Archive for May, 2014

Think Or Sink

May 21, 2014

Economy is the management of the house (oikos in Greek), ecology is the study, or logic, of the house. They are closely related. We are presently engaged in the sixth large mass extinction event since animal life appeared on Earth. It is, potentially the most dangerous, because hypoxia (so far undocumented in previous mass extinctions, but likely) threatens (my trademark worry).

Yet, this extinction event is driven by the behavior of Homo Sapiens, thus, it could be prevented (as long as the extinction does not develop too much inertia). Thus we should use more logic to manage the house.

Worst Extinction Coming? Lest We Intervene Creatively

Worst Extinction Coming? Lest We Intervene Creatively

Horizontally: million of years before present. Both the P-T (Permian-Trias) and K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) extinctions coincide with Earth core eruptions (according to me, they acidified the seas). Vertically: percentage of fossilized marine genera that went extinct.

Thus the nature of economic policy, not just economic performance, is in question. Here is Krugman in Cheese-eating Job Creators

People are pretty down on European economic performance these days, with good reason. But mainly what we’re looking at is bad macroeconomic policy…That’s a very different story from the old version of Eurotrashing, which focused on Eurosclerosis — persistent low employment allegedly caused by excessive welfare states.

John Schmitt and Dean Baker began pointing out a long time ago that this story was out of date. If you looked at Europe in general and France in particular, you saw that yes, people retired earlier than in America, and also that fewer young people worked — in part because they didn’t have to work their way through college…

Well, I hadn’t looked at this data for a while; and where we are now is quite stunning:

France & USA EMPLOYMENT Rate [NOT Unemployment U2]

France & USA EMPLOYMENT Rate [NOT Unemployment U2]

Many of the French would be indignant about that graph, as they are focused on the Unemployment Rate known as U2 (which is above 10% in France).

And Krugman to conclude: “Since the late 1990s we have completely traded places: prime-age French adults are now much more likely than their US counterparts to have jobs.

Strange how amid the incessant bad-mouthing of French performance this fact never gets mentioned.”

Krugman knows well that this is not strange. Wall Street centered plutocracy has control of American propaganda, and admitting any sort of French superiority in economics would be equivalent to anathema.Financiers hate France most, as she is full of counterexamples to the plutocratic paradigm, so they use the biggest, ugliest lies against her.

Employing people of prime employment age is a deliberate policy of the state in France. Early (and sufficient!) retirement is part of it. So is free university education (as Krugman hints at above).

And yet, comparing an enormous country-continent such as the USA and a European country, is always fraught. European countries are automatically small, and crowded. Most have long exhausted natural resources.

Besides, God is American (just listen to Barack Obama if you doubt it). So, when American companies (Chevron, etc.) tried fracking in Poland, it did not work, as God had not blessed Poland (or not been blessed by Obama, whatever). The geology was uncooperative.

Or maybe Poland cannot be as thoroughly destructed as Texas (largest state of the USA), Wyoming (very large, and less populated USA state), or the Dakotas (what’s that?).

Much of the wealth of the USA comes from recently conquering a gigantic, wealthy continent, after having disposed of the preceding occupants (thus acquiring title and attending riches).

In a way, the USA is an ode to the exploitative paradigm: We Came, We Saw, We Destroyed, We Thrive.

No wonder well paid economists and other propagandists from the world’s richest universities prefer to change conversation, and explain to use why slavery is so superior to economy, the French way. (Americans get two weeks vacations; the French, who invented mandatory paid vacations in 1936, get 5; a reform all of Europe has copied. )

All this sudden American wealth was not because of a mysterious American genius in matters economic, but for the one found at the end of a saber. Proof? The USA was mostly created by Europeans. What those Europeans could do in the New World, they could never have done in the Old One.

Parts of Europe are still suffering from Roman ecological devastation.

The European Union (four million square kilometers) is less than half the area of the USA (ten million square kilometers). Europe (even without Putin’s Grosse Reich) has twice the population of the USA.

France exploited coal for 73,000 years, but, surprise, surprise, has run out of it. France had insignificant gas, now exhausted, and only a few barrels of oil.

This general paucity of resources forces Europeans to exchange high added value products (aerospace, cars, machine tools) against the natural resources they need (even Spain is selling trains to Saudi Arabia).

In other words, Europeans have to be more brainy, but for countries such as Norway (oil, gas) or Britain (oil, gas, Russian money).

In a sense the archetype  European country is wealthy Switzerland. First source of Swiss income? Pharmaceuticals.  Where does the better Swiss economic management come from? Direct democracy.

The strategies used in France and Germany are slightly different, with more emphasis on university education in France (which is free) and thus more of a scientific axis, and more on apprenticeship in Germany (thus a more active high tech Mittelstand). They are both trying to adopt the other’s advantage (Germany is doing a huge teaching-scientific effort, and has just adopted a French like minimum wage… while France is talking about how great Germany is).

The advantage of the Silicon Valley seems, and is, incontrovertible. Yet, it has to a great extent to do with the size of the market of the USA, & the discrete fact that the most important actor in the economy is the state. Silicon Valley was basically founded by the defense establishment of the USA (the basic tech was often invented in… France. But the smaller French market, and the lack of an empire of awe and conspiracies, put the French at a disadvantage.)

In any case, the better French success with employment (especially its quality, that the graph above does not exhibit) demonstrates, to some extent, the superiority of governmentalism.

See:  https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

Not to say that government policies in France are, and have been perfect (France has a new Prime Minister, the young, Catalan-Swiss-French Emanuel Wals). Far from it. They are actually often laughable, while gritting one’s teeth. To quit laughing, though, one has to just consider the USA, where, in spite of obvious natural riches, much of the plundering by the higher ups negatively impact economic performance.

The social inequality in San Francisco is on a par with Rwanda (that makes more sense than it looks, as both depends upon Coltan, plundered in Congo).

We are going to need lots of correct governmentalism, if we are going to be spared a sixth, and most terrible, mass extinction.

Speaking of extinction, in apparently unrelated news, the thirty billion dollar woman, Helene Pastor, just died from her wounds from an (unknown commando) attack. Flags have been lowered all over the Principality of Monaco. When people die, the pain of the state is apparently proportional to wealth.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/cap-wealth-decapitate-critter-power/

There are warning flags fluttering in the air.

Patrice Aymé

Biosphere Destruction. Not Just “Climate Change”

May 20, 2014

Psychological Change Needed

“Climate Change” is an ambiguous notion. It does not reflect reality. It neither respect the reality of what is happening nor the reality of what it is going to mean for common people.

The expression “climate change” is too close to positive emotions. Indeed, who does not want “change”? Or, for that matter, a “change of climate”?It’s the wrong emotional semantics.

Biosphere destruction is more like it. So let people evoke that, biosphere destruction, rather than the misleading euphemism “climate change”.

Warming Wave Hitting Alaska. Muir @ Glacier Bay

Warming Wave Hitting Alaska. Muir @ Glacier Bay

[1941 picture on the left, a more recent one on the right. ]

The truth about “climate change”? It’s not just about the climate and it’s beyond a change of clothing.

The  two pictures of the glacier above reminded me of an adventure I had in Alaska recently. I wanted to show my toddler the most accessible glacier in Alaska, at the neck between the Kenai peninsula and Alaska proper. I had been there in the past: one could drive nearly to the massive glacier, which was resting like a giant beast in a valley. I drove, and drove. Reached a parking. No more road. Clear blue water. Up on the mountains, several glaciers, in full retreat, could be seen. The famous glacier had completely disappeared.

In “Disintegrating Antarctica”, I did not mention the latest on Greenland. Several research teams announced that there are at least 100 deep hidden fjords penetrating Greenland. Many extends more than 100 kilometers.

That means melting in Greenland is going to go faster than expected in all previous models.

The average length, and undersea depth of glacier tongues were found much greater than previously estimated. A paper in Nature Geoscience reports that 107 marine-terminating glaciers are underlain by fjords extending on average 67 kilometers (42 miles) inland below sea level, a number 300 percent greater than previous assessments.

The excellent Paul Handover of “Learning  From Dogs” wonders upon “the nature of delusions”. He notices that people are less afraid of “climate change” in the English speaking countries.

One of the reason is the tremendous propaganda. I read recently a long article about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders (OCD) in New Scientist. This main feature article was written by an eminent pundit, long editor of the science journal “Nature”, and other prestigious English speaking media (I am a subscriber to both NS and Nature).

He mentioned terrible OCD such as serial killing, or Winston Churchill (and others) feeling like jumping from high places to their deaths. He also said science showed people’s mad inclinations fit the “mania of their ages“.

The most recent instance of a mania the respected editor rolled out as inducing a flurry of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, worldwide ? Worrying about “Climate Change“. A mania of our age, he insisted. Presumably affecting yours truly, Barack Obama, Europe, the United Nations, and more than 97% of climate scientists.

I made a quick search, and found very long articles from the same character vaunting the merits of natural gas extraction, already 15 years ago, in… Nature. When one knows the influence and prestige of Nature, no wonder nothing of sufficient significance is made about “Biosphere Destruction”. I will leave to the imagination how the gentleman gets financed.

