marketwatch | As European governments struggle to contain the fallout of soaring energy costs
to their citizens, the U.S. may also be facing a brewing crisis with an
estimated 20 million households struggling to pay their utility bills.
Representing
one in six households, the eye-popping number comes from a study at
the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (Neada) that was
highlighted in a Bloomberg report
earlier this week. The total amount in arrears amounted to $16 billion
in June, just under the highest number so far this year — $16.5 billion
in March.
“So before the pandemic, it was about $8 billion…and then the number doubled,” the author of that study, Neada’s executive director Mark Wolfe, told MarketWatch on Thursday.
Those
20 million households — largely low-income — can be anywhere from 30 to
90 days in arrears on utility payments, said Wolfe, who has been
tracking the data for about 10 years.
Jean Su, a senior attorney
at the Center for Biological Diversity, which tracks utility
disconnections across the U.S. told Bloomberg that she expects a
“tsunami of shutoffs.”
The rise in the cost of living was at a 40-year-high at 8.5% in July
compared to the year before. Grocery prices continued to soar — the
price increase was 13.1% compared to the same period last year. Many
Americans reported they have already dipped into savings to pay for bills and bought smaller package sizes and cheaper alternatives to cut down on costs.
Because
of the rising costs, lower-income Americans are already struggling to
pay back credit-card loans and purchase big-ticket items like
automobiles, Radha Seshagiri told MarketWatch previously.
Seshagiri is the public policy and system change director at SaverLife,
a nonprofit that helps families with low and moderate incomes to save
money.
Residents living in rural areas were seeing even bigger impacts of inflation and the recent rise in energy costs, according to a report by Iowa State University professor Dave Peters, which studied the impact of inflation in small towns.
“The
biggest inflationary impact on rural households has been the increased
cost of transportation, which is essential in rural areas where
residents have to drive longer distances to work, school, or to shop for
daily needs.” Peters wrote in the report.
Rural people are
paying $2,470 per year more for gasoline and diesel fuels than they did
two years ago, while urban dwellers are paying $2,057 more, according to
the report.
German FM: I will put Ukraine first “no matter what my German voters think” or how hard their life gets. pic.twitter.com/GwAqIZ2jL7
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 31, 2022
Telegraph | Britain is now in grave danger of falling into Vladimir Putin’s trap.
His kamikaze economic war on the West will eventually take down his
disgusting coterie of war criminals, but in the meantime it is beginning
to inflict immense, permanent damage on the Western way of life, to the
great delight of Moscow’s siloviki hard men.
We risk ending up with calamitous poverty, civil disobedience, a new
socialist government by next year, a break-up of the UK,
nationalisations, price and incomes policies, punitive wealth taxes and
eventually a complete economic and financial meltdown and IMF bailout. The situation in the EU is, if anything, worse.
This is not a plea for pacifism, for looking away when Ukraine is
being illegally invaded by a savage regime. Britain was – and remains –
morally right to back Ukraine in a carefully calibrated way. Instead,
this is a plea for an economic counter-offensive, for Liz Truss, the
next PM, to tackle Putin’s economic and energy war head-on.
Mass, immediate intervention is inevitable, but must be designed to
avoid hastening Britain’s shift into demagoguery, welfarism and
socialist central planning, all steps down Hayek’s “road to serfdom”
that the Leftist and green elites are longing us to take. The wrong
response – because too little is done, or because the wrong solutions
are chosen – would merely advance Putin’s masterplan to cripple the
West.
Cheap and plentiful energy is essential to our consumerist societies.
We cannot be delusional about the scale of the developing catastrophe.
Household energy and vehicle fuel costs will jump from 4.5 per cent of
household spending in early 2021 to some 13.4 per cent by April next
year, much higher than at any time during the past 50 years, including
the 1970s, according to Carbon Brief. Households may face a rise in
energy costs of £167 billion, or 7 per cent of GDP, taking total
expenditure to £231 billion, more than government spending on health,
and that is before the hit to business is accounted for. The rise for
consumers alone is more than the combined defence and education budgets.
This is equivalent to a Depression-style shock. Pay rises will
protect some workers at the expense of investors, but – until and unless
energy prices fall again – our national living standards will slump
massively. The nation is sending tens of billions more abroad to pay for
energy imports.
The state can borrow to cushion the blow, reducing future consumption
to prop up current living standards, but our impoverishment cannot be
magicked away. Coming after years of QE,
there is a real danger of excess borrowing triggering even higher
inflation, rocketing interest rates, mass repossessions and a banking
crisis, so caution is imperative.
There was little the West could do other than rely on hostile Opec
nations in the 1970s, the last time an energy war almost destroyed us;
but it was an unforgivable error for Europe to become so reliant on
Russian supplies, and to fail so miserably to increase domestic energy
production. The French even allowed their nuclear plants to break down.
Putin struck at the right time: the zombified Western economy was in
the doldrums. Covid was a disaster of unpreparedness and errors,
increasing national debts and inflation and entrenching a dependency
culture. But the Russian tyrant’s canniest move was to understand just
how suicidal our energy policy had become. A toxic brew of net zero ideology,
deep hypocrisy about decarbonising without making the nuclear effort,
endemic nimbyism, short-termism and state incompetence had radically
weakened the West.
ourfiniteworld | The economy is something that grows through the “dissipation” of
energy. Examples of dissipation of energy include the digestion of food
to give energy to humans, the burning of fossil fuels, and the use of
electricity to power a light bulb. A rise in world energy consumption is
highly correlated with growth in the world economy. Falling energy
consumption is associated with economic contraction.
In physics terms, the world economy is a dissipative structure, just
as all plants, animals and ecosystems are. All dissipative structures
have finite lifespans, including the world economy.
This finding is not well known because academic researchers seem to
operate in ivory towers. Researchers in economic departments aren’t
expected to understand physics and how it applies to the economy. In
fairness to academia, the discovery that the economy is a dissipative
structure did not occur until 1996.
It takes a long time for findings to filter through from one department
to another. Even now, I am one of a very small number of people in the
world writing about this issue.
Also, economic researchers are not expected to study the history of
the many smaller, more-localized civilizations that have collapsed in
the past. Typically, the population of these smaller civilizations
increased at the same time as the resources used by the population
started to degrade. The use of technology, such as dams to redirect
water flows, may have helped for a while, but eventually this was not
enough. The combination of declining availability of high quality
resources and increasing population tended to leave these civilizations
with little margin for dealing with the bad times that can be expected
to occur by chance. In many cases, such civilizations collapsed after
disease epidemics, a military invasion, or a climate fluctuation that
led to a series of crop failures.
counterpunch | Nations of the world are only too aware that fossil fuels need to be
phased out for two reasons. First, oil is a finite commodity. It’ll run
out in time. Secondly, fossil fuel emissions such as CO2 are destroying
the planet’s climate system.
