http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm

The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 –
Make 4 July Independence From America Day

By Dr Gideon Polya

05 July, 2013
Countercurrents.org

The 4th of July is Independence Day for the United States of America and commemorates the 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence for America, the key passage of which is “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” Unfortunately American racism has grossly violated the proposition that “all men are created equal” and the worst form of racism involves invasion of other countries. The US has invaded about 70 countries since its inception and has invaded a total of about 50 countries since 1945 [1]. The World needs to declare a transition from the 4th of July as Independence for America Day to the 4th of July as Independence from America Day.

The following is a list of countries invaded by the US forces (naval, military and ultimately air forces) since its inception in order of major incidents. This catalogue derives heavily form the work of US academic Dr Zoltan Grossman’s article “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions” [1], Gideon Polya’s book ‘Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (that includes a brief history of all countries since Neolithic times) [2] and William Blum’s book “ Rogue State ” [3]. This list includes instances of violent deployment of US forces within America (e.g. against demonstrators, miners etc), and includes small-scale bombing and military intervention operations, military evacuations of Americans and specific instances of explicit threats of use of nuclear weapons. The list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

The human cost of these US interventions has been horrendous. A major component of war- or hegemony-related deaths is represented by avoidable deaths from violently-imposed deprivation. Since 1950 the UN has provided detailed demographic data that have permitted calculation of such avoidable deaths, year by year, for every country in the world. 1950-2005 avoidable deaths total 1.3 billion for the whole world, 1.2 billion for the non-European world and 0.6 billion for the Muslim world [2], the latter carnage being 100 times greater than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) [4, 5} or the “forgotten” WW2 Bengali Holocaust in which the British with Australian complicity deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death for strategic reasons [6]. Currently 18 million people die avoidably each year in the Developing World on Spaceship Earth with the US in charge of the flight deck.

Here is a summary of post-1950 avoidable mortality/ 2005 population (both in millions, m) and expressed as a percentage (%) for each country occupied by the US in the post-1945 era. The asterisk (*) indicates a major occupation by more than one country in the post-WW2 era (thus, for example, the UK and the US have been major occupiers of Afghanistan , Iraq and Korea , leaving aside the many other minor participants in these conflicts). Data is also given for the US: US [8.455m/300.038m = 2.8%], Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Cambodia* [5.852m/14.825m = 39.5%], Dominican Republic [0.806m/8.998m = 9.0%], Federated States of Micronesia [0.016m/0.111m = 14.4%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guam [0.005m/0.168m = 3.0%], Haiti* [4.089m/8.549m = 47.9%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Laos* [2.653m/5.918m = 44.8%], Panama [0.172m/3.235m = 5.3%], Philippines [9.080m/82.809m = 11.0%], Puerto Rico [0.039m/3.915m = 1.0%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m = 51.8%], US Virgin Islands [0.003m/0.113m = 2.4%], Vietnam* [24.015m/83.585m = 28.7%], total = 82.193m/357.651m = 23.0%.

Thus in the period 1950-2005 there have been 82 million avoidable deaths from deprivation (avoidable mortality, excess deaths, excess mortality , deaths that did not have to happen) associated with countries occupied by the US in the post-1945 era. However the US has subcontracted a huge amount of violence to nuclear terrorist, democracy-by-genocide, racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel for which the related data is as follows: Apartheid Israel [0.095m/6.685m =1.4%] – Egypt* [19.818m/74.878m = 26.5%], Jordan* [0.630m/5.750m = 11.0%], Lebanon [0.535m/3.761m = 14.2%], Occupied Palestinian Territories* [0.677m/3.815m = 17.7%], Syria* [2.198m/18.650m = 11.8%], total = 23.858m/106.854 = 22.3% i.e. Apartheid Israeli aggression has been associated in 1950-2005 with 24 million avoidable deaths in the countries it has violently occupied, a carnage similar to that caused by the German Nazis in Russia duringWW2.

Except for the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust of over 1.3 billion avoidable deaths since 1950 and 18 million avoidable deaths per year, the above analysis does not take into account US subversion of virtually every country on earth. One visible expression of this subversion is the presence of US forces in hundreds of bases around the world. Thus the Saudi Arabia-occupied Bahrain dictatorship is not listed above but is a major base for the US Navy.

According to Canadian geographer Professor Jules Dufour : “The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain. The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide…In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “ U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’ ”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries. The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).” [7].

How does your country feature in the history of the genocidally racist American Empire?

