Debt Rattle March 5 2015
- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Harris&Ewing Washington, DC, Storm damage..” Between 1913 and 1918 • Liquidity Evaporates In China As ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Nears (AEP) • China Lowers Growth
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle March 5 2015]Are they endangering the refugees by accepting them and therefore encouraging thousands more to attempt the journey, enriching dangerous smugglers, or are they helping them by apprehending them and placing them in the system? In other words, if Italy refused and returned all refugees harshly, would the overall numbers stop this dangerous activity and thereby save lives? Would these good people then focus on improving and restoring their home country? Or would they simply be killed at home instead of at sea? Wouldn’t the millions spent on carry fees be better spent in Libya instead of transferring them to bad and selfish men? How would that change Libyan society and recovery?
If Italy instead accepts the refugees, who pays for their restoration, food, shelter, legal fees, highly expensive rescue ships, etc? Should the Italians pay? How can Italy afford to mitigate all the social problems in Libya? Why just Libya? Why not Chad, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Greece and the Ukraine as well? Would it have been more cost-effective not to have bombed Libya, toppled the government, and caused a total social collapse on their border? Next time, should that cost be estimated as the cost of war and attributed to the Italian Defense budget?
If you receive 4,000/mo. or 170,000/yr of non-italian speakers into a country of 60 million, with an unemployment rate between 20% and 40%, aren’t you basically importing the horrors of war and collapse into Italy? Why would you voluntarily do that if you could, for example, use the same expense to help Libyans in Libya instead? How does importing them help the Italian people and how does it fit with the national mandate to care for and represent those people?
That’s a lot of questions. But helping the first person in need with no thought of the next one may end up hurting hundreds or thousands without their permission. This is the logic of the seen and the unseen. We can do better than that.
Here is the plan for QEU:
Start slow.
Make it up as we go.
Do it for as long as we want.
It will all be good.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-05/ecb-releases-qa-and-terms-and-conditions-europes-first-q%E2%82%AC“…emails obtained by EnergyWire reporter Mike Soraghan reveal that the University of Oklahoma and its oil industry funders were putting pressure on OGS scientists to downplay the connection between earthquakes and the injection of fracking wastewater underground. In 2013, a preliminary OGS report noted possible correlation between the two, and OGS signed on to a statement by the U.S. Geological Survey that also noted such linkages. Soon after, OGS’s seismologist, Austin Holland, was summoned to meetings with the president of the university, where OGS is housed, and with executives of oil company Continental. Continental CEO Harold Hamm was a major university funder, while the university president David Boren serves on Continental’s board, for which he earned $272,700 in cash and stock in 2013.”
This is disgusting. Harold Hamm says, “My good friend, David Boren, I’ll fund your university, and I’ll pay you $272,000 in cash and stock. All I ask of you is TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY.”
And poor Mr. Holland has to compromise his principles, to lie when he wants to tell the truth, in order to keep his job and feed his family. Disgusting, but I’m sure this is more the norm than not.
I never used to see a problem with corporations giving money to universities. Before I found a brain buried deep inside myself, I used to think, “So the corporations are helping the universities out. What’s the big deal?” Now the first thing I wonder is: why are they doing this; what’s their motive?
“They all take empire as a given. They all take overshoot as a given. All of this is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. The real world must always be more important than our social system, in part because without a real world you can’t have any social system whatsoever. It’s embarrassing to have to write this. […]
When people ask how we can stop polluting the oceans with plastic, they don’t really mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic?” They mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic and still have this way of life?”
And when they ask how we can stop global warming, they really mean, “How can we stop global warming without stopping this level of energy usage?”. When they ask how we can have clean groundwater, they really mean, “How can we have clean groundwater while we continue to use and spread all over the environment thousands of useful but toxic chemicals that end up in groundwater?”
The answer to all of these is: you can’t. […] How do we stop them? We stop them.”
@Raleigh – It is disgusting. The more I read, the more aware I become of all that is disgusting. How could we humans allow this to happen to ourselves, to the animals, to the environment, to the planet. We can’t stop ‘them’, we must stop ourselves first.
Victoria Nuland Kagan is the distilled essence of neo conservatism. She is married to Robert Kagan whose family might be said to be among the first families of neo conservatism. Her first state department job was an chief of staff of the Assistent SOS Strobe Talbot who was among the leaders of NATO expansion east and rejecting the end of the cold war. It was the Clinton administration that set in motion todays events by guaranteeing Russia would be an enemy and I don’t use the term lightly.
George Kennan one of the primary architects of post WWII Russian containment was agast.
”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves
And what was America’s response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia’s borders.Yes, tell your children, and your children’s children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.
We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age — one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.
So Nuland is still around because Obama and Hillary kept her around because this project against Russia is totally bi partisan.
It may be a false choice. In one way, yes, we would have to stop using so much plastic, so much oil; but guess what? Our quality of life doesn’t depend on it. In truth, we waste most of the plastic and most of the oil on things we don’t love and on things that aren’t necessary. In the U.S. for instance, centralizing schools so there is an hour bus ride, and therefore a million soccer moms driving 2-3x as far to activities. Triple-packaging products and foods when everybody loves and indeed prefers coke bottles in a wooden crate, sausages hung open over the counter, and waxed paper to wrap them in. I can say this categorically, for this is what our false nostalgia sells in supermarkets, restaurants, and home decor. This is what top-end hipster foods sell, and why we love it. This is what we dream of inside. So we would have to live closer, drive less, recycle, use less of things that cost more. Is that a drop in standard of living, as suggested above? It’s a drop in GDP. It’s a drop in the amounts we buy and the number of things we have. But it is also an increase of happiness and satisfaction in life, by making it matter, doing what we love and what is right, and a deep economic efficiency that is also sustainability that replaces the present insanity.
Is it a drop in standard to living to live better and do what we love? You decide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.