Archive for the ‘Short essays’ Category

Legal Ownership Of Money

November 13, 2014

I have run the idea of the legal ownership of money past a number of the people that have been responsible for my own awakening. But I have received no response at all.

The idea is getting no milage at all.

Yet, I don’t see how this concept is not the lynchpin of the entire construct.

The Kenynesians decry the glut of savings and argue for greater state intervention and centralisation. The Austrians decry the debasement of the currency and decry state intervention and the centralisation of power.

Neither theory however, takes into account the fundamental asymmetrical exchange brought about by the unilateral ownership of the currency.

Of course, the Austrians are closer to the mark because in advocating sound money they effectively advocate greater power for individuals and entities to freely interact. But as far as I can tell, even Austrians are not explicitly in favour of full unencumbered ownership of money by society.

The nature of money is the single fundamental construct upon which everything else is built. Politics, taxation, Collateralised Debt Obligations or Credit Default Swaps are all derivatives of the nature of money. Politics does not influence the nature of money but rather exploits it. Similarly, fiscality or any of the fancy credit instruments mentioned above, have no bearing on the nature of money. Quite the contrary rather. They exploit it.

Politics could of course take the upper hand in advocating a different monetary system. This would entail however taking some rather uncomfortable if not dangerous positions against rather powerful and entrenched interests.

In my view therefore, the fundamental reality of the exchange of something we own outright for something we do not own and owe interest on, is the ultimate driver of all political, economic and social development.

Not only that.

But the continuous exchange of something that is intrinsically valuable (skills, ideas and time) for something that arithmetically does not maintain its original value of exchange (money), must arithmetically and necessarily result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the ultimate owner of the currency. Thus this is a dynamic that can only result in the concentration of power and the full dependence of society on a progressively ever more pervasive and obtrusive state with all the concomitant ramifications regarding personal liberty that entails.

The ultimate owner of the currency has successfully drawn a boundary around society. Regardless of what happens within that boundary at the political, economic or social levels, the owner of the currency will always and everywhere expand the amount of money and credit in circulation. Thus, regardless of what happens within the boundary, the owner of the currency will enjoy an increasing revenue stream fuelled by compound interest calculated on an ever increasing quantity of money and credit.

This monetary construct therefore, thoroughly neutralises the political process. Political infighting between the right, the center and the left is therefore but a distraction, albeit a very useful distraction. In fact, the greater the political polarisation becomes and the more complex regulation and fiscality become, the greater is the resultant revenue stream for the ultimate owner of the currency.

In this context, wars, famines, humanitarian interventions, economic depressions, unemployment and crisis are an absolute manna for the ultimate owner of the currency who stands to gain regardless the underlying conditions. The greater the activity, the more strident the politics and the larger the dislocation, the greater the revenue stream becomes for the ultimate owner of the currency.

This monetary system is arithmetically skewed to impoverish. It cannot be otherwise. Granted the time line may be rather long but the result is arithmetically inevitable and preordained.

This monetary system cannot contemplate prosperity for all because this would inherently distribute profit in the hands of the many.

The arithmetic of this monetary system are geared towards concentration. Politics has no bearing whatsoever in changing this fundamental dynamic. Politics only serve to bring about ever greater regulation, intervention and complexity thus driving ever greater profits towards the owner of the currency. And the evidence is everywhere.

Money and liberty

September 20, 2012

Individuals have nothing and are nothing outside of their ideas and skills.

In order to survive and eventually improve our circumstances we can only exchange our skills and ideas against those of others. Nobody can hope to improve their lot without interacting with others.

Money facilitates the exchange. Money is a neutral vehicle of exchange.

In the absence of money, the exchange of skills and ideas is cumbersome and time consuming. By allowing us to place a value on our skills and ideas, money facilitates the division of labour thus literally allowing us to buy time to do more of what we feel is more rewarding.

Therefore, money is an intimate and integral part of the fabric of society.

Money is an abstract concept. It does not matter what is used as money. What does matter is that two individuals must agree that something is a viable medium of exchange. Since we are trading our skills and our ideas, we have the natural right to choose what vehicle of exchange we wish to make use of.

Money is our natural right because our ideas and skills are our natural right. If our skills and ideas make us what we are, then by extension, the medium of exchange we deem suitable to represent our efforts is just as much a natural extension of what we are.


Now imagine this.

Imagine two individuals that wish to trade skills and ideas with each other.

Imagine further a third individual who is a purveyor of money.

Imagine finally, that the two individuals that have skills and ideas are obligated by law to make use of the money supplied by the purveyor.

In this simplified context, it is clear that the two individuals that wish to trade with each other are at an arithmetical disadvantage to the purveyor of money.

The purveyor of money creates money to continuously buy from one individual and sell to the other. Simply by creating more money as needed, in the long run the purveyor of money will own the ideas and skills of both individuals.


When organized society surrenders to a central bank the right to choose what constitutes money, the central bank will create money as needed and will end up owning the entirety of the productive capital of society  – i.e. the central bank owns you – that is “owns” you with an “n” as opposed to “owes” you.

Granted the time line can be rather long. But the arithmetic underpinning the system is solid.

If society relinquishes the right to choose what money should be, by default a third party like a central bank that has no skin in the productivity of society will invariably opt for a debt based monetary system. The question is not why would it. The question is: why wouldn’t it.

When the central bank of the hegemon convinces other countries to accept its variety of debt based money as a reserve currency, then all countries that accept will in time too be completely bought out economically and politically.

These are arithmetical realities.


Central bank apologists point to the confusion and the scams  that were perpetrated prior to the establishment of a central monetary authority.

Far from me to dispute the fact other than to say that we have traded fraud perpetrated by individuals upon individuals for institutionalized and organized fraud perpetrated by a selected elite upon the entirety of society.

Worse still.

The logic inherent in debt based money must necessarily and arithmetically result in the constant expansion of government. This is because it is impossible to institute debt based money by limiting its creation. Debt based money must necessarily be created liberally and excessively. If that were not the case, then a value based monetary system or a system based on a fixed amount of currency would be employed instead, thereby obviating the need for  a central bank. So debt based money must necessarily be spent in order to fulfill its role. Spending is induced through the use of leverage brought about by the creation and the expansion of the credit markets and is driven by liberal spending at government level as well as through para-governmental entities such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and sundry NGOs.

By the time debt based money comes full circle as it inevitably must, individuals and governments are mired in debt, wages are low, government is the principal employer and/or provider of benefits, political entities run policy (unions), industrial capacity is excessive, pricing power is low, the natural environment is devastated and sovereigns are saturated with each other’s sovereign debt leading necessarily to self monetization of their own debt.

Self monetization of sovereign debt in a context of Floating Exchange Rates calculated on one particular reserve currency, means that the entire construct of sovereign currencies, predicated on sovereigns buying each other’s sovereign debt, has failed. When the mathematical limit of this pyramid scheme is reached, sovereigns must necessarily and inevitably make a last stand by buying their own sovereign debt hence the various QE, ESM, EFSM, OMT and more to come to a sovereign near you.

All the while the central bank issuer of the reserve currency laughs all the way home… i.e. all the way to the bank.

545 People responsible for all US woes

September 8, 2010

Hat tip to poster ROAN on Voy for pointing out this article

BY Charley Reese

(Date of publication unknown)– — –  Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.


Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O’neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.


It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper

Some thoughts

July 19, 2010

This post last updated and expanded on Wednesday 28th July morning

I am on the road. More precisely, I am in Venice and only have sporadic access to internt.

I have a whole bunch to say about fu*%ing Venice and how it is a microcosm of a disfunctional nation that has driven the population to become, by necessity, a bunch of self serving opportunistic thieves… but that’ll have to be for another post.

More pertinent to this blog is what I have come across in the few days I’ve been in Italy.

What prompted this post is a tv program I stumbled across as I was flipping channels this morning. National broadcasting channel Rai 3 had a program dedicated to the disappearance of the middle class.

NB – This post is a first extemporaneous iteration of my thougth process. I will add and/or modify this post as and when I will have access to internet and as I think I can better refine my argument over the next few days.

The program in question started off by playing a tune by Umberto Melnati popular in 1939 Italy called: “Mille Lire al Mese” (One thousand liras a month). Predictably, the song is about an unemployed man that dispairs to find a job that could pay but 1000 liras a month so that he could not only settle his debts and take care of his wife but also have enough money to splurge on some luxuries.

Of course, 1000 liras today is the equivalent of 50 Euro cents which is not even enough to buy a lollypop… which is what this blog is all about.

In 1939 Italy found itself in the depths of the Great Depression (the depression arrived in Europe with some lag). At the time, Europe was still solidly on the gold standard and Fascism and militarism were running rampant in Germany and Italy. More precisely, Italy was still a monarchy in name but effectively under Mussolini’s dictatorship and engaged in empire building in north Africa which pretty much depleted the state’s coffers right at the dawn of WWII. So the depression did nothing to help the state raise funds for its military adventures nor, indeed, to quell rampant unemployment.

However, the point is not Italian history. The above is only a note to give some context.

The point is that today Italians, like Spaniards, Greeks, the Irish or Americans feel a loss of wealth with no options to make up what is lost. To be sure, the loss of wealth has been felt for some years but it is only recently that people have begun to find it increasingly difficult to compensate for the loss of wealth.

Traditionally,  wealth loss compensation strategies consisted in working towards an increase in income (i.e. promotion to higher pay grade or achieving a greater volume of sales or finding extra employment) or making use of credit for a progressively ever greater number of items and services or a combination of all the above.

But most people will have fogotten or do not realize what the original strategy for wealth loss compensation was; the original strategy incidentally, was a social event that fundamentally altered the structure of society. The original strategy was the second  salary: i.e. the working spouse.

This is where my argument may get somewhat hazy till I’ll find a way to clarify it.

If you follow this blog, you know my pet peeve is the monetary sytem. By opting for our particular monetary system (fiat), our governments have set us on a precise path of social and economic development that is predicated on inflation.

Thus, inflation is a deliberate tool of state. But… there is a but… most politicians either do not realize or do not want to admit that is the case.

Personally, in light of the fact that most people including professionals in the banking and finance industries do not know what the monetary system that has been imposed by our governments (unilaterally and arbitrarily I might add) is, I am inclined to believe that most politicians are thoroughly unaware of the environment they evolve in.

But I cannot excuse ignorance when someone deliberately chooses to become a “leader” of society as a politician is presumed to be.

So, just to dispell any doubts, I do think that our politicians are entirely to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today… even though, the current crop of politicians has truly been sold down the river by the politicians that were in charge when our respective countries at the behest of a banking cartel made the choice to go on a fiat monetary system.

So, the current crop of politicians are guilty, at the very least, of not informing themselves on the one instrument that enables them to enact their plans: the monetary system. At worst they are guilty of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

But I digress.

A fiat monetary system is predicated on inflation. But inflation is an inherently accelerating dynamic – i.e. you always need more inflation in order to obtain the same result. So that the result of inflation is the loss of purchasing power of the currency.

And that is precisely the point of inducing inflatioin into the monetary system.

Inflation is not a totally undesirable dynamic in and of itself. The degree of intellectual and material comfort we enjoy today globally is in large part due to the great leaps we have achieved in science and technology over the past seventy years. I just spent a few days at my uncle’s whom lives in Torino. He was born in 1924 and he still remembers how in 1934 as a ten year old boy everyone used to walk or cycle everywhere and how families still owned mules and horses for moving goods. Though Torino and the Piedmont region were relatively affluent  by Italian standards, wealth and certainly excess wealth was not prevalent amongst the population. Never has man witnessed such rapid evolution in such a short period of time in the history of the world. And inflation is to a large extent the one single dynamic that enabled this development.

You may ask how inflation can be responsible for scientific let alone social development.

Inflation erodes the purchasing power of the currency. Loss of purchasing power manifests itself in a rise in the general price level. So that whereas 1000 Liras a month would represent a fortune in 1939, today this sum does not even allow you to buy chewing gum.

So inflation makes money go a lot less further. Hence whereas a family could live on one salary up till the late 40s, as of the 50s families begin to require extra income in the form of a second salary. Right there, by forcing families to require a second salary, government has achieved an increase in employment (here you must remember that, unlike today, till the middle of the last century natality rates were worrysome). Not only has government successfully engineered higher employment but it has also fostered an increase in the velocity of circulation of the currency; just what the doctor ordered for the health of a fiat monetary system.

But as governments pursue aggressive inflationary policies, even a second salary may not be enough to make ends meet so that families gradually eat into their savings. Anyway, the thinking goes, why save money when inflation is eroding its purchasing power.

Eventually, as two salaries do not suffice to keep up with the Jones’ next door and savings have been depleted, individuals must progressively make use of debt for a  progressively wider swathe of goods and services.

In other words. Politicians are now all high-fiving and back-slapping each other because fiat money really appears to be that golden goose it promised to be…. and it appears to come at no material cost to government.

As outlined above, inflation is an accelerating dynamic so that the erosion of purchasing power is not linear in nature; rather it accelerates. By extension, as the loss of purchasing power of the currency accelerates, the general price level rises so economic activity accelerates fostering an expansion in the credit markets.

One of the characteristics of inflation is that it pulls forward in time the demand and therefore the productioin cycles. In other words, inflation induces economic actors to demand today what they would normally demand over a longer time frame. That is because as the general price level rises due to loss of purchasing power of the currency, economic actors prefer to deploy money rather than saving it. Thus economic activity expands, thus research and development expand, thus science and technology evolve, thus society evolves too. So development happens faster than it otherwise would in a value based monetary system.

So from that point of view inflation is not, as I said before, a totally undesirable dynamic.

But of course. From a mathematical point of view, inflation cannot be infinite. In other words, there is only a finite amount of purchasing power that can be eroded. Put another way, there is only some much money that can be borrowed because there is only so much economic activity that can be engaged in profitably.

And that is the great debate that occupies us today. That is today, the great economic debate revolves around the argument (some would say hope) of the main stream political/economic establishment that says that government can induce inflation at will and, indeed, is duty bound to do so. Hence our various bailouts and government spending programs of recent months. But, if like me, you believe inflation cannot be and is not infinite then you realize we have a problem on our hands. If I am right, the problem is rather more dramatic than your garden variety economic hicup.

Today is the 28th of July and I have made some minor changes to the above text. Also, in the past few days I learned that in 1960 the Italian Lira was nominated by a Financial Times poll as most stable currency in the world. Of course, 1960 was the tail end of the Dolce Vita. More proof if ever any were needed that when the main stream press catches on to a trend and waxex lyrical about it, said trend has usually run its course.

To be continued…

I was at a dinner last night… (climate change)

December 26, 2009

I’m not much of a socialite and only go out occasionally. A dear friend invited me to Christmas dinner and I decided to go knowing that the company would not be your run of the mill crowd. True to form, guests were and eclectic group of people with unusual backgrounds. All were well read and all were recognized and prominent exponents of their professions in their chosen fields of activity and all had fascinating life experiences to share making for rewarding conversation.

Anxious to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the point at which we were well into our dinners, in a moment when the conversation seemed to taper off, I suddenly asked whom amongst them had bought the Global Warming rhetoric.

Though the company was exceptionally friendly and willing to engage in polite arguments, the wicked use of the word “bought” in asking my question had the predictable effect to light up all their intellectual warning lights. You could almost hear the blood rushing up from the main area of activity at that moment (the stomach) en route to the brain as the little guys manning their respective cerebral control rooms suddenly stirred from their festivity induced lull to make a panicked appeal for fuel to counter a situation that may require prodigious amounts of arguing power.

And so it was that passions were aroused. Because GW is now more of an emotional issue than a rational and objective one.

All could agree that climate had changed. Firs- hand accounts of depleted fish stocks, damaged coral reefs and changed weather patterns came forth thick and fast.

Finally, someone offered the timeless and misguided argument that sets forth that regardless of whether GW is true or not, we have nothing to lose by implementing legislation aimed at reducing noxious gases.

The company being polite, guests felt the conversation may take a turn for the worst so it was allowed to tail off.

So here is the moral of the story from my point of view.

The final argument reminded me of that annoying email that used to circulate persistently some years ago that was purportedly sent by Bill Gates. The email stated that Microsoft was conducting a secret experiment and that Bill Gates himself would give US$5000 to anyone that would forward the email to all their contact list. Most recipients of the email duly forwarded it to friends and colleagues attaching a message that said: “You never know. It might be true. Anyway we have nothing to lose by forwarding it”.

Of course we all had something to lose by anyone forwarding what was clearly and blatantly a scam to collect email addresses that went to enrich the databases of spammers and hackers. All hackers wanted, was a juicy address of someone in a bank or in a ministry or a credit card company in order to try to plant trojans and viruses.

Similarly with Climate Change, we stand to lose a great deal by allowing ourselves to be roped in by a doctrine that appeals to our sense of moral rectitude but does not stand up to rationalization, just because it is perceived that, anyway, we have nothing to lose by going along with it.

Of course we want clean air, clean cities, clean seas and prosperous forests and coral reefs. It would be nice. But in order to achieve that, we must put the horse before the cart. CC legislation does not even contemplate a horse. It is purely a gravy cart meant to be pushed by you and me.

If you follow this blog, you know my pet peeve is inflation. Rather, my pet peeve is the arbitrary imposition of an unchecked fiat monetary system that leads necessarily and inevitably to an accelerating inflationary dynamic.

Most people have no idea what fiat money is. Most people therefore cannot make the necessary connections that would allow them to realize that CC is a boondoggle. And as boondoggles go, this one is a biggie.

But before we get into that, lets explore a few of the inconsistencies in the CC doctrine. First and foremost, it is established fact that climate changes. It has always been so and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be so now. The fact that man should think that his actions have any bearing on climate is reminiscent of the Geocentrism that prevailed during the dark ages; man is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. The mere thought that man could alter climate is equivalent to saying that we are capable of altering tides (King Canute anyone?) or, more appropriately, the trajectory of earth in space.

Then there are the laws of thermodynamics one of which states that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed but everything is transformed. So, we know that, for example, oceans are great sinks of CO2 and that during warming they release the gas and that they absorb it during cooling. What we don’t know is whether the oceans are releasing CO2 because the climate is warming or whether the climate is warming because the oceans are releasing CO2. Classic chicken and egg situation.

Then there is CO2. As far as I know, CO2 is plant food. Plants feed on CO2 so technically, more CO2 should be a bonanza for our forests and jungles… and our gardens.

Then there is the fact that from a millenarian point of view, there is nothing particularly unusual going on with current temperatures or with the depletion of glaciers in certain places and their extension in other places. For more information on these subjects you can look up “Debunking AGW” on this blog. Here is also another piece of interesting research:

Then there is the fact that the single greatest contributor of noxious gases to the atmosphere is the agricultural sector and, in particular, the live stock sector with its ancillary activities. This is actually very important to keep in mind for the purposes of this essay.

Now, in order to understand where I am coming from, you must understand the logic of fiat money and you should read the introduction under “Aims and rationale” on this blog. It is lengthy and probably lacking but should be a good primer for further reading. In the meantime, here is a crash course.

By deliberately and arbitrarily imposing a fiat monetary system, government makes the implicit choice to push inflation faster than underlying economic activity. Inflation is a dynamic that is exponential in nature thus it is limited mathematically. As an exponential dynamic, inflation gradually leads to commercial and industrial overcapacity thus it compresses in time the production and consumption cycles thus it boosts GDP nominally (but not necessarily intrinsically). But accelerating inflation fosters accelerating consumption thus the depletion of natural resources (i.e. agriculture and fish stocks) thus leading to aberrations in the economy and politics (subsidies and protection of industries). As an exponential dynamic, it follows that inflation is limited mathematically thus as the “beneficial” effects of inflation tail off (GDP boosting), government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory by any means possible. Thus the arbitrary use of fiat money must inevitably and necessarily lead to government becoming the largest actor in the economy.

As the largest actor in the economy, it follows that government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory regardless of any moral or fiduciary obligations as may be held as self evident. That is, once past the peak of the perceived “beneficial” effects of inflation, inflation becomes vital to the existence of government therefore it becomes a goal unto itself.

The logic of a fiat monetary system dictates that in order to survive, the system must systematically assimilate new markets and new currencies: i.e. abrogation of Bretton Woods in 1971 and adoption of the US$ as reserve currency, creation of the Euro, globalization. The other necessary precondition of fiat money is the total disregard for intrinsic value. Thus today globally we finally have a USDollar based, floating exchange rate, monetary system.

The rationale of Climate Change legislation therefore, inscribes itself in the fiat monetary logic. That is; at a time when the traditional tools used by government to induce inflation are failing, it becomes necessary to push through to even greater lengths the amalgamation of executive power by simultaneously dismantling layers of democratic mechanisms deemed to hinder the pursuit of what is perceived as legitimate raison d’etat (i.e. Lisbon Treaty and Patriot Acts). At the same time, due to a perception that historic strategies have served well to induce inflation, Climate Change is proposed as a way to impose still more layers of payments and disbursements aimed at boosting the velocity of circulation of the currency. That is because, as is evident in the graph below, despite the gargantuan sums that Western governments have shoveled into the economy in the past 18 months, the new currency has lost its traditional multiplier effect as contemplated by Keynesian theory:

I am all for a clean environment and I would be a ferocious enforcer of legislation that is already existing in order to throw the book at anyone that, willingly or by negligence, pollutes the environment. But from there to supporting what is blatantly Fascist legislation that steam-rolls a bunch of democratic mechanisms in a wasteful and self serving attempt at the perpetuation and enlargement of government… then, no, I am not game.

Now that you have an initial grasp of our monetary system, I leave you with a last thought:

Knowing what the characteristics of inflation are, does it not seem contradictory that government should at once plead for the environment whilst simultaneously trying to kick start the inflationary dynamic to levels approximating the average of the last ten years?

If anyone should really want to do anything about the environment and the devastation of our resources, we should be looking at taking our governments to task on the monetary system. Excess consumption is not good for the environment. The monetary system is the one single construct we should revise.

Government action is plain for all to see

December 25, 2009

There are few efforts at dissimulating what are clearly illegal actions by our governments. The question is why, if things like the housing market or the general economy are improving, do we still need to support Fannie and Freddie or, for that matter, why we are still allowing banks to disregards mark to market rules. More importantly, why are our governments still engaging in Quantitative Easing which in effect is nothing but buying paper from yourself with currency you’ve just created yourself.

More to the point. If Quantitative Easing was such a good idea, then why not engage in the practice on a regular basis? Surely if QE is a viable strategy, then we could just do it every day of every week of every month of every year. Soon, poverty would be a thing of the past, everyone would have enough food to satiate their hunger and nobody other than the creators of the currency would really need to work for a living. Problem solved.