Another reason for doubting that biosphere destruction will affect negatively English speaking countries, is that, under the leadership of ravenous lords, the exploitative mentality, accompanied by whole sale destruction, as needed, as proven very profitable to the population of said countries. It’s natural to expect that this exploitative mentality will keep on bearing fruit.

Against giant money, the voices of the many are like those of mice.

Patrice Aymé

Note: Apparently a powerful El Nino, comparable to the largest one ever seen in 1997-98, is gathering steam in the Pacific.

Buoys show that an enormous blob of abnormally warm water, up to half a kilometer thick, is migrating eastward. This is the preferred warming mechanism for the planet, as it transfers great heat from the western Pacific to the much colder eastern Pacific. During maximum warming, the historical record seems to show continuous El Ninos.

Thus the probability seems around 2/3 that atmospheric heat records will be beaten next year (accompanied with floods, droughts, and other dynamic effects).

 

Banking On Banksters

May 19, 2014

I was gloomy as I saw what happened in 2008 and thereafter: the very financiers who had stolen all the money, were given trillions, to replace what they had stolen. It was as inconceivable as the worst horrors of history, but it proceeded.

In exchange the crooks did not even have to recognize they had been wrong. When it dawned on our unworthy leaders that it looked bad, all this giving from the poor to the richest fortunes in the world, they invented something else: easing money creation for top banks, so that they could “reimburse” the Public: that’s called “Quantitative Easing” (or “the Twist”, or…)

It’s a pleasure to now have Paul Krugman seeing the light, six years later, in “Springtime For Bankers”.  Oh, don’t jump for joy, yet. No, Paul is not seeing the light about “Quantitative Easing”, that’s still beyond what he can conceive at this point. But he has finally seen that the exalted status of banking itself is the problem, and, more generally that:

…”economic policy since the onset of the financial crisis has been a dismal failure. It’s true that we avoided a full replay of the Great Depression. But employment has taken more than six years to claw its way back to pre-crisis levels — years when we should have been adding millions of jobs just to keep up with a rising population. Long-term unemployment is still almost three times as high as it was in 2007; young people, often burdened by college debt, face a highly uncertain future.

Now Timothy Geithner, who was Treasury secretary for four of those six years… thinks he did a heckuva job.

He’s not unique in his self-approbation. Policy makers in Europe, where… a number of countries are in fact experiencing Depression-level distress, have even less to boast about. Yet they too are patting themselves on the back.

How can people feel good about track records that are objectively so bad?…

In both Europe and America, economic policy has to a large extent been governed by the implicit slogan “Save the bankers, save the world” — that is, restore confidence in the financial system and prosperity will follow…

Mr. Geithner’s book is devoted to a defense of the U.S. financial bailout, which he sees as a huge success story — which it was, if financial confidence is viewed as an end in itself… But where is the rebound in the real economy? Where are the jobs? Saving Wall Street, it seems, wasn’t nearly enough. Why?

One reason for sluggish recovery is that U.S. policy “pivoted,” far too early, from a focus on jobs to a focus on budget deficits. Mr. Geithner denies that he bears any responsibility for this pivot, declaring “I was not an austerian.” In his version, the administration got all it could in the face of Republican opposition. That doesn’t match independent reporting, which portrays Mr. Geithner ridiculing fiscal stimulus as “sugar” that would yield no long-term benefit.

But fiscal austerity wasn’t the only reason recovery has been so disappointing… there was, arguably, a lot the Obama administration could have done to reduce debt burdens without Congressional approval. But it didn’t; it didn’t even spend funds specifically allocated for that purpose. Why? According to many accounts, the biggest roadblock was Mr. Geithner’s consistent opposition to mortgage debt relief — he was, if you like, all for bailing out banks but against bailing out families…

…leading experts on this subject are the economists Atif Mian and Amir Sufi, whose just-published book “House of Debt” argues very much the contrary. On their blog, Mr. Mian and Mr. Sufi point out that Mr. Geithner’s arithmetic on the issue seems weirdly wrong — order of magnitude wrong — giving much less weight to the role of debt in holding back spending than the consensus of economic research…

In the end, the story of economic policy since 2008 has been that of a remarkable double standard. Bad loans always involve mistakes on both sides — if borrowers were irresponsible, so were the people who lent them money. But when crisis came, bankers were held harmless for their errors while families paid full price.

And refusing to help families in debt, it turns out, wasn’t just unfair; it was bad economics. Wall Street is back, but America isn’t, and the double standard is the main reason.”

Some hold that Timothy Geithner is creep central. This plutocrat got his jobs because of his connections, and is now president of “private equity” (understand: conspiracyplutocratic central) firm Warburg Pincus. Obama was forced to select the 2008 crisis maker Geithner over his spiritual father, the extremely well connected Lawrence Summers, because Summers’ towering reputation as a sexist, derivatives and plutocratic fiend, was so colossal that even the powers that be cringed.

It’s true that, as chief of the New York Fed, Geithner was the prime proximal architect of the 2008 crisis, so hell could not have been in better hands.

Last week, the New York Times censored by comments about “glaciers disintegrating”, probably because the message that the melting would go faster by one order of magnitude than announced, did not go down well.

This time, one deigned to publish me (progress: in the past such a comment on finance would have been censored). Here it is (beefed up):

“Save the bankers, save the world?” It is worse than that. The bankers are who create the money, and they do so, by re-distributing it, to whom, and what, they feel worthy.

The financial crisis 2008 revealed that bankers had lent the money to unprofitable projects, on such a scale that banks went bankrupt.  In the European Union, and the USA.

It’s true some of the money, in the USA, was lent directly to families who could not pay back anymore the debts they had incurred. How did this happen on such a scale? Because those millions of home owners had been tricked into incurring these debts by misrepresenting the payments those people would have to make.

Thus the bankers behaved like gangsters. However, in spite of the colossal misery they caused, none of these gangsters was prosecuted.

Moreover, bankers had also created a lot of money they lent for highly leverage financial derivatives operations that went very wrong (they went wrong, in part because, by all betting that what they thought could not happen would not happen, the bankers made sure that it would happen). An example of this hedging gone wrong is the bankruptcy of American International Group, AIG (that cost nearly 200 billion dollars).

The futility of separating one side of the Atlantic from the other was made blatant by AIG. The specific unit of AIG that leveraged AIG into oblivion was operating from London.

Highly leverage derivatives was another way bankers went wrong. Those derivatives, in particular the financial ones, dwarf the real economy.  This means the banks are financing a virtual economy, not the real one.

The same phenomenon festers in Europe. The money was not lost for everybody, though: the richest have got much richer.

Rogue bankers create money for themselves and their friends. The public is then asked to bring fresh money to refloat the banks that the bankers and their friends just stole. Then innocent entities get accused (subprime mortgage holders, the Euro, etc.)

In New York, one, just one junior trader was prosecuted for the 2008 crash. He was French, of course. In France Jerome Kerviel was condemned to three years in jail (and initially a multi-billion dollar fine), for having, allegedly,  lied to his employer.

It has not struck the corrupt mind of “justice” that it’s a corrupt organization that allows just one man to trade 80 billion dollars. A corrupt organization in a corrupt system.

Kerviel indeed vociferously asserts that there was an extensive conspiracy to protect Societe’ Generale, one of the world’s biggest bank.

Meanwhile American justice pursues criminally some Swiss bankers. Swiss bankers are from a country small enough to eat raw. French bankers are another matter, and American bankers are, naturally untouchable (American banks are made to pay fines… from QE).

The European economy has been ravaged to give as much money to the bankers and their accomplices as what they had just stolen. And this “austerity” is still going on. Tellingly, in Europe, only the far left and far right parties are starting to understand the extent and nature of the theft, and talk about it. No wonder that they will progress in the European elections, because, increasingly, people are starting to understand the truth. Hey, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman is nearly there!

The bankers have been saved. The world is therefore still at their mercy.  “Save the bankers, save the world” is in truth: ”Save the gangsters, save the world”. This financial plutocracy is there to stay, We The People are left to pray. On our knees.

Patrice Aymé

Lord Ridley’s Rule

May 18, 2014

Ridiculous, But Lethal, Lord Ridley Riddled With Holes

Plutocrats are everywhere. Everywhere that matters. You won’t find them in the 99% parts of town they feel are bad, you find them where opinion is molded, the MSM, the Media Sadistic Manipulations. Either they are writing, or, better, controlling the writers.

I always think that I am as cynical as one can get. Yet, I keep on being surprised, as I discover people I thought were honorable, being tightly wound with the worst thinking. I want to share my latest surprise with my readership.

What Lord Bankster Ridley Does Not Want The Commons To Know

What Lord Bankster Ridley Does Not Want The Commons To Know

Long ago, I came across a scientifically oriented writer, Matt Ridley. He wrote well. I innocently bought other Ridley’s books. A curious fly innocently exploring a sticky web. However I found Ridley’s science increasingly turning to sophistry, over-complicated (“The Red Queen” hypothesis was presented as key to evolution, something out of “Alice in Wonderland”). And Ridley was cocksure about his very restricted vision of evolution. How could one be so sure to explain so much with so little?

Being cocksure about very little explaining everything, is a feature of the intellectual fascists. It’s basically their definition.  

