The Political Thread

[Something Fishy]

I would say the same.  I've worked for LG and also been on the Parish and you really do learn a lot about how it works on there.

I'll be looking to go back into it when my son grows up.

[chilipenguin]

Thanks for the advice guys. I figure I have a year to get myself prepared for this, so any and all advice is very much appreciated. I will definitely be looking into the local community council (if there even is one in my neck of the woods. I know there are definitely a few in the county).

Cheers!

[The Legendary Shark]

An email I just got from positivemoney.org which some may find interesting:

"Dear Mark,

"58% of the Icelandic public voted against the latest plans to pay back UK savers for the £3.5bn lost by British and Dutch investors in Icesave. After borrowing 3 times the GDP of the Icelandic economy, doubling house prices on the back of bribing economists to provide favourable assessments of the highly leveraged country, and entering the UK banking market, Landsbanki, marketed in the UK as Icesave, collapsed during the financial crisis.

"The Icelandic prime minister said the choice was the "worst option", meaning that it now seems likely that the British and Dutch governments will take Iceland to court over the £168 million the Icelandic public are expected to have to cover, after the assets of Icesave have been sold. £168 million doesn't seem like a lot of money, but to a country with a little over 300,000 citizens, the payout could amount to around £600 for every man, woman, and child in the country. One Icelandic commentator said "If all bank losses must be paid by the taxpayer, all bank profits should be kept by the taxpayer", the double standards involved in a system that guarantees enormous private profit and socialised losses are rarely clearer than in Iceland. The father and son team heading up Landsbanki were the two richest people in the small nation.

"The choice of the public to leave it to the courts may not have been the best decision economically, the court will likely rule in favour of the UK and Dutch governments, but the decision to take a stand can only be applauded. Iceland are likely to remain "outsiders" in international financial markets, their credit rating will likely be downgraded once again. The legal process could take up to two years to be resolved, and will likely feature prominently in news coverage when it begins.

"In the UK the Independent Commission are due to report back tomorrow, some journalists who were given early access have reported that the report is likely to suggest "firewalls" between investment and retail banking divisions, to prevent newly created money from being easily borrowed by investment banking divisions. Whether this will systemically prevent risky and socially harmful investment banking operations from being funded by money creation is as of yet an unknown.

"It is likely that investment banks will be required to hold their own capital, shielding losses from being absorbed by retail banks holding deposits. Banks have already begun to criticise this, claiming they will be put at an international disadvantage, and they expect ratings agencies to downgrade their ratings accordingly. The banks are also worried about the prospect of having to raise their own capital to form these subsidiary companies, and would prefer a system of "resolution", whereby the investment banking operations are only split into seperate companies in the case of bankruptcy.

"When the report is released tomorrow we will be going through it with a toothcomb, so expect more analysis of what it all means in laymans terms, and what the likely next steps are for the banking reform process.

"Best regards

Ben Curtis"

So, do we side with the Icelandic people against the banks, side with British investors against the Icelandic taxpayers or what?

[The Legendary Shark]

Peter Joseph (of the Zeitgeist Movement) interviewed on Russia Today:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr7-Qbbrwyw

[House of Usher]

I would say the same.  I've worked for LG and also been on the Parish and you really do learn a lot about how it works on there.

Duh! 

I've only just realized what you meant when you said you've worked for LG. I thought you meant the Korean electronics manufacturer! I'm really not getting enough sleep - my intellect is plummeting by the day. I need to get out of retail or get more sympathetic hours.

[House of Usher]

One Icelandic commentator said "If all bank losses must be paid by the taxpayer, all bank profits should be kept by the taxpayer", the double standards involved in a system that guarantees enormous private profit and socialised losses are rarely clearer than in Iceland. The father and son team heading up Landsbanki were the two richest people in the small nation.

That was a beautifully written letter by Curtis of positivemoney.org

[The Legendary Shark]

If you haven't seen any of the Zeitgeist films, I recommend everyone should give them a go. Apart from Part 1 of Film 1 about the religious aspects of society (which is pretty out there and not really something I'm interested in), the rest I broadly agree with.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Enjoy!

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Thought it might be worth noting that the sham elections for the Stormont Assembly are coming up

[JOE SOAP]

If you haven't seen any of the Zeitgeist films, I recommend everyone should give them a go. Apart from Part 1 of Film 1 about the religious aspects of society (which is pretty out there and not really something I'm interested in), the rest I broadly agree with.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Enjoy!

Too much conjecture without proof or even reference in that flick, plenty of style over content, emotion over reason too. It looks and sounds nice but 'bollocks' mixed in with 'facts' is still just bollocks.

[The Legendary Shark]

And their ideas for the future? Those just bollocks too?

[JOE SOAP]

In a word, yes.

A technocratic-utopianist future?


The film's prescriptions are posed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. In many instances, the solutions proffered by Zeitgeist: Addendum merely constitute dialectic extremes that produce precisely the same results as the problems that they allegedly address.

A consistently reiterated theme throughout Zeitgeist: Addendum is the notion that social progress is inextricably linked to scientific and technological progress. Such a contention is vintage techno-utopianism, the belief that technology will eventually end all social evils and give rise to a perfect society. Nonsense, technology is a tool, not a solution. A bit like Fukuyama's market-democracy signalling the end of history.


I believe Zbigniew Brzezinski has similar ideas.

[The Legendary Shark]

I've seen Jacque Fresco interviewed many times and he never uses the word "Utopian" as it indicates a final state for society. The main thrust of the Venus Project (which, I agree, has its flaws) is to begin making mankind's technology work for the betterment of society as a whole rather than as a profit-driven exercise. For example, using computer modelling to indicate how much corn needs to be grown and the best place to grow it may be more efficient than leaving those decisions to political/corporate systems.

Also, (as I keep banging on about) the switch to social economics would be beneficial for almost everyone.

Still, I guess it's easier to carry on as we are, innit?


Yes, technology is a tool. So is money. Technology won't save us and neither will money. As the old military adage goes, it's not the weapons you hold that wins battles, it's how you use them.

[JOE SOAP]

Utopianism is implied.



So who makes the decisions in this tech-society, who decides who gets the tech first in a socialist world of limited resources? The delivery of technology necessitates the creation of some sort of order or class system just as it does with currency. There will still be a hierarchy of people making the decisions and a hierarchy of people benefiting from them. Today the people who use the newly created debt currency first benefit the most, in the new proposed system the people who get the newly created technology first benefit the most.

Still, I guess it's easier to carry on as we are, innit?

That's up to each individual. Trying to reshape what's all ready 'too big to exist' won't help. There will need to be a fragmentation and contraction before we start again. Diminishing resources will see to that and no computer-modelling or new infrastructure will stop it.

[The Legendary Shark]

I disagree that Utopianism is implied. A better way of doing things is implied, but that is not Utopianism in my (admittedly limited) book.

I guess who does what is up to the social structure we put in place as a part of such a project. I personally favour the UTN (United Terrans' Network) idea to actually run the system. As to the world having limited resources - that's why the Venus Project suggests a global inventory before we begin to estimate just what we have to work with. There is more than enough on our planet (and in the "cosmic vicinity" of the Solar System) for everyone to enjoy abundance. (The best definition for abundance that I've heard is "the ability to do what you need to do when you need to do it," not "everyone can have whatever they want." I don't suggest that you think one or the other of these ways, I'm just explaining my own take on it.)

If we were to build something like the Venus Project and leave it in the same hands that run the current system, we really may as well not bother.

What system would you suggest to run something like the Venus Project? Or do you favour another future altogether? Maybe, from all the ideas and ways of doing things we've ever created or observed, humanity can construct a social system that actually works for the greatest number of people possible. Surely it's not beyond us?

Anyhoo - off to watch Zeitgiest III: Moving Forward. Dunno' what's in it yet, I'll report back later...

[JOE SOAP]

My honest opinion is that there is no one solution and this is my problem with people who propose such notions, I find them profoundly naive and to me their notion of a socialist-tech-globalism is just another version of communism or something that will eventually become 'controlled centrally' because it is inherently undynamic.

We live in a pluralist world, not everyone wishes to be the same or live by the same rules as everyone else. It's state and systemic coercion/terrorism/war that creates the most conflict, I don't see anything different in the Venus Project. One man's perfection is another man's nightmare.

To me humans do not work well when herded/clustered into large homogenised groups where consensus cannot be reached with within walking distance but are at their best in mutually beneficial small communities.