My country Australia, one of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world, is popularly known as the Lucky Country because of this good fortune. However since the US forced Japan into WW2 [6] , Australia has shifted its allegiance from the UK to the US and has become the American Lackey Country. Appalled by the Vietnam War, the reformist Whitlam Labor Government (1972-1975) promised to get out of Vietnam and abolish racism and also sought clarity on Australia ‘s role in US nuclear terrorism. Whitlam was sacked in a CIA-backed Coup in 1975 [3]. A cowardly Australian Labor Party (aka the Australian Lackey Party) quickly realized that the only way top get back into office was to adopt a craven “All the way with the USA” position and leading Labor figures became intimate with the Americans. When in the 2004 election campaign Labor Opposition Leader Mark Latham promised to bring Australian troops back from Iraq “by Christmas” he was publicly rebuked and vetoed by the US Ambassador, lost the election and has been reviled and ridiculed by the pro-war, pro-Zionist, US lackey Australian Mainstream media and MPs ever since.

In 2010 extremely popular Labor PM Kevin Rudd raised the ire of the Americans by suggesting destruction of US- protected Afghan opium crops that were destroyed by the Taliban in 2000-2001 but restored by the US to 93% of world market share by 2007 and which have killed over 1 million people world-wide since 2001 (including 200,000 Americans, 50,000 Iranians, 18,000 British, 10,000 Canadians, 8,000 Germans and 4,000 Australians) [8]. Kevin Rudd also raised the ire of the traitorous racist Zionists by mildly protesting the large-scale Apartheid Israeli forging of Australian passports for Israel state terrorism purposes and the kidnapping, shooting, tasering, robbing and imprisonment of Australians in international waters by Israeli state terrorists. On 24 June 2010 PM Kevin Rudd was removed by a US -approved, foreign mining company-backed, pro-Zionist-led Coup. Rudd’s pro-war, pro-Zionist and slavishly pro-American successor PM Julia Gillard rapidly moved to allow the US to station 2,500 child-killing Marines in Darwin with suggestions of bases for US nuclear–armed warships, US drones and US warplanes. Nevertheless WikiLeaks revealed that 2 of the Coup plotters were US “assets” who would regularly update the American Embassy about internal Labor Government matters. The disastrous and extremely unpopular Gillard Government [9] has finally recently been replaced by a new Rudd Labor Government and it appears that PM Rudd has learned his lesson and is evidently shifting Right to keep Big Business and the Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist Lobby happy (he hasn’t much choice – 70% of Australian newspaper readers read the media of extreme right-wing, Australian-turned-US-citizen, media mogul Rupert Murdoch in Murdochracy, Lobbyocracy and Corporatocracy Australia).

Conclusions.

America has invaded 70 countries since its 4th of July Independence Day in 1776. American imperialism has made a major contribution to the 1.3 billion global avoidable deaths in the period 1950-2005. The Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist One Percenters can be seen as the New Nazis. The World, including ordinary Americans (1 million of whom die preventably each year) [10], must shake off the shackles of endless American One Percenter warmongering, imperialism and mendacity. The World must make the Fourth of July Independence from America Day. Tell everyone you can.

References.

[1]. Dr Zoltan Grossman, “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”, ” http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality_05.html .

[3]. William Blum, “ Rogue State ”.

[4]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas”.

[5]. Martin Gilbert, “Atlas of the Holocaust”.

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com.au/ .

[7]. Jules Dufour, “The world-wide network of US military bases”, Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564 .

[8]. “Afghan Holocaust Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[9]. Gideon Polya, “100 reasons why Australians must reject Gillard Labor”, Countercurrents, 24 June, 2013 : http://www.countercurrents.org/polya240613.htm .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “One million Americans die preventably annually in USA ”, Countercurrents, 18 February 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya180212.htm .

Dr Gideon Polya has been teaching science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/listen-the-bengal-famine ). When words fail one can say it in pictures – for images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ .

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984794

The Davinator wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

JulesJ wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

JulesJ wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I’m looking ……………………in check, no? Also, one thing I really don’t like about Britain is that they seem to puppet whatever the U.S. does, so maybe by doing this they are going to take a different route?
Do we? Uhm Gun laws? No I don’t think so. Racism? I think our approach is years ahead of the US. Interference in other countries? Yes we are guilty but not quite to the US level. Stuffing our meat with antibiotics and using GMOs liberally? Nope. Death penalty? Nope.

What were you saying OutsideTheMattress?

— hide signature —
“A beautiful print is a thing in itself, not just a halfway house on the way to the page.” – Irving Penn
I’m talking more about the surveillance state issues that Britain suffers from. They seem to be in lockstep with the NSA and the way they went after Snowden and Assange showed they were scared to death about the skeletons in their closets being released. The Guardian did some amazing work in showing what was going on. The things you mentioned however, granted, Britain is much more advanced in those areas. Especially gun laws/death penalty/antibiotics/hormones/pesticides/GMOs. Although bigotry/racism still seems to be a problem there (as it is in much of Europe just like it is in the US.)

But let’s try looking at this from a bigger perspective. Do you think this just might be a “growing pains” issue where they might rejoin once they see the negative consequences of their actions? Perhaps it will teach them a lesson and they can then start to evolve towards a better economy? I try not to look at things linearly, perhaps this kind of thing will cause a rubber-band effect snapping people back to their senses. The same way I look at Trump, something so horrible, that it will cause a stronger reaction in the other direction, towards a much stronger progressive movement, rather than Clinton, which would be more of the same mediocrity. You’re seeing it right now with all the protests. Perhaps moving backwards for a little bit is necessary to “teach people a lesson” and not to blame others for ones problems, before a greater progression can be made towards a better economy and eventually rejoining the EU.
Yes, I have never before worried about the way my country has progressed. But today I have worries. Let’s hope we will evolve to something better, but political issues seem to generate more hate than they did in the past.

— hide signature —
“A beautiful print is a thing in itself, not just a halfway house on the way to the page.” – Irving Penn
There must be some global thing going on where this kind of polarity seems to be spreading throughout the world. I wonder if this is a foreshadowing of some kind of worldwide conflict that is going to be ignited in the coming decades. I hope not, but I could see that being the case.
This is very similar to what we saw after the crash of 1929….which has its twin in 2008….countries pushed back from global trade and became very protectionist through higher import taxes, duties, trade tariffs, etc, etc. Got worse and worse until the second world war in 1939.
Yikes- I wonder what are the factors that pushed the world over the edge in 1939 that didn’t exist in 2008. Also, I believe there was another big crash in 1987.
1987 was really just a standard bear pullback…it just happened in 2 days as opposed to months. Equity values only fell approx 23%. Markets in 1929/30 were down well over 60%…and about 55% in 2008.

Maybe besides the crash, you need the extreme polarity (we have that now and we had it in 1929- for different reasons, but there’s a similarity right there, but not in 1987 or 2008), plus you need a tyrant who has the ability to bring his people together (had that in 1939 but not in the other years- including hopefully not this time around either.)
We actually have had the polarity since 2008 with pushes against global trade, income disparity, corruption, and the religious issues boiling over around the world. I think religion will be a major problem….although it always has been. Really…humanity killing eachother over whos imaginary sky fairy is the best.
Yes, I also find religion to be the greatest divisive factor and it prevents true democracy from existing. I find that corrupt big money often follows religion around and both infect politics with narrowminded short term gratification and fear of the future.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984811

lol101 wrote:

Brian wrote:

lol101 wrote:

The Free Market theory postulates that, if markets are free from spurious perturbations from States and external regulations, they will naturally evolve, through the Supply and Demand mechanisms to a stable equilibrium.

This equilibrium will naturally be the optimum price for any given good, ensuring at the same time maximum profits for industries and maximum benefit (or usefulness) for the consumers.

This is the very base of Liberal Economics and has shaped most economical policies during the last 50 years.

Do you believe it?
Markets truly acting free would be great, but they don’t act free.
I used to think that also but then I looked at the theory behind that and… let’s just say that I find most hypothesis founding the “markets truly acting free would be great” belief dubious at best.
Yes, there’s a big difference between free and fair.

There are many ways markets behave badly.

1) Monopolies that manipulate other companies to retain their monopoly. Say IBM had an operating system and wanted to put it on computers and say microsoft had an operating system that is too wanted on computers. And say microsoft had far more penetration into the market (GB is giggling cause I said penetration). For them to keep this hold, they have told computer builders that they would discount their software to the builder if they agreed not to make computers with IBM’s software on it.

I would call that underhanded and not a sign of a market acting freely.

2) Keiretsu – very akin to #1. corporations only doing business with corporations they have partnered with.

3) Manipulating politicians to make laws that favor one company over another.

4) Being bad to the environment.

there are many other things that go on.

As companies are only as good as the people that are in them, they need impartial regulations to keep bad behavior to a minimum.

— hide signature —
Brian

I think there are more fundamental problems with the description of how free markets are supposed to behave that actually make the pursuit of truly free markets (ie regulated only to allow them to be effectively free) a dangerously misguided policy.

Look closely to what is happening in Italy. A year ago, Mateo Renzi promulgated laws supposed to give more flexibility to the job market. This flexibility is required for free market to exists and is supposed to lead to reduced unemployment, reduced precarity and higher economic growth eventually profitable to all.

My bet is that it will do nothing of the sort and only profit the richest part of the population while driving the majority deeper into poverty. Then the Liberal Economists will say that it failled because it didn’t go far enough and ask for even more flexibility, less taxes and more “freedom” for investors… and the cycle will repeat itself until the next “completely unpredictable” crisis throw millions more into the pit.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984808

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

In a pure free market, monopolies can bilk the consumer for everything they have, especially monopolies essential to every day life, such as electricity, water, gasoline, telecomm, etc…

This in fact is what happened in the US in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the robber barons. They established monopolies on rail, steel, and oil, with the Standard Oil breakup being the first serious anti-monopoly action to be taken.

Later, when the telephone became essential, AT&T was broken up when it became an effective monopoly.

Large companies can drive small companies out of business with low prices that the large company can ride out but the small company cannot, only to raise prices even higher when the competition has been eliminated – internationally, this is known as dumping.

In a totally free market, insider information trading can wreck public faith in securities exchanges.

So the concept of free trade is fine, until it is abused. Some regulation is necessary.
How do you feel about these megamergers that are now pandemic in our society where companies from many different industries are combining? I find that to be just as bad as monopolization- especially when it involves the media and the dissemination of information.
It makes lots of money in fees for go-betweens, consultants and banks, but generally results in a poorer performing company which sheds workers. When shareholders are also same banks, this is what happens. They merge companies, collect fees, sell on the stock rise on the rumours of merger, and sell at the top of the curve.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Thanks, I see how this can lead to recession. BTW I love your sig.
What it leads to is bubbles, where the constant revaluing of stock in favour of mergers creates monoliths that cannot deliver on that value. The inflation leads eventually to a sudden adjustment, devaluation and restructuring, which of course leads to more fees for the intermediaries but a disaster for those holding the stock, which of course are no longer those that engineered the original mergers because they already cashed in. It’s usually pension funds.

In other words, it is simply using artificial inflation of stock prices designed to generate money out of money instead of money out of value.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Is this why recessions seem to be occurring with increasing frequency?
I think it is why recovery has been so incredibly slow. There is too much vested interest in preserving anti-competitive monoliths and stifling innovation.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
In the other thread we are talking about the comparisons to 1929 and wondering if this plus the polarity being seen globally is a portent of some possible upcoming widespread global conflict like was being seen back then.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984672

Wellington100 wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Wellington100 wrote:

glasswave wrote:

lol101 wrote:

The Free Market theory postulates that, if markets are free from spurious perturbations from States and external regulations, they will naturally evolve, through the Supply and Demand mechanisms to a stable equilibrium.

This equilibrium will naturally be the optimum price for any given good, ensuring at the same time maximum profits for industries and maximum benefit (or usefulness) for the consumers.

This is the very base of Liberal Economics and has shaped most economical policies during the last 50 years.

Do you believe it?
Free markets eventually lead to monopolies who will then use that monopoly status to stamp out any competition and suppress the people in the process of there own enrichment. Besides, they destroy the environment w/o concern for the future.
Free markets means different things to different people. If free markets means no trade barriers between countries that is a good thing, if free markets means eliminating all regulations so that the financial services industries can operate without restriction in a Darwinian environment, that is a bad thing.

If as you say free markets means allowing monopolies to dominate economies without regulating them or breaking them up, that is a very bad thing.

— hide signature —
Doctors are bad for your lifestyle!
I put megamergers in the same category- very unhealthy to society’s wellbeing.
and those mergers tend to reduce competition and lead towards monopolistic practices.

— hide signature —
Doctors are bad for your lifestyle!
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984666

Wellington100 wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Wellington100 wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Wellington100 wrote:

glasswave wrote:

lol101 wrote:

The Free Market theory postulates that, if markets are free from spurious perturbations from States and external regulations, they will naturally evolve, through the Supply and Demand mechanisms to a stable equilibrium.

This equilibrium will naturally be the optimum price for any given good, ensuring at the same time maximum profits for industries and maximum benefit (or usefulness) for the consumers.

This is the very base of Liberal Economics and has shaped most economical policies during the last 50 years.

Do you believe it?
Free markets eventually lead to monopolies who will then use that monopoly status to stamp out any competition and suppress the people in the process of there own enrichment. Besides, they destroy the environment w/o concern for the future.
Free markets means different things to different people.
It seems to me that a free market means absolutely no government regulation. No government investment, ownership or control.

If free markets means no trade barriers between countries that is a good thing,
Not in my opinion.
You have to differentiate between no trade barriers and Globalisation.
I think YOU need to differentiate between “FAIR trade” and “free trade,” because I get the impression that you are more of a fair trade supporter.

No trade barriers increases wealth by extending free market trading of goods across borders,
Only fair trade does that. Free trade results in the off shoring of jobs, exploitation of the working poor and wanton destruction of the environment.

Globalisation is an ideology that has caused massive problems. It is not about trade as much as it is about the liberalisation of capital movements, tax jurisdictions, corporate HQ’s and jobs.
Very true.

if free markets means eliminating all regulations so that the financial services industries can operate without restriction in a Darwinian environment, that is a bad thing.
Historically, yes.

If as you say free markets means allowing monopolies to dominate economies without regulating them or breaking them up, that is a very bad thing.
If the government regulates (ie. by breaking up monopolies) the market, it is not a free market.

“A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.” wiki

Besides, if your contention is that free markets naturally evolve to equilibrium, then why have we tended to end up with monopolies when markets go unregulated?
My contention is that free markets do not naturally evolve to equilibrium, this is a complete untruth, it is an ideology peddled by followers of Neo Liberal Economics that has no basis in fact or experience.
Agreed!

Monopolies are the opposite of free markets and breaking them up is essential. In order to break them up you have to have government regulation. In my opinion, only government regulation can preserve free markets. Arguing that government regulation automatically strangles free markets is a myth, it can strangle the free market if the regulation is bad but good regulation protects free markets.
Governements, when wisely managed, can make infrastructure investments and implement regulations that break down market barriers to entry and thus actually increase competition.

Thats why I think that free markets means different things to different people. Freeing up the trade in goods has enriched producers and consumers over decades but wanting to eliminate all taxes, rules and regulations as well as allowing capital to fly around the world at the speed of light in a fully deregulated financial environment has proved to be very bad.
I still think that you are mixing up the terms of “free trade” vs “fair trade.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade
I am a fan of Fair Trade products, especially coffee and bananas but back in the day, free trade simply referred to the removal of barriers to trade between countries, it was not a Globalisation ideology, the way it is now. It is possible to have free trade without all the other aspects of Globalisation which are so destabilising for all economies nowadays and which serve to concentrate wealth like never before outside of the jurisdictions of the countries where most of the trade actually is being produced and consumed.

— hide signature —
Doctors are bad for your lifestyle!
I have to say that we 3 are pretty much in the same camp.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984675
TrapperJohn wrote:

but that’s not the fault of mergers, or monopoly. The general public is responsible for the sorry state of the news media today, by pumping ad revenue into tabloid reporting.

Two of the most popular news outlets in the US exhibit a distinct political bias. The fact that so many people look at one of these two as their primary news source (depending on their political preference) is a sad statement on how many people want reinforcement, not truth.

Then again, we have probably the two worst presidential candidates in history. To believe that either of them is an effective leader requires a hefty dose of tunnel vision, with a garnish of denial.

So perhaps Trump and Clinton are just an extension of our ability to self deceive, as demonstrated by our preferred ‘news source’. Viewed in that context, their ascendance shouldn’t be a complete surprise.
Yep, something I was thinking about was rather than merely blaming the politicians, we should be putting that on the current state of our society that allowed things to get to this level. And it seems to be something that’s affecting other nations also.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984662

Chris59 wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Greg Beetham wrote:

The sun has gone blank again, no sunspots, they think it’s approaching a period where there won’t be any for long periods of time maybe an entire year. There is a risk for frequent flyers too, increased radiation from interstellar origins in the x-ray band as the ionosphere contracts due to low solar activity.

Speaking of suns, there is also a report of a black hole caught in the act of devouring a sun…oh well, it’s gone to a better place…maybe.
I actually find megablack hole mergers quite interesting- since they are considered a possible source for generating new universes. Consider the power of two supermassive black holes combining and the vast amount of energy they generate!

BTW expect the climate to get cold quickly, this is what usually happens when the sun goes blank.
Quite. Look at the Maunder Minimum (which is what you are referring to I think).

Although the approximately 11 year solar cycle (or 22 years if you count magnetic pole reversals) means the Sun alternates between periods of activity and inactivity, the past few cycles have seen shorter less energetic solar maximums and longer solar minimums than normal.

No one is quite sure why, but there are several theories which are waiting on the predicted outcome of future solar activity to determine their validity, but they all point to an extended period of inactivity and that means another Little Ice Age or worse.

You can keep an eye on things here:-

http://www.spaceweather.com/

And don’t forget that the pending magnetic pole reversal is already having negative consequences to airplane navigation systems.
Thanks, that’s what I’m hearing too. I suspect we’ll have one more really hot year in 2021 and then things will begin to cool down a little after that. Everything I’ve been reading seems to point towards cooling starting later in the 2020s.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57984647

Greg Beetham wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Greg Beetham wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Greg Beetham wrote:

The sun has gone blank again, no sunspots, they think it’s approaching a period where there won’t be any for long periods of time maybe an entire year. There is a risk for frequent flyers too, increased radiation from interstellar origins in the x-ray band as the ionosphere contracts due to low solar activity.

Speaking of suns, there is also a report of a black hole caught in the act of devouring a sun…oh well, it’s gone to a better place…maybe.
I actually find megablack hole mergers quite interesting- since they are considered a possible source for generating new universes. Consider the power of two supermassive black holes combining and the vast amount of energy they generate!
Yeah we could be in the box seat one day, M31 if I remember correctly has its own supermassive BH and an adopted massive BH originating from some previously cannibalised galaxy, so they will merge…one fine day, let’s hope the synchrotron beam is aimed somewhere else when it happens.
You know, Gamma Ray Bursts have been implicated in some mass extinctions, and this is just the kind of thing that could make it happen.
I’ve heard of those proposals before about the danger of a powerful jet of x-rays and gamma rays heading our way. The problem about colliding black holes and merging neutron stars that are close enough to pose a danger is they might be completely invisible until they actually collide, if they are in a gas and dust poor region that is. In that case by the time you see them it’s too late, if the jet is aimed at Earth it has already arrived.

The last proposal about the mass extinctions is periodic volcanism that happen on a truly massive scale millennia apart. The article I saw showed they had found evidence for these massive volcanic events coinciding with most of the major mass extinctions, it seemed plausible, probably the most plausible I’ve seen yet.
I find that subject very intriguing. When I was reading about periodic mass extinctions (and the accelerated evolution which follows them) I remember reading about it possibly connected to the orbit of the sun around the galactic center. When the sun passes through a particularly dense part of the galaxy, gravity nudges comets to approach the inner solar system from the Oort comet cloud and then you have the mass extinctions. Remember the massive collisions that we witnessed on Jupiter a few years ago? Something like that.

BTW expect the climate to get cold quickly, this is what usually happens when the sun goes blank.
Yes I believe so, an extended period with no sunspots spells a large climate impact for Earth, GW or no GW.
There is a way to plot average temperatures across the CONUS and awhile back I plugged in some years which had suspiciously hot summers that seemed to recur in 11 year intervals (this is the same as the sunspot cycle) and when plugging in these years, there was coast to coast extreme and longlasting heat…..the years I plugged into the NWS database were 1933, 1944, 1955, 1966, 1977, 1988, 1999, and 2010. Now this doesn’t mean we didn’t have hot summers outside of these years, but in these 11 year cycles it was especially hot- and as one goes from the earlier years to the more recent ones, the heat appears to be increasing, so I suspect this is a combo of solar plus man-made warming working together.
Interesting, I suppose it would be expected that when the sun is more energetic and blasting off more CME’s the increased output is bound to affect the Earth even if it’s by a few degrees on average.

And don’t forget that the pending magnetic pole reversal is already having negative consequences to airplane navigation systems.
I haven’t done any research on that so far, I know about the magnetic field weakening of course and it could flip like it has done in the past. But the impact on aviation navigation shouldn’t be too large these days one would think, now we have satellite based GPS navigation systems that have mostly replaced Magnetic/gyro based Inertial navigation.

I think the waypoint beacons are still operating for those smaller older planes that don’t have GPS navigation yet, I think there are still DC3’s flying for instance.
A couple of years ago I read about Tampa airport having had some issues with navigation control and that being blamed on the magnetic field flip…..might be an isolated thing but who knows as we get closer to the flip. Look up the South Atlantic Anomaly as another interesting feature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
I waded through that one eventually, probably the major concern is the hard radiation hazard associated with the anomaly, they have to try to shield the people in the space station as best they can from it I notice.

They have done extensive investigation on previous polarity reversals and couldn’t find any association with mass extinctions.

NASA has reported that modern laptops have crashed when Space Shuttle flights passed through the anomaly.

In October 2012, the SpaceX CRS-1 Dragon spacecraft attached to the International Space Station experienced a transient problem as it passed through the anomaly.

The SAA is believed to have started a series of events leading to the destruction of the Hitomi, Japan’s most powerful X-ray observatory. The anomaly transiently disabled a direction-finding mechanism, causing the satellite to fall back on gyroscopes that were not working properly, after which it spun itself apart.

I also find this somewhat intriguing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
Yes that’s interesting and most odd. I thought it might have been a kind of St. Elmo’s fire but it would seem not, the colour temperature is supposed to be 5000K which is white light but people claim the glowing balls appear greenish. Possibly due to the actual strength of the light perhaps, pretty feeble light might appear green even if it isn’t.

There are some pretty complex theories about it, I wonder if any of them are actually provable or even testable.
Having been doing astrophotography I was reading up on why there aren’t green stars, and the reason seems to be because stars that should be green actually appear white because they emit light equally across the visible wavelengths. So maybe this is the case here too (but in reverse.) White light should theoretically be spread throughout the spectrum but maybe this is restricted to narrowband- thus it appears green. I have a narrowband O2 filter that makes everything appear green although the color temperature should be around 5000K also. Besides, doesn’t white balance have two axes of measurement?

Funny thing- when I do infrared photography and set a custom white balance and then just for fun try to use that white balance for conventional photography, everything has a green tint!

These events remind me of ball lightning. Remember when that was also assumed to be a hoax but it was finally replicated in the lab. Could be a similar outcome here.

The Hessdalen lights are of unknown origin. They appear at night, and seem to float through and above the valley. They are usually bright white, yellow, or red and can appear above and below the horizon. The duration of the phenomenon may be from a few seconds to longer than an hour. Sometimes the lights move with enormous speed, and at other times, seem to slowly sway back and forth. On yet other occasions, they hover mid‑air. Some hypothesise that the light is ionised iron dust.

Unusual lights have been reported in the region since at least the 1930s. Especially high activity occurred between December 1981 and mid-1984, at which point the lights were being observed 15–20 times per week, which attracted many overnight tourists. As of 2010, the lights were observed 10–20 times per year.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57985778

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

In a pure free market, monopolies can bilk the consumer for everything they have, especially monopolies essential to every day life, such as electricity, water, gasoline, telecomm, etc…

This in fact is what happened in the US in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the robber barons. They established monopolies on rail, steel, and oil, with the Standard Oil breakup being the first serious anti-monopoly action to be taken.

Later, when the telephone became essential, AT&T was broken up when it became an effective monopoly.

Large companies can drive small companies out of business with low prices that the large company can ride out but the small company cannot, only to raise prices even higher when the competition has been eliminated – internationally, this is known as dumping.

In a totally free market, insider information trading can wreck public faith in securities exchanges.

So the concept of free trade is fine, until it is abused. Some regulation is necessary.
How do you feel about these megamergers that are now pandemic in our society where companies from many different industries are combining? I find that to be just as bad as monopolization- especially when it involves the media and the dissemination of information.
It makes lots of money in fees for go-betweens, consultants and banks, but generally results in a poorer performing company which sheds workers. When shareholders are also same banks, this is what happens. They merge companies, collect fees, sell on the stock rise on the rumours of merger, and sell at the top of the curve.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Thanks, I see how this can lead to recession. BTW I love your sig.
What it leads to is bubbles, where the constant revaluing of stock in favour of mergers creates monoliths that cannot deliver on that value. The inflation leads eventually to a sudden adjustment, devaluation and restructuring, which of course leads to more fees for the intermediaries but a disaster for those holding the stock, which of course are no longer those that engineered the original mergers because they already cashed in. It’s usually pension funds.

In other words, it is simply using artificial inflation of stock prices designed to generate money out of money instead of money out of value.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Is this why recessions seem to be occurring with increasing frequency?
I think it is why recovery has been so incredibly slow. There is too much vested interest in preserving anti-competitive monoliths and stifling innovation.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
In the other thread we are talking about the comparisons to 1929 and wondering if this plus the polarity being seen globally is a portent of some possible upcoming widespread global conflict like was being seen back then.
I don’t think there is much chance of a global conflict – there is too much to lose on all sides. But a rash of smaller conflicts is likely.

Political instability in some countries may lead to a failure of democracy. We are already seeing this, with the increasing influence of big money over the agenda of the political classes. Internal issues are likely to increase, fuelled by nationalist interests and mass migrations. If anything, I see the divides opening up within the western democracies themselves. In other words, civil unrest and a polarisation of politics.

This is partly because of an every increasing wealth divide, which is related to our remoteness from the financial systems and processes on which we depend. We are simply not getting the benefits of all their success. It is all disappearing into offshore tax havens and being used to swallow up even more companies.

Globalisation is hard to counter if all you have is individual governments with limited jurisdiction.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Yes, ever since the start of the cold war, we’ve been on the brink but never quite gone over into widespread global conflict, mainly because even irrational people realize what there is to lose with such a conflict, especially in the era of weapons of mass destruction.

I see what you’re saying in Europe, and with what happened in Britain we might have a domino like effect with other European countries that were already teetering on the edge. Frankly, I find some level of conflict to be healthy, especially if the end result is to correct the wealth divide. I suspect that the wealthy are the ones with the most to lose, so perhaps they can be taught a lesson (not to the level of the French Revolution, but perhaps a lesser version that brings them “back to the pack.”)

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

In a pure free market, monopolies can bilk the consumer for everything they have, especially monopolies essential to every day life, such as electricity, water, gasoline, telecomm, etc…

This in fact is what happened in the US in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the robber barons. They established monopolies on rail, steel, and oil, with the Standard Oil breakup being the first serious anti-monopoly action to be taken.

Later, when the telephone became essential, AT&T was broken up when it became an effective monopoly.

Large companies can drive small companies out of business with low prices that the large company can ride out but the small company cannot, only to raise prices even higher when the competition has been eliminated – internationally, this is known as dumping.

In a totally free market, insider information trading can wreck public faith in securities exchanges.

So the concept of free trade is fine, until it is abused. Some regulation is necessary.
How do you feel about these megamergers that are now pandemic in our society where companies from many different industries are combining? I find that to be just as bad as monopolization- especially when it involves the media and the dissemination of information.
It makes lots of money in fees for go-betweens, consultants and banks, but generally results in a poorer performing company which sheds workers. When shareholders are also same banks, this is what happens. They merge companies, collect fees, sell on the stock rise on the rumours of merger, and sell at the top of the curve.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Thanks, I see how this can lead to recession. BTW I love your sig.
What it leads to is bubbles, where the constant revaluing of stock in favour of mergers creates monoliths that cannot deliver on that value. The inflation leads eventually to a sudden adjustment, devaluation and restructuring, which of course leads to more fees for the intermediaries but a disaster for those holding the stock, which of course are no longer those that engineered the original mergers because they already cashed in. It’s usually pension funds.

In other words, it is simply using artificial inflation of stock prices designed to generate money out of money instead of money out of value.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Is this why recessions seem to be occurring with increasing frequency?
I think it is why recovery has been so incredibly slow. There is too much vested interest in preserving anti-competitive monoliths and stifling innovation.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
In the other thread we are talking about the comparisons to 1929 and wondering if this plus the polarity being seen globally is a portent of some possible upcoming widespread global conflict like was being seen back then.
I don’t think there is much chance of a global conflict – there is too much to lose on all sides. But a rash of smaller conflicts is likely.

Political instability in some countries may lead to a failure of democracy. We are already seeing this, with the increasing influence of big money over the agenda of the political classes. Internal issues are likely to increase, fuelled by nationalist interests and mass migrations. If anything, I see the divides opening up within the western democracies themselves. In other words, civil unrest and a polarisation of politics.

This is partly because of an every increasing wealth divide, which is related to our remoteness from the financial systems and processes on which we depend. We are simply not getting the benefits of all their success. It is all disappearing into offshore tax havens and being used to swallow up even more companies.

Globalisation is hard to counter if all you have is individual governments with limited jurisdiction.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Yes, ever since the start of the cold war, we’ve been on the brink but never quite gone over into widespread global conflict, mainly because even irrational people realize what there is to lose with such a conflict, especially in the era of weapons of mass destruction.

I see what you’re saying in Europe, and with what happened in Britain we might have a domino like effect with other European countries that were already teetering on the edge. Frankly, I find some level of conflict to be healthy, especially if the end result is to correct the wealth divide. I suspect that the wealthy are the ones with the most to lose, so perhaps they can be taught a lesson (not to the level of the French Revolution, but perhaps a lesser version that brings them “back to the pack.”)

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

57even wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

In a pure free market, monopolies can bilk the consumer for everything they have, especially monopolies essential to every day life, such as electricity, water, gasoline, telecomm, etc…

This in fact is what happened in the US in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the robber barons. They established monopolies on rail, steel, and oil, with the Standard Oil breakup being the first serious anti-monopoly action to be taken.

Later, when the telephone became essential, AT&T was broken up when it became an effective monopoly.

Large companies can drive small companies out of business with low prices that the large company can ride out but the small company cannot, only to raise prices even higher when the competition has been eliminated – internationally, this is known as dumping.

In a totally free market, insider information trading can wreck public faith in securities exchanges.

So the concept of free trade is fine, until it is abused. Some regulation is necessary.
How do you feel about these megamergers that are now pandemic in our society where companies from many different industries are combining? I find that to be just as bad as monopolization- especially when it involves the media and the dissemination of information.
It makes lots of money in fees for go-betweens, consultants and banks, but generally results in a poorer performing company which sheds workers. When shareholders are also same banks, this is what happens. They merge companies, collect fees, sell on the stock rise on the rumours of merger, and sell at the top of the curve.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Thanks, I see how this can lead to recession. BTW I love your sig.
What it leads to is bubbles, where the constant revaluing of stock in favour of mergers creates monoliths that cannot deliver on that value. The inflation leads eventually to a sudden adjustment, devaluation and restructuring, which of course leads to more fees for the intermediaries but a disaster for those holding the stock, which of course are no longer those that engineered the original mergers because they already cashed in. It’s usually pension funds.

In other words, it is simply using artificial inflation of stock prices designed to generate money out of money instead of money out of value.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Is this why recessions seem to be occurring with increasing frequency?
I think it is why recovery has been so incredibly slow. There is too much vested interest in preserving anti-competitive monoliths and stifling innovation.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
In the other thread we are talking about the comparisons to 1929 and wondering if this plus the polarity being seen globally is a portent of some possible upcoming widespread global conflict like was being seen back then.
I don’t think there is much chance of a global conflict – there is too much to lose on all sides. But a rash of smaller conflicts is likely.

Political instability in some countries may lead to a failure of democracy. We are already seeing this, with the increasing influence of big money over the agenda of the political classes. Internal issues are likely to increase, fuelled by nationalist interests and mass migrations. If anything, I see the divides opening up within the western democracies themselves. In other words, civil unrest and a polarisation of politics.

This is partly because of an every increasing wealth divide, which is related to our remoteness from the financial systems and processes on which we depend. We are simply not getting the benefits of all their success. It is all disappearing into offshore tax havens and being used to swallow up even more companies.

Globalisation is hard to counter if all you have is individual governments with limited jurisdiction.

— hide signature —
Reporter: “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?”
Mahatma Gandhi: “I think it would be a very good idea!”
Yes, ever since the start of the cold war, we’ve been on the brink but never quite gone over into widespread global conflict, mainly because even irrational people realize what there is to lose with such a conflict, especially in the era of weapons of mass destruction.

I see what you’re saying in Europe, and with what happened in Britain we might have a domino like effect with other European countries that were already teetering on the edge. Frankly, I find some level of conflict to be healthy, especially if the end result is to correct the wealth divide. I suspect that the wealthy are the ones with the most to lose, so perhaps they can be taught a lesson (not to the level of the French Revolution, but perhaps a lesser version that brings them “back to the pack.”)

 

Advertisements