However, a recent study puts a damper on the prospects of phasing out
fossil fuels in favor of renewables. More to the point, a phase out of
fossil fuels by mid century looks to be a nearly impossible Sisyphean
task. It’s all about quantities of minerals/metals contained in Mother
Earth. There aren’t enough.
Simon Michaux, PhD, Geological Survey Finland has done a detailed
study of what’s required to phase out fossil fuels in favor of
renewables, to wit:
“The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of
renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels is much larger than first
thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to
meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in
size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls.
Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this
seminar addressing these issues.” (Source: Simon P. Michaux, Associate
Research Professor of Geometallurgy Unit Minerals Processing and
Materials Research, Geological Survey of Finland, August 18, 2022 –
Seminar: What Would It Take To Replace The Existing Fossil Fuel System?)
Metals/minerals required to source gigafactories producing renewables
to power the world’s economies when fossil fuels phase out looks to be
one of the biggest quandaries of all time. There’s not enough metal.
Michaux researched and analyzed the current status of the internal
combustion engine fleet of cars, trucks, rail, maritime shipping, and
aviation for the US, Europe, and China, accessing databases to gather
information as a starting point for the study.
Michaux’s calculations for what’s required to phase out fossil fuels
uses a starting point of 2018 with 84.5% of primary energy still fossil
fuel-based and less than 1% of the world’s vehicle fleet electric.
Therefore, the first generation of renewable energy is only now coming
on stream, meaning there will be no recycling availability of production
materials for some time. Production will have to be sourced from
mining.
When Michaux presented basic information to EU analysts, it was a
shock to them. To his dismay, they had not put together the various
mineral/metal data requirements to phase out fossil fuels and replaced
by renewables. They assumed, using guesstimates, the metals would be
available.
indianpunchline | The fact that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states held a
joint ministerial meeting with their Russian counterpart Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Saudi capital of Riyadh at this point in
time in global politics conveys a powerful message in itself.
To
drive home the message in no uncertain terms, the Saudi Foreign
Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said at a press conference
following the ministerial on Wednesday that the GCC member-countries
share a common stance with respect to the crisis in Ukraine. (The news
conference was broadcast live by the Al-Arabiya TV channel.)
“The
countries of the Persian Gulf share a common stance regarding the
Ukrainian crisis and its negative consequences, especially with regard
to the food security of other countries,” Al Saud said.
For
his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the media that
“the GCC countries understand the nature of the conflict between Russia
and the West.” Earlier, during a bilateral with Lavrov who was on a
2-day visit, Al Saud said the “the kingdom’s position regarding the
crisis in Ukraine is based on the principles of international law and
support for efforts aimed at achieving a political solution to the
crisis.”
After the meeting, Lavrov said the GCC countries will not
join the West in imposing sanctions on Moscow over the conflict in
Ukraine. In his words, “Aspects of the international situation, which
are connected with the events unfolded by the West around Ukraine, are
well understood by our partners from the Gulf Cooperation Council
states.”
Lavrov added, “We appreciate and reaffirmed today once
again the balanced position that they take towards this issue at
international forums, and in practice, refusing to join the
illegitimate, unilateral Western sanctions that were introduced against
Russia.”
Lavrov said
Moscow and Gulf countries intended to further develop their partnership
in sharp contrast with the growing tensions between Russia and the US
and its European allies. After meeting with the top diplomats of the
UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman in Riyadh, Lavrov said, “We
reaffirmed our focus on the comprehensive development of our
partnership, including in the new conditions that are emerging in the
world economy in the context of the policies of our Western colleagues.”
Looking
ahead, Lavrov expressed satisfaction that “We reaffirmed our focus on
the comprehensive development of our partnership, including in the new
conditions that are emerging in the world economy in the context of the
policies of our Western colleagues.”
The
timing of the GCC-Russia ministerial and Lavrov’s visit to Riyadh is
highly significant at a juncture when the Biden Administration is
pulling out all the stops to repair the US’ fractured relationship with
Saudi Arabia ever since Candidate Biden famously christened the Kingdom
as a “Pariah state” and the Washington establishment launched a
concerted campaign to defame the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
personally over the killing of the ex-CIA consultant Jamal Khashoggi.
ourfiniteworld | The attacks by Russia of Ukrainian sites seems to be occurring, for
many related reasons. It can no longer tolerate being inadequately
compensated for the resources it is extracting and selling to Ukraine
and the rest of the world. It is tired of being “pushed around” by the
rich economies, especially the United States, as NATO adds more
countries. It is also tired of NATO training Ukrainian soldiers. Russia
seems to have no plan to gain the entire territory of Ukraine; it is more of a temporary police action.
Russia’s underlying problem is that it can no longer produce
commodities that the world wants as inexpensively as the world demands.
Building all the infrastructure needed to extract and ship more fossil
fuel resources would take more capital spending than Russia can afford.
The selling price will never rise high enough to justify these
investments, including the cost of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia
has nothing to lose at this point. The current situation is not working;
going back to it is no incentive for stopping the current conflict.
Russia is in some ways like a heavily armed, suicidal old man, who
can no longer earn an adequate living. The economic system of Russia is
no longer working as it should. Russia is incredibly well-armed. The
situation reminds a person of the story of Samson,
in his old age, taking down the temple of the Philistines and losing
his own life at the same time. Russia has no reason to back down in
response to sanctions.
Leaders of the world, including Joe Biden, appear to be oblivious to the situation we are facing.
Leaders of the world have created ridiculous narratives that overlook
the critical role commodities play. They seem to believe that it is
possible to cut off purchases from Russia with, at most, temporary harm
to the rest of the world economy.
The history of the world shows that the populations of many
civilizations have outgrown their resource bases and have collapsed.
Physics points out that this outcome is almost inevitable because of the
way the Universe is constructed. Everything is constantly evolving,
even economies. The climate is constantly evolving, as are the species
inhabiting the Earth.
Elected leaders need a story of everlasting growth that they can tell their citizens. They cannot even consider the physics-based way the world economy operates, and the resulting expected pattern of overshoot and collapse. Modelers of what are intended to be long-lasting structures cannot accept this outcome either.
Limits which are defined based on affordability of end products are
incredibly difficult to model, so creative narratives have been
developed suggesting that humans can move away from fossil fuels if they
so desire. No one stops to think that economies cannot continue to
exist using a much lower quantity of energy, any more than an adult
human can get along on 500 calories a day. Both are dissipative
structures; the ongoing energy requirement is built in. Factories close
when electricity, diesel and other energy products are cut off.
The sanctions and the Russia-Ukraine conflict cannot end well.