I was always a Lamarckian (just as Darwin himself). I always believed that Lamarckism was too good a mechanism for evolution, for evolution not to have stumbled on it. Although I understood perfectly well the reasoning of Jacques Monod in “La Chance et La Necessite’”, I pushed it to its logical conclusion: natural selection was not just natural selection of genomes, but natural selections of inheritable geometries, and a selection of the selection mechanisms themselves.

So Ridley’s bombastics struck me as the simplistic self-obsession of one who did not know too much, but felt he owned the world (how right would I turn out to be!). I forgot about him. In recent years, it turned out that this vision that genes (sensu stricto) were everything was very far from the whole story.

Now epigenetics, the intelligence of genetics, is established, and just warming up.

Libertarians believe that all government is bad, except for the army. Everything else ought to be bought and sold, somehow that would be fairer, more clever, more efficient, get the animal juices flowing for the best. An extreme libertarian who earns his life well, working for the health industry in the USA, recently tried to persuade me that, if only there were markets, all would be well.

My libertarian friend started to sing the praises of Matt Ridley, who he told me, had demonstrated the superiority of markets, in a book called “The Rational Optimist”. I found that weird. Matt Ridley? Really? Was not just Ridley a zoology student? How did he get into writing a bible libertarians swear by? What a riddle.

Then there was this Wall Street Journal Weekend section, full pages of it.  It was entitled: “The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out.”

The subtitle, and basic reasoning? “Ecologists worry that the world’s resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through such limits again and again.”

For those who know about history, this master idea was beyond absurd. It was counter factual.

For example, we have run out of Tasmanians, down to the very last one. OK, the politically correct Wall Street thinkers would probably point out Tasmanians were not a resource. In any case, historians know that, out of the 99.9% of the 10,000 or so civilizations out there, which have collapsed, most did, either because they had run out of resources, or because a resource collapse had caused a war. that destroyed them.

That was even true of the Mongol Empire, which in turn annihilated several civilizations: after Genghis Khan had domesticated the half dozen Mongol tribes, the resulting population explosion, deprivation of killing each other, threatening dearth of resources, led to an immediate expansion into most of Eurasia (and all of China). (Thanks to new military methods, and superlative training… That only the Franks could resist.)

Once, a Roman emperor from Constantinople visited Rome, for the first time in centuries. Rome was where the Roman empire had originated, and the Roman Senate still convened.

In July 663 CE, Roman emperor Constans II visited Rome, and ordered all (“omniae”) the metallic roofs of the Eternal City to be stripped, including that of the Church of Mary and the Martyrs (as the Pantheon was then called). Copper and bronze was melted to make Greek fire machines, the gold (the roofs were of gilded bronze) to make coins, and lead to make sling pellets. That was part of a desperate attempt to stop the Arabs.

The brute truth is that the Roman Empire ran out of metals. Romans had exhausted their mines. All over. The Roman metal crisis caused both the inflation crisis that started in the late Second Century, and carried over all the way to 663 CE.

A century later, the Franks (Imperium Francorum) would solve that problem by conquering Eastern Europe, which only imperators Caesar and Trajan had the guts and brains to try to invade (Caesar was assassinated on the eve of his departure; Trajan, though reached through Romania all the way to Moldavia, 2C).

The next huge resource crisis was in the Fourteenth Century, when a situation similar to what we have now developed: an exploding population, a resource crisis (no more wood), and an ecological crisis (“Little Ice Age” plus human devastation).

Then, though, Europe knew what to do, what the Franks had done: keep a strong state, adapt the laws, develop new technology… and be ferocious (that, unfortunately also brought war). Being ferocious extended to the death penalty for those settling in regions where forests were supposed to regrow (in mountainous areas, deforestation means losing the soil).

But here was the Wall Street Journal, rewriting history with superficial, not to say superstitious, feel good, blabber:

How many times have you heard that we humans are “using up” the world’s resources, “running out” of oil, “reaching the limits” of the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with pollution or “approaching the carrying capacity” of the land’s ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuff—metals, oil, clean air, land—and that we risk exhausting it through our consumption…

But here’s a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this “niche construction”—that people (and indeed some other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying on nature’s bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty.

Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter’s tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can’t seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called “markets” or “prices” to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists.”

An “artificial and much larger bounty” in agriculture? Just ask the Irish, who live next door to the ignorant blabbermouth who wrote the preceding. The 1841 census showed that there were 8,175,124 people living in the four provinces of Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster. The Irish thrived on potatoes. After the potatoes died, from Potato Blight, caused by a fungus Phytophthora infestans, so did the Irish. The population was soon half of what it used to be.

Anyway, who was that ignorant fellow who wrote those idiocies for the Wall Street Journal?

He confessed that:

“I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpoint—that there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less.”

I, I, I, I… We can invent? We will just ask the Lords overlording in their castles to innovate more with less?

Matt Ridley, because, of course, it is Matt Ridley who had written these mellifluous inanities, and hundreds of similar articles all over (as I found out, to my dismay), pursues:

“This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm.”

About eight million people killed a year: that’s what Ridley calls “little harm”. What would be big harm? A tax on hereditary wealth?

Hey Ridley! Ever heard of acid? Half of the new CO2 dumped by humans into the atmosphere, turns into acid presently. It’s true that the atmosphere could globally warm five degrees, and all that would happen is that a few billion people would be under water, but being under acid is something else entirely.

Caviar would not be served on the tables of the great Lords anymore, because sturgeons would have dissolved.

More seriously, accountants are already finding that about half a million people a year are dying from global warming already. Aside from higher winds, higher flooding, widely expected, is indeed occurring. Just this year, precipitations greater than all records were registered in Great Britain and the Balkans. Recent massive flooding in Australia even lowered world sea level (as the water had nowhere to go: there are no rivers in the middle of Australia, where it usually never rains).

Yet Matt Ridley maniacally pursues:

“Until about 10 years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would be faced with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. 

But thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland, so we may well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels long before they run out.”

This is wrong in several lethal ways.

First, fossil fuel pollution already kills seven million a year already, and no market will correct that, as this mass smothering is the result of connivance between governments and polluters.

But, obviously, killing people is not a factor for the incomparable Mr. Ridley. It’s just the cost of doing business, apparently.

It is far from clear that fracking shale and other rocks is not augmenting the ecological crisis. Contrarily to what Obama has been saying, if fracking leaks more than 3% methane, it’s worse than coal, as a contributor of the greenhouse effect (there is proof of massive CH4 leakage).

Another problem is that fracking works economically if and only if oil stays above 60 dollars per barrel. The very fact fracking is “profitable” means that we have a terrible problem.

To say that peak oil and gas have been postponed is disinformation. Peak CHEAP oil is passed. That’s all what matters economically. (And it would be way worse if “externalities were accounted, as they ought to be.)

Matt Ridley then go on to explain that we will not run out of anything important that: “The economist and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient…” Yes, getting the advice from a plutocrat trading precious metals goes a long way on the path to wisdom.

In plutocracy, plutocrats define wisdom.

Matt Ridley takes his readers for complete idiots: “Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The richest phosphate mines, such as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world is running out? No: There are extensive lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still exist, especially in the mud of estuaries. It’s just a matter of concentrating them again.”

If we get desperate, we could just get plenty of little slaves to fetch the phosphorus atoms in the estuaries, with their little fingers. Better: if we got even more desperate, we could use the slaves themselves as fertilizers.

What’s wrong there with Ridley’s asinine logic, is that extracting takes energy. Given enough energy, we can do a lot of things: fly to the closest Super Earth, establish a colony there, crash a million water bearing comets into Mars for warmth and water. We could even use super colliders to fabricate fundamental elements, including phosphorus and tellurium.

Cheap energy is what we are running out of. We are taking between pincers. One pincer is the exhaustion of resources (hence ever more expensive energy, hence fracking, hence coal), the other is the poisoning, acidification, smothering and warming of the planet.

Ridley is an adept of the Big Lie technique:

“In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple formula… the damage done to Earth increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have.

Many ecologists still subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven’t been kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence and new technology have led to less human impact on the planet, not more.”

So, Ridley tells us, implicitly, the increasing acidity, warming and rising of the oceans, the increasing mercury in the fish, the nearly ten millions killed by fossil fuels, each year, are not happening.

Where does Matt Ridley belongs to? The mental asylum? Make it more rather like jail.

Indeed, who is Matt Ridley?

Matt Ridley is not a nice guy. He just plays on TV, and TED, for millions of adoring fans. Matt Ridley is not just a student in zoology. Matt Ridley is not just a guy with many best sellers below his belt. Matt Ridley is not just a guy who can employ guys to write books for him. He just has to make the right phone call. To a number of servants.

Matt Ridley is a Lord.

Literally.

And not a small, garden variety one.

Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, Deputy Lieutenant, Fellow Royal Society of Letters, Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (born 7 February 1958), is a British “journalist” who has written several popular science books. He is also a businessman and a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

Such people own the world. They are the owners. Most people at the top of British society have been there for more than 450 years, recent studies have shown.

Such people will tell you whatever allows their class to pursue their rule, through mass hypnotism.

