Rincker.nl |
| Rincker Duurzaamheids Advies en Initiatief. Visit my Google sponsors: You will donate to the site. |
| Visit my Google sponsors |
| (2012-04-24) Trichets Trucjes |
911 Link < > |
| Rene van Leeuwen heeft het gehad. In de Volkskrant zegt hij richting Moody's en Fitch "Krijg de pleuris". Inderdaad, dat zouden deze instituten moeten krijgen, grondige pleuris. Maar de kwestie is niet dat deze ratings agencies Nedeland dreigen te degraderen, het is een veel diepere kwestie die ons de ogen kan openen tav beter beleid. Wat doen de ratings agencies eigenlijk? Onder normale omstandigheden bepalen ze hoeveel krediet een land kan creeren, dwz hoeveel het kan lenen aan ondernemers e.d. Hierop zit voor sommige landen geen rem, zoals bij de VS tot kort geleden, omdat er genoeg grondstoffen zijn om ondernemers en andere spelers de vrije hand te geven. Door de aanwijzingen van de ratings agencies komt er geld vanuit minder hoog gewaardeerde landen in hoger gewaardeede landen beschikbaar. Ratings agencies hebben enorme macht omdat ze een land van het ene moment op het andere in een financiele crisis kunnen storten. Dit is een gevolg van het effect op de kosten van het onderhouden van schulden (die toenemen als een land lager gewaardeerd wordt). Een ander effect is op reserves. Het algemene effect van een verandering in de rating van een land is dat de hoeveelheid vrij besteedbaar geld veranderd, en dat is de sleutel. Geld is namelijk maar een ruilmiddel. Wat mensen nodig hebben zijn grondstoffen, brandstoffen, producten die ze importeren. Geld is slechts een middel om die zaken uit te wisselen. De wereld heeft echter een financieel spel gecreerd waarin de deelnemende instellingen zullen doen alsof hetgeen ze uitwisselen, Euro's, Dollars e.d. iets vertegenwoordigd. Een vreemde zaak (hoewel velen dit een zinloze opmerking zullen vinden). Het is wel degelijk zinvol om over de betekenisloosheid van Euro's en Dollars na te denken, want stel dat je aanneemt dat ze wel iets waard zijn, wat betekent het dan dat de een of andere bank ze zo uit de lucht kan plukken als je met een mooi bedrijfsplan komt? Als je een fijne baan hebt en naar de bank gaat kun je zo 400.000 Euro voor je nieuwe huis meekrijgen. Die waren er eerst niet. Hoe kan het dat de geldhoeveelheid pas houdt met de beschikbaarheid van grondstoffen en andere zaken. Want als er meer of minder geld kwam zouden de prijzen stijgen en dalen. Nu is dat maar een marginaal effect. Het antwoord is simpel. De geldhoeveelheid wordt in bedwang gehouden door de opeisbaarheid van schulden te varieren. Daarbij is het wel nodig dat er 1. schulden zijn, 2. dat deze overtuigend zijn. Daarna kan je met verhalen over risico en wijzend naar de ratings agencies makkelijk zeggen "Ik kan u niet meer lenen, of niet bij lagere rente, uw land is te risicovol". Dit is een mooi systeem omdat niemand de controlerende functie voelt, iedereen orienteert zich op het geld, en iedereen snapt dat er risico's zijn die banken vermeiden. Hoe komt het dat we dat snappen? Omdat we aan het werk worden gezet als we geen geld hebben. Omdat we hard werken voor onze hypotheek. Omdat we elkaar continu de pas afsnijden en concureren om hetzelfde geld. Waarom is dat? Omdat grondstoffen nu eenmaal met een bepaalde snelheid beschikbaar komen. Zonder competitie zou de utilisatie suboptimaal zijn. Nu is een nieuwe wet in de internationale economie. Deze wet zegt dat we het allemaal met minder moeten doen. Dit is wat Trichet probeert uit te leggen in de onderstaande video. Maar wat bedoelt hij nu eigenlijk? Hij bedoelt dat we wereldwijd met een grondstoffen crisis te maken hebben, en dat -om door te gaan op de oude voet- we groepen moeten gaan afsnijden van deze grondstoffen. Dit heeft 'Austerity'. De wereldwijde economie van Trichet en La Garde is er een waarin het spel doorgaat tot de knikkers op zijn. Dit is zo vanwege een rotsvast geloof in de economische principes. De dragers van dat geloof zijn individuen die tegenvoorbeelden afdoen als zwak, mislukkingen, losers. individuen die een zeer diep geworteld competitief besef hebben. Onnatuurlijke individuen dus. Wie tegen de rarings agencies zegt "Krijg de pleuris" moet beseffen dat dit een zeer fundamentele keuze is. Een keuze om het spel te verlaten. Het probleem hiermee is dat de andere spelers dit als verraad zullen zien, ook al zijn ze zelf slachtoffer van het spel (zoals Griekenland en Spanje). Net als aandeelhouders zijn landen en andere deelnemers huurlingen/slaven van het systeem. Dit is wat Trichet