Jump to content

Albert_Einstein

Member
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Albert_Einstein

  1. Here in Canada, authorities have managed to find our own homegrown terrorists to help maintain a base level of fear. The hapless "Toronto 18" consisted of a bunch of disgruntled young men who, among them, lacked knowledge and training to be a serious threat. The only people in the group who were capable of pulling off any serious acts of terrorism were the moles who led the group on a training exercise. And now in British Columbia, there are a pair of nutbars who are accused of plotting to blow up the Legislature buildings. Again, these people have no knowledge or background that would indicate they were threats of any kind. But the arrests get headlines. Investigative reporter Tevor Aaronson maintains that the FBI (and to a lesser extent the RCMP) make a practise of identifying disgruntled people who, left alone, have no means of committing significant acts of violence. An informant is sent in who can provide the means and, voila!, instant terrorists. Story Here.
  2. The always insightful military historian Gwynne Dyer has made a convincing case that there is a mutual dependency between terrorist organizations and the security-military establishments in western countries (mainly the US but others as well). Security and military agencies would face budget cuts were it not for the fear generated by terrorist threats. And the terrorist organizations rely on aggressive western attacks and political interference to maintain their recruiting drives. He has written many times on this topic but here is one example. The reason I bring this up is that every time I read of one of these alerts, I truly don't know what to make of it. I've no doubt that there are lots of people out there would like to attack US embassies. However, the security agencies have shown that they can't be trusted to accurately assess threats or provide unbiased information. They will do whatever they deem is in the interest of "national security".
  3. Although the specifics of the NSA surveillance are a surprise and shock to most of us, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that senior lawmakers, national security agencies, law enforcement agencies and a host of private companies who benefit from these programs are all in this together. They play an elaborate game of 3 card monte with the public, releasing just enough information to maintain the sense of public fear that they need to keep the public funds flowing. And if anyone is brazen enough to demand information that could actually drive accountability, the club of national security is brandished. If anyone is foolhardy enough to actually provide real information to the citizens (Bradley, Snowden, et al), it is wielded without mercy. An interesting aspect of this situation is the degree to which these agencies, companies and powerful individuals are dependent on the villains that they purportedly are trying to eliminate. The NSA needs terrorists to support its budget demands. The FBI would be a much smaller organization if organized crime were to disappear. And where would the DEA be if drug prohibition were abandoned as a strategy (as it should be)? Right wing economists who agonize over "perverse incentives" when it comes to single parents on welfare or "moral hazard" when it comes to the GM bailout seem to be strangely silent regarding the behaviour of national security and law enforcement organizations. If you want to actually solve problems, the first step you need to take is to remove the control and policy setting abilities from those who are dependent on the problem continuing. Or, as my namesake once said, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." A powerful statement from a brilliant man.
  4. The lack of international outrage over this systematic and pervasive invasion of privacy is deeply troubling. I'm not sure if people don't know or just don't care. Or don't care enough to bother figuring out if they should care. For all of the US angst over whether the NSA is or should be spying on its own citizens, there seems to be no controversy regarding the openly acknowledged spying on citizens of the rest of the world. Maybe people aren't aware of the percentage of worldwide internet traffic that flows through the US. The US exercises a large degree of control over the internet and Snowden's revelations will provide other countries with more of a lever to question that. And what of Joe Q Citizen? Democracy is a hollow concept unless people care enough to at least voice opinions. Oh, and become aware enough to hold intelligent opinions.
  5. Was he right? Russ claimed that Armstrong predicted the current debt crisis, whatever that means. Did he predict specific numbers and dates or just that we'd be in a lot of debt? Either Russ is arguing that decisions made by governments and people since the 1980's have been irrelevant to the current situation or he is arguing that Armstrong was able to accurately predict the behaviour of large numbers of people over 30+ years. Which is it? To the extent that the second element exists, it was caused largely by the first. One of the hazards of democracy is that leaders tell people things they want to hear (Sure, we can cut taxes and still give you everything you want) regardless of the longer term consequences. It's interesting that both in Canada and the US, the parties that actually produced surplus budgets were the more centrist ones. If you re-read your own statement, I think you'll find it is not a fact at all - rather, it is your interpretation of the facts. Research will also tell you that boom and bust cycles have always been in evidence in capitalist economies. And you need only examine what happened during the 1930's to see what happens during a bust cycle when the government stops spending. The best explanation I've heard for the current failure of economies to restart themselves is that almost all of the financial gains over the past 30 years have gone to the top 1%. Since the money is not being spread around and the ultra-rich can only buy so much stuff, the economy slows down. I don't agree that the whole purpose of the current economic structure is stability. The aim of almost every government is growth, not stability. Predictability is a very valuable commodity but I would argue that any meaningful level of predictability in a capitalist economy is logically impossible. Here's why: There is money to be made by predicting economic behaviour. If people can reliably predict economic behaviour, they will act in ways that will destroy the predictability. If Armstrong could really predict economic behaviour accurately, the dumbest thing he could do would be to start up an investment company. He risks giving away his secret. It would be much smarter to keep as low a profile as possible and invest in ways that would not bring attention. Oh, you mean like when we had the great tulip bulb bubble? Or the South Seas bubble? When was the golden era of which you speak?
  6. Wow - it didn't take you long to stoop to an ad hominem attack. Whatever Armstrong predicted in the 1980's is largely meaningless. Subsequent American administrations could have avoided the current debt load through a combination of taxation and spending restraint. They didn't due to spinelessness and foolishness. Was that was Armstrong was predicting?
  7. Everyone reading this should have the following information on Martin Armstrong. He is a "self-taught" economist who claims that boom-bust cycles occur every 3,141 days (pi * 1000). He was indicted for fraud (the accusations included hiding trading losses and running a ponzi scheme). He spent 7 years locked away for contempt of court when he refused to tell the court where he hid his gold (he claimed he gave it away). He then spent a further 5 years on prison for conspiracy to commit fraud. Full disclosure.
  8. The high interest rates did cause pain (I was there) but if you want to see what happens can happen to a country that devalues its currency to pay down debt, check what happened in Germany after WWI. This is patent nonsense. Before the Conservatives came to power, the Government was able to start paying down the debt. It's a simple matter of income vs expenses and the Government has the power to raise income through taxation. I've read so many doom and gloom predictions over the years about how the economy will collapse and only gold will be worth anything. Perhaps one day that will happen but it's been predicted so many times that the predictions are useless. It's a little like predicting the end of the world. If you do it often enough and long enough, some day someone will be right. That's exactly what I think. In the same way that you lose weight by exercising more and controlling your eating, you lose the fiscal deficit by more revenue and controlling spending. The Cons have cut the GST, corporate taxes and income taxes. If they hadn't done that, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in. The whole "velocity of money" and "productive members of society" bafflegab is just Randian gobbledygook. In the 50's and 60's, tax rates on the wealthy were much higher and the world did not come to an end. And don't get me started about all of the tax revenue lost because the CRA is afraid to go after tax shelters. Or the dead money lying around in corporate coffers that is being made bigger by ideological-driven tax cuts. You've convinced yourself that this demagogue Armstrong has the secrets to the economic equivalent of the fountain of youth. His cycles have been described by real economists as numerology.
  9. Russ, I agree with you that public debt is a risk to the country and we should deal with it. I'm not sure we'll find much more to agree on. Borrowing money from the central bank is essentially the same as printing money to pay off the debt. This is hugely inflationary and would destabilize the economy. You contend that because of fractional reserve banking and the power of banks to create money to service loans, the money is being created anyway (so why not let the central bank create it?). The problem with this argument is that the Canadian Government doesn't go to the Royal Bank and get a loan; it issues bonds and t-bills. In order for people or institutions to fund the debt, they must give up real money that would otherwise be spent. So (as I understand it), the way that the Government services debt does not create money. And a lot of the debt is held by non-banking institutions like pension funds and insurance companies. There are no shortcuts to getting out of debt - we can either cut spending, raise taxes or a combination of both. What has happened is that the Conservatives foolishly hacked taxes when times were good and now the government can't afford to pay the bills. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the options are.
  10. Oil Sands Vs Tar Sands? Sulfur, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. Seems like you apologists should just have accepted 'tar sands'. And anyone who claims the tar sands moniker was invented by environmentalists is talking through his or her hat. Oh, yeah - link here.
  11. Those who think he's jeopardized U.S. security might try to think for themselves and imagine what actual harm has been done. As far as I can tell, all he's done is embarrassed your country for its paranoid pursuit of security. He's also shone an uncomfortable light on the type of spying that is going on. Lots of people are shocked but not many are surprised by his revelations. Maybe shining a light on things will be healthy for everyone involved. Laws are often unjust and deserve to be broken. The world owes a debt of gratitude to people like Snowden who are brave enough to follow their convictions. He's done so in a non-violent manner and if he's caused any country actual harm, it has yet to be demonstrated. You seem to take it for granted that he would get a fair trial but the actual experiences of people accused of this type of crime suggest otherwise. The evidence would most likely be deemed secret under national security laws and nobody would ever hear from him again. You think I'm being paranoid? Here is what Amnesty International has to say on the topic: In this case, the consequences are imposed by those who have power. That doesn't make them just or right. You should be rolling your eyes at your own statement, which is naive beyond any reasonable measure of intelligence and logic. You think your precious constitution protects people but your leaders twist the rules like dough being made into pretzels. When it comes to matters of "security", your judicial oversight isn't a watchdog, it's an aging, toothless beagle, rolling over to be scratched. Most political dissidents are legally prosecuted under the laws that prevail in that country at the time. It was not that long in historical terms that MLK Junior had to disobey unjust laws (and he was executed for his trouble). Just because it's a law doesn't make it just. It's up to citizens of conscience to challenge the laws they believe are unjust and it's up to all of us to think independently and assess which laws should be repealed.
×
×
  • Create New...