Updates from rogerglewis Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 7:46 am on August 18, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Plasma Cosmology , Challenging Big Bang and Scientism in modern Physics and Climatology. 

    Moving towards an energy based metric for Value Distribution systems away from a scarcity/debt based economic model of Capitalism and Usury is assisted with a little insight into dissenting views on Big Bang and Singularity conceptions of Quantum Mechanics.
    Ideology does go to the root of Scientism attitudes towards Freewill or determinism. Deterministic World Views Favour Big Bang, Free WILL ARE MORE OPEN TO INFINITY CONCEPTIONS AND ABUNDANCE.

    The point regarding Quantum Mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it is a consensus based theory not an empirical one.
    By far the best introductory book on this question is by Swedens enfant terrible of Applied Mathmatics Claes Olsson.
    Download it here.



    Hannes Alfvén. Free Energy the Electronic Universe.

    I have done a little bit of reading into Plasma Cosmology. I have been inspired by the writing of Maurice Cotteral and various writings about Nikola Tesla and have come across yesterday Hannes Alfvén a Swedish Plasma Physicist.

    .embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

    .embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

    .embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

    Cast Orson Welles as J. P. Morgan Petar Božović as Nikola Tesla Strother Martin as George Westinghouse Dennis Patrick as Thomas Edison Oja Kodar as Katharine Johnson Boris Buzančić as Robert Underwood Johnson Demeter Bitenc Vanja Drach Uploaded by OrsonWellesFan1985 September 5, 2010

  • rogerglewis 4:33 am on August 18, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Technocracy, Energy Based Economics, Howard Scotts St Pierre Hotel Speech and some Comments. 



    Economic theory has failed to incorporate the role of energy in production for two centuries since the Physiocrats. In this video I derive a production function that includes energy in an essential manner. It implies that economic growth has been driven by the increase in the energy throughput capabilities of machinery.

    This lecture shows that the Physiocrats were the only school of thought to be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics in their model of production, and derives a production function in which energy plays an essential role.

    This is the fifth of six lectures I recorded that I gave to the Exploring Economics Summer School (https://www.exploring-economics.org/e…) held just outside the city of Erfurt in southern Germany (I recorded all but the second lecture).

    In 1945, Ruml made a famous speech to the ABA, asserting that since the end of the gold standard, “Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete”. The real purposes of taxes were: to “stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar”, to “express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income”, “in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups” and to “isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security”. This is seen as a forerunner of functional finance or chartalism.


    Howard Scott (April 1, 1890 – January 1, 1970) was an American engineer and founder of the Technocracy movement. He formed the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Incorporated.[1]

    As an Economic Analysis, I think the technocracy analysis of Debt based money being unable to deal with the Modern Abundance produced by  Dense energy production methods is a very good one.

    James Corbett of the Corbett report made this video which highlights his concerns about the possible dark motivations behind technocracy, makeup your own mind. At the seat of the question is Can Capitalism function without Debt/Usury?

    24/7 surveillance. Smart grid controls. Carbon rationing. Today we talk to “Technocracy Rising” author Patrick Wood about the hidden history of technocracy, the dark plan for a resource-based economy that is being pushed by the Trilateral Commission, the UN, and other globalist institutions in order to bring about a completely managed, controlled and regulated society.

    Steve Keen has been writing on Economics and Entropy/ Thermodynamics lately and It was His latest Videos which made me want to re visit Technocracy, the 1933 Book produced by Howard  Scott and the Technocracy organization I have read several times over the past few years.

    Slide Show of Howard Scott Photos taken from Technocracy You Tube Channel which has the Same Speech processed by Text recognition software.( SIRI, or similar).
    Published on 30 Apr 2011

    “So today the operation of our control mechanism, the control measures that must and will be adopted are those that most nearly conform to the technological operating requirements of that mechanism.

    These requirements can only be known by those who are intimately familiar with the technical details of that mechanism, our technically trained personnel ; – though prior to there being a general recognition of this fact we expect to witness performances on the part of our educators, economists, and sociologists, lawyers, politicians, and businessmen that will parallel the performances of all the witch doctors of preceding ages.” – Technocracy Study Course

    Science & Technology
    Standard YouTube Licence

    (function(){(function r(e) { function t(e) { if (e.parentNode) if (e.childNodes.length > 1) { for (var t = document.createDocumentFragment(); e.childNodes.length > 0; ) t.appendChild(e.childNodes[0]); e.parentNode.replaceChild(t, e); } else e.firstChild ? e.parentNode.replaceChild(e.firstChild, e) : e.parentNode.removeChild(e); } function n(e) { if (e) try { for (var n = e.querySelectorAll(“.gr_”), r = n.length, o = 0; o < r; o++) t(n[o]); } catch (i) {} } function r(e) { try { Object.defineProperty(e, "innerHTML", { get: function() { try { var t = e.ownerDocument.createRange(); t.selectNodeContents(e); var r = t.cloneContents(), o = document.createElement("div"); return o.appendChild(r), n(o), o.innerHTML; } catch (i) { return ""; } }, set: function(t) { try { var n = e.ownerDocument.createRange(); n.selectNodeContents(e), n.deleteContents(); var r = n.createContextualFragment(t); e.appendChild(r); } catch (o) {} } }); } catch (t) {} } if (e) { var o = e.cloneNode; e.cloneNode = function(t) { var i = o.call(e, t); if (e.classList.contains("mceContentBody")) i.innerHTML = e.innerHTML, n(i); else try { r(i); } catch (a) {} return i; }, r(e); } })(document.querySelector("[data-gramm_id='694c4cff-b4fc-53ff-4588-2371023fa7f0']")) })()

  • rogerglewis 6:29 pm on August 17, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Complots Of Mischief, Charles Pidgen. Conspiracy Snobbery. 