Matt Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007. Under Ridley’s rule Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. The bank had to be bailed out by the UK government. Thus the People of Great Britain had to pay for the nationalisation of Northern Rock.

(Nationalization is more honest than just giving the money to the banksters, that being the preferred method. Northern Rock was nationalized by PM Brown, but then the plutocratic owners of the world realized that the Peoples did not understand a thing about all this financial stuff, so they just requested governments to fork the money over to them, without bothering with transferring ownership title to the People.)

Ridley has been inundated with honors, on both sides of the Atlantic. Academic institutions love him. He has chaired many institutions.

Ridley is also part of the British government in the largest sense, as a hereditary Peer and member of the House of Lords from the Conservative Party. In that sense, he is one of the overlords of the global plutocracy.

Ridley rules, you commoners, with your pathetic little Internet, kneel to his ideas. How can you beat the exposure of Lord Ridley, all over the Main Stream Media, books and the Internet?

It’s just like magic: you are born, and you get a castle, a title, land, money, you head one of the world’s largest financial institution, as his your hereditary right, plunder it, and while being one of the top pundits at The Economist, and the Wall Street Journal. You get a world-wide following of adoring fans. You bask in their groveling idiocy.

Such individuals do not just overlord the British. They overlord the world. They are the hereditary members of the true world global government. The argument that all those Lords belonged to jail, will seem obvious someday.

As the CO2 parts per million augment, so do the poisonous imbecilities that the Main Stream Media, in a generalized sense, keeps on fumigating public opinion with. It’s hard to know what’s worse.

Patrice Aymé

Mistral Blows Hard

May 17, 2014

The Mistral is a mighty wind that blows across Provence after an Atlantic storm passes by. It’s also the name of large, state of the art, aircraft carriers, full of fancy electronics, four of which France is selling to Russia. The first  contract delivery is in October 2014. Thus an interesting debate, touching on many issues (and the usual French bashing rising its ugly snout).

Mistral With Mistral Blowing On Toulon Area

Mistral With Mistral Blowing On Toulon Area

In 2008, Putin invaded Georgia, south of the Caucasus range. G.W. Bush sent some military personnel of the USA to Tbilisi, under humanitarian guise, in the hope that would incite Russian tanks to not invade the Georgian capital. Sarkozy, a man in many ways similar to Putin, sent himself, and talked Putin out of invading more of Georgia. Out of all this came the sale of four Mistral aircraft carriers from France to Russia.

The 200 meters long Mistral is a new class of “command and projection” ships. They allow to land troops and equipment.

(By contrast, the super carriers are increasingly vulnerable to countermeasures such as ever faster missiles and dormant submarine systems, while losing utility.)

Russian Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, explained that, had he just one Mistral ship, “Russia would have won its war against Georgia in 40 minutes instead of 26 hours”.

INFLUENCING HISTORY IS INFLUENCING THINKING; REMEMBER NAZISM:

The relationship between Putin and plutocrats, Western or not, is a tangled web. And it is, to a great extent, causative. This is reminiscent of the situation with Hitler in the 1930s. Then, it was not handled best: the Nazis could have been dispatched, if the Anglo-American leadership had accepted the explicit offer from German generals, to offer a united front.

Instead, the Anglo-American hidden leadership, truly made of plutocrats who saw in the Nazis a market of potential slaves and fellow devils, betrayed the German generals. In the end, the French Republic was left to do the dirty work, and deliberately attacked Hitler in September 1939.

One has to see history as the history of systems of thought. Systems of thought fight, and interfere.

The events of the 1930s, such as the hostility of Roosevelt to Paris right from 1934, and the British-Nazi “Naval” treaty of 1935 (it had a secret protocol encouraging Nazi aggression in the East, according to the doctrine of Keynes), only encouraged the Nazis to become ever more extreme.

Because, the more extreme the Nazis got, the more pleased Anglo-American plutocrats were: crisis meant opportunity.

A culminating point of all this happened when Hitler gave the monopoly of computing to the American IBM. General Motors and Ford were all over Germany, building millions of trucks and other vehicles for the Nazi military. USA companies brought much of what made the Reich great, from oil to all sorts of secret processes (such as synfuels).

THE GREAT PIG-OUT WITH RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS: 

There are lots of parallels, in slow motion, between Putin’s “Big Country” and Hitler “Big Reich”. One of them, the war against homosexuality (especially as many top Nazis were homosexual).

Says The Economist: “Officials in Paris suggest that the only circumstances in which France might reconsider delivery would be an agreement with its allies to move to deeper “third-stage” sanctions, in such sectors as energy, finance and defence. But, say the French, this would have to include equally tough measures by, for instance, Britain against Russian assets in London. “There is an enormous amount of French ill-will towards the way the British are seen as having lived off the fat of Russia’s oligarchs,” says François Heisbourg, of the Foundation for Strategic Research. “The French will resist any idea that they take a unilateral hit. 

The French government will take a final decision in October, when the first vessel is ready for delivery, says Jean-Yves Le Drian, the defence minister. America may disapprove, but there is little domestic pressure to cancel the order, despite the Ukraine crisis. Mr Hollande has not withdrawn his invitation to Russia’s Vladimir Putin to come to the 70th anniversary commemoration of the Normandy landings in June.”

To focus on the republic founded around human rights as Russia’s prime collaborator is outright anti-French. Sarkozy (Peace Not Be Upon Him) was the only one who really went out of his way (literally) to stop Putin in Georgia. If nobody takes a stand, evil will keep on rolling.

A Reuters article was even more anti-French, suggesting France was “still trying to deliver 2 warships to Russia”. Is the USA “still trying to go to the International Space Station?” American astronauts come and go to space, thanks to Russia.

The Reuters article was typical of the sort of Kremlin-Wall Street-Washington fascist propaganda that stinks to high heavens.

There is a big difference between delivering goods that have been paid for, like the Mistral ships, and engaging in new business.

The ones with the highest stakes with Russia are the City of London and its world-wide empire of plutocrats and, secondarily, Germany (see Schroder, ex-Chancellor, rich from Putin, and who just celebrated Putin’s birthday, and damn Ukraine).

An argument can be made that the plutocratic Putinocrats ought to be threatened enough to modify their behavior, that would be the best. They are getting increasingly angry.

On Tuesday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, one of the plutocrats slapped by sanctions from the EU and USA, announced that the country would consider ending its participation in the space-station program in 2020; would prohibit the US military’s use of a rocket motor that powers the Atlas V, one of two launch workhorses for defense and intelligence satellites; and would close down global-positioning-satellite monitoring stations in Russia unless it was allowed to build comparable monitoring stations in the US for its own usage.

WE THE PLUTOCRATS, WE HATE THE FRENCH REPUBLIC:

I would suggest to quit with French bashing. But that’s like suggesting not to have the plutocracy in command. The dependency of the USA upon Russia for space could have been avoided by using French Ariane V rockets. Ariane V has been human rated for a very long time, and executed more than 50 perfect launches in a row.

This is a telling detail: the USA prefers to collaborate with the Russian dictatorship, even for such a strategic subject as accessing space, rather than with the French republic. Being anti-French is the first perfume American plutocracy wants to wear.

PUTIN IDIOTIC PROMISE’S DETECTED:

And what of Putin in all this? Well, the aim is to modify his behavior. Ukraine richest plutocrat, Rinat Akhmetov, just turned against the Russian dictator, rejecting separatism, and telling his 280,000 employees in Eastern Ukraine that they would probably lose their jobs under Putin.

Russia has made the very best weapons, ever since the Nazis attacked the USSR and found to their dismay that the robust and cheap to make T34 tank was better than the German models. A few months later the coldest General Winter in 50 years, struck. It was so cold that Nazi planes could not fly, and  the Nazi offensive in the suburbs of Moscow turned to rout.

However, outside of weapons, and fossil fuels, Russian industry is not much: Russian GDP is smaller than Italy, with two and a half times the population. It’s pretty obvious that Russia, which can’t help itself, cannot help its neighbors. Whereas the European Union can, in the long run, help considerably Ukraine economically (just look at Poland, long more or less the same polity as, and entangled with, Ukraine; Poland, thanks to the EU, is doing great economically; it can even afford to build nuclear latest technology nuclear power plants).

The Russian economy is not much, because the all-plutocratic economy does not work as well as the mixed demo-plutocratic model. We know this, ever since the Roman Republic degenerated into the fascist imperial plutocracy “Augustus” created (I wrote “Augustus” because that’s supposed to mean the “Augmenter”; instead “Augustus” led Rome to long term ruin, just as Putin is doing to Russia).

PUTIN’S BEHAVIORAL THERAPY:

So what of Putin? Well, to treat him, one needs to make him go through a course of behavioral therapy.  So invite him to D Day, give him his toys… As long as he modifies his behavior in the right direction.

And do not forget this: the French pilots were inside their planes, ready to take off to take out Assad. It’s Washington’s last minute loss of nerves that showed to the entire planet, that Assad could get away with mass murder, just to pursue his miserable personal domination.