The world economy is already on the edge of collapse because of the
resource limits it is hitting. Intentionally stopping Russia’s output of
resources like fertilizer and processed uranium is certain to make the
situation worse, not better. Once Russia’s output is stopped, it is
likely to be impossible to restart Russia’s production at the same
level. Trained workers who lose their jobs will likely find jobs
elsewhere, for one thing. The shortfall in output will affect countries
around the world.
The United States dollar is now the world’s reserve currency. The
sanctions being applied indirectly encourage counties to use other
currencies to work around the sanctions. There seems to be a substantial
chance that the US economy will lose its role as the center of
international trade. If such a change takes place, the US will no longer
be able to import far more than it exports, year after year.
A major issue is the huge amount of debt most countries of the world
have. With a rapidly slowing world economy, repaying debt with interest
will become impossible. Debt defaults will further wreak havoc with the
world economic system.
We don’t know the exact timing of how this will play out, but the situation does not look good.
gilbertdoctorow | As the USA and Europe have each day piled on new sanctions against
Russia, the awareness of a ‘total war’ situation has penetrated the
consciousness of Russia’s leadership and the tone of public discourse
about the war has hardened noticeably in recent days. Talk shows which I
follow regularly have changed course yet again from what I reported a
week ago. On the Vladimir Solovyov evening programs, the bearer of grim
expectations about war prospects, Mosfilm general director Karen
Shakhnazarov, has disappeared, his place taken by others who take the
conversation in a wholly different direction, including fierce
denunciations of unpatriotic personalities within Russia. Still other
newcomers are presenting their own half-baked speculations on how the
entire Russian economy and society has to be reorganized to respond to
the new realities of a total permanent break with the West. While the
Putin government remains resolutely pro-business and
pro-entrepreneurship, though with a heavy dose of state direction of the
economy, the new panelists in talk shows denounce free markets as just
one more manifestation of the West’s hijacking in the 1990s Russia’s
domestic political economy. Still other panelists on the Russian talk
shows are talking about purging the government and all public
institutions of Liberals, who are synonymous with Fifth Column traitors
and have no place in Russian society under conditions of a war for the
country’s survival.
As BBC and other Western journalists have remarked, Vladimir Putin
addressed the issue of the Fifth Column in a televised speech yesterday
that was otherwise dedicated to the increases in pensions and social
benefits that he just announced to counteract negative results of the
newly imposed Western sanctions. In the BBC interpretation, the scum and
traitors denounced by Putin are the oligarchs. These are the people who
live there, meaning in the West, either physically or just mentally,
while earning their money in Russia.
However, this identification with the oligarchs only shows how little
Western news organizations, Western think tanks and Western government
leaders know about Russia and about what makes it tick. No, oligarchs
were not in the sights of Vladimir Putin yesterday: it was the multitude
of little traitors to the country and its people who have in recent
weeks come out of the woodwork and taken flight in an attempt to avoid
having to publicly take sides in the conflict and so lose their fortunes
and/or their social standing.
The broad Russian public has been utterly shocked at the departure of
a good many stars in the entertainment industry, the kind of folks who
in the West are images on the covers of People magazine and of
the yellow press more generally. Veteran singer Alla Pugacheva and her
husband Galkin have been darlings of Russian television and music halls
across the country for decades. They are known to have quietly flown to
Israel, where so many of their friends from show business and from high
society have already found refuge earlier still. Then there is one of
the two leading television news presenters, Sergey Briullov, host of The
News of the Week on Saturday nights. Sergey carries a British as well
as Russian passport; his family is based in their home in England and
his children study there. About a week ago, Briullov disappeared from
Russia and eventually surfaced in Brazil, where he says he is doing a
film project about the Brazilian attitude to the Ukraine-Russia War. No
one is fooled for a moment about the fact that Briullov is just one
more traitor to his homeland, and comments on the Russian portals bear
this out daily.
No, Messrs BBC News, it is not oligarchs whose behavior if not their
very existence has embittered the middle and lower class Russians during
the current war. Those middle and lower classes constitute the 70% of
the population which backs Putin through thick and thin. It is the
smaller fish of Fifth Column populations who exist in much greater
numbers: as, for example, Russian lawyers who have homes near the
Champs Elysees and split their time between France and their law offices
in Moscow, whence the money from their servicing oligarchs comes. Then
there is the intelligentsia, the university dons, the occupants of often
important offices in government and private public institutions who
loathed Putin from his first election to the presidency in 2000 and have
never relented. Their contempt for the broad Russian public, which they
see as the great unwashed, as a herd of animals, was never well hidden,
and this contempt is now being reciprocated on Russian state television
and on the internet.
All of these fissures in Russian society are being deepened and
discussed on Russian media as a result of the ongoing war for survival.
If Russia is becoming a much less free society, that is a direct result
of Western pressure. But there is nothing new under the sun. This was
precisely one of the key arguments in favor of détente as opposed to
confrontation during the 1990s.
foreignpolicy | To imagine that economics leads to political de-escalation would be,
to say the least, historically naive. As U.S. history teaches,
socioeconomic clashes can play out violently. The South fought a civil
war in defense of slavery, a mode of production based on forced labor.
Nor do producers, outrun by technology, necessarily surrender quietly to
the force of technological logic. Think about the protracted rearguard
actions mounted in defense of agrarian interests that distorts global
food markets all the way to the present day. The most gothic visions see
the United States plunged into something akin to a civil war between
fossil fuels and anti-fossil fuel factions. That may be fanciful, but
what is harder to deny is the United States, whether governed by
Democrats or Republicans, has a lamentable track record of managing and
mitigating the job losses and social dislocation that follows deep
economic change.
In 2012, economist David Autor and his co-authors published a famous paper on what they called the “China syndrome.”
They showed how China’s integration into the world economy and a surge
of imports to the United States raised incomes overall but, at the same
time, irreparably damaged many manufacturing communities across the
United States. Ahead of COP26, Autor and his co-authors released an updated paper,
which compared the China shock with the impact of coal’s rundown.
Damage to local economies from the coal industry’s decline was even
worse. If the China shock is widely blamed for unhinging the blue-collar
coalition that once supported Democrats, the effect of the coal
industry’s collapse was even more unambiguous: 2016 saw a heavy
pro-Trump swing across America’s coal regions.
The
answer from the Democratic Party’s left wing, after they won control of
the House of Representatives in 2018, was the Green New Deal. It sought
to address this challenge by combining gigantic investment in renewables
with an alliance with organized labor and marginalized groups to create
a “just transition.” It was a head-on effort to win the argument for an
energy transition, not just as an opportunity for green growth but as a
moment of social reconstruction as well. It was a grand vision adequate
to the scale of the climate crisis. When Sen. Bernie Sanders folded his
presidential bid in 2020, many of his key advisors were incorporated
into Biden’s policy team—and with good reason. Given the dislocation an
energy transition is likely to cause, the industrial revolution Kerry
advocates would be political poison were it not backed by a Green New
Deal vision.