    Complots of Mischief

    In David Coady (ed.), Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate. Ashgate. pp. 139-166 (2006)
    In Part 1, I contend (using Coriolanus as my mouthpiece) that Keeley and Clarke have failed to show that there is anything intellectually suspect about conspiracy theories per se. Conspiracy theorists need not commit the ‘fundamental attribution error’ there is no reason to suppose that all or most conspiracy theories constitute the cores of degenerating research programs, nor does situationism – a dubious doctrine in itself – lend any support to a systematic skepticism about conspiracy theories. In Part 2. I argue (in propria persona) that the idea that there is something suspect about conspiracy theories is one of the most dangerous and idiotic superstitions to disgrace our political culture.
    Keywords Conspiracy Theories  Coriolanus  situationism  Fundamental attribution error  David Hume


  • rogerglewis 11:49 am on August 17, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    The Role of Energy in Production / Value Theory, Thermodynamics and Dialectics / “Debt Matters” by Prof Steve Keen 

    Source: The Role of Energy in Production / Value Theory, Thermodynamics and Dialectics / “Debt Matters” by Prof Steve Keen

  • rogerglewis 11:06 am on August 17, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    #ConquestofDough Squaring the Energy, Food, Production, Usury circle. 

    Towards an energy Based Monetary Unit, free of Usury.

    Introduction to Technocracy – 1933


    discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
    merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
    The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.
    The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
    variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
    consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
    He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
    economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
    These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
    mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
    not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if

    they were stable, are all variables.

    Incor­po­rat­ing energy into pro­duc­tion func­tions

    Flattr this!
    In my last post on my Debt­watch blog, I fin­ished by say­ing that the Phys­iocrats were the only School of eco­nom­ics to prop­erly con­sider the role of energy in pro­duc­tion. They ascribed it solely to agri­cul­ture exploit­ing the free energy of the Sun, and specif­i­cally to land, which absorbed this free energy and stored it in agri­cul­tural prod­ucts. As Richard Can­til­lon put it in 1730:
    The Land is the Source or Mat­ter from whence all Wealth is pro­duced. The Labour of man is the Form which pro­duces it: and Wealth in itself is noth­ing but the Main­te­nance, Con­ve­nien­cies, and Super­fluities of Life. (Can­til­lon, Essai sur la Nature du Com­merce in Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in Gen­eral)
    Quesnay’s famous but neglected “Tableau Economique” there­fore described the agri­cul­tural sec­tor as “the pro­duc­tive sec­tor” and man­u­fac­tur­ing as “sterile”—see Fig­ure 1.
    Fig­ure 1: Quesnay’s “Tableau Economique”, first drafted in 1759, two decades before Watt’s steam engine
    This was a jus­ti­fied asser­tion at the time, given that the Phys­iocrats wrote before the Indus­trial Revolution—and in par­tic­u­lar the wide­spread exploita­tion in man­u­fac­tur­ing of stored solar energy in fos­sil fuels– and orig­i­nated in France, which was then over­whelm­ingly a rural nation.
    Smith, who was influ­enced by the Phys­iocrats and wrote in Britain when indus­try was start­ing to exploit fos­sil fuels(specif­i­cally coal) on a grand scale, could have cor­rected this over­sight. But rather than fol­low­ing the Phys­iocrats’ lead on energy, Smith instead saw labour—not energy—as the font of wealth (which he described in the same terms as Can­til­lon: the “con­ve­nien­cies of life”), and ascribed the increase in pro­duc­tiv­ity over time to “the divi­sion of labour”:
    The annual labour of every nation is the fund which orig­i­nally sup­plies it with all the nec­es­saries and con­ve­nien­cies of life which it annu­ally con­sumes, and which con­sist always either in the imme­di­ate pro­duce of that labour, or in what is pur­chased with that pro­duce from other nations…
    The great­est improve­ment in the pro­duc­tive pow­ers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dex­ter­ity, and judg­ment with which it is any­where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the divi­sion of labour. (Smith 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)
    Eco­nom­ics thus lost the Phys­iocrats’ focus on energy, and instead descended first into the “Labour the­ory of value” and then into the Neo­clas­si­cal (and Post Key­ne­sian) notions of “pro­duc­tion func­tions” in which energy played no role at all.
    August 17, 2017 at 12:01 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Solar Breeders are an interesting question regarding renewables. Thorium Nuclear is also an interesting question.
    Pricing in Energy and not Cost of money ( Internal Rates of return vis cost of capital is not a new Thing.
    Soddy was alive to it and it figures in the 1932 book Technocracy.
    EROEI under rapid growth[edit]
    A related recent concern is energy cannibalism where energy technologies can have a limited growth rate if climate neutrality is demanded. Many energy technologies are capable of replacing significant volumes of fossil fuels and concomitant green house gas emissions. Unfortunately, neither the enormous scale of the current fossil fuel energy system nor the necessary growth rate of these technologies is well understood within the limits imposed by the net energy produced for a growing industry. This technical limitation is known as energy cannibalism and refers to an effect where rapid growth of an entire energy producing or energy efficiency industry creates a need for energy that uses (or cannibalizes) the energy of existing power plants or production plants.[37]
    The solar breeder overcomes some of these problems. A solar breeder is a photovoltaic panel manufacturing plant which can be made energy-independent by using energy derived from its own roof using its own panels. Such a plant becomes not only energy self-sufficient but a major supplier of new energy, hence the name solar breeder. Research on the concept was conducted by Centre for Photovoltaic Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia.[38][39] The reported investigation establishes certain mathematical relationships for the solar breeder which clearly indicate that a vast amount of net energy is available from such a plant for the indefinite future.[40] The solar module processing plant at Frederick, Maryland[41] was originally planned as such a solar breeder. In 2009 the Sahara Solar Breeder Project was proposed by the Science Council of Japan as a cooperation between Japan and Algeria with the highly ambitious goal of creating hundreds of GW of capacity within 30 years.[42] Theoretically, breeders of any kind can be developed. In practice, nuclear breeder reactors are the only large scale breeders that have been constructed as of 2014, with the 600 MWe BN-600 and 800 MWe BN-800 reactor, the two largest in operation.
    On Criticism of DSGE Models, post before this excellent post and another real humdinger, I made these responses to an old Reddit discussion provoked by that Discourse. I agree A need for Pluralism is very much needed, would this extend to those of us who reject Usury in the fully Aristotlean sense?

    Roger Lewis 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics This is all very admirable, the field has existed in Environmental Economics for some time. Manfreed Neef is worth a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHSkgCg_yY https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/conquestofdough-squaring-energy-food.html P.s, I am not a big fan of the sophistry approach to Patreon. It is not a good way to encourage an Economics Commons, another contradiction of Capitalist apologists.
    A Johnson 

    pretty sure the model does not include the energy use per head in the countries that actually produced what we used, and fractionated it for the energy use that went to domestic market, and the export market, and the cost to deliver goods across an ocean, truck them to stores, and into the hands of final consumers. And since the earth is a closed loop, we should count the energy cost of post-consumer recycling, and taking refuse to the landfill.
    Michael Powell 

    extremely interesting and beautifully elegant implementation. my profs always waved away A which was the interesting part of the story of production! i will be sure to send this on

    • Roger Lewis 1:21 pm on August 17, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Top comments
      Roger Lewis
      Roger Lewis1 second ago
      Prof Keen is a fine Monetary Theorist and not so strong on the ol´ Atmospheric Physics. Readers and watchers might find the Rocket Science Journal of assistance in Explaining what is singularly garbled in this presentation at 46 mins.


      On the Limits for Growth please also take account of the criticisms of the assumed boundary conditions, again a source of confusion in Prof Keens explanations in this video.

      Robert Solow from MIT argued that prediction in The Limits to Growth was based on a weak foundation of data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, p. 103). Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated:

      The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.[27]


  • rogerglewis 9:53 am on August 17, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Economic Models and Political Economy. #Brexit and Democracy. 

    submitted 16 minutes ago by tonefreqhz
    The Importance of Debt
    A fourth reason for the failure of the New Keynesian DSGE models, linking closely with the previous, is the omission of debt and household balance sheets more generally, which are crucial for understanding consumption and macroeconomic fluctuations.
    Further this 
    https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/roke/1-4/roke.2013.04.01.xml Abstract In 1988 Basil Moore published his book Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money, which this year celebrates its 25th birthday. We discuss this book from today’s perspective, and in particular whether Moore’s main assertions have been validated or rejected by the development of central bank practice and academic monetary economics. We find that the book has impressively stood the test of time and, despite part of textbook economics still insisting on the money multiplier as an explanation for the money supply, it is not much of an exaggeration to say that we have all become ‘Horizontalists’ in the last 25 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O38bSfQdEpg&t=860s Published on Feb 3, 2016 The argument that banks originate loans and thereby create money and additional demand was once a commonplace position. But in the 1950s, American Neoclassicals in particular began to push the view that banks are effectively just intermediaries between savers and investors; the view that banks were uniquely important in capitalism became a fringe view. I cover this history and the revival of the endogenous money approach by Basil Moore, Augusto Graziani and others


    RE DSGE and Keen, See this post heading Importance of Debt.! from badeconomics


  • rogerglewis 6:27 am on August 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Stop Brexit! What does it mean, is the EU reformable. WHich is the Tail and which the Dog? 

    1.  Do the EU member states Dog wag the EU institutions Tail? Or does the EU Tail Wag the Member States Dogs.

      The EU should be at the heart of left-of-centre internationalist thinking

      Posted on August 13 2017

      I have never been much of a fan of David Miliband. Seemingly clone like in hisbehaviour; it has always been hard to discern any original political contribution he had or might make. His espousal of  centre ground politics in the Observer today does little to shake that impression.
      I do not wish to leave the EU: I have made that very clear. The reasons are partly pragmatic. I do not want the economic and social chaos of leaving imposed on this country.
      They are also cultural. As a citizen of two EU countries at present I have always felt European. As a child of the 1950s I was also brought up with an ingrained sense that peace had to be a better alternative to war, and that European cooperation was the basis for that.
      Economically it so happens that I also think European cooperation good news: costs are reduced, markets are enlarged, driving common standards up is a good thing, regulation has overall been a big win for many, especially in employment and these days on tax. The list goes on.
    2. The EU does need to be reformed, the extent to which it pursues Neo Liberal ideology and enshrines neo liberal dogmas into the EU constitutional fabric are well set out in this Corporate Watch publication.
      Changes in EU structures:
      using the crisis as a good excuse
      Summarised below are the major changes to the EU’s structure. They are the precursors to two key features of greater integration: the fiscal compact and the banking union explained in more depth below.
      i) The European Semester proposed in Spring 2010 and adopted a few months later, stipulates that national budgets must first be approved by the Commission before they are shown to national parliaments. Each April EU member states are required to present to the Commission and the Council their draft national budgets, and wait for recommendations, comments and approval by July each year. In Autumn the governments present them to national parliaments.
      ii) The Euro Pact in March 2011 is a commitment by states that the solution to the crisis is austerity: bringing down wages and lowering social expenditure to increase competitiveness. It is not legally binding.
      iii) The ‘Six Pack’ transformed the above into six legislative proposals, the most important of which is the strengthening of the Growth and Stability Pact which includes making stricter enforcement rules such as semi-automatic sanctions and fines.
      iv) Fiscal Compact: is also known as the permanent austerity treaty as it stipulates that states must tighten their budgets, which if not within the 3% limit must follow an adjustment programme to lower the ‘structural deficit’ (which is the deficit if there were no recession). The fiscal compact leaves individual government’s manoeuvring to make alternative policy suggestions impossible.
      Diem 25 plans to reform the EU from within, it is not going all that well I would suggest. The UK Hung Parliament and Brexit vote may prove to be the catalyst for greater dissent in other EU countries equally disenchanted with the Neo Liberal doubling down, since the 2008 crisis and now further since Article 50 was invoked following the Brexit referendum.
      On Subsidiarity and the Euro, it should always be emphasised that the ECB and EU monetary policy is an exclusive competence of the commission and therefore not subject to the arcana of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity protects democratic ideals, exclusive competencies of the commission do not.
      It seems to be a hard position to defend that somehow the UK needs to not go through with Brexit as the FT suggests here.
      When there are no grounds for believing the EU has adopted a reform minded stance, will adopt such a stance or that the present crop of functionaries is even capable of imagining a stance other than their full speed ahead for a federal neo liberal Europe, and to a degree that would make James Buccannan very proud.
    3. Andy Ross says:
      I don’t see how nation states can be genuinely autonomous in a globalised world, the route to a more civilised world can surely only be through powerful supra-national bodies, such as the EU
      • Hi Andy,
        It’s a question of subsidiarity for me. The direction of travel of individual communities should be determined by those communities and what requires wider consensus and decision making should be delegated to the Central bodies which are overseen by Subsidiary decision making bodies, and where a power of recall of authority still rests with them.
        If Consensus based political economy is desired and a functioning democracy an aim, it is very important to express the checks and balances that are to be applied to globally operating entities.
        The EU as a powerful supra national body can be tested against democratic and economic metrics, as can the results of the NAFTA agreement between North and south America. NAFTA has not worked out well, Heres a link to the 20-year report on its impacts.
        Enlargement of the EU has also had adverse effects on the periphery of the EU, the answer is not trade deals like CETA or TTIP. Of course the Much commented upon suggested US/UK trade deal, chlorinated Chicken and all, is not what many of us want for The UK.
        It is a leap of faith or faith based statement to say that Globalisation can only work with powerful supra national bodies like the EU. If those powerful Supra National Bodies are not Democratic and in many respects aggressively anti – democratic, we need to make sure that the Oversight and rights of recall of representatives or of delegated powers are properly enshrined in the treaties between members and the constitutions of the Supra National Bodies themselves.
        The EU is in a very real sense a newly minted or certainly nascent Supra Regional Super State. To me, that’s a bad idea and in many respects, we have seen a sort of Enclosure of the Information economy leading to similar fall out with a new type of Urban Serfdom emerging as the means of wealth creation flows into those with first use of the massively enlarged FIAT money supply.
        So the Extent to which Nation states and regional government can be genuinely autonomous is actually a function of International Law and if that is a democratic based process honouring and protecting Democratic rights of Citizens rather than the Corporate Rights of Supra National Global Corporations there is no reason to believe that the only way to do things is by concentrating power into supra national organisations.I think that it is a fact that the past 40 years has seen the direction of our political economy in the direction of Massive Centralisation of Economic and Political Power. Has that lead to a better society?
        • Andy Ross says:
          Hi Roger,
          I do share some of your concerns, but the EU is a long way from being a super-state, and more importantly, for our global proximity it is the only show in town. Despite its many failings, it is a reality we have to choose or reject and as the balance of what is good for the UK is firmly within the EU, I choose a soft-as-ducks’ down BREXIT, or better, a shift in public opinion that allows convergence and reform and a better and united progressive EU.
    4. Pilgrim Slight Return says:
      Sorry to bang on about this but……….
      Please let us remember that the EU is made up of member states who basically agree with each other about a lot of things (trade, austerity etc.,). As soon as we start to talk of ‘super states’ the danger is that we start to forgetting about the countries the EU is made up of and the inherent power that those states have to change the EU so that the social, economic and democratic objective it was founded on are not hijacked by asinine American ideas about social-economic life. The EU is the sum of its parts – economically and philosophically.
      Only the currency in my view (the Euro) can be argued to be truly ‘supra’ in its conception and its management (via the very unaccountable ECB).
      What we need to happen is for the individual member countries to use the democratic system within the EU to get off the neo-lib horse and start to challenge the ECB. Then the spell will be broken. I live in hope of that for a better Europe as well as remaining in it.
      • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

