
  • If he would revoke the law that says corporations have the same rights as people.
  • If he would establish universal health care like every other major nation the the world.
  • If he would see to it that the primary ethic of the U.S.’s national government is to maximize the quality of life for all of its citizens.
All of this is possible and it has been done in other countries.
 
How’s that for a list of suggestions about what might be done?
 
But, of course, none of what we say here will matter. You can believe what you want and I can say what I believe and in the end, forces much larger than you or I will control how it all plays out.
 
So, what to do?

Well, anger doesn’t help. It just clouds our judgment. Getting a clear idea of how things got to where they are improves our ability to predict where they might go next and that has good survival value. But becoming part of one hostile faction or the other doesn’t lead to clarity. It just leads to anger and blaming again.
 
In truth, I wish I could transport all of you down here to New Zealand.  Both of your skill sets would work very well for you here.  It is a small place but it is run reasonably and there is good opportunity here.
 
Love you, son
 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Conflict, Corruption, CrashBlogging, Financial melt-down, Human Rights, Pandemics, Politics - The Wrong Way, Social Breakdown, The Perfect Storm, Wealth Disparity | Comments Closed

NASA claims: Dozens of advanced ancient civilizations collapsed before us

Wednesday, April 6th, 2016

Is it possible that just like many other advanced civilizations in the past, ours too is heading towards an impending collapse? Is the collapse of society imminent? These are some of the questions a study from NASA aims at answering. The study, partly sponsored by the Goddard Space Flight Center suggests that civilizations as we know it could come to an abrupt end in the coming decades due to a number of factors.

If we look back in history, 3000 – 5000 years, we will find a historical record that clearly shows us how advanced and complex civilizations were just as susceptible to collapse as we are today. This ongoing pattern has led researchers to question the future existence of society and civilization as we know.

If we were to look back further back in time, over 10,000 years, we would encounter evidence of advanced civilizations that possibly predate the Pre-Inca, Olmec, and Ancient Egyptian civilization, not to mention other advanced ancient civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia.

It is difficult to overlook the repeating patterns identified by scholars in most of these civilizations and the NASA funded study is clear evidence of the path ancient civilizations on EArth have taken for thousands of years. This is considered by many people as a sign that clearly states that ancient civilizations have reset a number of times.

These factors have kept on repeating themselves and have been the culprit for ancient civilizations before us.  In the report, applied mathematician Safa Motesharri and his “Human and Nature Dynamical” model claims that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.”

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

The study came to the conclusion that there are two key social features that contributed to the collapse of every single advanced civilization from the past: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five thousand years.”

Even though our civilizations is at a very advanced technological stage, this does not necessarily mean that we are saved from imminent chaos. In the study we find that “Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

One of the best examples of advanced ancient civilizations disappearing can be found in Mesoamerica.

If we take a look at the ancient Maya who were an extremely advanced ancient civilization we find that several factors played a crucial role for this once great empire to crumble eventually. While most researchers would agree that Deforestation, Famine and Drought where some of the key components in the failure of the ancient Maya, we find a similar pattern in other civilizations, not only I the Americas, but around the globe.

Motesharrei and his colleagues conclude that under conditions “closely reflecting the reality of the world today… we find that collapse is difficult to avoid.” In the first of these scenarios, civilization:

“…. appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature.”

To the original article:  ➡

 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, CrashBlogging, Culture - How not to do it, Human Rights, Social Breakdown, The Perfect Storm, Wealth Disparity | 1 Comment »

About the Panama Papers

Wednesday, April 6th, 2016

In a second article I am publishing today on Samadhisoft (see: NASA Claims: Dozens of advanced ancient civilizations collapsed before us), you can find the following quote:

The study came to the conclusion that there are two key social features that contributed to the collapse of every single advanced civilization from the past: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five thousand years.”

After reading this quote, consider that the gathering of massive amounts of wealth by the few, as illustrated by the leaks revealed in this article, is highly indicative of the probable demise of our own civilizations as analyzed and discussed in the other article.

Can you see why people want change – profound change – now?  And why they are unwilling to endure more of the same, more of the status quo?  

dennis

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that sells anonymous offshore companies around the world. These shell companies enable their owners to cover up their business dealings, no matter how shady.