But Biden was not carried to victory in 2020 on the back of
enthusiasm for green policies. In Texas, there is reason to believe an
anti-climate, pro-oil vote helped yield a better-than-expected result
for Trump. On Capitol Hill, Biden’s infrastructure plans have been cut
to ribbons by a Congress with a nominal Democratic majority. The outlook
for the 2022 midterms is grim. Decarbonization may be a promising
business proposition in some sectors, but it is not an issue that will
help Democrats win the majority they would need to give comprehensive
climate policy a robust political platform.
We are thus back at the impasse. The idea that economic logic by
itself will deliver an unambiguous case for ambitious climate policy in
the United States is naive. But so too is the idea that a Green New
Deal-style program will carry a progressive Democratic Party to
triumphant victory. The possibility of a deepening sociopolitical divide
around the climate issue and inconsistent and incoherent policy cannot
be denied. While individual eco-entrepreneurs like Musk may get rich,
the fear must be that the United States never develops a coherent social
response to the energy transition.
permaculturenews | The next circle of denial revolves around what must inevitably come
to pass if the Goddess of Technology were to fail us: a series of wars
over ever more scarce resources. Paul Roberts, who is very well informed
on the subject of peak oil, has this to say: "what desperate states
have always done when resources turn scarce… [is] fight for them." [
MotherJones.com, 11/12 2004] Let us not argue that this has never
happened, but did it ever amount to anything more than a futile gesture
of desperation? Wars take resources, and, when resources are already
scarce, fighting wars over resources becomes a lethal exercise in
futility. Those with more resources would be expected to win. I am not
arguing that wars over resources will not occur. I am suggesting that
they will be futile, and that victory in these conflicts will be barely
distinguishable from defeat. I would also like to suggest that these
conflicts would be self-limiting: modern warfare uses up prodigious
amounts of energy, and if the conflicts are over oil and gas
installations, then they will get blown up, as has happened repeatedly
in Iraq. This will result in less energy being available and,
consequently, less warfare.
Take, for example, the last two US involvements in Iraq. In each
case, as a result of US actions, Iraqi oil production decreased. It now
appears that the whole strategy is a failure. Supporting Saddam, then
fighting Saddam, then imposing sanctions on Saddam, then finally
overthrowing him, has left Iraqi oil fields so badly damaged that the
"ultimate recoverable" estimate for Iraqi oil is now down to 10-12% of
what was once thought to be underground (according to the New York
Times).
Some people are even suggesting a war over resources with a nuclear
endgame. On this point, I am optimistic. As Robert McNamara once
thought, nuclear weapons are too difficult to use. And although he has
done a great deal of work to make them easier to use, with the
introduction of small, tactical, battlefield nukes and the like, and
despite recently renewed interest in nuclear "bunker busters," they
still make a bit of a mess, and are hard to work into any sort of a
sensible strategy that would reliably lead to an increased supply of
energy. Noting that conventional weapons have not been effective in this
area, it is unclear why nuclear weapons would produce better results.
But these are all details; the point I really want to make is that
proposing resource wars, even as a worst-case scenario, is still a form
of denial. The implicit assumption is this: if all else fails, we will
go to war; we will win; the oil will flow again, and we will be back to
business as usual in no time. Again, I would suggest against waiting
around for the success of a global police action to redirect the lion’s
share of the dwindling world oil supplies toward the United States.
Outside this last circle of denial lies a vast wilderness called the
Collapse of Western Civilization, roamed by the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse, or so some people will have you believe. Here we find not
denial but escapism: a hankering for a grand finale, a heroic final
chapter. Civilizations do collapse – this is one of the best-known facts
about them – but as anyone who has read The Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire will tell you, the process can take many centuries.
What tends to collapse rather suddenly is the economy. Economies,
too, are known to collapse, and do so with far greater regularity than
civilizations. An economy does not collapse into a black hole from which
no light can escape. Instead, something else happens: society begins to
spontaneously reconfigure itself, establish new relationships, and
evolve new rules, in order to find a point of equilibrium at a lower
rate of resource expenditure.
Note that the exercise carries a high human cost: without an economy,
many people suddenly find themselves as helpless as newborn babes. Many
of them die, sooner than they would otherwise: some would call this a
"die-off." There is a part of the population that is most vulnerable:
the young, the old, and the infirm; the foolish and the suicidal. There
is also another part of the population that can survive indefinitely on
insects and tree bark. Most people fall somewhere in between.
Economic collapse gives rise to new, smaller and poorer economies.
That pattern has been repeated many times, so we can reason inductively
about similarities and differences between a collapse that has already
occurred and one that is about to occur. Unlike astrophysicists, who can
confidently predict whether a given star will collapse into a neutron
star or a black hole based on measurements and calculations, we have to
work with general observations and anecdotal evidence. However, I hope
that my thought experiment will allow me to guess correctly at the
general shape of the new economy, and arrive at survival strategies that
may be of use to individuals and small communities.
ourfiniteworld |[9] The public has been led to believe that vaccines are the
only solution to COVID-19 when, in fact, they are at best a very poor
and temporary band-aid.
Vaccines are a tempting solution because the benefits have been
oversold and no one has explained how poorly today’s leaky vaccines
really work.
We are already past the period when these vaccines were well matched
with the viruses they were aimed at. Now we are in a situation in which
the viruses are constantly mutating, and the vaccines need to be
updated. The catch is that the variants stick around for such a short
time period that by the time the vaccine is updated, there is likely to
be yet another new variant that the new vaccine does not really match up
with well.
Requirements that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot be
expected to provide much benefit to employers because workers will still
be out sick with COVID-19. This happens because they are likely to
catch a variant such as Delta, which does not line up with the original
vaccine. Perhaps they will be out for a shorter period, and their
hospital bills will be lower. These types of benefits are what people
have expected of influenza vaccines. There is no reason for them to
expect more of the new COVID-19 vaccines.
Even with 100% vaccination herd immunity can never be reached because
the vaccine encourages the virus to mutate into more virulent forms.
Each new variant stays around for only a few months, making it hard for
vaccine makers to keep up with the changing nature of the problem.
Vaccine makers can expect to face a constant battle in having to run to
stay even. Someone will have to convince citizens that each new vaccine
makes sense, even though injuries reported
to the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System seem to be much more
frequent than those reported for vaccines for other diseases.
An erroneous, one-sided story is being told to the general public, in
part because the pharmaceutical lobby is incredibly powerful. It has
the support of influential people, such as Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.
The pharmaceutical industry can make billions of dollars in income from
the sale of vaccines, with little in the way of sales expenses. The
industry has managed to convince people that it is OK to sell these
vaccines, even though injury rates are very high compared to those for
vaccines in general.
Vaccines are being pushed in large part because the pharmaceutical
industry needs a money maker. It also wants to be seen as having
cutting-edge technology, so young people will be attracted to the field.
It cannot admit to anyone that technologies from decades ago would
perhaps work better to solve the COVID-19 problem.
[10] The pharmaceutical industry has been telling the world
that inexpensive drugs can’t fix our problem. However, there are several
low-cost drugs that appear helpful.
One drug that is being overlooked is ivermectin,
which was discovered in the late 1970s. It was originally introduced as
a veterinary drug to cure parasitic infections in animals. In the U.
S., ivermectin has been used since 1987 for eliminating parasites such
as ringworm in humans. Ivermectin seems to cure COVID-19
in humans, but it needs a higher dosage than has been previously
approved. Also, it would not be a money maker for the pharmaceutical
industry.
The possible use of ivermectin to cure COVID-19 seems to have been intentionally hidden. At approximately 32:45 in this linked video,
Dr. David Martin explains how Moderna announced ivermectin’s utility in
treating SARS (which is closely related to SARS-CoV-2) in its 2016-2018
patent modification related to the SARS virus. It sounds as though
Moderna (and others) have participated both in developing harmful
viruses and in developing vaccines to cure very closely related viruses.
They then work to prevent the sale of cheap drugs that might reduce
their sales of vaccines. This seems unconscionable.
Vitamin D, in high enough doses, taken well before exposure to the
virus that causes COVID-19, seems to lead to reduced severity of the
disease, and may eliminate some cases completely.
Various steroid drugs are often used in the later stages of
COVID-19, when conditions warrant it. The medical community seems to
have no difficulty with these.
Monoclonal antibodies are also used in the treatment of COVID-19, but they are much more expensive.
[11] Conclusion. Governments, businesses, and citizens need
to understand that today’s vaccines are not really solutions to our
COVID-19 problem. At the same time, they need better solutions.
Current vaccines have been badly oversold. They can be expected to
make the mutation problem worse, and they don’t stop the spread of
variants. Instead, we need to start quickly to make ivermectin and other
inexpensive drugs available through healthcare systems. People do need
some sort of solution to the problem of COVID-19 illnesses; it just
turns out that the current vaccines work so poorly that they probably
should not be part of the solution.
The whole idea of vaccine passports is absurd. Even with the vaccine,
people will catch the new COVID-19 variants, and they will pass them on
to others. Perhaps they may get lighter symptoms, so that they will be
off work for a shorter length of time, but there still will be
disruption. If those who catch COVID-19 can instead take ivermectin at a
high enough dose at the first sign of illness, many (or most) of them
can get well in a few days and avoid hospitalization completely. Other
medications may be helpful as well.
I am skeptical that masks can do any good with the high level of
transmission of Delta. But at least masks aren’t very harmful. We
probably need to go along with what is requested by officials.
It is becoming clear that today’s pharmaceutical industry is far too
powerful. Investigations need to be made into the large number of
allegations against it and its leaders. Why did members of the
pharmaceutical industry find it necessary to patent viruses, and then
later sell vaccines for a virus closely related to the viruses it had
patented?
ourfiniteworld |[4] More doubts are being raised about quickly finding a vaccine that prevents COVID-19.
The public would like to think that a vaccine solution is right
around the corner. Vaccine promoters such as Anthony Fauci and Bill
Gates would like to encourage this belief. Unfortunately, there are
quite a few obstacles to getting a vaccine that actually works for any
length of time:
(a) Antibodies for coronaviruses tend not to stay around for very
long. A recent study suggests that even as soon as eight weeks, a
significant share of COVID-19 patients (40% of those without symptoms; 12.9% of those with symptoms) had lost all immunity. A vaccine will likely face this same challenge.
(b) Vaccines may not work against mutations. Beijing is now fighting a new version
of COVID-19 that seems to have been imported from Europe in food. Early
indications are that people who caught the original Wuhan version of
the COVID-19 virus will not be immune to the mutated version imported
from Europe.
Vaccines that are currently under development use the Wuhan version
of the virus. The catch is that the version of COVID-19 now circulating
in the United States, Europe and perhaps elsewhere is mostly not the Wuhan type.
(c) There is a real concern that a vaccine against one version of
COVID-19 will make a person’s response to a mutation of COVID-19 worse,
rather than better. It has been known for many years that Dengue Fever
has this characteristic; it is one of the reasons that there is no
vaccine for Dengue Fever. The earlier SARS virus (which is closely
related to the COVID-19 virus) has this same issue. Preliminary analysis suggests that the virus causing COVID-19 seems to have this characteristic, as well.
In sum, getting a vaccine that actually works against COVID-19 is
likely to be a huge challenge. Instead of expecting a silver bullet in
the form of a COVID-19 vaccine, we probably need to be looking for a lot
of silver bee-bees that will hold down the impact of the illness.
Hopefully, COVID-19 will someday disappear on its own, but we have no
assurance of this outcome.
[5] The basic underlying issue that the world economy faces is overshoot, caused by too high a population relative to underlying resources.
When an economy is in overshoot, the big danger is collapse. The
characteristics of overshoot leading to collapse include the following:
Very great wage disparity; too many people are very poor
Declining health, often due to poor nutrition, making people vulnerable to epidemics
Increasing use of debt, to make up for inadequate wages and profits
Falling commodity prices because too few people can afford these commodities and goods made from these commodities
Gluts of commodities, causing farmers to plow under crops and oil to be put into storage
Thus, pandemics are very much to be expected when an economy is in overshoot.
One example of collapse is that following the Black Death (1348-1350) epidemic in Europe. The collapse killed 60% of Europe’s population and dropped Britain’s population from close to 5 million to about 2 million.
LewRockwell | History teaches us that humanity evolves significantly only when it is really afraid: it then first sets up defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (scapegoats and totalitarianisms); sometimes futile (distraction); sometimes effective (therapeutics, setting aside if necessary all the previous moral principles). Then, once the crisis is over, it transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom, and to include them in a democratic health policy.
The beginning of the pandemic could trigger one of these structuring fears.
If it is not more serious than the two previous fears linked to a risk of pandemic (the mad cow crisis of 2001 in Great Britain and that of avian flu of 2003 in China), it will first have consequences. significant economic (fall in air transport , fall in tourism and the price of oil ); it will cost about $ 2 million per infected person and will lower the stock markets by about 15%; its impact will be very brief ( China's growth rate only declined during the second quarter of 2003, to explode higher in the third); it will also have consequences in terms of organization (In 2003, very rigorous police measures were taken throughout Asia; the World Health Organization has set up global alert procedures; and certain countries, in particular France and Japan, have built up considerable reserves of drugs and masks).
If it is a little more serious, which is possible, since it is transmissible by humans, it will have truly global consequences: economic (the models suggest to think that this could lead to a loss of 3 trillion dollars, a 5% drop in global GDP) and political ( because of the risk of contagion, the countries of the North will have an interest in ensuring that those in the South are not sick and they will have to ensure that the poorest have access to medicines today 'hui stored for only the richest); a major pandemic will then arise, better than any humanitarian or ecological discourse, the awareness of the need for altruism, at least self-interested.
And, even if, as we can obviously hope, this crisis is not very serious, we must not forget, as with the economic crisis, to learn the lessons, so that before the next inevitable one, we must not forget. set up prevention and control mechanisms and logistical processes for the equitable distribution of drugs and vaccines. For that, we will have to set up a global police force, a global storage and therefore a global tax system. We will then come, much faster than the sole economic reason would have allowed , to set up the bases of a real world government. It is also by the hospital that began in France in the 17th century the establishment of a real state.
In the meantime, we could at least hope for the implementation of a real European policy on the subject. But here again, as on so many other subjects, Brussels is silent. Fist tap BeeDee
salk | Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive
“spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to
healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key
role in the disease itself.
The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research,
also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease,
demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the
vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain
COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and
could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.
“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor,
who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some
people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of
the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular
underpinnings.”
Salk researchers collaborated with scientists at
the University of California San Diego on the paper, including co-first
author Jiao Zhang and co-senior author John Shyy, among others.
While
the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides
clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through
which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s
been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system,
but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists
studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein
contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the
first time the process has been documented.
In the new study, the
researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2
classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus.
Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and
arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was
enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in
endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.
The team then
replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells
(which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike
protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s
molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy
for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.
Previous
studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage
occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.
scitechdaily | In a paper published today (January 13, 2021) in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science,
the researchers cite more than 150 scientific studies and conclude,
“That we are already on the path of a sixth major extinction is now
scientifically undeniable.”
Among the paper’s co-authors is Daniel Blumstein, a UCLA professor of
ecology and evolutionary biology and member of the UCLA Institute of
the Environment and Sustainability.
Because too many people have underestimated the severity of the
crisis and have ignored experts’ warnings, scientists must continue
speaking out, said Blumstein, author of the 2020 book “The Nature of
Fear: Survival Lessons from the Wild” — but they also must avoid either
sugarcoating the overwhelming challenges or inducing feelings of
despair.
“Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the
problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail
to achieve even modest sustainability goals, and catastrophe will surely
follow,” he said. “What we are saying is frightening, but we must be
both candid and vocal if humanity is to understand the enormity of the
challenges we face in creating a sustainable future.”
The Earth has experienced five mass extinctions, each accounting for a
loss of more than 70% of all species on the planet. The most recent was
66 million years ago. Now, the paper reports, projected temperature
increases and other human assaults on the environment mean that
approximately 1 million of the planet’s 7 million to 10 million species
are threatened with extinction in the coming decades.
Blumstein said that level of damage could occur
within the next several decades; an extinction affecting as many as 70%
of all species — like the earlier mass extinctions cited in the paper —
could potentially occur within the next few centuries.
One of the major trends discussed in the paper is the explosive
growth of the planet’s human population. There are now 7.8 billion
people, more than double the Earth’s population just 50 years ago. And
by 2050, the figure is likely to reach 10 billion, the scientists write,
which would cause or exacerbate numerous serious problems. For example,
more than 700 million people are starving and more than 1 billion are
malnourished already; both figures are likely to increase as the
population grows.
Population growth also greatly increases the risk for pandemics, the
authors write, because most new infectious diseases result from
human–animal interactions, humans live closer to wild animals than ever
before and wildlife trade is continuing to increase significantly.
Population growth also contributes to rising unemployment and, when
combined with a hotter Earth, leads to more frequent and intense
flooding and fires, poorer water and air quality, and worsening human
health.
michaelochurch | In a society like ours, the upper and
lower classes have more in common with each other than either has with
the middle class. The upper and lower classes “live like animals”, but
for very different reasons. The upper classes are empowered to engage
their primal, base urges; the lower classes are pummeled with fear on a
daily basis and regress to animalism not out of moral paucity but in
order to survive. People in the lower class live lives that are consumed
entirely by money, because they lack the means of a dignified life.
Those in the upper class, likewise, experience a life dominated by
money, because maintaining injustices favorable to oneself is hard work.
So, even though the motivations are different (fear at the bottom,
greed at the top) the lower and upper classes are united in what the
middle class perceives as “crass materialism” and, therefore, have
strikingly similar cultures. Their lives are run by that thing called
“money” toward which the middle classes pretend– and it is very much
pretend– to be ambivalent about. The middle classes are sheltered, until
the cultural protection, on which their semi-privileged status depends,
runs out.
The
“middle-est” of the middle class is the Gentry. Here we’re talking
about people who dislike pawnbrokers and stock traders alike, who appear
to lead a society from the front while its real owners lead it from the
shadows. This said, I have my doubts on the matter of there being one,
singular Gentry. I would argue that corporate middle management, the
clergy, the political establishments of both major U.S. political
parties, TED-talk onanist “thought leaders” and media personalities, and
even Instagram “influencers” could all be called Gentries; in no
obvious or formal way do these groups have much to do with one another.
Only in one thing are they united: by the middle 2010s it became clear
that both the Elite (bourgeoisie) and Labor (self-aaware proletariat)
were fed up with all these Gentries. Starting around 2013, an
anti-Gentry hategasm consumed the United States, and as a member of said
(former) Gentry I can’t say we didn’t deserve it.
Technology, I believe, is a major cause of
this. Silicon Valley began as a 1970s Gentry paradise; by 2010, it had
become a monument to Elite excess, arrogance, and malefaction. Modern
technology has given today’s employers an oppressive power the Stasi and
KGB only dreamt of. The American Gentry was a PR wing for capitalism
when it needed to win hearts and minds; but with today’s technological
weaponry, the rich no longer see a need to be well-liked by those they
rule.
For a concrete example, compare the “old
style” bureaucratic, paperwork corporation of the midcentury and the
“new style” technological one, in which workers are tracked, often
unawares, down to minutes. The old-style companies were hierarchical and
feudalistic but, by giving middle managers the ability to protect their
underlings, ran on a certain sense of reciprocated loyalty– a social
contract, if you will– that no longer exists. The worker agreed not to
undermine, humiliate, or sabotage his manager; the manager, in turn,
agreed to represent the worker as an asset to the company even when said
worker had a below-average year. All you had to do in the old-style
company was be liked (or, at least, not be despised) by your boss. If
your boss liked you, you got promoted. If your boss hated you, you got
fired. If you were anywhere from about 3.00 to 6.99 on his emotional
spectrum, you moved diagonally or laterally, your boss repping you as a
6.75/10 “in search of a better fit” so you moved along quickly and
peaceably. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it worked better than what
came afterward.
I’ve worked in the software industry long
enough to know that software engineers are the most socially clueless
people on earth. I’ve often heard them debate “the right” metrics to use
to track software productivity. My advice to them is: Always fight
metrics. Sabotage the readings, or blackmail a higher-up by catfishing
as a 15-year-old girl, or call in a union that’ll drop a pipe on that
shit. Always, always, always fight a metric that management wishes to
impose on you, because while a metric can hurt you (by flagging you as a
low performer) it will never help you. In the old-style
company, automated surveillance was impossible and performance was
largely inscrutable and only loyalty mattered– your career was based on
your boss’s opinion of you. It only took one thing to get a promotion:
be liked by your boss. In the new-style company, devised by management
consultants and software peddlers with evil intentions, getting a
promotion requires you to pass the metrics and be liked by your
boss. In the old-style company, you could get fired if your boss
really, really hated you. (As I said, if he merely disliked you, he’d
rep you as a solid performer “in search of a better fit” so you could
transfer peacefully, and you’d get to try again with a new boss.) In the
new-style company, you can get fired because your boss hates you or because
you fail the metrics. The “user story points” that product managers
insist are not an individual performance measure (and absolutely are, by
the way) are evidence that only the prosecution may use. This is
terrible for workers. There are new ways to fail and get fired; the
route to success is constricted by an increase in the number of targets
that must be hit. The old-style hierarchical company, at least, had
simple rules: be loyal to your boss. Having been a middle manager, I can
also say that the new-style company is humiliating for us– we can’t
protect our reports. You have to “demand accountability from” people,
but you can’t really do anything to help them.
This,
I think, gives us a metaphor for the American Gentry’s failure. Middle
managers who cannot protect their subordinates from the company’s more
evil instincts (such as the instinct to fire everyone and hire
replacements 5 percent cheaper) have no reason to expect true loyalty.
They become superfluous performance cops and taskmasters, and even if
they are personally liked, their roles are justifiably hated (including
by those who have to perform them.)
indiepf | What I’ve called the Labor, Gentry, and Elite “ladders” can more
easily be described as “infrastructures”. For Labor, this infrastructure
is largely physical and the relevant connection is knowing how to use
that physical device or space, and getting people to trust a person to
competently use (without owning, because that’s out of the question for
most) these resources. For the Gentry, it’s an “invisible graph” of
knowledge and education and “interestingness”, comprised largely of
ideas. For the Elite, it’s a tight, exclusive network centered on social
connections, power, and dominance. People can be connected to more than
one of these infrastructures, but people usually bind more tightly to
the one of higher status, except when at the transitional ranks (G4 and
E4) which tend to punt people who don’t ascend after some time. The
overwhelmingly high likelihood is that a person is aligned most strongly
to one and only one of these structures. The values are too conflicting
for a person not to pick one horse or the other.
I’ve argued that the ladders connect at a two-rung difference, with
L2 ~ G4, L1 ~ G3, G2 ~ E4, and G1 ~ E3. These are “social equivalencies”
that don’t involve a change in social status, so they’re the easiest to
transitions to make (in both directions). They represent a transfer
from one form of capital to another. A skilled laborer (L2) who begins
taking night courses (G4) is using time to get an education rather than
more money. Likewise, one who moves from the high gentry (G2) to a
90-hour-per-week job in private wealth management (E4) is applying her
refined intellectual skills and knowledge to serving the rich, in the
hope of making the connections to become one of them.
That said, these ladders often come into conflict. The most relevant
one to most of my readers will be the conflict between the Gentry and
the Elite. The Gentry tends to be left-libertarian and values
creativity, individual autonomy, and free expression. The Elite tends
toward center-right authoritarianism and corporate conformity, and it
views creativity as dangerous (except when applied to hiding financial
risks or justifying illegal wars). The Gentry believes that it is the deserving elite and the face of the future, and that it can use culture to engineer a future in which its values are
elite; while the upper tier of the Elite finds the Gentry pretentious,
repugnant, self-indulgent, and subversive. The relationship between the
Gentry and Elite is incredibly contentious. It’s a cosmic, ubiquitous
war between the past and the future.
Between the Gentry and Labor, there is an attitude of distrust. The
Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two
categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and
can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with
Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of workas a theater for masculine dominance.
This is something that the Elite and Labor both believe in– the
visceral strength and importance of the alpha-male in high-stakes
gambling settings such as most modern work– but that the Gentry would
rather deny. Gender is a major part of the Elite’s strategy in turning
Labor against the Gentry: make the Gentry look effeminate.
That’s why “feminist” is practically a racial slur, despite the world
desperately needing attention to women’s political equality, health and
well-being (that is, feminism).
The Elite also uses the Underclass in a different process: the Elite
wants Labor think the Gentry intends to conspire with the Underclass to
dismantle Labor values and elevate these “obviously undeserving” people
to, at least, the status of Labor if not promoted above them. They
exploit fear in Labor. One might invoke racism and the “Southern
strategy” in politics as an example of this, but the racial part is
incidental. The Elite don’t care whether it’s blacks or Latinos or
“illigals” or red-haired people or homosexuals (most of whom are not
part of the Underclass) that are being used to frighten Labor into
opposing and disliking the Gentry; they just know that the device works
and that it has pretty much always worked.
The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is one of open rivalry,
and that between the Gentry and Labor is one of distrust. What about
Labor and the Elite? That one is not symmetric. The Elite exploit and
despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of “useful idiots”. How does
Labor see the Elite? They don’t. The Elite has managed to convince Labor
that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the
Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual “liberal
elite” responsible for Labor’s misery over the past 30 years. In effect,
the Elite has constructed an “infinity pool” where the Elite appears to
be a hyper-successful extension of Labor, lumping these two disparate
ladders into an “us” and placing the Gentry and Underclass into “them”.
Yesterday morning I read back to back dissertations on the Green Economy and the Green New Deal from the Brookings (neoliberal fascist) and Open Democracy (center left) respectively. These got me thinking about the overarching objectives of the entire Great Reset Operation, the tools it has employed over the past three years for human livestock management, and, its endlessly escalating opposition to MAGA or Brexit nationalism.
In the area of endless escalation, the abrupt impoverishment of tens of millions via unnecessary quarantines and lockdowns, billowing political and interpersonal polarization fast approaching civil war/race war, and the use of engineered biological agents (which presumably can be ratcheted up to increasing levels of contagiousness and lethality) - all point toward an endgame that is far more drastic than anything currently countenanced in the mainstream narrative. We're not talking here about a "new normal", instead, we're talking about mass starvation, everyone against everyone ultraviolence, and when austerity gets REALLY severe, cannibalism.
Central Banks are fighting a battle they will lose. Conventional (easy cheap oil) peaked in 2005. To compensate for that we smash rocks and suck out the oil --- we steam oil out of sand - and we drill miles beneath the ocean for oil. The EROEI from those extractive methods is very low. At the moment, we still have enough high energy return oil to subsidize those methods so
civilization continues. (with greatly reduced travel, disrupted supply chains, and massive amounts of stimulus to help cope with the low EROEI oil mix.
The global
economy does NOT like low energy return oil because it leaves less to
run the world. In 2019 shale oil was peaking so the stop-gap, make-work party was ending. At that time, political elites began handwaving toward Universal Basic Income and Modern Monetary Theory to prep us for what we are experiencing now. They trotted out pasty and uncharismatic Greta Thunberg to exhort us about shutting down the planet.
Meanwhile and in parallel we get the MAGA man and his competing exhortations to take America back to 1954 along every politically expedient metric. At that point, in his "greatest economy ever" spiel, he could point to a periodic glut and claim 'we are
swimming in oil'. A glut does not mean we have found more oil - it
simply means producers are pumping their reserves out faster. They
usually do this when prices are low as they need
the cash flow to pay the bills so they need to push our more volume. The truth is that there is very little new oil being
found. What would you do if you were on your last tank of gas? Of
course you would ration it.
Enter Covid and the Great Reset. Covid was created in a lab to provide cover for the collapsing energy availability "new normal". Covid has provided mimetic cover under authority of science for central banks to roll out MMT UBI Helicopter
Money. In addition, we are being groomed to accept
lockdowns. Anyone who resists is met with a big fine, arrest and in
some countries beatings. Your neighbour will be told by the
authorities to rat on you going forward. Why? Because when the Central Banks and their puppet politicians lose control of this situation they will enact martial
law -- a total lockdown. (the police state pincer movement)
For a time there may be food delivery pacification to those in the most extreme condition, but like stimulus checks and the MMT UBI, these will stop in fairly short order too. Politicians will promise 'the deliveries will resume in a couple of
days'. Like good sheep, you will trust these sock puppet rascals and wait... and wait...
and wait... and when you realize there is
no food coming you will be too weak and exhausted to do anything. In any event there will be nothing you can do - there will be no food
because the system has collapsed.
This will be for your own good. Resisting is futile. Nobody wants
extreme violence and cannibalism. You and your family will lie down
and wait to die from starvation.
Reuters | Demonstrators hurled firebombs in a march towards the U.S. Embassy
compound in Athens on Wednesday in a protest over the death of George
Floyd in Minneapolis.
Reuters journalists saw demonstrators throwing several flaming objects
which erupted into flames on the street towards the heavily-guarded
embassy in central Athens and police responding with rounds of teargas.
The embassy itself was cordoned off with rows of blue police buses.
Demonstrators were holding banners and placards reading “Black lives matter” and “I can’t breathe”.
Police sources estimated the number of protesters at more than 3,000.
theatlantic |COVID-19 has emboldened American tech
platforms to emerge from their defensive crouch. Before the pandemic,
they were targets of public outrage over life under their dominion.
Today, the platforms are proudly collaborating with one another, and following government guidance,
to censor harmful information related to the coronavirus. And they are
using their prodigious data-collection capacities, in coordination with
federal and state governments, to improve contact tracing, quarantine
enforcement, and other health measures. As Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg
recently boasted, “The world has faced pandemics before, but this time we have a new superpower: the ability to gather and share data for good.”
Over the past decade,
network surveillance has grown in roughly the same proportion as speech
control. Indeed, on many platforms, ubiquitous surveillance is a
prerequisite to speech control.
The public has been told over and over
that the hundreds of computers we interact with daily—smartphones,
laptops, desktops, automobiles, cameras, audio recorders, payment
mechanisms, and more—collect, emit, and analyze data about us that are,
in turn, packaged and exploited in various ways to influence and control
our lives. We have also learned a lot—but surely not the whole
picture—about the extent to which governments exploit this gargantuan
pool of data.
Police use subpoenas to tap into huge warehouses of personal data
collected by private companies. They have used these tools to gain access to doorbell cameras that now line city blocks, microphones in the Alexa devices in millions of homes, privately owned license-plate readers that track every car, and the data in DNA databases
that people voluntarily pay to enter. They also get access to
information collected on smart-home devices and home-surveillance
cameras—a growing share of which are capable of facial recognition—to
solve crimes. And they pay to access private tow trucks equipped with cameras tracking the movements of cars throughout a city.
America’s private surveillance system goes far beyond apps, cameras, and
microphones. Behind the scenes, and unbeknownst to most Americans, data
brokers have developed algorithmic scores for each one of us—scores
that rate us on reliability, propensity to repay loans, and likelihood to commit a crime. Uber bans passengers with low ratings from drivers. Some bars and restaurants now run background checks on their patrons to see whether they’re likely to pay their tab or cause trouble. Facebook has patented a mechanism for determining a person’s creditworthiness by evaluating their social network.
statnews | The warning signs of what would become a deadly opioid epidemic
emerged in early 2001. That’s when officials of the state employee
health plan in West Virginia noticed a surge in deaths attributed to
oxycodone, the active ingredient in the painkiller OxyContin.
They quickly decided to do something about it: OxyContin
prescriptions would require prior authorization. It was a way to ensure
that only people who genuinely needed the painkiller could get it and
that people abusing opioids could not.
But an investigation by STAT has found that Purdue Pharma, the
manufacturer of OxyContin, thwarted the state’s plan by paying a
middleman, known as a pharmacy benefits manager, to prevent insurers
from limiting prescriptions of the drug.
The financial quid pro quo between the painkiller maker and the
pharmacy benefits manager, Merck Medco, came to light in West Virginia
court records unsealed by a state judge at the request of STAT, and in
interviews with people familiar with the arrangement.
“We were screaming at the wall,” said Tom Susman, who headed the
state’s public employee insurance agency in the early 2000s and led the
push to limit OxyContin prescribing in West Virginia.
“We saw it coming,” he said of the opioid epidemic,
which today causes 28,000 overdose deaths a year in the United States.
“Now to see the aftermath is the most frustrating thing I have ever
seen.”
Overprescribing of OxyContin and other opioid painkillers is blamed for helping to plant the seeds for the current opioid crisis.
West Virginia has been hit harder than any other state: It suffers the
highest per capita drug overdose death rate in the country — more than
double the national average. It also has one of the highest rates of
painkiller prescribing.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...