        Hi PSR,
        The EU has gone very badly off track, the Commission is far too powerful in my opinion.
        It is correct that the many European States have gone down the Neo Liberal Rabitt hole and that if they changed direction then the EU may be redeemable.
        For any hope of the process starting in that direction, My own view was and still is that Brexit and Trump were a good thing as has been the resurgent Labour Party with its Democratic Socialist agenda.
        On Statehood, the if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? perhaps the jury is still out on that question but the Charlemagne element of the Spinola group EU federal fanatics certainly see the EU as a project of statehood, do neo liberal ideologues in the individual states go along with it? one has to conclude that yes some of them do.
        The EU needs to be much more respectfully of its own constitutional provisions of subsidiarity. That the EU has baked Austerity into the fabric of its own rules is deeply worrying as is making the Euro compulsory for all member states. I live in Sweden where I am happily married to a Swedish Wife and Swedish Children in Swedish Schools whilst I remain a UK citizen, I am almost certain that I will eventually choose to become a Swedish Citizen. Sweden has a much more engaged attitude to the EU Parliament and EU parliamentary process the Swedish Parliament reviews and liaises with its EURO MPS in making amendments to legislation. Sweden is very good though at consensus, much more so than we Brits, that said the Swedish Appetite to remain outside NATO remains High and the Swedish public opinion of EURO membership is also still strongly against. Karl Bildt Piece in project syndicate is quite good.He recently suggested more Europe and Less Brussels. Reinfeldt the last PM here before Bildt, who also leads the same party the Moderate Party in the early 90’s, throws up an interesting question about Neo Liberalism in Sweden, the Reinfeldt Tenure was not a success with the various economic liberalisation of Schools and also the railways seen as being abject failures. When Stefan Löven was elected it was obvious that the “Markets´´for which read Washington Consensus neo liberal establishment, decided to punish the Swedes by attacking the Kroner. This factor of international political economy can not be ignored, the Political landscape is littered with the Landmines of Neo Liberal ideology and suggesting that the EU is a symptom of national politics rather than a driver of geo political policy in accordance with its role in service to Global Capital is I think an argument that fails the DUck test. What was TTIP , or CETA , National Parliaments were largely becoming skepåtical as Public opinion set against those Trade deals but the recent ECJ case which said that CETA might not need to be accepted at National Government level tends to suggest that the EU is not the whipping boy of the National Governments but in fact the Commission and ECJ itself seems to have a rather more inflated view of its own constitutional position vis the whole edifice.
        We will see how long Mrs Mays Minority government lasts, we will then see if Mr Corbyn is able to finish the Job he started in the June election. There are choppy waters ahead with overheated stock markets and a financial system probably more over balanced than in 2008, events will more than likely see Mrs May Out of office and indeed another UK election probably before next Summer. Mr Blairs Centrists, (( Left Wing Neo Liberal Fanatics) (The Left wing of neo liberalism is a bit like choosing whether Hitler or Mussolini was to the left or right of each other,) ) are still briefing against Mr Corbyn and his alleged support for an extreme Hard Brexit. Mr Corbyn it seems to me advocates a Social Democratic Brexit and the policies advocated under the 2017 Labour Manifesto such as the regional Investment Bank may well be illegal under EU law as currently constructed. If the EU reforms and becomes worth being a member of then the EU in that guise would welcome a non-neo liberal UK into its community of interests.Until the EU starts the process of reform and Mr Macrons election in France was not a good sign that the neo liberal Establishment has decided to yield to a more democratic breeze, I think we need to get used to doing things our own way for a few years whilst the rest of the European population not least in Germany and France cotton on to the Corporate capture of their political class. ( See my earlier Link to the corporate watch report, I have a series of very in depth Blogs on Brexit regarding the misteps of the ECB and the EURO particularly, here is the Blog link.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/02/meet-fuggers-brexit-euro-and-clueless.html
      • ‘Anyone who campaigns for soft Brexit will be doing the government’s dirty work for it … Pro-European Brits should put their heart into stopping Brexit rather than campaigning for a soft one.’

        Pro-Europeans ought to exploit May’s problems to drive change in public opinion

        LikeShow more reactions


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis Hi Ashley, What does Stop Brexit mean?
        The terms of the UK membership pre the referendum?
        The main leadership personalities of the EU institutions have made some policy goals explicit since the Shock of the referendum Result and then the triggering of 
        article 50.

        Guy Verhofsted and Jean Claude Junker have both made clear statements of Closer Union and also the compulsory adoption of the Euro Currency.

        The EU has principles related to exclusive competencies and Subsidiarity. Monetary Policy is an Exclusive competence of the Commission and as such not subject to Democratic oversight by the Parliament of the EU let alone State Parliaments.

        The type of Brexit that emerges in the UK post leaving the EU would be subject to our own electoral politics, these seem to be in a state of flux and Mrs May and her 3 Brexit-ers efforts are not locked in, in the same way, stopping Brexit would lock the UK to the EU institutions and their own apparent direction of travel. 

        To reinforce that point leaving the EU with or without Tariff free Access to the single market isn’t as fixed and final in the same way as stopping Brexit `, might suggest, hence my question what do you mean by stopping Brexit. There is not a clear offer of either a satisfactory previously existing Status Quo, or of a newly defined status quo which the political figures who operate the EU bureaucracy have indicated would be the new reality of a UK that scraps the Article 50 process and remains as a member state of the EU. Is that with or without opt outs and exclusions sir?

        I have read the linked article and it does not help me with this question of what Stopping Brexit means. Before Stopping Brexit I would like to know what it is we are remaining a contracted party to. The EU would have to progress to the sorts of positions which DIEM 25 are campaigning for. 
        DIEM 25 are not exactly at the heart of the EU debate regarding future policy within the 5 presidents report which is clueless on the reality of how a one size fits all monetary policy will hurt the smaller EU members over the Larger members and as such neo liberal free market dogma will not work and has not been working within the EU since the ECB and EURO project was embarked upon against the advice of one of its designers Bernard Leitaer. ( roughly paraphrased, he said the political union would have to be much more advanced for the necessary balances that would have to be implemented to prevent the outcome which we saw and continue to see, I.e the suffering of the so called PIIGS.

        That’s a bit long, but I am keen to understand what STopping Brexit means? What exactly is on offer. 
        The Green Party 2015 manifesto asks my question for me it said this on Europe.

        The Green Party recognises that the UK is part of Europe and that we cannot cut ourselves off from our geography or its political
        realities. Our message on Europe is positive, not based on fear and nostalgia.
        Much EU action has been progressive: safeguarding basic rights, peace and security achieved through mutual understanding,
        environmental protection, the spread of culture and ideas, and regulation of the financial system. And in other areas, such as
        welfare policy, open discussion and coordination are useful.
        However, we prioritise local self-reliance rather than the EU’s unsustainable economics of free trade and growth. We would not
        adopt the Euro, which cannot work properly without much deeper political integration, and this would be contrary to our policy
        of subsidiarity.
        We support the proposal to have an in–out referendum so that the British people can have their say. This is because much has
        changed since the UK joined the Common Market in 1974. Endless debate on membership is a diversion from more important
        matters, such as ending inequality and adapting our economy to One-Planet Living.
        So it’s yes to Europe, yes to reform of the EU but also yes to a referendum. This is the policy that led to the election of an
        additional Green MEP, Molly Scott Cato, in the South West last year.

        P.71 https://www.greenparty.org.uk/…/Green_Party_2015&#8230;

        As we had the referendum the GP advocated for we are left with the Green Parties wish to reform the EU, which is pretty much the DIEM 25 agenda for change, Caroline Lucas was an original member of DIEM 25 and attended at its Launch Conference.


        Much of the FT´s position in the article relate to Big Business interests around the EU and Tariff free single market access, These interests are not the same as those of EU CItizens and UK voters should bear this in mind, Wage stagnation is a phenomenon across the whole EU and Washington Consensus, the Share of increases wealth under all Washington Consensus regimes has been directed almost exclusively to the top of the corporate tree since the 2008 Financial Melt down.

        So it seems to me that Stopping Brexit stops short of making a convincing case.

        One final Link a case study on the EU response to the Financial Crisis from Corporate watch.

        Changes in EU structures:
        using the crisis as a good excuse
        Summarised below are the major changes to the EU’s structure. They are the precursors to two key features of greater integration: the fiscal compact and the banking union explained in more depth below.
        i) The European Semester proposed in Spring 2010 and adopted a few months later, stipulates that national budgets must first be approved by the Commission before they are shown to national parliaments. Each April EU member states are required to present to the Commission and the Council their draft national budgets, and wait for recommendations, comments and approval by July each year. In Autumn the governments present them to national parliaments.
        ii) The Euro Pact in March 2011 is a commitment by states that the solution to the crisis is austerity: bringing down wages and lowering social expenditure to increase competitiveness. It is not legally binding.
        iii) The ‘Six Pack’ transformed the above into six legislative proposals, the most important of which is the strengthening of the Growth and Stability Pact which includes making stricter enforcement rules such as semi-automatic sanctions and fines.
        iv) Fiscal Compact: is also known as the permanent austerity treaty as it stipulates that states must tighten their budgets, which if not within the 3% limit must follow an adjustment programme to lower the ‘structural deficit’ (which is the deficit if there were no recession). The fiscal compact leaves individual government’s manoeuvring to make alternative policy suggestions impossible.156

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 21 hrs · Edited


        Ashley Drake
        Ashley Drake Quite simple Roger – not leaving the EU.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 

         · 22 hrs


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis Ashley Drake That’s not simple at all Ashley, Remaining within the EU without a reform agenda for the EU and its institutions is constitutional suicide and the Death of UK Democracy. It may be that Voting in Mrs May amounted to the same thing, of coursSee More

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 21 hrs


        Ashley Drake
        Ashley Drake Yes it is. You stay and argue your case.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 20 hrs


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis When no change is baked into the cake, which it has progressively been, Arguing for change where none is actually sanctioned constitutionally and the possibility for change barred, is a fool’s errand.
        Is your answer that Stopping Brexit means taking w
        hatever is given?
        Is the Arrangement immediately pre referendum, as negotiated by Mr Cameron what we are to think, is the situation with which we will be accepting if Brexit is stopped.
        As you think stopping Brexit is what we should all be asking the British Establishment to engineer A good explanation of what the EU is What it does and where it is headed would be very useful. Is it possible to set out what that membership entails and where ultimately it leads? 
        On the questions of Arguing your case Ashley would it be too much to ask for you to have a shot of setting out why it seems obvious to you that NBexit should be stopped?
        I have no objection in principle to being part of the EU as long as it is Democratic and puts the rights of Citizens over those of Corporations. The Point regarding Mrs Mays and Mr Johnsons American trade deal, chlorinated chicken and all, is that The CETA, TTIP and ISDS treaties which the EU has progressed to the full extent of its ability are only on the back burner in the case of TTIP in any case, because of that other interesting question, the Election of President Trump.
        In a competition between, Mr Junker, Mrs May and President Trump I would not rush to pick any of them, that said Mr Junker was not elected by any kind of popular vote to his position, in a system of checks and balances I do not see how the EU qualifies for entry in the race when Mrs Mays and Presidents trumps legitimacy may be argued as weak on democratic merit, Mr Junker has no democratic merit what so ever. DO you think the EU is up for getting rid of the Commission it would be a jolly good start to getting my support for a UK remaining in the EU.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 19 hrs


        Ashley Drake
        Ashley Drake Roger – I work full-time and am heading off on holiday tomorrow so I have no time to prepare a manifesto for you. I wish to stay a member of the EU. That is it.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 19 hrs


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis A manifesto isn´t required Ashley, but some actual points of argument would be nice. Have a great holiday. Schools start back here on Wednesday.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 19 hrs


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/…/the-eu-should-be-at…/ I like Richard Murphy Ashley, he seems to think that the EU can be reformed from within, personally, I think it would have a better chance if the UK goes ahead with Brexit and is followed by Italy and the Czech Republic, who look favourite to be following the UK out.
        If the EU made strong moves to reform back from the extreme neo – liberal agenda and look for a Europe of less Brussels and more Europe as Karl Bildt suggested, then that would be progress


        I have never been much of a fan of David Miliband.…

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · Remove Preview · 19 hrs


        Ashley Drake
        Ashley Drake I’ll try and read this but I am pushed for time. Brexit is madness for Wales and I wish to continue my citzenship of the EU. I value that higher than my current arrangements within a corrupt UK.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 

         · 19 hrs · Edited


        Roger Lewis
        Roger Lewis The whole Washington consensus including the UK and EU is corrupt Ashley. An EU with proper subsidiarity to the smaller members along with sovereign currency and taxation powers for all members including an independant Wales . 
        The EURO as a currency w
        ould be worse than Stirling has been for Wales and Scotland and Ireland Ashley. Stirling should be federalised as I have mentioned to you before . The EURO currency needs to be changed so that individual States have their own currencies and the EUro would be a Currency just for trade outside of the EU which would end up with more robustness in the banking system and the Economies of individual states would have the ability to make monetary policy in line with their national and regional circumstances.
        Keeping this short, I know your pushed for time. Have a great Holiday and love to the girls.

        LikeShow more reactions

         · Reply · 19 hrs123

  • rogerglewis 6:42 am on August 11, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    North Korea: War Games, Cyber War, De-Escalation and Provocation, Some Speculations 

    An expanded narrative from an all possible worlds perspective.



    The West displays a lot of medial and political alarm about possible North Korean nuclear armament and missile tests. To be frank – without any praise of the country presenting rather a caricature of Socialism or Communism – it is quite absurd to perceive North Korea as a threat to the world. It is not even a threat to South Korea being under the umbrella of the United States´ powerful military. North Korea has just learned that for a country not totally submitting itself under US control a minimum respect by the US can only be earned by acquiring nuclear armament (I say so as someone hating nuclear bombs from the bottom of my heart). Anyway, the US (Neocon) Power Elite_regards_the_whole_globe_as_their_colony.

    Failed North Korean Missile Test

    When I learned the recent North Korean missile test failed my first thought was: China stepped in by (most probably Cyber) sabotage in…

    View original post 397 more words

  • rogerglewis 4:56 am on August 11, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Its The Geo-Politics, not the Economy Stupid. 

    I enjoyed Mishes appearance on the Greg Hunter you tube channel where a lot of this ground was skimmed over.

    The large gap in the analysis I think is the Yuan and Chinese Central Bank´s holding of more than 3.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves, mainly dollars.
    At the bottom of US domestic problems with the Economy is the international aspects of US Dollar Hegemony and that Exhorbitant priveliges (free lunch) but also re bound potential.
    The chairman of Bank of China wrote this essay in 2009 and also some analysis by Schenk et-al, looked at the British retreat from World reserve currency status.
    North Korea has to be looked at in terms of the US China Axis, the tension between North and south Korea is a convienient pre text for the projection of US power in the region and this has everything to do with US China Relations and very little to do with North and south Korea, the Cold War aspects of the Korean War have reflections all be it pale ones, of the wish of Neo Cons and Hawkish Democrats to demonise Russia.why do they do that? could it be that what is good for the Military Industrial Complex is bad for civilian business but, the Military Industrial Complex is all that is left that might be called industry in North America?
    Zhou Xiaochuan: Reform the international monetary system
    Essay by Dr Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People’s Bank of China, 23 March 2009.
    * * *
    The outbreak of the current crisis and its spillover in the world have confronted us with a
    long-existing but still unanswered question, i.e., what kind of international reserve currency
    do we need to secure global financial stability and facilitate world economic growth, which
    was one of the purposes for establishing the IMF? There were various institutional
    arrangements in an attempt to find a solution, including the Silver Standard, the Gold
    Standard, the Gold Exchange Standard and the Bretton Woods system. The above question,
    however, as the ongoing financial crisis demonstr
    ates, is far from being solved, and has
    become even more severe due to the inherent weaknesses of the current international
    monetary system.
    2. A super-sovereign reserve currency not only eliminates the inherent risks of creditbased
    sovereign currency, but also makes it possible to manage global liquidity.
    Reforming the international monetary system in the
    1970s and 2000s: would an SDR substitution
    account have worked?
    Robert N McCauley and Catherine R Schenk
    This paper analyses the discussion of a
    substitution account
    in the 1970s and how
    the account might have performed had it
    been agreed in 1980. The substitution
    account would have allowed central banks to
    diversify away from
    the dollar into the
    IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR), compris
    ed of US dollar, Deutsche mark, French
    franc (later euro), Japanese yen and British pound, through transactions conducted
    off the market. The a
    ccount’s dollar assets could fall short of the value of its SDR
    liabilities, and hedging would have defeated
    the purpose of preventing dollar sales.
    In the event, negotiators were unable to
    agree on how to distribute the open-ended
    cost of covering any shortfall if the dolla
    r’s depreciation were to exceed the value of
    any cumulative interest rate premium on the dollar. As it turned out, the
    substitution account would
    have encountered solvency pr
    oblems had the US dollar
    return been based on US Treasury bill yields, even if a substantial fraction of the
    IMF’s gold had been devoted to meet the sh
    ortfall at recent, high prices for gold.
    However, had the US dollar return been
    based on US Treasury bond yields, the
    substitution account would have been so
    lvent even without any gold backing.

    The Bank of China made some statements along these 2009 lines again last week. Since then (2009)  the BRICS development bank has Launced and China Russia trade ties and trade done in Kind or with Gold and not Dollars is a reality. This sub text is there in All of the new Milleniums Wars, civil wars and the current crop of conflicts both Hot and Cold. As Mac Nammara famously said at the time of the Oil Shock and the Nixon Gold Window Shock, `Ìts our Currency but your problem“
    On Free Trade, In the Hunter Interview Mish states his Free Trader credentials and assumption that Greg shares those views. To have Free Trade Free markets are a necessary condition and for free Markets one needs honest money. We do not have honest money, we do not have free markets and Free Trade is not a possibility in the current Regime of Global Governance.
    With the impending crash it is obvious in the grand scheme of things that it is both avaoidable and necessary at the same time, more than ever “its the Geo Political not the Economy stupid”, to paraphrase that other Clinton.

    The `Market`is a community of people, not god! reified imaginary concepts are always a short cut to because God or because markets appeals to authority.

    If anyone else here remembers the cold war sport of Kremlin Watching, what is the equivalent for the command and control economy of the USA today, Who really runs the Fed? Look at its share holders and those people are the Ephors of Debt as Schumpeter called them.
    Long Story Short.
    President Trumps´ greatest Challenge is grasping the Dollar reserve currency nettle, The Establishment showed it did not have the courage in 2008. The Establishment still lacks the courage. Meanwhile the whole system is atrophied through the slow strangualtion of the world economy due to the Debt based dollar reserve standard.

  • rogerglewis 11:46 am on August 6, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    The Paper Aristocracy, From William 111 to the Present Day. William Cobbett against Gold! 

    Billions of citizens around the world are suffering because of an “elaborate fiction” we all bought into… An interesting and practical solution is presented too:

    “How Our Money System Creates Inequality (And What We Can Do About It)” uses humor to expose…

    LikeShow more reactions


    Marc Gauvin
    Marc Gauvin Ruby Mutual Credit (passive money systems) is certainly the way we should be doing money and we should promote it, but as long as the current misrepresentation of money (non passive money) continues to be assumed legal, Mutual Credit systems will do nothing to change the predominate system or counter its effects.

    Besides, Bernard Lietaer’s remark is revealing ” there is an infinity of things to be done ….DON’T EXPECT TO BE PAID FOR IT IN NATIONAL MONEY!” 

    What he is saying, is that if you need national money you won’t get it. So he proposes creating a new alternative “passive” money system to compete with national currencies? But if everyone is in debt to the conventional non passive money system with those growing and compounding debts being assumed legal and therefore enforced by the full physical force of the law, when, how many and in which conditions will people stop putting their energies into the conventional system to migrate to mutual credit? Never in time to stop the current transfer of the DEEDS to almost ALL the world’s wealth to a small number of people at which point it will be too late to stop the complete collapse of society. 

    What other solution do we have? 


    MSTA Summary A project to empower through understanding the facts of money’s misrepresentation.…

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 39 mins


    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis I started reading the comments on You Tube Ruby.
    62000 views and the comments are sadly run through with cynicism and pessimism.
    The present system does not work, can the present system be redeemed?

    The point the video makes which Is, one I think that escapes many peoples first intuition is that Debt and Money are but an idea. It is also an idea which has lots of Variable expressions and functions. Measuring by Monetary measures is a slippery concept placed upon the imaginary concept at the root of the question.
    How do we resolve the question? all systems of political economy are idealistic constructs which are either, sold to the populace or imposed upon them. At the root again of this question is what are the choices and who is making them. This question is postulated by James Harrington in his Book the Commonwealth of Oceana from 1656 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth_of_Oceana.
    In Our own country, the Debate goes back to William the third and the establishment of the monopoly of the Bank of England.
    I have been very deeply engrossed in the Pamphlets surrounding the issues raised by the Dissidents in the English Civil War and the later Luddite rebellion and what is called the last revolution in England the Pentrich Uprising.
    I was offended by this statement in Wikipedia.
    “” They were lightly armed with pikes, scythes and a few guns, which had been hidden in a quarry in Wingfield Park, and had a set of rather unfocused revolutionary demands, including the wiping out of the National Debt.[1]”
    It is true they were lightly armed but it is not true that their grievances were “Unfocused, revolutionary demands”

    The Bumper sticker of their demands was the End of the “National Debt and a Larger Loaf of Bread”.

    The defendants own Solicitor ( Mr Cross) mentions two pamphlets in his address to the jury both by William Cobbett. pp. 198-199 
    Cobbets writing on Paper Money are extensive and This paper on Gold. Is a comprehensive discourse by him on his own thesis.

    Cobbett was a friend of Thomas Paine and fellow exile from persecution by the state.

    For the earlier Struggles of the Civil war and the un met demands of the ordinary people A World Turned upside down by Christoper Mills is well worth reading, This essay of his sets out the Framework of the larger book.

    Two more recent statements on Money and Banking from Quiggley and Shubik.

    ”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.

    Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions, not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ”
    Martin Shubik

    Money and Goods Are Different

    ”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
    exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to
    recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
    Quigley Tragedy and hope.

    My main criticism of Peter Josephs Analysis of History is that it is from an American Perspective and hence is infused with American Cultural common places. The Americans have their own particular view of the English revolution and the Enlightenment philosophy that arose from it and a different view of Puritanism, particularly Calvinism. 
    The roots of these questions go back to pre-history, the zeitgeist movies do a good job of examining those questions. Meanwhile, we still have a mountain to climb looking at causes and not scapegoats, this is the same problem which Cobbett grapples with , for the powerful the victims are always to blame.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc