anticlimactic
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another attack on Trump which has turned into a fiasco!
The enquiry was to prove collusion between Trump and Russia and ends up with someone briefly working for Trump with someone who was pro-Russian!
It looks really pathetic.
PS. Harvey Weinstein was a close friend of the Clintons. One article has claimed his downfall as a Trump ‘win’.
‘Is the swamp being drained?’
Possibly!
Firstly I must say that I am glad Trump was elected. Hillary made no secret that she was more than willing to go to war with Russia and I think there is a strong chance most of us would be dead by now had she been elected. I can forgive Trump a lot for just not being Hillary!
He said the right things before the election – no more foreign wars; NATO is a dinosaur which should be scrapped. However, after the election. he seemed to become an instant NEOCON, which disappointed huge numbers of people.
The only remaining question is whether this is a ploy as some of his die hard supporters hope. Certainly if you are entering a swamp full of alligators it would be a good idea to look like an alligator!
Odd things seem to be happening :
– James Comey sacked and disgraced
– A spotlight on Hillary Clinton for the Uranium One deal and the ‘Trump dossier’
– Over 50% of Americans now realise the media is biased
– CIA ordered to stop supporting Al Nusra in Syria
– The ‘Deep State’ is now in full view
– Release of the JFK papers which could embarass the security services [*]After a year of relentless attacks on Trump it seems the attackers are coming off worse. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next year.
* JFK – There was a persuasive documentary in the UK a few years ago which suggested the fatal shot was from a bodyguard in the following car [back seat, left side]. Although the program suggested it was accidental it would explain why the security services would not like it widely known. Less so if it wasn’t accidental!
Catalonia and Blockchain
Catalonia issuing its’ own currency is an intriguing idea. Here in the UK a few villages issued their own currency in the form of notes. The idea was to keep money in the local economy. Any currency is dependent on the willingness of others to accept it in exchange for goods and services and these currencies had strong local support, although I do not know if they still survive.
I think the ICOs missed a trick – they should have been ISOs : Initial Share Offering. If they had been selling shares rather than ‘coins’ AND they all used the same blockchain then it would have created a virtual stock market. Dividends would be paid in shares which were bought on the market and allocated to the shareholders. Such a cheap way to issue shares would mean that a system like this could grow very rapidly, especially for smaller companies. It starts to undermine the need for Wall Street.
Estonia’s voting blockchain is also a brilliant idea and is needed in most countries, especially America. Despite all the allegations of Russian interference it was noticed that there are more registered voters than there are actual potential voters!
* For those who say Bitcoin is for criminals as it is anonymous : every Bitcoin has a record of EVERYONE who has ever owned it! [As some criminals found out!]
Carbon reduction
I can imagine that the US and UK have reduced their carbon emissions.
If you export your manufacturing to China it will do that!
The losses in these countries are increases in China.
INFLATION
When inflation was high the US and UK changed the way that inflation was measured to reduce it. I have not heard about these methods being changed so is true inflation actually being measured.
The cost of goods is strongly related to the cost of energy used to create it. Oil, coal and natural gas have had their prices hammered so the cost of new goods is reduced.
Online selling has enabled customers to shop around for the cheapest offering and so reducing the price being paid for goods.
Then there is the ‘China effect’ [Globalisation]. Goods made in the western world are being replaced by cheap imports. This may also mask high inflation – if inflation is 6% but imports cause deflation of 6% then zero inflation!
There seems to be few drivers for inflation.
The global economy is driven by the conversion of energy into new goods In this case money is usually used as a convenience to avoid the need for barter.
Money does not physically exist and so can be [and is] created in any quantity. This money is often used for pre-existing items such as shares, houses, land and art. In effect it just inflates the prices of these items without helping the global economy in the slightest. It may create a ‘wealth effect’ but these are paper profits. They only become profits when they are sold, when the prices may be very different.
Alternatively money can be used for other money products such as bonds [debt], again doing little for the economy. Debt is borrowing from the future. If it is national debt then it may help the current economy but leaves the bills for the young to pay in the future. If it is companies borrowing to buy their own shares it does nothing for the economy and puts the companise at risk if they can not service their debts. If it is personal debt then it simply means they will not be able to buy as many goods in the future.
Also :
The US spends quite a few resources harming the economies of other countries through war, sanctions and ‘other’ means.
The financial system is alse used to harm economies, usually though debt.
Finally for many emerging markets any person who gets rich is strongly encouraged to move their cash to the West, removing investment potential. For example I read that 10 trillion dollars had been transferred from Africa to the West.
So why should the Global economy grow?
The Bitcoin article makes no sense whatever!
When Bitcoin was created it was worth a fraction of a dollar and I have always assumed it was created for micro-payments. Also consider that over the years computing power per kilowatt has increased tremendously implying that when Bitcoins were worth a few cents it required thousands of kilowatt hours per transaction!!!!
However, new Bitcoins can be created by ‘mining’ which DOES require huge amounts of computing power. As more Bitcoins are mined the computing power needed to create more increases. Also there is a fixed limit on how many Bitcoins can exist. When this limit is reached no more Bitcoins can be mined, ever.
Given the antipathy to Bitcoin you are never sure if articles like this or just misunderstanding or propaganda.
Generating global growth through debt is a questionable tactic.
The global economy is driven by selling new items, so it depends on how much of this money is spent on these things.
Money can be spent on other financial instruments such as shares, bonds and derivatives, none of which helps grow the global economy. This money can also be spent on second hand items such as houses, cars, paintings, etc which also does little for the global economy. If shares and houses increase in value then they suck in huge amounts of cash which then can not help the global economy. If prices fall it destroys money which can no longer help the global economy.
If cheap money is given to the very rich there is only so many new items they can buy so most of the money will be used on financial products, houses or other non-productive assets.
For a middle class person with a well paid job and job security then debt is merely a convenience and are likely to be good consumers.
For the lower paid whose wages may be static and little confidence in their job security then debt is a burden. They are likely to be poor consumers concentrating on essentials.
I see little reason to think that issuing debt will result in buying new items rather than simply inflating the price of things which already exist!
BITCOIN
The article says that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but no currency has. Currency does not physically exist except in the form of tokens or electrons on a disk. Money is essential for day to day life where money goes in to your bank account and is used to pay for bills and goods. The ‘value’ doesn’t matter – it is just far better than barter.
However, because money does not physically exist it can be created in any amount. The trick is to make people think this money has value and will take it exchange for things which do exist. That is the next trick : to convert this intangible asset in to physical assets.
The best way is debt. Lend individuals, companies and whole countries money, preferably more than they can repay. You can then acquire their assets at a fraction of their true worth. There are wrinkles to make things cheaper….
The IMF always insists countries who borrow should open up their markets to international competition. Obviously the multinationals wipe the floor with small local companies, putting people out of work, lowering the GDP and reducing the worth of the local currency as well as creating a balance of payments deficit.
‘Austerity’ is a new wrinkle – obviously designed to reduce GDP and make it more difficult to pay off debts. Then you can demand the country helps pay off some debts by selling their assets at whatever price they can get, like Greece.
All financial assets do not physically exist : money, bonds, derivatives, futures, etc. yet these things are used to control the world.
I read that the top 1% own 50% of global wealth but I see nothing to stop it increasing.
GREEN ENERGY
It is easy to recognise Green Energy as it does not require subsidies. It produces more energy than it takes to create so will find no problems with investment.That leaves hydroelectric. If CO2 is your poison then arguably nuclear energy is ‘green’. Biodiesel from soya may also qualify but I am wary about turning food into fuel.
I would argue that the basic cost of something is related to the amount of energy needed to create it. Even wages are spent on energy intensive items such as food, fuel and gadgets. If it needs a subsidy then you seriously need to question why. Does it require more energy to make than it produces? You may notice that subsidies often happen to make a few people wealthy, so is it just a scam? I certainly think so.
SWIFT
SWIFT is an international organisation owned by its’ users so the US has no direct power to cut off China. It can of course blackmail, threaten or intimidate users into backing the idea, as it did with Iran. However, China is such a massive trading partner to so many countries that any move to do this would fail..
China has been trying hard to move away from the dollar in trading so any move to stop China from using them could vastly accelerate this. China could to say to countries it trades with ‘stop trading or use another currency”. I doubt if many countries could afford to stop trading with China overnight! Even just the threat may be enough to enable China to further move away from the dollar.
All movements of dollars must be cleared through the US so if this is used as a blackmail then ANY company must seriously think about using alternatives to the dollar. If the IMF does introduce a blockchain SDR early next year it may be much more popular than it would have been.
I feel this threat will do a great deal of damage to the US.
I remember reading that the USSR failed because so much was spent on military spending trying to keep up with the USA that it went bankrupt. I feel that the US is now in the same position but all the money is being spent to fight mythical enemies!
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are being portrayed as mighty monsters champing at the bit and ready to destroy the world! They’re not. They are countries who just want to trade with the rest of the world without the threat of interference from the US.
The US is close to spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. The banks have had trillions of free money to try and cover their gambling debts. But the vast majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, the infrastructure is crumbling, most pensions are in jeopardy, the police are becoming increasingly militarised and unconstrained by laws, and despite spending fantastic amounts on healthcare it is still behind any other developed country.
The only thing keeping the US solvent is that the world is willing to invest trillions in supporting US debt. This could change quickly sending the US over the edge.
I remember reading an article many years ago when inflation was high describing how the US and UK government changed the way inflation was measured in order to hide it.
From what I remember one technique was ‘substitution’, so if the price of beef went up it was substituted in the ‘basket’ by a cheaper meat.
Also, the concept of ‘functionality’. If the price of a car went up then it often came with new features which were given additional value so reducing the actual inflation figure. In a similar way new computers usually came with much more memory and disk space, etc., so in equivalent terms the price had gone down a lot even if it was the same price.
This caused a guy in the States to create ‘Shadowstats’ which tries to show real inflation and joblessness, which are far different than the official figures.
I have never heard of these governments changing their methods so they could be trying to determine inflation using methods designed to hide it!
I also remember reading about the importance of Trade Unions at the beginning of the 20th century. By increasing worker’s wages it meant they had some money to spend on non-essential items, spawning new industries and jobs, and so on in a loop.
Now I read that workers are likely to get no pay rise, or even a reduction, turning this loop into reverse.
I feel we are moving back to Victorian times. We will end up with the very rich and a small middle class to pander to their needs, with everyone else left to fend for themselves as best they can! [Almost there!]
Accidental or deliberate?
CARBON CAPTURE
Carbon capture is simple – it is called ‘charcoal’! South America has the most fertile soil on the planet, ‘black earth’. Investigation shows that this earth can be up to 90% charcoal. The natives must have been adding charcoal for hundreds of years. A close approximation to this earth can be made by combining straw, animal manure and charcoal.
Charcoal in soil has the advantage of storing moisture and nutrients. It should need less fertiliser and could prevent runoff of any fertiliser there. Because it is very fertile you can get a virtuous circle where it absorbs more CO2 as it grows more plants. The charcoal will stay in the ground for thousands of years.
Another possibility is those huge Dutch greenhouse which are measured in kilometers! They can be used on scrubby soils in hot climates which would not normally support crops. Hydroponics means the amount of water used is kept to a minimum. Also because plants thrive on higher levels of CO2 they pump additional CO2 in. In addition there is no fertiliser runoff as it is used on an ‘as needed’ basis.
I would love to see some of the billions wasted on CCS and ‘renewables’ being spent on projects like those above. I think both are sustainable and good for the planet. Perhaps it is not viable because any subsidies would go to the ‘wrong’ people – small enterprises rather than large companies!
[I certainly wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a cavern filled with CO2 under pressure! If it breaches the surface then CO2 is a heavy gas which hugs the ground killing any animal or human in its path!]
TESLA
Some time ago I read on ZeroHedge that “Tesla had total sales of $3 billion, and subsidies of $1.5 billion. Tesla struggles to make 50,000 cars per year and they are so expensive only the very rich can afford them. Tesla makes a loss on every car.” [condensed]In what universe is this a viable business?! Musk seems to me to be the modern DeLorean, a guy who made cars for as long as the subsidies kept coming. At least Musk had the foresight to acquire huge persomal wealth so will not have the financial problems DeLorean had!
The idea seems to be that although Tesla makes losses on very expensive cars they will make a profit on much cheaper cars! Tesla are not protected by patents so if sales take off the large manufacturers are ready with their electric cars.
Electric cards are often falsely described as ‘zero emmissions’ when in reality it is simply that the emmissions are produced elsewhere. Also electric card use more energy than conventional cars.[www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-30/inconvenient-truth-about-electric-vehicles]
Beyond that : if electric cars really take off and become 10%-20% of vehicles on the road then the power grid will not be able to cope, requiring an investment of tens or hundreds of billions to upgrade it.
There is a lot of wishful thinking with regards to electric cars but at some point reality has to be taken into account, although not before huge amounts of taxpayers money has been given as subsidies.
Energy returned om energy invested [EROI] is an important metric when it comes to fossil fuels. However it is also important when it come to renewables.
Electric cars for example use more energy than conventional cars. Modern cars convert 25-30% of the fuel in to useful energy, but fossil fuel power stations achieve 40%. However electricity is lost in transmission lines and transformers making electric cars less efficient. The only justification for electric cars is ‘saving CO2’ because most Western countries have some non-fossil fuel energy, mainly nuclear. A major issue is that if electric cars become a significant percentage of vehicles then no power grid could cope with the massive demand for power, requiring an upgrade costing tens or hundreds of billions.
Biofuels need as much or more energy to create then they provide [the exception may be oil from soya beans]. The use of biofuels was only ever a reason to subsidise farmers: sugar beet farmers in the EU and corn farmers in the US. Why any Green organisation would back them needs explanation.
Wind and solar CAN be effective, however they are often misused. Solar panels make no sense in Northern Europe but on German roofs they provide a nice subsidy to the middle class. [and elsewhere]. Wind turbines can produce useful energy but can cost a lot to connect remote locations to the grid. Also they are often misplaced so need subsidies to make them profitable, of course.
‘Renewables’ are often promoted because they ‘save CO2’ but Mankind only contributes around 3.5% of the annual CO2 production and the amount of CO2 ‘saved’ is so small it makes no difference. However ‘saving CO2’ is an excuse to transfer tens or hundreds of billions to the better off. A bit sickening when so many are being badly affected by ‘austerity’. There is never austerity on renewables! Also, you would think that if it is ‘saving the planet’ people and companies would do it on a ‘not for profit’ basis. I have never heard of such a case! Although marketed as ‘saving the planet’, as ever. it just another case of making the rich richer.
Finally I would say that if I produce a widget which produces more energy than it take to create I would never need a subsidy. As a rule of thumb : if it needs a subsidy it is NOT saving the planet!