In the months that followed, the number of documents continued to grow far beyond the original leak. Ultimately, SZ acquired about 2.6 terabytes of data, making the leak the biggest that journalists had ever worked with. The source wanted neither financial compensation nor anything else in return, apart from a few security measures.

The data provides rare insights into a world that can only exist in the shadows. It proves how a global industry led by major banks, legal firms, and asset management companies secretly manages the estates of the world’s rich and famous: from politicians, Fifa officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, to celebrities and professional athletes.

A group effort

The Süddeutsche Zeitung decided to analyze the data in cooperation with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). ICIJ had already coordinated the research for past projects that SZ was also involved in, among them Offshore Leaks, Lux Leaks, and Swiss Leaks. Panama Papers is the biggest-ever international cooperation of its kind. In the past 12 months, around 400 journalists from more than 100 media organizations in over 80 countries have taken part in researching the documents. These have included teams from the Guardian and the BBC in England, Le Monde in France, and La Nación in Argentina. In Germany, SZ journalists have cooperated with their colleagues from two public broadcasters, NDR and WDR. Journalists from the Swiss Sonntagszeitung and the Austrian weekly Falter have also worked on the project, as have their colleagues at ORF, Austria’s national public broadcaster. The international team initially met in Washington, Munich, Lillehammer and London to map out the research approach.

Making of The data

The Panama Papers include approximately 11.5 million documents – more than the combined total of the Wikileaks Cablegate, Offshore Leaks, Lux Leaks, and Swiss Leaks. The data primarily comprises e-mails, pdf files, photo files, and excerpts of an internal Mossack Fonseca database. It covers a period spanning from the 1970s to the spring of 2016.

Moreover, the journalists crosschecked a large number of documents, including passport copies. About two years ago, a whistleblower had already sold internal Mossack Fonseca data to the German authorities, but the dataset was much older and smaller in scope: while it addressed a few hundred offshore companies, the Panama Papers provide data on some 214,000 companies. In the wake of the data purchase, last year investigators searched the homes and offices of about 100 people. The Commerzbank was also raided. As a consequence of their business dealings with Mossack Fonseca, Commerzbank, HSH Nordbank, and Hypovereinsbank agreed to pay fines of around 20 million euros, respectively. Since then, other countries have also acquired data from the initial smaller leak, among them the United States, the UK, and Iceland.

The system

The leaked data is structured as follows: Mossack Fonseca created a folder for each shell firm. Each folder contains e-mails, contracts, transcripts, and scanned documents. In some instances, there are several thousand pages of documentation. First, the data had to be systematically indexed to make searching through this sea of information possible. To this end, the Süddeutsche Zeitung used Nuix, the same program that international investigators work with. Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ uploaded millions of documents onto high-performance computers. They applied optical character recognition (OCR) to transform data into machine-readable and easy to search files. The process turned images – such as scanned IDs and signed contracts – into searchable text. This was an important step: it enabled journalists to comb through as large a portion of the leak as possible using a simple search mask similar to Google.The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists. The “party donations scandal” list contained 130 names, and the UN sanctions list more than 600. In just a few minutes, the powerful search algorithm compared the lists with the 11.5 million documents.

The research

For each name found, a detailed research process was initiated that posed the following questions: what is this person’s role in the network of companies? Where does the money come from? Where is it going? Is this structure legal?Generally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions. However, a look through the Panama Papers very quickly reveals that concealing the identities of the true company owners was the primary aim in the vast majority of cases. From the outset, the journalists had their work cut out for them. The providers of offshore companies – among them banks, lawyers, and investment advisors – often keep their clients’ names secret and use proxies. In turn, the proxies’ tracks then lead to heads of state, important officials, and millionaires. Over the course of the international project, journalists cooperated with one another to investigate thousands of leads: they examined evidence, studied contracts, and spoke with experts.

Among others, Mossack Fonsecas’ clients include criminals and members of various Mafia groups. The documents also expose bribery scandals and corrupt heads of state and government. The alleged offshore companies of twelve current and former heads of state make up one of the most spectacular parts of the leak, as do the links to other leaders, and to their families, closest advisors, and friends. The Panamanian law firm also counts almost 200 other politicians from around the globe among its clients, including a number of ministers.

The company

The company at the center of all these stories is Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian provider of offshore companies with dozens of offices all over the world. It sells its shell firms in cities such as Zurich, London, and Hong Kong – in some instances at bargain prices. Clients can buy an anonymous company for as little as USD 1,000. However, at this price it is just an empty shell. For an extra fee, Mossack Fonseca provides a sham director and, if desired, conceals the company’s true shareholder. The result is an offshore company whose true purpose and ownership structure is indecipherable from the outside. Mossack Fonseca has founded, sold, and managed thousands of companies. The documents provide a detailed view of how Mossack Fonseca routinely accepts to engage in business activities that potentially violate sanctions, in addition to aiding and abetting tax evasion and money laundering.

About Süddeutsche Zeitung

Headquartered in Munich, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) is one of Germany’s leading newspapers. SZ has a total readership of 4.4 million for its print and online media. Its investigative journalism team counts five people, three of which are members of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The Süddeutsche Zeitunghas won a number of prestigious awards for its research work. Its team has cooperated with other media organizations on a number of projects, including Offshore Leaks, Swiss Leaks, and Lux Leaks, which ICIJ coordinated. At the beginning of 2015, an anonymous source began sending the Süddeutsche Zeitung data from Mossack Fonseca, a provider of offshore companies. This marked the beginning of the Panama Papers project.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung, in cooperation with the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists, sent Mossfon several written requests for comment. In response Mossfon sent two general statements, which can be viewed here.

To the original article: ➡

 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, CrashBlogging, Financial melt-down, Fundamentalism, Social Breakdown, Terrorism, The Perfect Storm, Wealth Disparity, Weather deterioration | No Comments »

The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism

Monday, March 28th, 2016
  • Not sure I have a lot to say about this other than it makes me feel that where it says “Futurist” on my business card is not unjustified.
  • dennis

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By Chris Hedges

College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.

There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism.

These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power.

The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.

Richard Rorty in his last book, “Achieving Our Country,” written in 1998, presciently saw where our postindustrial nation was headed.

Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the “losers” who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment. The sociologist Émile Durkheim warned that the disenfranchisement of a class of people from the structures of society produced a state of “anomie”—a “condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals.” Those trapped in this “anomie,” he wrote, are easy prey to propaganda and emotionally driven mass movements. Hannah Arendt, echoing Durkheim, noted that “the chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships.”

In fascism the politically disempowered and disengaged, ignored and reviled by the establishment, discover a voice and a sense of empowerment.

As Arendt noted, the fascist and communist movements in Europe in the 1930s “… recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who had never before appeared on the political scene. This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda, and indifference to the arguments of political opponents; these movements not only placed themselves outside and against the party system as a whole, they found a membership that had never been reached, never been ‘spoiled’ by the party system. Therefore they did not need to refute opposing arguments and consistently preferred methods which ended in death rather than persuasion, which spelled terror rather than conviction. They presented disagreements as invariably originating in deep natural, social, or psychological sources beyond the control of the individual and therefore beyond the control of reason. This would have been a shortcoming only if they had sincerely entered into competition with either parties; it was not if they were sure of dealing with people who had reason to be equally hostile to all parties.”

Fascism is aided and advanced by the apathy of those who are tired of being conned and lied to by a bankrupt liberal establishment, whose only reason to vote for a politician or support a political party is to elect the least worst. This, for many voters, is the best Clinton can offer.

Fascism expresses itself in familiar and comforting national and religious symbols, which is why it comes in various varieties and forms. Italian fascism, which looked back to the glory of the Roman Empire, for example, never shared the Nazis’ love of Teutonic and Nordic myths. American fascism too will reach back to traditional patriotic symbols, narratives and beliefs.

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

Fascism is about an inspired and seemingly strong leader who promises moral renewal, new glory and revenge. It is about the replacement of rational debate with sensual experience. This is why the lies, half-truths and fabrications by Trump have no impact on his followers. Fascists transform politics, as philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin pointed out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate aesthetic for the fascist, Benjamin said, is war.

Paxton singles out the amorphous ideology characteristic of all fascist movements.

Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity. The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination.

There is only one way left to blunt the yearning for fascism coalescing around Trump. It is to build, as fast as possible, movements or parties that declare war on corporate power, engage in sustained acts of civil disobedience and seek to reintegrate the disenfranchised—the “losers”—back into the economy and political life of the country. This movement will never come out of the Democratic Party. If Clinton prevails in the general election Trump may disappear, but the fascist sentiments will expand. Another Trump, perhaps more vile, will be vomited up from the bowels of the decayed political system. We are fighting for our political life. Tremendous damage has been done by corporate power and the college-educated elites to our capitalist democracy. The longer the elites, who oversaw this disemboweling of the country on behalf of corporations—who believe, as does CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, that however bad Trump would be for America he would at least be good for corporate profit—remain in charge, the worse it is going to get.

  • to the original: ➡

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, CrashBlogging, Culture - How not to do it, Financial melt-down, Fundamentalism, Human Rights, Politics - The Wrong Way, Social Breakdown, The Perfect Storm, Wealth Disparity | No Comments »

Why are houses so expensive? (UK article)

Friday, September 18th, 2015
  • As time passes, my ideas about what and where our problems are shifting too.  
  • Currently, I’m focused on the idea that our representative democracies, which are primarily a balancing of self interests; one against each other, are, by their very nature, incapable of dealing with problems affecting our ‘commons’.
  • The housing cost problems described in this Guardian article make this point particularly well.  
  • It is in the majority’s common interests that most of us should be able to find and afford reasonably priced housing.  But a minority of us, well positioned to take advantage of the situation, have elevated their minority self interests over the majority and, in their greed, they are making a bad situation worse.
  • This has happened because ‘we’ the people have never decided to implement governments which look out for our common interests as their top priority.  
  • And you can be sure that those who are looking after their self interests and wealth are never going to support this.  They will, in fact, actively suppress the idea.
  • dennis

= = = = = = = = = = =

There’s a sizeable chance that many people born before me in the late 1980s – and far more who were born after me – will never own their home in the UK. The goal for most people is now to get on “the housing ladder”: buy a small house or flat, and gradually move to a nicer area and bigger home as your profits increase. This wasn’t always the case. Back in the early 1980s, around half the population of the country owned their own home, and half rented – 30% in social housing, from their local council, and 20% from private landlords.

Margaret Thatcher’s introduction of right to buy meant that those who bought their council home saw the value of their subsidised purchase rise rapidly, meaning housing was seen less as a permanent home, more as an investment. At the same time, councils stopped building homes partly due to economic constraints, and partly due to the ideological shift away from renting and towards home ownership.

But now we’re in a crisis. Homes cost an awful lot in many places in the UK, and wages haven’t kept pace with inflation, or risen as much as house prices, post-recession. The young, in particular, find their earning potential and borrowing allowances have been harder hit than most. Meanwhile, the vast majority of new private-sector jobs are in the capital, where house prices are exorbitant.

The average house price for the UK was £282,000 in July according to the Office for National Statistics, which, if you live in London, sounds like nothing – the average house price there nudged £525,000 this month. But the average UK earner, who takes home £24,648 gross, including bonuses, can only afford a house worth around £110,000, if you imagine them taking out a mortgage worth 4.5 times their salary. To find a job paying that much and a house that costs that little isn’t easy – saving for a deposit while paying market rents is even harder.

Part of the problem is scarcity. Britain simply isn’t building enough housing to meet the demand for homes. Part of that is due to a brick shortage that began before the recession, and a skills shortage: British workers predominantly don’t want to be builders, and the rhetoric against hiring in skilled workers from the EU and beyond also stymies attempts to build more.

But many people profit from rising house prices: landbanking is a huge problemthat exacerbates the housing crisis. In areas where homes are needed, it works in private companies’ interests to sit on land that could be developed, inflating its prices, and in turn inflating house prices.

Where housing expansion has happened is in private renting, the sector least likely to increase the home ownership rate in Britain. If you ask most people what is the biggest barrier to raising the capital necessary for a deposit, most will say that it’s high rents. It’s in landlords’ interests to keep people renting, rather than buying. An interest-only mortgage lets you cream off a considerable profit while buying more properties.

And once profits rise in houses, and people see property not as a home but as an investment opportunity, outside investors pour in. Concerns have been raised at the proportion of new-build properties in London being bought and treated as asset lockers in the capital – left empty, while appreciating in value at very little risk for the predominantly foreign buyers. Meanwhile, families flounder on the housing waiting lists, or are forced out to far-flung towns, away from their children’s schools or support networks.

Houses aren’t expensive simply because of supply and demand. As long as houses are expensive, people will work to keep them expensive – buy-to-let landlords with far more capital can buy up houses and rent them out at high costs, wealthy British and foreign investors can buy up land and new-build luxury property knowing that the likelihood of profit is a far better bet than with any other investment. Keeping families and individuals locked out of home ownership for a lifetime works as a financial racket, which is precisely what we’re dealing with.

There’s also the massive regional disparity – growing up, I remember working out exactly how much I’d need to earn to afford a mortgage on my own home. It seemed achievable, because I foolishly hadn’t assumed a global recession would cause stagnant wages while house prices continued rising unhindered. And to get a mortgage on a property where I grew up in Newport, at an average of £115,828I’d need to earn around £29,000 per year. I’ll admit to earning far more. But to buy the average home where I currently live near Clapham, I’d need to earn £182,809. I earn far less. Why do I stay, rather than returning home and snapping up a four-bed house? The same reason anyone does – friends, work opportunities, and an emotional investment in the local surroundings.

But across England and Wales, the average home costs 8.8 times the average salary. In Westminster, it’s 24 times the local salary, compared to 12 times a decade earlier. Everywhere in England and Wales, the house price/local salary ratio has risen since 2002. Part of the reason so many people want to buy is because renting conditions can be so poor, while rent is so high. Those hoarding properties can hike up house prices as people become increasingly desperate to get on “the ladder”.

Scarcity causes a number of responses: firstly panic – watch any queue outside a house in Walthamstow, or try to rent a room in London or Oxford, and realise how many people are scrabbling for any opportunity to solve their personal housing crisis. But it also encourages hoarding: the financially solvent notice an asset’s sharp increase in value and hoard that asset, inflating the price and their profits at the same time. One in five homes in the UK is now owned by a private landlord, yet landlords only account for 2% cent of the adult population.

But crises reach a head: at the moment, house prices are so expensive, many people will be unable to afford to buy at all, which impacts on birth rates, encourages people to move abroad, and affects the economy, both because people are spending more on rent and less on goods that boost the economy, and because housing is a precarious market to rely on to prop up GDP. It’s because the market has been allowed to grow unchecked, and landlords and investors allowed to distort and inflate the market, that houses are expensive. But to bring prices down, some homeowners have to lose out and end up in negative equity. It depends on who politicians value most – homeowners, or Generation Rent. Or, we can all sit tight and wait for the bubble to burst.

  • To the original in the Guardian:  ➡

 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corruption, CrashBlogging, Culture - How not to do it, Financial melt-down, Human Rights, Politics - The Wrong Way, Social Breakdown, The Perfect Storm, Wealth Disparity | No Comments »

HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS

Tuesday, August 11th, 2015

– This piece was written by Glenn Greewald on 24 Feb 2014 but it is still relevent.

– dennis

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

– This article continues and you will do best to read it in its original form as it has many graphic elements.

– to see the original, click here: ➡

 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corruption, CrashBlogging, CyberChaos, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | 1 Comment »

Privacy groups walk out of US talks on facial recognition guidelines

Monday, July 6th, 2015

– Yes, I have a problem with systems that require us to ‘opt out’ before we can avoid them.

– In New Zealand, recently, one of the airlines was selling its passengers insurance that they specifically had to opt out of if they didn’t want to buy it.

– This one, having to do with facial recognition, is outrageous. It is a simple case of what’s good for the average Joe vs. what’s good for the corporations. And IMHO, the balance should always come down to favoring the average Joe and not the corporations.

– Look at how blatant the corporations are: “Not a single industry representative would agree on the most basic premise: that targets of facial recognition should opt in before companies identify them.“

– dennis

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

A 16-month effort to set guidelines for use of facial recognition technology that satisfy consumers’ expectations of privacy and meet existing state laws went up in flames on Tuesday.

That’s when all nine civil liberties and consumer advocate groups participating in talks with trade associations on a voluntary code of conduct for US businesses to use facial recognition walked away from the table.

Their reason?

Not a single industry representative would agree on the most basic premise: that targets of facial recognition should opt in before companies identify them.

They’d been at it since February 2014, when the US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) brought together industry representatives and privacy advocates to come up with voluntary guidelines.

The nine pro-privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Digital Democracy and other consumer advocates, put up a joint statementexplaining their move.

From the statement:

At this point, we do not believe that the NTIA process is likely to yield a set of privacy rules that offer adequate protections for the use of facial recognition technology. We are convinced that in many contexts, facial recognition of consumers should only occur when an individual has affirmatively decided to allow it to occur. In recent NTIA meetings, however, industry stakeholders were unable to agree on any concrete scenario where companies should employ facial recognition only with a consumer's permission.

According to The Washington Post, the camel’s back broke last Thursday, at the NTIA’s 12th meeting on the issue.

Insiders told the newspaper that this is how it went down:

First, Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown University's Center on Privacy and Law, asked if companies could agree to making opt-in for facial recognition technology the default for when identifying people - meaning that if companies wanted to use someone's face to name them, the person would have to agree to it. No companies or trade associations would commit to that, according to multiple attendees at the meeting.

That’s right: not a single company would agree that consumers should have the say-so in facial recognition.

But while this industry/advocates collaboration on voluntary guidelines has fallen apart, the images companies are collecting without any federal direction haven’t gone anywhere.

Face-slurping companies include tech giants Facebook, Google and Apple.

For its part, Facebook is facing a class action lawsuit over facial recognition, started by an Illinois man who claims the social network violated state privacy laws by not providing him with written notification that his biometric data was being collected or stored.

Also in the mix are retailers, such as Wal-Mart, which love to spot who’s looking at what and for how long inside their stores.

In the UK, things are very similar: Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, in 2013 announced it was to install facial recognition technology in all 450 of its petrol station forecourts – all the better to target-market at you, my pretty.

The companies trying to hammer out guidelines in the US have turned away not only from the basic premise of opt-in, but also from a specific, concrete scenario of opt-in that was offered up by Justin Brookman, the director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s consumer privacy project.

According to The Washington Post, Brookman sketched out the concrete scenario like so:

What if a company set up a camera on a public street and surreptitiously used it [to] identify people by name? Could companies agree to opt-in consent there?

The results were the same: not a single company went for opt-in, even under such specific circumstances.

Privacy advocates have said that their withdrawals from the multi-stakeholder process will be a fatal blow to the perceived legitimacy of the NTIA’s efforts, now that it’s just the foxes – as in, the companies implementing facial recognition – guarding the hen house (the hens being all us being surveilled).

But the NTIA says the talks will go on.

An agency spokesperson said this to The Washington Post:

NTIA is disappointed that some stakeholders have chosen to stop participating in our multi-stakeholder engagement process regarding privacy and commercial facial recognition technology. A substantial number of stakeholders want to continue the process and are establishing a working group that will tackle some of the thorniest privacy topics concerning facial recognition technology. The process is the strongest when all interested parties participate and are willing to engage on all issues.

The privacy advocates said in their letter that the barest minimum privacy expectation should be that we can simply walk down the street without our every movement being tracked and without then being identified by name, all thanks to the ever-more-sophisticated technology of facial recognition.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise. The position that companies never need to ask permission to use biometric identification is at odds with consumer expectations, current industry practices, as well as existing state law.

It might look good, at least on the surface, that the industry representatives are apparently playing ball by not walking away from the official guidelines-setting process.

But it’s hard to imagine anything privacy-positive coming out of that process now that the privacy advocates have walked away.

And without any guidelines, these companies will continue to use facial recognition in an unregulated environment.

– To the original:  ➡

 

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Corporate takeover of Government, Corruption, CrashBlogging, CyberChaos, Human Rights, The Perfect Storm | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries