Europe?

[Fletch]

Vgonis, your reply is fascinating and insightful. I'm probably going to read it a few times.

Initial thoughts that spring to my mind though -
I agree that "money" and the markets are all perceived values that ebb and flow by speculation, often by blood thirsty power players. To back that up as an example, Britain did not pull out of the Suez canal due to military weakness but rather due to a run on The Bank Of England. So it can work two ways, politics can be used to obtain wealth and wealth can be used for political ideology. (the rightness or wrongness of the British in the Suez I'm not going to discuss)

In Australia we are spending the national savings on a vast optical fibre Internet cable to EVERY HOME!!! My concern in this current world situation of ebbing markets, is that no matter how much I love my iPhone, it cannot produce a loaf of bread or a glass of milk. I wish we were behaving more like China and investing in stuff that is more depression proof.

Ok that was a slight digression from the European situation. I really hope things equalize peacefully, because greed or no greed, we are happiest when we are not worrying about the future. "Do unto others..."

Great to discuss these events with insightful citizens of the world, thank you.

[Justme]

Excellent post, VGONIS2002, thank you. I do agree with you on all points.
In an earlier post you said "

If you are a small nation, with enemies all around, you are bound to be the victim of a constant blackmail. Greece owes 300 Billion Euros, Italy 1,9 Trillion Euros and the USA 15 Trillion Dollars. Do the math and you will understand that Greece just is the test lab for the new type of economical colonization, that if it works will be forced to the rest of the world.

"

This is a very good summary in my view.

At the moment I am beginning to delve into an alternative economic theory called "Debitismus", developed by Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Steiger and Paul Martin. One of the key theories is that everything in our world is based on debts - and without gathering more and more debts our system will collapse (what happens now) in the end. A final collapse is inevitable because of the accumulating debt burden. Over time it becomes harder and harder to find additional debtors. At this point I do think of the "optical fibre Internet cable to EVERY HOME" as mentioned by Fletch in the post before.

The horrible two world wars restarted the economical system in the past, they meant some kind of a "financial haircut" or restart. 

A system error in our economy, as the "Debitismus" explains, is the creation of money by means of a two-tiered banking system consisting of central reserve banks (the only institution that can give out cash aka authorised medium of circulation) and commercial banks, who can create deposit money as mere numbers in your account.

This is all very theoretical and complicated and I am just starting to explore this theory.

You may get a glimpse here: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debitismus

There is also a Dissertation about the "Debitismus" to be found in the net, but I don't know the whole work yet: http://personer.samf.aau.dk/charlotte-bruun/downloads/working-papers/

But in the end it's all about the people, isn't it? I'm getting very angry about all this and at the same time more and more worried.

To end this post on a more positive note, I may conclude that it is time for me to reflect and change and to move away from the sacred cow that is money: it is time to invest in a circle of friends and not in government bonds or flat screens. The recent commercialism leads only to a further exhaustion of our planet.

By the way, another insightful journey into todays economical madness is to be found here: www.cityboy.biz

All the best!

[vgonis]

Justme, it seems that political developments, are way ahead of us. Even though I never liked Papandreou or Berlouskoni, the way they forced the parliaments of two (even just in name) democratic countries to accept new prime ministers that were not voted by the people, is a terrible sign of the evasiveness, similar to dictatorship, that EU should never have allowed, especially when it is done for money. As I already wrote, there were several other ways to deal with the profiteers that "attacked" Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal raising the cost of loaning in terrible heights. But now I think that all this was nothing but a Trojan horse. When they congratulate you for the change in government, it is scary. The new prime ministers are both economists-bankers, with credentials from the very banks - institutions (IMF, EU bank) that congratulate us. Economics is not a precise science. And yet the only solid thing in economics, HISTORY, is never taken into account by the economists. Plus, most of the modern leaders-politicians in Greece have studied in USA. I tend to think that even if they mean well, when they come back to join the political parties they belong (!!!) their minds are altered by the theories they are taught. Actually, they have become ambassadors of this school of thought,  that is spreading like a disease in Europe.

Anyway, in sociology, this reset/restart button of the two great WW, was noted and what's more they consider that the smaller wars around the world for the past 70 years, actually do the same thing only in small doses so that people won't complain. At the same time the cities grew larger and larger, and that actually meant that people were distanced from the land and the ways to obtain the necessary things (food) to cover their needs. In a way we are comfortably imprisoned in the walls of big cities, free to elect our guards, while at the same time we recognize that even for our smaller need we have to turn to them.


 
   
Thank you for the links, I will look into the sites you suggest. 

[dustyvalentino]

My thoughts on Europe:

The Final Countdown was their high watermark.

[Pottel]

one and only. but boy what a song..

[vgonis]

Yes, but the album before that "wings of tomorrow" was great even if it was harder, or maybe because of that. And their first album had it's moments. John Norum's instrumentals on each album were my favourites!

[vgonis]

"Italy's economy is hampered by high wage costs, low productivity, fat government payrolls, excessive taxes, choking bureaucracy, and an educational system that produces one of the lowest levels of college graduates among rich countries."

It is a carbon-copy of what they used to say about Greece! If you dare analyze this:
high wage costs, mean pay/pension cuts, new taxes
low productivity: (this is a joke!) lay offs, more working hours, lower wages
fat government payrolls: actually no matter how much you cut them, they will still be too much
excessive taxes: that always mean business taxation. People will feel the new taxes up their alley
Choking bureaucracy: this is the double edged knife. You hate it, yet it is necessary (in different form and volume) for a country with big national businesses and treasures
Educational system: the spine of a society  and offspring for the future generations. They have ruined it so completely that any chance for revival is a leap in the abyss


What I really don't understand, is why they keep saying that the public services are not efficient and PROFITABLE. I do get the not efficient part, but I don't get the profit side. The state should profit from the citizens - taxpayers? Is it a business or a service? And the taxpayers pay dearly for these services. Privatizing everything has already proven a mistake, since health and pensions have to be out of the reach of vultures. See the USA example.

   

[Fletch]

What I really don't understand, is why they keep saying that the public services are not efficient and PROFITABLE. I do get the not efficient part, but I don't get the profit side. The state should profit from the citizens - taxpayers? Is it a business or a service? And the taxpayers pay dearly for these services. Privatizing everything has already proven a mistake, since health and pensions have to be out of the reach of vultures. See the USA example.

   

It's a no brainer that when essential services are privatised then their Boards are obliged to increase profit for their shareholders every year. So yes, a government owned service can be profitable and therefore attractive to private investment.

One major failing of capitalism is that it's not okay to make a billion in profit and then do the same the next year. The share price falls - stupid really, but I don't know of a solution to this because it's based on competition for investment. Maybe there should be more emphasis placed on Boards and CEOs delivering dividends rather than a share price focus? Or maybe it is like this already, I don't know?

[vgonis]

What I really don't understand, is why they keep saying that the public services are not efficient and PROFITABLE. I do get the not efficient part, but I don't get the profit side. The state should profit from the citizens - taxpayers? Is it a business or a service? And the taxpayers pay dearly for these services. Privatizing everything has already proven a mistake, since health and pensions have to be out of the reach of vultures. See the USA example.

   

It's a no brainer that when essential services are privatised then their Boards are obliged to increase profit for their shareholders every year. So yes, a government owned service can be profitable and therefore attractive to private investment.

One major failing of capitalism is that it's not okay to make a billion in profit and then do the same the next year. The share price falls - stupid really, but I don't know of a solution to this because it's based on competition for investment. Maybe there should be more emphasis placed on Boards and CEOs delivering dividends rather than a share price focus? Or maybe it is like this already, I don't know?

Fletch you are right on the money!(pan intended)  I guess that taxpayers are no fools, but there is certainly a great amount of taxpayers-voters that clearly believe out of ideology, that private services are better, just because they are private. But the taxes give job to many people.
And yes I really don't understand the ever growing profit. I guess the original idea with share holders was totally different, like  long term  loans to the business in order to flourish, but this idea is lost forever.  I was watching yesterday the big fuss with the environmental tax that is passed down under. I believe that it is right to think of the environment, but it was not the right think to do, legislation wise, since they burden the small healthy enterprises with a tremendous cost, without at the same time offering a specific, obtainable solution to the problem. Unfortunately I don't have the whole picture, do you by any chance know about it?

[Fletch]

The idea is a carbon price (tax) on the 500 biggest Australian polluters, measured and payed by the ton. These companies then pass on the cost of course making us all suffer. However, the theory is that companies looking for a competitive edge will invest in ways to minimize the tax and therefore gain more customers and save the planet.

It could be argued that the government should just increase R&D in alternative power themselves but I think the tax will also reduce unnecessary waste from companies that pick up the challenge.

I'm really not altogether sure about the idea or the practicality, and we're certainly not going to be saving the planet! But it might give Aussie companies a competitive advantage when that time comes? One test will be whether thousands of Australians lose their jobs directly because of this over the next two years.

[Justme]

A really interesting but demanding topic, thanks to all participants so far.

By the way, in the EU exists something similar to the carbon taxation in Australia. It's called "Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)" http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm ; Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

In Germany some companies got so many emission trading certificates assigned, that it would be more profitable for the companies to sell these certificates than to pursuit their normal businesses. There also had been trades where buyers and sellers are one and the same, but cannot be identified because a third party initiates the trade, so eventually it could be possible to evade taxes.

Another incomprehensible move by the EU is the banishment of conventional light bulbs. These energy saving lamps provide an unnatural light spectrum, cost a lot more and in the end they may harm the environment because of their problematic components such as     quicksilver etc. And there is a lot more....

The EU as an idea may be a beautiful utopia but the current implementation is becoming a nightmare for the normal people.

[vgonis]

Well, finding in AMIT, people to talk about such matters is wonderful. The combination of MK and serious world matters is somehow a plus.

I have been talking to many people about these energy matters, trying to form an opinion, and have done some search through the internet, but it looks as though that the interests are strong and conflicting, because I get all sorts of contradictory opinions. Of course some things are plain to see. Nuclear power is the worst way to produce energy. Coal and oil are damaging enough, and expensive. And then we come to the bio-fuel that are not completely innocent,  solar energy which is not that efficient yet, wind power which demands much space, wave energy and other lesser known and efficient energies. All of the research for energy has started over 50 years ago, but the big oil companies have stopped or distorted in order to confuse people. Now with the monopoly of fuels and energy, and the economical failure of the nations, all the alternative ways to produce energy are held "hostage" by the big oil companies. Why BP got away with a slap on the wrists, after the tremendous damage they've done to the Gulf of Mexico? Why GM revoked all the electric cars and bought out the companies that have developed the new batteries they used? (see "Who killed the electric car")
But in my opinion the little things that we can do as consumers can (up to a point) change the course of the world. Spending less energy and restricting ourselves from wasteful and meaningless use of resources.
In Greece we have large mines of coal used to produce energy. They force us to sell them or close them down, when energy in Greece is the only public service that produces cheap energy. Greece has so little industry, that the carbon emissions in total are coming mainly from energy factories. The weird thing is that many citizens willing to put solar or wind power installations at their houses find it extremely hard and illogically expensive due to many  crazy laws, certainly passed to protect both the oil companies and the electric company. So we are still forced to pay through the electric bill the Emission tax!
Buying emission certificates is not that uncommon, since countries do it. But it is illogical. It shouldn't be allowed. And the electric bulbs? Well it saves energy but they do harm the environment with quicksilver. (it is silly but at the same time they burnished thermometers with quicksilver, introducing electronic ones with ...batteries!)  It is a difficult call, but the ever growing pollution affect our lives in such ways that all the advantages that have increased our life expectancy, are rapidly vanishing, so we might as well consider going back to some old ways. But it is hard to even suggest something, and this is what we need now. 

   

[Justme]

Well, finding in AMIT, people to talk about such matters is wonderful. The combination of MK and serious world matters is somehow a plus. 

And it is remarkable to me that I can relate and agree to all the things that have been discussed here. Is it possible to launch a new state, let's call it AMIT people, any objections?  Maybe MK could write an anthem for this new state.

Joking aside, concerning the energy issues, millions and millions of taxpayer's dough is currently being spent on the (further) development of electrical cars. I'm not sure yet, if this is a good thing. Or just a way to feed the industry with subsidies. There are a lot of problems due to today's technology of rechargeable batteries.


Another aspect is that I've only seen permanent mounted batteries in cars so far. Wouldn't it be more simple to hire a loaded battery at the "petrol" station when you are running out of energy?

But what about the toxic and rare elements that are today needed to build a new battery. Today's batteries are far to heavy, chemical reactions could be very dangerous in case of an accident. 

One day this all could be changed due to extensive research leading to new battery technologies, so taxpayer's money would have been invested properly.

But then, where does all the power come from? Please don't get me wrong, I'm all with you when you say "Nuclear power is the worst way to produce energy".

The only way to deal with these current and future problems seems to be a change in our behaviour and consumption habits. Gonna change my way of thinking! (*)

VGONIS2002, you did mention http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/.

I'll look into that, thanks!


(*) Without the recent BD/MK tour I wouldn't have explored the whole work of Dylan like I do now. Of course I knew some of his songs, but I never listened to his songs so intensive. Thanks Mark! ;-)

[dustyvalentino]

Willie Nelson runs a tour bus on biodiesel.

MK probably uses it in his jet, he reads The Guardian.

[Hophead]

Willie also runs when he plays golf..that energy alone should solve all our problems.   
As far as the battery issue goes..it's probably just a matter of a few years before the nanotech field comes up with a light-weight battery.
I do like the idea of a new state though..maybe we could convince Mark to let us use TOL as our anthem.