That deplorable groveling of London and the USA, that miserable refusal to do what needed to be done, persuaded Putin that he could do whatever he wished, and Obama would go play golf with the uneducated, greedy simpletons he uses as friends. The sort of people Putin knows how to handle (as Putin speaks several languages, and has worked in non Russian speaking countries, he is far from totally uneducated. Mis-educated is more like it, hence the need, and possibility, for behavioral treatment).

If Putin Wants His Mistrals, He Will Have To Behave

If Putin Wants His Mistrals, He Will Have To Behave

Thus when Fabius (foreign minister and ex-PM) declared on May 13th, that France would take firmness lessons from nobody: “the rule with contracts is that contracts which have been signed are honoured,” he was correct.

In Mariupol, the region’s second-largest city and the site recently of a bloody confrontation, thousands of unarmed steelworkers, following their employer’s advice, took control of the city from the separatists on Thursday. The Putinist militants melted away.  Similar throngs of miners and metalworkers fanned out in more than five cities, including the largest, Donetsk.

PUTIN IS BAD, HE HAS TO BE TAUGHT THE LAW:

The assessment that Putin did not have correct danger assessment came within the KGB, from his own superior officer, when he got started there.

Putin retired as a colonel from the KGB in 1991. He rose in Saint Petersburg, with the explicit objective, of putting the KGB in power. He boasted later of that, once he became president of Russia, in an official discourse (to the ex-KGB).  In 1998, Putin was appointed head of the Federal Security, the FSB, the replacement of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin’s Security Council.

200,000 were killed in the second Chechen war, 20% of the population, a war which Putin apparently orchestrated. The Western leaders decided to conveniently ignore this.

The annexation of Crimea is, prima fascies, a violation of International Law, and an act of war, and even, a WAR CRIME (it is a war crime to make a war to steal a country, in particular, to steal territory).

We have to teach Putin (and other plutocrats), the law, or its spirit. It starts with respecting it. So, if he behaves, give Putin his ships. The Russian generals are fretting that they won’t get the latest command and combat softwares the ships are supposed to come with. The ships would be dumbed down. Really? I wonder why…

Patrice Aymé

P/S: After writing the preceding I learned that the Pentagon has several contracts with the Russian military-industrial complex, including one to buy 66 Russian combat helicopters Mi-33… for more than a billion dollars.

MSM: Main Stream Manipulations

May 16, 2014

Main Stream Media (MSM) has been the instrument of control of the People ever since there oligarchies. It used to be about temples and priests, now it’s more about controlling papers, radio, TV, and the Internet.

In Russia, one has to register one’s Internet site, and some, as in China, are censored. In the USA, these things are more subtly and smoothly organized, and that’s why Obama goes to Silicon Valley all the time (officially to beg for money, but don’t trust the noble appearance).

Power of the .01% Is Exponentiating Thank To Their Manipulations

Power of the .01% Is Exponentiating Thank To Their Manipulations

This week the New York Times owner fired its editor, the first woman ever in this role, after just two years at the helm. A MSM campaign declared that it was all about inequalities of salaries: the editor would have been paid less than male subalterns, she rebelled, she got eliminated.

Even Obama weighted in, saying he expected his two daughters to be paid as much as male equivalents. It’s true that, in equivalent positions and experiences, women get paid only ¾ of men in the USA. Also female CEOs are much more likely to be fired, and much sooner than male CEOs. All this is bad, and ought to be corrected by law.

However, in the case of the New York Times, the scenario suggested in the New Yorker, and all over the MSM, sounded unlikely to me. Why? Because the plutocrat owner of the NYT had got to be a bit smarter than that. Sure enough, after letting the rumor run for several days, he let it be known that the fired editor did not earn appreciably less than male equivalents, and that the NYT had to reduce cost, as it’s losing advertising revenues to the Internet (places such as this modest site).

The family of the owner of the Times has controlled the paper since the Nineteenth Century.

This is the sort of plutocratic clout the Clintons and Obamas can only dream of (although the Bush family has long achieved it, ever since it helped Hitler get to power).

The plutocrat owning the Times let the rumor run, because it was hiding the truth of what really upset him. So what was really going on?

The editor in chief of the Times pushed last fall the entire paper to inquire, and publish, a series of studies about Chinese plutocracy. About the so called “Princelings”, who own countless billions of dollars in the West. The family of Xi, the president, owns hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate in Hong Kong alone.

Chinese plutocracy, like Russian plutocracy, are basically subsidiaries of global, USA led plutocracy.

That is what the plutocrat controlling the New York Times was irked about: too much sniffing around world plutocracy by his editor in chief.

The result were felt right away: all my comments were censored since the editor was fired (!). Never mind that I was only talking about the climate, and melting glaciers. The way I have glaciers melting promptly, is clearly biased against plutocracy.

Speaking of that, Paul Krugman wrote an editorial “Point of No Return”, about the disintegrating glaciers, which, substantially was not different from anything I have said for years, and in particular earlier this week.

Krugman wrote about the glaciers a bit:  “The [ice] sheet’s slide into the ocean, and the resulting sharp rise in sea levels, will probably happen slowly. But it’s irreversible. Even if we took drastic action to limit global warming right now, this particular process of environmental change has reached a point of no return.”

The result of that no return, from melting in this particular basin of West Antarctica will be a rise of the world ocean by around 4 meters. A large extent of West Antarctica will be replaced by dark seas. This, in turn is sure to warm up the rest of the ice continent some more. A look at the map shows that this certainly means a guaranteed rise of sea level of at least ten meters. (Hopefully Wall Street will turn into a submarine Venice.)

But back to Krugman serpent like caution. Notice his “probably happen slowly” part. What’s probable, as I have argued, is the exact opposite: the Antarctica melt is going to be a high speed cataclysm.

Here is part of the rest of Krugman’s editorial, where he, ever so cautiously, orients himself towards systems of thought, and what I call “anti-ideas” :

“I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate.

To see how it works, consider a topic I know well: the recent history of inflation scares.

More than five years have passed since many conservatives started warning that the Federal Reserve, by taking action to contain the financial crisis and boost the economy, was setting the stage for runaway inflation… Over time, however, as the promised inflation kept failing to arrive, there should have come a point when the inflationistas conceded their error and moved on.

In fact, however, few did. Instead, they mostly doubled down on their predictions of doom, and some moved on to conspiracy theorizing, claiming that high inflation was already happening, but was being concealed by government officials.

Why the bad behavior? Nobody likes admitting to mistakes, and all of us — even those of us who try not to — sometimes engage in motivated reasoning, selectively citing facts to support our preconceptions.

… hard as it is to admit one’s own errors, it’s much harder to admit that your entire political movement got it badly wrong. Inflation phobia has always been closely bound up with right-wing politics; to admit that this phobia was misguided would have meant conceding that one whole side of the political divide was fundamentally off base about how the economy works. So most of the inflationistas have responded to the failure of their prediction by becoming more, not less, extreme in their dogma, which will make it even harder for them ever to admit that they, and the political movement they serve, have been wrong all along.

The same kind of thing is clearly happening on the issue of global warming. There are, obviously, some fundamental factors underlying G.O.P. climate skepticism: The influence of powerful vested interests (including, though by no means limited to, the Koch brothers), plus the party’s hostility to any argument for government intervention. But there is clearly also some kind of cumulative process at work. As the evidence for a changing climate keeps accumulating, the Republican Party’s commitment to denial just gets stronger.

Think of it this way: Once upon a time it was possible to take climate change seriously while remaining a Republican in good standing. Today, listening to climate scientists gets you excommunicated…

And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists… Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general.

It’s hard to see what could reverse this growing hostility to inconvenient science. As I said, the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached a point of no return. And that scares me more than the news about that ice sheet.”

I sent two comments. They were both censored. They both completely approved Krugman’s editorial, while, I must admit, going a tiny bit further.

This crudeness, and vigilance of censorship by the owners, is why the Obamas, Clintons, Krugmans, and Stiglitzs have to be careful. After all, they are just employees enjoying the perks of the system. Yes, they don’t own it. Ownership is everything. If the servants want to keep on thriving, those “leaders” will have to please the owners. So they “lead” where the real owners are willing us all, the herd, to be led.

This is the quandary into nearly all progressive politicians find themselves in, worldwide. Only in tiny countries such as Denmark, are politicians allowed to do what they want, because it does not matter to the real masters of the universe.

Denmark has only 5.5 million people, and, except for its obscure relationship to 60,000 citizen strong Greenland, has no imperial aura. (It fought 6 hours, killing 200 Nazis in World War Two.)

The plutocracy focuses on direct control of the world imperial system, and that means controlling the giants (especially the three military leaders of the West). This is where the propaganda is the thickest.

The New York Times is considered to be the “newspaper of record” in the USA. However, the bottom like is that this is the third century during which it is owned and controlled by a particular family. How can these two elements be compatible? Why is that particular family “of record”?

Even in the Middle Ages, the most absolute kings there were, those of France, actually owned relatively little property. Francois I himself may have worn expensive clothes, but Italian bankers paid for his trips around France. Francois I did not own the media of the time.

What we have now is different. We have an ascending plutocracy that tries to grab the minds ever more. What Putin is doing in Russia is just a particular case, part of a whole.

Hopefully, people will see through this, and get their news from somewhere else than plutocratically owned media, thus bankrupting the MSM (the Internet can support journalists directly: see the successful Mediapart in France).

Patrice Aymé

Antarctica’s Glaciers Disintegrating

May 14, 2014

Unstoppable Retreat Of Glacial Antarctica Officially Launched:

Two independent teams working differently arrived to similar conclusions about the main glaciers plunging in Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea next to the Pines Island Glacier (PIG) (see map below).

Modelling and radar data from Amundsen Sea suggest current melting will run away.

This has to be put in the context that, as far as official science was concerned, this was not supposed to happen. A completely independent agent such as yours truly predicted this many years ago, and incredibly much worse, because of a confluence of very precise reasons.

Don't Worry, Be Happy: Catastrophe Ineluctable, And Soon

Don’t Worry, Be Happy: Catastrophe Ineluctable, And Soon

Pine Island Glacier covers about 160,000 square kilometers, about two-thirds the area of Great Britain. Just one glacier.

Like the Thwaites, Smith, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler Glaciers in this region – the PIG has been thinning and retreating rapidly. The Twaithes is much larger than PIG.

Joughin’s team found that Twaithes glacier’s grounding line — the border between sections of ice that float on the sea and sections that rest on the bedrock — currently sits about 600 meters below sea level (2,000 feet!). But 60 to 80 kilometers inland, the bedrock topography under the glacier drops to more than 1.2 kilometer below sea level!

When the grounding line reaches that inward-sloping basin, the glacier’s retreat will speed up dramatically, Joughin’s team calculates (I have explained the same phenomenon will happen in giant basins of East Antarctica in “Sun Cooling, Ice Melting“).

The reason for this is that two degree Celsius water is denser than colder water (!), and will slip below the ice. That will happen in a matter of centuries, the team suggested (to please the higher-ups).

The team has, of course, to suggest total melting would take centuries, otherwise it would irritate the powers that be, and, thus, the financing of the entire field.

These scientists have to earn a living, feed their families, bask in successful careers. They have comfortable houses, cars… They sell not just science, but hope. As the great mathematician Gregory Perelman, who solved the Soul, Thurston and Poincare’ conjectures, among other things, said, about American mathematics:

It’s possible to sell a theorem and it’s possible to buy it. Even if you don’t have anything to do with it.”

(Perelman was talking about a few dozen top mathematicians that I personally knew for years, before getting as disgusted by their dishonesty, not to say viciousness, as he later would be!)

If that intrusion of the lowest human traits happens in math, it’s worse in much more money oriented fields. Such as the confluence of the fossil fuel plutocracy and climate science (typical representative of fossil burn plutocracy: Vlad Putin.)

This buying and selling of theorems is exemplary of the problem of mixing power, politics and money, as is the case in the mightiest “private” or “public” universities in the USA (and wherever the American university system is imitated). I am NOT saying that the system these universities (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, pseudo-public Berkeley, etc.) represent is to be condemned and eradicated like RasPutin, just that it needs to be taken for what it is: a plutophile system.

Plutophilia needs to be counterbalanced by the love of wisdom. (Thus a true public university system ought to be preserved.)

In the case of these glaciers, wisdom consists into realizing that considering that it will take centuries for these glaciers to melt, is wishful thinking. The evidence, both factual and theoretical, points the other way.

Grounding lines determined by radar from now defunct European satellites were found in some cases to retreat by more than one kilometer per year.

Radar data show that the Pine Island Glacier retreated by 31 kilometers between 1992 and 2011. It retreated fastest between 2005 and 2009.

Rignot’s team found no underlying ridge that could potentially slow the retreat, for any of the glaciers studied.“These systems, whether Greenland or Antarctica, are changing on faster timescales than we expected. We are kind of rediscovering that every day,” says Rignot.

Telling us that it will take at most centuries to melt those glaciers is exactly the sort of politeness that authorities and the plutocrats who have elected (“financed”) them would expect.

Actually Observing Glaciers Thinning

Actually Observing Glaciers Thinning

Yet, is that science? Indeed, how do they know it will take centuries? Well, they roll out “models” that are as good as what they put inside them, and no better. Let’s reason a bit.

Why will the glaciers melt ever faster? The glaciers will melt ever faster because their cold bellies rest on what would be the new ocean bottom after enough warm sea water has insinuated itself below.

The seas are warming up around Antarctica, because wind speeds have augmented, augmenting the up-welling, another of these run-about effects from global warming. Around Antarctica, surface waters are colder than those in the depths. Wind speed have augmented because of my (six year old) generalization of the Equipartition of Energy Theorem that rules the climate (and also all of thermodynamics!).

Such phenomena as the warming of the underbellies of ice sheets by sea water, tend to be exponential, not linear. And we have the proof: the Hudson Bay, now a sea, transformed itself from ice shield to ocean in a few decades. That, in turn, made the Mediterranean spill catastrophically into the fertile Black Sea area, flooding there around 100,000 square kilometers in no more than 30 years. (That gave the legend of Noah’s Ark.)

Notice that retreating over a continent at one kilometer per year (the speed of the Labrador-Quebec Laurentide ice sheet disintegration), is probably slower by orders of magnitudes to that a sub-oceanic margin. The “forcing” at the time was caused by more insolation, 8,200 years ago (from more sun in July-August then). Now, though, the situation is worse as the “forcing” is from a low lying blanket of man-made greenhouse gases (so, instead of warming equally the entire atmosphere, the greenhouse concentrates the warming at low altitudes, say below 8,000 meters; the stratosphere is actually cooling!).

It was already known, in 1990, that the disintegration of the gigantic Laurentide ice sheet centered around Hudson Bay took no more than 4 centuries. (That ice sheet used to be more than 3,000 meters thick, being the world’s largest, 20,000 years ago).

It boils down to this: is it wiser to risk underestimating the speed of melting of these glaciers, or is it wiser to risk overestimating said speed? Obviously, for those who are anxious to please their masters who feed them, it’s wiser to say there will be a problem, but only in a generation or two.

For those who don’t want to risk the biosphere we know, it’s much wiser to consider the worst possible case. Remember inertia: short of astronomical objects, the system with the most inertia is the biosphere itself. That’s a system that has been capable of maintaining the planet’s temperature within fifteen degrees (Celsius) of the present temperature for more than three billion years. It has enormous inertia. However, our stupid obstinacy to burn all the carbon we can find has definitively got that enormous system to start moving.

We imparted acceleration to the biosphere. We are pushing the biosphere around. And we know that the force we are applying is only augmenting. That means the acceleration, and even more the speed of the change, is going to get worse quick. That’s basic dynamics, first quarter of undergraduate physics.

Of course, neither the leaders of France, Great Britain, or the USA has taken such a course: they are basically ignoramuses at the helm (and Angela Merkel, who knows plenty of physics, made a risky bet she seems to be losing).

Clearly, we should instead apply the brakes to the maximum (instead of flooring the accelerator). What would be the price of this cautious? None, for common people: hard work to de-carbonize the world economy would require dozens of millions to be employed that way, in the West alone.

That, of course, is a scary thought for plutocrats, who much prefer us unemployed, impotent, and despondent.

Patrice Aymé

References:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/the-equipartition-of-energy-theorem-should-be-applied-for-climate-change-and-predicts-wild-fluctuations-of-temperatures/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/sun-cooling-ice-melting/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/ten-years-to-catastrophe/

Nature Quantum Tunneling

May 12, 2014

What’s nature? Many cultures, in the last two million years, identified nature to God(s). What’s god? The end-all, be-all. Assuredly nature fits the bill.

A more constructive point of view is to introduce the notion of computer. Nature is a computer, and the universe the set of all solutions. 

The notion of computer is not really new: the Greeks had very elaborated mechanical computers. They used it to predict the motions of celestial objects.

As I have argued in “ULTRABIOLOGY”, the 2,500 year old notion of computing has become obsolete. It turns out that Nature is a QUANTUM computer.

Electrons Tunnel, Therefore We Are

Electrons Tunnel, Therefore We Are

What’s the Quantum about? As I argued in QUANTUM WAVE, the Quantum is about emitting and receiving energy by packets, while transmitting it as waves.

A world of waves? It’s going to be fuzzy, because stopping a wave with a wave is not going to be work too well, or be instantaneous. So Quantum waves tend to go through walls a bit.

Indeed, the wave equations proposed to depict Quantum processes are always characterized by having a potential on the right-hand side. Even if the potential changes abruptly, the wave will not. This is what the “Tunnel Effect” is all about.

Matt Strassler wrote an excellent article on Quantum tunneling (abstracted in The Amazing Feat Of Quantum Tunneling). Here are some extracts, although readers are encouraged to read the much more complete original.

..in the quantum world we live in, no object is ever quite stationary for more than an instant, nor is its location exactly knowable.”

Why? Because waves are always moving and waves are never really local.

***

From Tunneling A QUANTUM Process:

It's Worse Than That: Even The Jitter Jitters, As It's Waving All Over...

It’s Worse Than That: Even The Jitter Jitters, As It’s Waving All Over…

A trap for an electron, which is like a bowl for a marble. (Left) Normal life would lead us to expect that the electron, like the marble, would be stationary if placed at the center. (Right) But quantum `jitter’ assures that the electron is always slightly in motion, and never quite at the center for more than an instant. A blue fuzz evokes the fact that the electron is, in some sense, spread out around the center of the trap.

If  I put an elementary particle like an electron in a magnetic trap that acts like a bowl, tending to push the electron toward the center just the way gravity and the walls of the bowl push the marble toward the bowl’s center in Figure 1, then what is a stable location for the electron? Just as you would intuitively expect, the electron’s average position will be stationary only if I place the electron the center of the trap.

But quantum mechanics adds a wrinkle. The electron cannot remain stationary; there is a sense in which its location is subject to a sort of “quantum jitter”. This causes its position and its motion to be constantly changing, or (better) even to be undefined, by small amounts. [This is the famous “uncertainty principle” in action.]”

[BTW, this uncertainty reflects only the fact that Quantum Physics does not say what an electron “IS”. There is no “IS” there. A wave is all there is. And a wave is hard to define “locally”, it always comes with a neighborhood! Actually, it’s even worse than that: the only way to localize a wave is to make it a “wave packet”]

“Only the average position of the electron is at the center of the trap; if you look for the electron, you’ll typically find it somewhere else in the trap, near but not at the center. And the electron is only stationary in the following sense: it’s typically moving, but its motion is in a random direction, and since it’s trapped by the walls of the trap, on average it goes nowhere.

That’s a bit weird, but it just reflects the fact that electrons aren’t what you think they are, and don’t behave like any object you’ve ever seen.

By the way, it also assures that the electron cannot be balanced on the edge of the trap, in contrast to a marble on the edge of a bowl (as in Figure 1, bottom). The electron’s position isn’t sharply defined, so it can’t be precisely balanced; and so, even without the trap being jiggled, the electron would become unbalanced and almost immediately would fall off.

But the weirder thing is what happens if I have two traps, separated from one another, and I put the electron in one trap. Yes, the center of either trap is a good stable location for the electron. That’s still true… in the sense that the electron can stay there and won’t run away if you jiggle the trap.

However, if I put the electron in trap number 1, and walk away, sealing the room etc., there’s a certain probability (Figure 4) that when I come back the electron will be in trap number 2.

This Process Will Be Exploited In Future Memories

This Process Will Be Exploited In Future Memories

Fig. 4: An electron in one trap can tunnel into a second nearby trap, even though this naively seems as impossible as the marble in Figure 2 moving spontaneously from the blue bowl to the red one. Quantum `jitter’ is ultimately responsible for this remarkable possibility. (Actually the marble can tunnel too, but being vastly heavier, and with the bowls being macroscopically large and distant, the probability is unbelievably small that this will ever happen to any marble anywhere in the universe.)

How did it do that? If you imagine that electrons are like marbles, you will not be able to understand this. But electrons are not like marbles [or at least not like your intuitive notion of a marble], and their quantum jitter offers them an extremely small but non-zero probability of “walking through walls” — of going someplace that it would seem impossible for them to go — and ending up on the other side. This is called, poetically, “tunneling” — but you should not imagine that the electron digs a hole through the wall.  And you’ll never catch the electron in the wall — in the act, so to speak. It’s just that the wall isn’t completely impermeable to things like electrons; electrons are not things that can be easily trapped.

Actually, it’s even crazier than this: because what is true for the electron actually is true for the marble in the bowl. The marble could end up in bowl 2, if you could give it enough time. But the probability of this happening is extremely extremely extremely small… so small that if you waited billions of years, or even billions of billions of billions of years, that still wouldn’t be enough.  For all practical purposes, it will “never” happen.

The point is that our world is a quantum world, and all objects are made from elementary particles and are subject to the rules of quantum physics. Quantum jitter is ever-present. But for most objects that have a lot of mass compared to an elementary particle — a marble, for instance, or even a typical speck of dust — this quantum jitter is too small to observe, except in very specially designed experiments. And the consequent ability to tunnel through walls is also, therefore, never seen in ordinary daily life.

To say it another way: any object can tunnel through a “wall”, but the probability for it to do so typically goes down very rapidly if

  • the object has a large mass
  • the wall is thick (i.e. there is a long distance between its two sides)
  • the wall is hard to penetrate (i.e. to punch through the wall in the usual way would require a lot of energy.)

For a marble to penetrate the lip of a bowl is possible in principle, but in practice might as well be impossible. For an electron to escape from one trap to another may be easy, if the traps are close together and the traps are not very deep, but it may be very difficult, if the traps are far apart or the traps are very deep.”

WHY TUNNELING IS PHILOSOPHICALLY IMPORTANT:

Knowing about such things as the preceding, and knowing as they fit with different appearances, and knowing how we found them out, is what makes our wisdom different from that of the Ancients.

Not just a different knowledge basis, but also a different meta-knowledge basis (how we established that knowledge).

Just as drastically, recent bits of science provide us with new models for thinking in general.

For example, tunneling implies that there are no absolute separations, and that, instead, interpenetration makes the real world hold together well.

That’s why students of philosophy that have learned nothing new in the last few centuries, ought not to be taken too seriously. Even on poetry, tunneling ought to have an impact.

Tunnel Effect: if you want to be real, you have to dig it.

Patrice Aymé

Science: Progressing Wisdom

May 11, 2014

Abstract: Pseudo scientific considerations by one of the USA’s most famous pundits are demolished (with the help of Krugman). Science defines progress (all the more as it requires ever more conscience). An occasion is found to reveal that physics’ relativity theory is relatively old.

REASON IS NOT SPASTIC:

The continuity of science, or, more generally of natural observations, or even of the most atavistic wisdom, is not appreciated enough. To understand this is important: fast buck artists and the worst potentates, Caligula, Nero, or Putin style, and the most terrible errors of policies, says the lethally unsustainable energy or thoughts systems we are presently enjoying, generally relate from age old wisdom denied.

A particular example of this consists into dismissing the notions of scientific consensus, and scientific progress.

Extending Galileo's Relativity Experiments To Light

Extending Galileo’s Relativity Experiments To Light

Galileo had tried to determine the speed of light, but it was too fast. However, once one knows light is a wave, one realizes that, thanks to precision manufacturing, much can be done deep inside a ship, as Galileo used to.

An example I use all the time is that Buridan discovered inertia and used it for establishing the heliocentric system. In 1320 CE, two full centuries before Copernic… Copernic just studied Buridan’s theory. So what had happened in the meantime? The Catholic Church, with the collaboration of Louis XI (the encaging king), outlawed Buridan around 1470 CE. The truth came out, because greater Poland/Czech/Ukraine (at the time) was inimical to Rome’s religious fanaticism (so Buridan was mandatory in Cracow, where Copernic studied).

So reason is not spastic. It’s the active intervention of intellectual fascism that makes reason spastic.

DENYING REASON, A USA MAIN STREAM SPECIALTY:

Making reason spastic in appearance is useful to those who want to deny reason. Such as all those who depend for their comfort upon a small oligarchy holding the world in its talons.

Science, well done, is the temple of reason. Reason inconveniences plutocrats. This is why enormous propaganda, for decades, denied, in the USA, that evolution happened (something established by Lamarck and his colleagues before 1800 CE).

So it’s no wonder that one of the USA’s top gargoyles (festering at the Wall Street Journal and Fox) dismissed the global warming consensus. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer is “not impressed by consensus.” Krauthammer is no dummy, he just plays one on TV. Like Goebbels, he has studied stuff. He is a trained psychiatrist.

Krauthammer appeared on Fox to heap spite on the Obama administration argument that the “97 percent of scientists who study this issue, who agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity.” The hammer of the Kraut retorted that:

“99 percent of physicists were convinced that space and time were fixed until Einstein working in a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not… I’m not impressed by numbers. I’m not impressed by consensus…These are things that people negotiate the way you would negotiate a bill, because the science is unstable…Because in the case of climate, the models are changeable. And because climate is so complicated,” Krauthammer continued, “The idea that we, who have trouble forecasting what’s going to happen on Saturday in the climate, could pretend to be predicting what’s going to happen in 30, 40 years, is absurd.

The answer to this is what I call “Catastrophic Logic” (which allows air travel). But let’s Krugman roll:

KRUGMAN: EINSTEINIAN EVOLUTION, NOT REVOLUTION:

“As Chait notes, this logic would lead you to dismiss all science — hey, maybe tomorrow someone will write a paper showing that the germ theory of disease is all wrong, so why bother with sterilized instruments in the hospital? But there’s something else wrong here — the complete misunderstanding of what Einstein did.

Yes, Einstein showed that space and time were relative concepts. But did he show that everything physicists had been doing up to that point was all wrong? Of course not — classical physics was an incredibly useful and successful field, and almost none of what it said had to change in light of relativity. True, Einstein showed that it was a special case — but one that applied almost perfectly at the speeds and accelerations we encounter in normal conditions

So if we had an Einstein equivalent in climate science, he or she would find that existing models were right in 99.9% of what they assert, even though under extreme conditions they might be misleading.

Or maybe the simpler way to put it is, Dr. Krauthammer, you’re no Einstein.”

To be fair about climate science, it depends upon too many factors to be precise beyond the fact we are for sure, lest we do a few things real fast, and real ferocious, that we are facing one of the greatest catastrophe for a few million years, or maybe all the way back to Snowball Earth, more than 600 million years ago.

Now to expand on what Krugman said.

RELATIVITY RELATIVELY OLD:

Einstein’s work in Relativity was such a puny advance to what was known before that, nowadays, Einstein is not viewed by competent historians of science as the main architect of “Relativity”.

It’s also why Einstein did not get a Nobel for Relativity, but for the idea that light travelled as photons (and other contributions to physics)… An idea I do not believe, by the way, to be 100% correct, although Einstein was close enough to explain the photoelectric effect with it!)

The inventor of the idea of Relativity is Galileo, who described it in great detail in the early Seventeenth Century. Galileo observed that, inside a cabin deep in a ship one cannot tell if the ship is moving or not. Galileo suggested in a long list, all the experiences one can think of. Observe the connection between new technology and new science: the ship itself is the (non-) accelerator of the 17C.

For a while, in the late Nineteenth Century, some physicists thought that light was not respecting Relativity.

However, when that was tested by American physicists Michelson and Morley with an interferometer, it was found that light could not detect absolute motion.

The mystery was explained when it was found by Lorentz and Fitzgerald that length contracted in the direction of very high speed motion. That the laws of electrodynamics (summarized and completed by Maxwell) did not respect normal space-time transformations was made amply clear by Poincare’, who proclaimed the “Principle of Relativity” (1904), after publishing the mass equal energy relation in 1900, and discovering the “Poincare’ group”.

Poincare’, the most famous mathematician, insisted that Lorentz get the Nobel Prize in physics. Later, Einstein resumed all this in 1905, starting from Poincare”s idea that the fact that the speed of light was constant was a fundamental law of nature (as the work of Einstein was published by Planck in German rather than French, Dutch, or English, it got great renown).

Thus Relativity Theory was fully in a continuity inaugurated by Galileo 400 years ago. Indeed.

SCIENCE DEFINES PROGRESS:

We still use the optics found by the Greeks, and, the idea of numerals, including the zero, was developed by them and the Indians.

Greek thinkers also discerned the idea of evolution, suggested we evolved from fishes, an idea Lamarck revived by ascertaining that apes were our direct ancestor (to the hatred of the church).

In truth, science is as old as our species. We always add new layers. That’s why we have to be suspicious when some come, and claim that all what we knew before is wrong (as the cackling Multiverse turkeys do with both physics and philosophy).

The progress the genus Homo has made, is, first of all, defined by the science we have. All the more as it requires an ever more sophisticated conscience.

Patrice Aymé

Finance & Imbecility Supreme

May 9, 2014

 

Animal minds started with bacteria orienting themselves towards food sources.  What are the youngest parts of human minds? Reason, the will to find reasons for everything, including the reasons hyenas may have to act the way they do.

Speaking of hyenas, officially speaking, less than 100 individuals own more property than half the population of the entire planet combined. And the truth is way worse.

A particularly odious subset are the money changers. Here is Krugman in “Now That’s Rich” finally waking up to the nefariousness of Finance Supreme. After extensively relating Krugman’s belated coming of age, not to say wisdom, I will take off in the last few paragraphs, with the really big picture.

Hyenas Are More Social Than Hedge Fund Managers

Hyenas Are More Social Than Hedge Fund Managers

Krugman fired a broadside against hedge funds mangers, where the ugly splurge at the trough of conspiracy unchained. It is such a pleasure to have Krugman focus finally on what I have attracted his attention about, for years, that I will quote him extensively. He does not say anything I did not say in substance, say 6 years ago, but he has an incomparably louder and more respected voice:

“Institutional Investor’s latest “rich list” in its Alpha magazine, its survey of the 25 highest-paid hedge fund managers, is out — and it turns out that these guys make a lot of money. Surprise!

Yet before we dismiss the report as nothing new, let’s think about what it means that these 25 men (yes, they’re all men) made a combined $21 billion in 2013. In particular, let’s think about how their good fortune refutes several popular myths about income inequality in America.

First, modern inequality isn’t about graduates. It’s about oligarchs. Apologists for soaring inequality almost always try to disguise the gigantic incomes of the truly rich by hiding them in a crowd of the merely affluent. Instead of talking about the 1 percent or the 0.1 percent, they talk about the rising incomes of college graduates, or maybe the top 5 percent. The goal of this misdirection is to soften the picture, to make it seem as if we’re talking about ordinary white-collar professionals who get ahead through education and hard work.”

In truth, the concept of “hyena” comes short as an insult: hyenas are ecologically useful, they are part of the balance of a super-organism that evolved over the eons, part of which is simple grass, that herbivores ought not to eat too much.

Money changers, though, have no ecologically utility. Quite the opposite. The essence of humanity is learning, thus, first of all, the beautiful art of teaching. Yet, as Krugman reminds us:

“But many Americans are well-educated and work hard. For example, schoolteachers. Yet they don’t get the big bucks. Last year, those 25 hedge fund managers made more than twice as much as all the kindergarten teachers in America combined. And, no, it wasn’t always thus: The vast gulf that now exists between the upper-middle-class and the truly rich didn’t emerge until the Reagan years.

Thus by letting money changers earn much more money than teachers, the corrupt government of the USA (that includes the corrupt lawmakers assembled in a corrupt, money drenched organization called Congress), have decided that money changing is much more important than teaching. Or, in other words, that a sort of recent conspiracy of a few oligarchs mattered more than the essence of humanity, learning.

Krugman exposes in his own way what some of the money changers of the hedge type do:

“ignore the rhetoric about “job creators” and all that. Conservatives want you to believe that the big rewards in modern America go to innovators and entrepreneurs, people who build businesses and push technology forward. But that’s not what those hedge fund managers do for a living; they’re in the business of financial speculation, which John Maynard Keynes characterized as “anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.” Or since they make much of their income from fees, they’re actually in the business of convincing other people that they can anticipate average opinion about average opinion.

… hedge funds are a bad deal for everyone except their managers; they don’t deliver high enough returns to justify those huge fees, and they’re a major source of economic instability.”

Amusingly, Krugman used to want many currencies, hence many currency changers, inside Europe. And that, in turn, to prevent, precisely those instabilities, is why the European currency, the Euro, was created. But let’s let that awkward observation glide away, in a spirit of communion…

It’s such a delight to have Krugman making famous these theses long obscurely exposed on this site, that I will quote him some more:

“More broadly, we’re still living in the shadow of a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. Total catastrophe was avoided by bailing out banks at taxpayer expense, but we’re still nowhere close to making up for job losses in the millions and economic losses in the trillions. Given that history, do you really want to claim that America’s top earners — who are mainly either financial managers or executives at big corporations — are economic heroes?

Finally, a close look at the rich list supports the thesis made famous by Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” — namely, that we’re on our way toward a society dominated by wealth, much of it inherited, rather than work.”

Bloomberg View’s Matt Levine points out, these days a lot of top money managers’ income comes not from investing other people’s money but from returns on their own accumulated wealth — that is, the reason they make so much is the fact that they’re already very rich.

And this is, if you think about, an inevitable development. Over time, extreme inequality in income leads to extreme inequality of wealth; indeed, the wealth share of America’s top 0.1 percent is back at Gilded Age levels.

There is a more general problem here. Ultimately income reflects the worth some values are perceived to have. By making finance, that is, money changing, more valuable than, roughly, anything else, we have money changing, that is, nothing, more valuable than anything else.

I sent a comment, that Krugman published right away. Here it is, slightly modified. It attracts attention on how Finance Supreme causes a global collapse, economically, morally, socially, and even genetically:

Hedge fund managers earn unfair amounts of money. Fairness is very important in primates. Confronted to injustice, even the simplest monkeys, experiments have shown, start to throw things at the heads of experimenters rather than working. So one will guess that an unfair society is not just abusive (and that’s bad for the genes themselves!), but also economically inefficient (if apes can’t throw things, maybe they drive dangerously, attack others, do drugs, and the couch potatoes).

Let me now add further dimensions to the complaint against the hyper rich. As is well known, as they can’t spend it all, they just store servants (slaves), land, anonymous companies (thus an entanglement of conspiracies worldwide, all the money in Dark Pools). Meanwhile worthy jobs (such as teachers) go starving.

Still another aspect is that, as they hold all the power, only those oligarchs are consulted to steer the world. We saw what it gives in Russia: a dictatorship harking to the most vicious tribalism, when the herd charges ahead to gore and trample whoever they have been told threaten it.

We saw what consulting that handful of oligarchs gave worldwide: a head-on rush to a catastrophe for the biosphere, unequalled in 600 million years, complete with a run-away greenhouse, acid ocean, and hypoxia.

In other words, the reign of hedge fund managers, the reign of Finance Supreme, and, more generally of oligarchy and plutocracy unchained, is the reign not just of unbounded greed, but the reign and rule of complete imbecility.

Human beings, and democracy, are smarter, when they are free to think and decide. Minds in chains have little worth, and we all end up poorer. This world needs more than 100 of the greediest, to think for us all, as if they were the greatest. In truth, we need all the minds we have.

Patrice Aymé


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism