Debt Rattle July 20 2016
- This topic has 8 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Harris&Ewing Newsie, Washington DC 1920 • To the Mattresses: Cash Levels Highest In Nearly 15 Years (CNBC) • The Financial System Is Breaking Down At
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle July 20 2016]Ran into this while doing my daily run through Japanese news – then backtracked and tried to find the same story during first level searches of my other news sources – not even visible on the “business” pages-
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160720_03/
So- possibly in an attempt to suck up to “regulators”; Volkswagen ratted out it’s partners in a 14 year old collusion to keep the price of commercial trucks high. The EU regulators, supposedly enraged at this theft of money from consumers/business; have decreed a record fine of $3.2 billion – on the other truck companies.
Boy, that’ll show ’em! Hit ’em where it hurts, in the pocketbook!
And here we are at a place where the public and journalists stop right there, never asking A) “did those responsible for the naughtiness get punished?” – no, no executives are paying a dime; and B) “who is actually going to pay this fine?” – when we all really know the answer is “the consumers”. Not even stockholders; they’ll find a way to inflate a price here and there- so the money comes right out of the victims’ pockets.
We know it. And yet we really all agree to just stick to the fairytale script; “Crime does not pay, even for big corporations!”
Thank goodness we all get well trained in logic and reason, and behave rationally.
Canadians get helicopter money!!!
The new Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is expected to push tens of thousands of Canadian children above the poverty line, and could help stimulate an economy that could use a jolt in the arm.
jal, that’s “helicopter debt.” All that money needs to be paid back with interest to a private international banking cartel with your assets and the assets of your country backing the inextinguishable debt (from the standpoint of ordinary people, anyway). Steve Keen was technically correct when he explained how debts were theoretically payable, but he inadvertently exposed how it was impossible for ordinary people to pay their debts. He was called out on it an ran away like a child whose hand was caught in the cookie jar and as a man who was heeding the warning given to Paul Krugman to “never touch the money system…” because “you are killing yourself ACADEMICALLY.”
-Read the comments section where Keen has his pants pulled down and is unable to intellectually pull them back up…
The Principal And Interest On Debt Myth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/03/30/the-principal-and-interest-on-debt-myth-2/#23e870ae6823Here’s Paul Krugman being exposed as Bankster Goebbels fraud…
Krugman to Lietaer: “Never touch the [debt-]money system!”
“Didn’t they (MIT economics professors) tell you, never touch the money system!”
~Paul Krugman“You are killing yourself academically if you touch the money system.”
~Paul KrugmanAnd here’s necessary information to comprehend a much fuller scope of Debt-Money Tyranny, the fear of which causes grown men and women to cower and slither…
“If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt—above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong.”
~David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 YearsInequality: Why are the rich getting richer?
Debt Is Not a Choice
How To Be a Crook
Renaissance 2.0
Debunking Money
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
― Napoléon BonaparteFor anyone who would like to read something good about the weather, here is a cheerful article:
“Boom times: unseasonal winter rains bring life and economic certainty to outback South Australia”
It would seem that the climate in Australia is not that different from 100 years ago.
Also from NASA (2014)
“Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum”
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
They don’t seem to have published the data for 2015 yet.
The following article says “Arctic sea ice is 1.2 million square kilometers below average. Antarctic Sea ice is 1.7 million above average.”
https://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/antarctic-sea-ice-record-high-600000km2-more-than-previous-record/
Isn’t that amazing? And that would make the South Pole measurably heavier, but the north pole lighter? What effects would this have on the compression/distortion of the earth? Since polar sea ice is waterborne, can they accurately measure back 50,000 years like they can in the Antarctic? And the two numbers roughly match, but why? There is a theory proposing that the earth is (more) electrical than we generally assume, and could transmit cold and heat through the planet in the same way a thermocouple uses the Seebeck effect. (We may see something of this in Saturn’s hexagonal polar formation) So with enough electrical input, you could literally pump heat to one side of the planet and cold to the other, particle by particle. Whether this is actually true remains to be seen, but it would explain the bizarre symptoms, and would in that case support that the warming problem may be due to additional sun output (as suggested by all the planets warming), which would also further support why warming and cooling run like clockwork over the many Ice Ages — it’s the natural heartbeat of the sun. Now if only we could build an experiment on the premise and (dis)prove it. Science!
Nassim. This is pretty much in line with the James Hansen paper from last year. If I understand correctly, his thesis is as follows.
1. Warmer conditions cause more glacial melting, at a rate that creates a lens of fresh water from the glaciers over the top of the salt water ocean.
2. The lens, being fresh, floats on and freezes at a higher temperature than salt water, creating more sea ice which also acts as an insulator for the warmer salt water which has less opportunity to release its energy to the air.
3. That results in warmer water still being applied to the undersides of floating glacier fields, melting them faster and, when rising sea level overtops the barriers on the shoreline, pouring warm water into the basins under land based glaciers, accelerating the whole process.
The next bit is the killer.
4. The greatly increased ice coverage of the Antarctic oceans will extract more heat from the air above them, creating an even steeper temperature gradient between the polar air and the still-warming tropical air.
5. The gradient is averaged out in the roaring 40’s which will become even more violent as the differential increases.
As a Kiwi who lives in the said 40’s, I am not looking forward to the storms with winds in the 300kph+ range.
The final piece of that particular puzzle is that, although the air around the Antarctic will still freeze the nuts off a tractor, it will still be much warmer than it has been and therefore carry more moisture which will precipitate out as snow on the upper reaches of the glaciers, providing plenty of new snow to sustain the process. For a very long time.Diablo. Small point of science. As you say, the arctic ice floats. So it doesn’t matter whether it is in the form of ice or water, its mass is the same. What changes when it freezes is its volume/displacement, which is why it floats – same mass greater volume.
The same applies to the southern ocean in the other direction. The question is whether there would be more or less ice on the ground in Antarctica, and the answer appears to be, for the moment, about the same or possibly slightly more. The mass of the circumpolar sea will be, within a reasonable margin of error, the same and will apply no more force to the tectonics than before.
There WILL be a difference as sea level rises from more land ice melting – Greenland for example – because that will shift some of the load from the land to the sea. The effect of extra water in the sea will be minimal because it will, more or less, spread out over the whole ocean floor but removing a significant proportion of the ice from Greenland may very well have geological consequences.
Incidentally but related, Sweden/Norway used to be under 10km of ice in the last ice age and since the melt they have been very slowly rising, like a springboard relieved of its weight. I have friends near Märsta which, if my Swedish is right, means something like the place where the sea “Mär” stops “sta”, it used to be a Viking fishing port and is now several km inland.
So the apparent shift in weight on the poles will be mostly that, apparent, rather than real and I would guess unlikely to affect the rate of earthquakes. BTW, do you have a link to a graph of the incidence/scale of global earthquakes over the last 20-50 years to back up the assertion?
Apart from the loss of mass from Greenland, it might be interesting to explore the effects of sea encroachment as levels rise onto land which is now under air but will become under water. That too may have local geological effects, although I would guess only in places already subject to existing geological stresses, again, like NZ where I live.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.