predikt "Wil je meedoen, dan moet je austerity toepassen, anders kunnen we niet doorspelen". Wie dag zegt tegen het systeem dat de geldhoeveelheid controleert zegt dag tegen de grondstoffen die daarmee gekocht kunnen worden. De markten zijn voor het overgrote deel eigendom van Wallstreet, zodat de prijzen altijd betaalbaar zijn voor de VS. Wie uit deze invloedssfeer wil vertrekken moet nieuwe markten definieren, veroveren. Ten eerste een nieuwe energie markt. Nederland kan dat doen. We hebben niet veel keus eigenlijk. Onze toekomst ligt bij Rusland en China, bij Zuid Amerika. Niet bij de VS. Maar veel meer ligt de toekomst niet bij dit type economisch systeem omdat de tegen het eind van de belangrijkste grondstof aanlopen: Olie. Het 'narative' is dat van een crisis. Een 'crisis' gaat voorbij. Deze malaise zal niet overgaan tot er (met de woorden van Trichet) 'Sustainable policies' worden geimplementeerd. Trichet rijkt hier voorbij zijn domein, het economische denken. Economische theorie houd geen rekening met externaliteiten. Zijn idee van 'sustainable' betekent het tegenovergestelde, namelijk dat het rücksichtlos exploiteren zo lang mogelijk moet doorgaan. Willen we dus dat de klasse van bankiers en economen, van de verspillende consumenten economie en vervuilende industrie doorgaat dan moeten we 1. De grillen van de rarings agencies accepteren 2. Onszelf op alle mogelijke manieren korten en afknijpen zodat de overgebleven groep kan blijven denken dat er niets aan de hand is. Er moet een kleine groep overblijven voor wie het spel werkt. Deze groep moet geloven dat anderen gewoon niet genoeg hun best doen.. Of we richten ons echt op wat Trichet wenselijk acht. "Sustainable policies", niet voor de economie, maar voor iedereen. Dat is per definitie wenselijk. Het is per definitie een groeimodel. Energie uit wind en golven en de zon kunnen onze levenstandaard prima op peil houden. Hebben we zware industrie nodig? Wat is het nut van mijnbouw als we vuilnisbelten vol grondstoffen hebben. Cradle to cradle is toch veel slimmer? En als we dat goed aanpakken hoeven we alleen een beetje rustig aan te doen, de groei vande alternatieven voor de belangrijkste grondstof (olie) is explosief. De duurzame economie heeft geen ratings agencies, het heeft geen centrale banken, het heeft individuele energie krediet verstrekkers, het heeft een grondstoffen systeem dat deze zonder veel kosten aan producenten ter beschikking kan stellen. Hoe komen we daar? NIet door op russisch gas over te proberen te stappen, niet door oorlogen over olie te vechten, maar door ons uit dat systeem lost te snijden en binnen Europa een energie infrastructuur op te zetten (en dan heb ik het niet specifiek over hoogspannings masten) zodat we in Europa kunnen doen wat nodig is. .En welwillende sadisten als Trichet kunnen we dan gewoon aan de kant schuiven. |
| Link: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/10484/Rene-van-Leeuwen/article/detail/3245679/2012/04/24/Zeg-Standard-Poor-s-Moody-s-Fitch-Hoort-u-mij-Het-volgende-krijg-de-pleuris.dhtml |
| (2012-04-21) Banken Maken Winst Op Commerciele Gevangenissen |
910 Link < > |
Commerciele gevangenissen->Corrupte wetgevers->Corrupte politie->'Corrupte' misdadigers...En goedkope productie capaciteit! |
| Link: |
| (2012-04-13) Libor Trichet And The Cabon / Credit System |
908 Link < > |
| It seems we are about to be hit by chaos as oil companies do not heed the request to tune their production to the credit policy, and all countries across the world don't seem to want to adapt to the 'new economic reality of austerity' that Trichet would like it to. The banking franchise is fraying at the seems. It means armies will take over, either to fight useless wars or to start managing our transition to renewables. Or we waste some moer years and opportunities to protect our future and wealth while dying under austerity measures and general lack of energy, All under the carfull management of people like Trichet. |
| Link: |
| (2012-04-05) Another Carbon Credit Victim |
907 Link < > |
 A man kills himself in the middle of Athens. As the country is crippled by austerity measures, measures only designed to keep the carbon market safe and secure. Only to make the carbon/credit economy move on as it itself dies a slow death.. A country drowning in sunlight. It should be richer than dubai. It has no lack of what it needs: Energy. It needs no money to develop its renewable potential,  <./center>
But it's government is run by Goldman Sachs, and this institution is about managing credit and the populations carbon purchasing power. This company is there to favour the US over any other country, but also secure the carbon market and wholly carbon dependend financial sector. A man dies due to this, he is not the only one, he is not the first and will not be the last. But is the one that should be dying? |
| Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/man-commits-suicide-broad-daylight-athens-syntagma-square-protest-occupation-government |
| (2012-03-29) The Fight Against Inequality |
906 Link < > |
| I'm no fan of Rand Paul. He's a bit like a dictator and seems to believe industrialization has not skewed the ability to earn income from the workers to the owners of machines and suppliers of fuel. But he is about fairness it seems, he may be using his father's (Ron Paul) economic insights to come to the point of not wanting to allow war with Iran to be automatic (because of the cost), but the result is the same (the US has to find it's own solution). There are two types of conservatives, those that believe in meritocracy and those that believe in tribalism. The first thinks all can achieve wealth and a good society if they'd try harder. It is a fundamentally egalitarian point of view. It means an equal challenge to the self as to others. The tribal conservatives believe that it is about protecting the priviliges of their tribe. It is not about merit, it is about the position you find yourself in, about whether you are deemed superior to the other, it is about who controls who. The core of that attitude is that the conservative tribe is a superior tribe than any other and therefore has the right to rule and be lazy. What generates these two groups is autonomous experience. If you have ability to proof to yourself that you are capable of controling your life without being obedient you belief others can do so as well if they where only freed from to much control. If you have been given most of what you have and you have no concept of usefullness except through your obedience to others you start as a slave in the tribe wanting to become the leader, in a life of waring with other tribes.  roboeconomics The fight against climate change and the domination of the carbon/credit system is a fight against inequality in this same sense. Tribal conservative US does not want to be selfreliant, it wants to be father chrstmas with other peoples resources. It wants to be served and feel superior to others, That means promoting tribal thought and acting as a tribe at war. Rand Paul, although he is a harsh conservative is also a harsh egallitarian, he does not want to take from Iran, maybe for the wrong reasons, but with the right result. One would hope that the global threat of war will proof impractical. US defence has already announced it did not believe it could rely on a lot of it's weapons. It's military is worn out in Afganistan and Iraq. A bit more and it can't even stop an invasion of criminal gangs from Mexico. But all that is fine if it leads to a breakdown in the current international carbon/credit system, in a focus on renewables, self reliance (on a state level perhaps), because that is much less dangerous than a global nuclear war, and it is achievable. It seems self reliant conservatives are on the side of the environmentalists. |
| Link: |
| (2012-03-26) Trusting Science |
905 Link < > |
 David Cameron dived to the deepest point on earth on sunday. He did it by using scientific tools and theory, applying laws of nature in a complex way to achieve a design that could withstand the enormous pressures and still would keep working. Noone was invited to keep the discussion on the design going with hap hazard theories and fantasies "If you go deeper than such and such the pressure actually gets lower", "Are you sure you can penetrate water at that pressure?", "It's the communist, socialist, zionists that want you to burry yourself on the bottom of the ocean!" or the screamer "Just wait becaus whatever you come across you'll find a solution!". Cameron had a team of engineers, they applied known principles and the result was a safe dive. New calculations show we will see a 3 degreee increase in global temperatures befor 2050. That is a global calamity, food will be in very very short supply. It is a scientists best determonation. Trust it. |
| Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57404177/james-cameron-begins-7-mile-dive/ |
| (2012-03-22) Winter Turns Into Summer |
904 Link < > |
 |
| Link: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/2132/20111206/historic-heat-in-north-america-turns-winter-to-summer.htm |
| (2012-03-20) Greece the new Oil? The Ultimate Inversion |
903 Link < > |
| Funny video below where two grown up men discuss the effect of rising oil prices on growth. If oil gets to scarce there will be no growth, there will be no economy. The price of oil is a fiction, because it's only about how much currency you want to draw from circulation, oil is produced using and trading only oil (with money as a usefull token in organizing the flow and trade of goods involved). What would you expect if you allow interested parties to make you 99% dependent on a finite resouce. No doubt about it, the carbon/credit fakonomy is dead, lets mourn and not forget to create the alternatives... |
| Link: |
| (2012-03-17) Why Was George Clooney Arrested |
902 Link < > |
| As you can see in the below video you George Clooney got arrested during a demonstration against the attrocities in Sudan (largely tolerated because chaos in a region can prevent it from using or selling it's resouces). He was released a bit later. The question is why was he arested? This is not ok. Why not? Because eventhough the crime Clooney is accused of is small the reponse had the full force of the law. This means that using the pretext of a misdemeanor the police used every tool in their arsenal, so arrest, handcuffs (tierip), removal from the scene in an armed vehicle, confinement in a cell. We are talking immense assymetry in measures, because if Clooney had objected to any of that he could have been tazed, beaten, shot to death. It is not the force police exerts we see, but the force they assume they have a right to use that matters. If Clooney is arrested and released a bit later, then the arrest had no real reason other than for the policing system to go through a number of motions which mean taking Clooneys freedom and leaving his life in the care of his ability to remain peacefull. The police should never engage in unecessary arrests of non violent protester. It is simply harrasement of a very type that is symptomatic of a police state. It is a smear on Clooney, because the textual representation of the arrest does not do justice to the fact there was no reason for the arrest other than intent on the part of the police. It seems that this is meant to scare the crap out of us, because we seem to be dealing with a machine, not humans. We should on the contrary make sure we know our police force, we trust them and they trust us, and that we eliminate the reasons for protests together, instead of allowing us to be handler and handled, without anyone focussing on increasing comfort in society to a level where you can have an opinion without anyone to feel compelled to arrest you. |
| Link: |
| (2012-03-14) Rethinking the Economy |
901 Link < > |
| So how is it that we need to rethink the economy? Oh, of course, it was never productive, at least not since the 50's or so, when internal combustion engines and coal/gas fired power plants started to lift up all activity to a level it could never sustain without continued fossil fuel input. We see a world with a group on a ledge, these are the banks and the energy companies, the companies that exist due to enormous distribution systems, the global players. They may want to change over to a working method that is more agreable with planet earth, but it seems that is simply impossible, not necessary. Only in a carbon driven world can a company maintain global dominance, not because it is cheaper, but because it is subsidized and given advantage all along the way. Dominance is about wanting to dominate. The renewable future will not have global players, because that would amount to a global tax that benefits one country or another where all the money woult flow. That would not work because the value of money (which is now tied to global access to fossil fuels) would be tied to varied local renewable energy supplies, or maybe local methane wells in the worst case. All these energy producers could have their own currency to distribute their energy and buy whatever is made using it. It makes no sense to have global money if global supplies of fossil fuel no longer drive global productivity. The creations of our carbon/credit economy will have to accept they are themselves fossils, remnants the most terrible mistake made by mankind, which is now slowly dawning on it, and which it tries to hide. Shell goes for GAS for fuck sake!! Arrogant about everything, and what is their solution? They are on the ledge as well.. Consider the future different, and these institutions and their privilige non valid, dangerous actually, an obstruction to securing our wealth. Never mind Al Quaida. Moslim terrorist where against dutch oil exploration in 1890's, local resistance is as old as foreign power projection and world trade itself. We need to fear the lost time we still have to respond significantly and be assertive about using it to build and install and change our society and buildings so we can live in it without carbon, which is completely possible. Stop rethinking the economy. That's like trying to build a bridge of the Titanic out of it's metal, nice try but it leads nowhere. Look around for the life rafts that where put on board, build and thought through for more than 150 years now. We had carbon scares multiple times before, only this is the last one. The substance of our world, sunlight, wind, water, soil can provide for all. It has no owners if the owners tell us we can't use them. If they hoard resources that would allow us to extract energy from them. It is enough of a shame that we are left to 'rethink the economy'. How incompetent can you demonstrate yourself to be. Why no big announcement 'economy 2.0'. No, instead we are asked to use less and less of the carbon (by reducing the amount of money we have), ask the greek citizen, they did not take out the loans, they are asked to die (yes, what else does living on no income mean?). So let them fall of the ledge, we need to diabuse those that provide no real solution from their power and status. They think they need to competitively eat into all of us, but with renewables, nobody needs to do that actually, because renewable energy is everywhere in relatively equal amounts. |
| Link: |
| (2012-03-03) Infinite Growth Is A Crazy Idea (And not necessary) |
900 Link < > |
| This talk is hard to top. |
| Link: |
| (2012-03-01) Gambler Economy |
899 Link < > |
| I want to make a point here that is so delicate that it may be lost on many. Markets these days can report their status on a millisecond scale. We are all rivited to news about the Dow Jones and the NYSE is treated like an individual with moods and all. This is lunacy and highly imprudent for many reasons but the point I find interesting is what does our accepted method of interacting with markets make us? The answer is simple : Gamblers. Nervous gamblers. We look at marginal gains, relative gains, we fear for our 'reserves', we respond to market news like we are complete junkies. We are in selfdestructive mode begging for more opportunities to risk everything. This may sound hyperbolic and a bit scary but it really isn't. I read in the news "Amsterdam Stock Exchange Starts Down". Ok, people are selling stocks, moving into cash. The companies that own the stocks have already sold them to the public, so there's no effect whatsoever on them. Stocks can be emitted at any price, so there's no trouble getting new money for the companies. If there is that's probably the best thing because people don't like the companies apparently. So what is the news?  The news is nothing more than an attempt to make people empathise with the banks or the companies that have to roll over loans and will need more money to do that. But banks don't have to have money to roll over loans, and if a company does badly, maybe it should! Another point about such headline is that it only speaks about the market as a whole. People are moving into cash. So what. But the headline expresses a sentiment, a worrysome sign. We worry that the 'odds' of our gamble in buying the stock will deteriorate. We are watching the horses and they seem to be performing less than expected. The feedback implies a continuous process that has no bearing on real activities (in factories) whatsoever, except when the next loan is unaffodable and the company has to change what it's doing. To recap, stocks are sold to give capital to companies. That capital needs to be renewed and that's the only way in which stocks affect companies activities. So stocks are a way to get a company in a death grip, and while it's completely uneccesary for a company for it's stock price to rise, they will have to try to make that happen in order to remain in the 'game'. Stockmarkets are gambling dens and the world is conditioned to be gambling addicted. We are not even highlighting the enormous level of distortion in stock price discovery caused by algorithmic trading which at times makes up 70% of all trades! It's real easy to get away from this problem. It's simply to hand over the trade of stocks back to the companies that they represent ownership of. Slow it down and create a stock registration utility that doesn nothing more than allow the public to buy and sell stocks at low frequency. Abolish lending on the scale it's done today. Abolish ownership of goods at distances of more than 100 miles, if you want to own it, you'll have to move it! The biggest obstacle will be the fossil fuel trade. It's like oxygen to the real economy, and it's owned by the people that own the markets. Fossil fuels give value to all money and markets. What good is 35 dollar for an ounce of silver if you can't use that cash to pay for the fuel to mine and refine, transport and coin more silver ounces. The point of this post is: Do we want the spending of our energy governed by a ubiquitously promoted gambling impulse, or do we want to allocate it to best secure our needs and our future? Let's hope we get to do that before the players have wasted it all.. |
| Link: |
| (2012-02-29) Verbod Op Vastlegging Persoonsgegevens Op Internet? |
898 Link < > |
| Er wordt momenteel door de voorstanders van ubiquitous suveillance gelobbied voor het opheffen van het recht op annoniemiteit op het internet. Zoals altijd wordt beschaafdheid als argument gegeven, vervelende commentaren op blogs, een eindeloos beproefde vorm van smaad "Iedereen gedraagt zich ongeschaafd, dus zijn maatregelen nodig". Er is op veel plaatsen annonimiteit, en dat heeft een reden. We lopen niet met naambordjes op straat, we kunnen posters ophangen zonder dat iemand weet wie dat gedaan heeft. Het is de fysieke realiteit dat mensen kunnen weigeren (en zelfs het recht hebben) hun naam bekend te maken, zelfs in directe interactie met anderen. Internet is niet meer dan een communicatie systeem dat berichten gevraagd of ongevraagd doorgeeft, het is zeer goed mogelijk om de oorsprong van berichten tot op zekere hoogte annoniem te houden. Er zou een dure aanpassing voor nodig zijn om dit te veranderen. "The question is whether an estimated 300 million Twitter users should be classified as victims whose personal data has been sacrificed on the altar of global marketing. It has been reported that private accounts and tweets that have been deleted will not be indexed by the site. Nevertheless, privacy campaigners are alarmed." Maar er is een andere reden waarom internet gewoon, net als het telefoon net, onaangetast moet blijven door handelsbelangen. Die reden heeft een geschiedenis die terug gaat tot voor de tweede wereld oorlog. Met hulp van IBM werd toen in Europa voor het eerst een electronisch gegevensbestand aangelegd. Dit systeem maakte het mogelijk in een klap groepen mensen te selecteren en een afwijkende behandeling te geven. Hoe veel lastiger zou het zijn geweest om de joden uit de bevolking te selecteren als dit systeem niet had bestaan. Erwin Black heeft er een mooi boek over geschreven.  De pons kaart was de gewetenloze verrader die aangaf wie het slachtoffer moest worden van de zieke ideologie van de nazi's. Registers zijn gevaarlijk, want je weet nooit wie het voor het zeggen krijgt. Felix Rottenberg nam recent de moeite om er nog eens op te wijzen dat er in de tweede wereldoorlog een verzetsdaad werd gepleegd in Amsterdan, toen het bevolkings register bij Artis met bommen in brand werd gestoken. Dat heeft waarschijnlijk wel wat levens gered. Probeer zoiets vandaag de dag en je staat tegenover enorme commerciele belangen. De top 500 sites maken bijna allemaal gebruik van een vorm van tracking die maakt dat ze exact weten welke sites je bezoekt. Facebook en Google hebben relaties met inlichtingen diensten die in toenemende mate paranoia ten toon spreiden. Waarom? Omdat het gevangenis wezen ook commercieel is geworden, en omdat ze wel moeten bewijzen dat ze nodig zijn. Wie wil in een omgeving waar de wetshandhaving langzaam begint te lijken op afpersing, waar er een groep is die geheel boven de wet opereert (Wallstreet), en waar niemand snapt dat een strijd om geld een strijd om olie is die niet gewonnen kan worden (omdat je olie opmaakt en dan weer verder kunt vechten), bij elke scheet op internet met naam en toenaam bekend zijn? Er is al zoveel vast gelegd, en niemand weet eigenlijk door wie en waarom. Zouden wij het kies vinden als Amadinejad of Mubarak de facebook vrienden groepen van mensen die afwijkende meningen ventileerden zou beschouwen als verzets cellen? Weten we of dit niet al zo is geweest? Wanneer iemand op internet betaald worden zijn gegevens bekend. Verder kan men alle anonieme teksten blokkeren als men daarvoor kiest, of negeren. Daar is geen wet voor nodig. Maar eigenlijk moet het omgekeerde het geval zijn. Het protocol moet worden ontdaan van persoons informatie, locatie informatie tenzij een gebruiker deze zelf wil delen. Er moet een verbod komen op het aanhouden van persoons gegevens, die kunnen mensen zelf bijhouden op hun eigen pc. Databases waarmee men breed demografisch onderzoek kan doen en precies weet wat je drie weken geleden hebt gegoogled (om je op een onverwacht moment een relevant product onder je neus te schuiven) moeten verboden worden. De noodzaak is er niet. En als die er al is kan iedere gebruiker die zelf beheren, op de eigen pc of smartphone. Dat is natuurlijker, minder risico vol, en bovendien goedkoper.. |
| Link: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opinie/article/detail/3209142/2012/02/29/Verbod-op-anonimiteit-op-internet-is-slecht-idee.dhtml |
| (2012-02-28) Iran's Gold For Oil Decision |
897 Link < > |
| Iran will accept gold as payment for it's oil. This is a strategic move aimed at denying the US Iranian oil, weakening the value of the dollar (which is derived from dollar denominated markets including the oil market). Saddam wanted to steer away from the Petrodollar as well, and got killed. This is more complicated with Iran. The US is losing the geostrategic battle for oil under our eyes, and it seems a selfdestructive endgame (WOIII started around the strait of Hormuz) is no longer in the cards. Not bad news as long as we get cracking with renewables.. Iran is making a mistake. Oil should not be bought for gold. The reason is that gold in the hands of Iran will stay in Iran for the most part. On the other hand those that use the oil to produce stuff will produce a lot, but only gold mines can use oil to produce gold. So in order for the world to stay productive based on oil, it will be depleted of it's gold. Then after a while there will be no more gold available, and thus selling oil becomes impossible. This is exactly why the US went of the gold standard. One can say that bankers saw an opportunity to unleash the power of the fossil reserves, the release of which where hampered by gold liquidity. So they started a program to disabuse the US of the fixed gold price (33 dollar/ounce?) and succeeded thanks to Nixon. Because the US could now print dollars and go into debt, and had the necessary deals (and dominance) in place to marshall the oil from the Middle east, the US economy could start it's epic consumption binge. Iran can do what it wants it seems. It's challenging the US in a major way by demanding real return for it's oil (instead of paper). This means that it claims ownership of it's oil reserves (which one does not do when one gives the oil away for printed paper). But the only industry that can meet Iran's gold demands and make a profit is the gold mining industry. No country will allow Iran to build up the means to fight a war (gold) while being starved of it's own reserves. It's an unequitable trade, the balance of the inequity however shifted in favour of Iran (for a change). Ultimately Iran should sell it's oil for participation in renewable energy sources abroad, so it can reap long term benefits of it's export product. That would also reduce pressure on our economies. Gold for oil howerver is only a prelude to war.. |
| Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iran-moves-further-end-petrodollar-announces-will-accept-payment-gold-instead-dollars |
| (2012-02-24) Dead Soil |
896 Link < > |
| Who makes a living these days? Who earns from his/her own work and can be certain what he/she earns will fetch all that is needed, without someone or something trying to crawl in between, or without the market behaving like a flickering tv screen? How come our society has to be bailed out, is in default or approaching it? How come people are not in secure social and economical positions within a complex network of services rendered traded for fair prices, informing the ambitious of opportunities? What are our European lands other than dead soil, unproductive. Not capable of ensuring a lasting existential fundament to anyone? How did it happen that all are confronted and affected by fiancial turmoil? Why does everything depend on money, while we had a century to become locally independent?  It used to be that each territory or area had certain skills and expertise, simply because curcumstances led to their development, and people could have a nice (albeit) short life as craftsman, farmer, butcher or whatever, and all there roles worked well together. All had to try and sometimes a strong leader would have to keep everyone contributing their share. How different it is today. People compete in their persuit of wasting time. They are social without being productive in any way. They are all bound by the costs of living, the only option they have is to find a job or hunt for disposable income. But noone has a secure existence except the very rich or the very poor. In between it's a constant scramble that has gotten worse recently. Noone has an answer to why they need money all the time, it's just the way it is. There is an analogy with farming that may explain my point. Once farming was a matter of knowledge of the soil, the seasons, what to plant after what, how to irrigate and lots of hard work. The soil would yield crop, it would grow like magic and become a harvest. Then farmers began to optimize and in that process took on methods that amounted to using the stored energy in fossil fuel. Fertilizer was invented, plowing machines, herbicides and pesticides. The soil was considered an unreliable factor and marginalized until it became a mere stage for precisely ochestrated chemical interactions. The soil became a bystander without anything to contribute. Without the fertilizer, the whole system of seeds and herbicides etc, the soil would remain dead. This begs the question how the soil lost it's role. The reason is simple : There was an incentive to support any process with fossil fuels (namely the margin for the oil dealers). This ancient energy was so abundant it wedged its way in every step of agriculture, except the growing in the sun itself. In our economies the same happened. Fossil fuels took over the production process, consumed by funaces, robots, computers, engines, cars, trucks, used to make plastic, fertilizer, electricity thus powering tv's microwave ovens, the internet. The world's productive capacity has been lifted up by the power of ancient solar energy, and the wealth it brought made all agree with the transition, like a slave owner gaining servants, keep 'em coming. Today our whole economy does not run on whether someone has skills or talent, it runs on whether oil/coal or gas can be gotten from somewhere. Whether it can be supplied to gas stations, whether it can keep providing us with electricity. Most of it being wasted on keeping people unproductive, but entertained. During the day we go to jobs that produce and serve but with one caveat: We need fossil fuels to be productive or serve, almost all of us. Even serving this web page involves multiple sips from several power plants around the globe. Strip away that support and what have you got? Our world would grind to a halt, die instantly, become inanimate, silent, dark, cold if the steady flow of fossil feuls became interrupted. Maybe some solar panels would keep some fridges working, but other than that.. That fossil energy is the key to our economies, our bulky wastefull helplessly unproductive economies. And we live in them like farmers on dead soil. We allow ourselves to be tied by debts that keep us from transitioning to non fossil energy sources. We allow lobbyist to create laws hampering organic farming in favour of carbon intensive farming. We allow our beliefs to be shaped by the cost of everything, while that cost is a fossil fuel cost, because everything is made using fossil fuels. Take Europe and see where anything is produced if the net fossil fuel input would be switched off. Those are the only productive loci. All else is dead soil, and we have to change that. The best way is to generate something equivalent to the fossil fuel that supports us, using inexhaustible, local, renewable methods. Truely generative, truely productive processes that make land yield productive capacity. |
| Link: |
 Email frits rincker |
| Popular Links |
| BBC, CNN, Google, Slashdot,
FT ,New York Times ,Reuters,
Hackaday , Linkedin , One, Marktplaats, HP, Usage, YouTube,
Maps,
Weer, Uit |
 Archive Sunreign.com GreenCheck.nl LED Start.com (nl) LED repair.nl Heliostat.org BuildingCSP.com RealCarbonCredits.com ParabolicTrough.org OnecellOil.com SeaweedBiomass.org SolarSteamPower.org Addemocracy.com SabatierSystems.com |
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_eukg_2.gif)
|
| Rincker Productions |
| tel.
+31(0)644311561 email kvk nr. 30158078 dbadmin |