50 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. Once you review all the evidence it becomes clear that far-Right elements are only getting upset because new facts are emerging, the internet empowers everyone equally, and the grip of capitalism is being shaken by recent economic developments. They are longing for the old ways where you could just massacre the opposition as in Thailand, Chile, Indonesia, or bomb them into submission, Vietnam, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or assassinate at will โ€“ America, British, French, Israeli.

  2. h t t p : //fora.tv/2013/03/13/How_to_Deal_with_Americas_Private_Sector_Debt_Challenge

    Here is what i am talking about of what makes a system succesfull, What drives the growth and how it turns into depression. It is very clear discription of causes and how to address the correct things that matter, not to be sidelined with what it doesn’t.

    Restructuring of the debt is a synonim for partial forgivness of debt. Banks can do it easily without much damage since payments of debt is destroying money that debt creation created, doing it ahead of the scheduled time trough restructuring of the debt would reduce only the income from interest.
    If restructuring is done so that income from interest is not reduced but principal is reduced more then in normal accounting, there would be no damage to the bank.
    What i mean by that is that all credit servicing are filed under bank income from interest and liability and asset side (created when debt was created) was erased all the way to 0,

    Debt forgivness without bank income forgivness. Principal is forgiven ahead of time but interest payments as bank income continues.

    Sorry for repeating the same things over and over with different wording but i try to reach variety of readers.

    Here is Moses in Deutoronomy 15:
    “15 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lordโ€™s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed”

    Difference is that in Moses time usual interest were 20%, today are much, much lower so time till the deleverage deppression occur is much longer.
    This is something that was known thousands of years ago and it was forgoten in the labirinth of time (mostly due to Romans banning such debt forgivness)

  3. Where was Mel (@ #1) when I showed last April that the number of deaths caused by communists in the 20th and 21st centuries was quite small in comparison to the horrific violence, death and destruction caused by those opposed to communism?

  4. Interesting posts. For the first time I read something on the origin of ‘capitalism’: religion.


    It, ‘capitalism’, has nothing to do with the theory of market economics, the theory of incomplete markets, and related applied areas in mainstream economics.

    The Deuteronomy 15 clauses in the above referenced sources say more than what was quoted by Jordan. Much more. There is a distinction between ‘brothers’ and ‘foreigners’. There are references to slaves.

    Brothers and sisters, if I may address you in this form at this moment of my personal ‘enlightenment’, those who promote globalisation and capitalism, wittingly or unwittingly, promote conflict and ignore the risk that they, or someone among their future offsprings, may end up as slaves (at least for 6 years!).

    Returning to the non-religious part of economics, debt forgiveness via banking institutions, as suggested by some commenters, isn’t implementable because savings (income from work which is not spent on consumption) and private debt (various forms) generated via banks is mixed up in the accounts and there is nothing in the various versions of ‘the bible’ (I could find) which specifies the disentanglement procedure. But the disentanlement is important for otherwise Deut. 15 isn’t applicable at all (wealth redistribution among non-borrowers is excluded in Deut. 15 but not in the system we have). The recording system of monetary transactions, based as it is on 15th century double entry book-keeping system (balance sheets), and associated monetary aggregates (multipliers) isn’t good enough either. Now this is something one can actually work on. Ha. it feels good to me to be back in the present from this little excursion into the distant past.

  5. Although attention to the standard of teaching is certainly desirable, surely it is still the case that one must “publish or perish” in the academic world.

    Without tenure, the bottom 5 percenters must spend every waking minute in dread of that tap on the shoulder, and wake screaming from their nightmares of being forced to work as sex workers, toilet cleaners, or worse, as public servants. Envy of the top 5 percenters must gnaw at their vital organs and turn them bitter and twisted.

    The top 5 bestow external benefits on the rest of us mere mortals. By their example and leadership they create an intellectual ferment of ideas that stimulates others to push the frontiers of knowledge and improve the discussion of public policy. We should reward the top 5 with praise and money and research funding else they accept lucrative offers elsewhere. That’s simply supply and demand at work.

    Perhaps export subsidies for the bottom 5 would improve our competitive position and rid us of snarks.

  6. Rog, the claims are not gossip. Lee Rhiannon initially claimed she had only limited involvement in the Soviet backed publication, Survey, but she was in fact the editor of that publication during its final few years. She wrote numerous Soviet apologias and did indeed write an article that bemoaned the fall of the Berlin Wall. She also published articles that supported the Soviet smashing of the Czech etc uprisings. This isn’t “unfounded gossip”, it is an established fact. How do we know this? We know because, much to Rhiannon’s embarrassment, copies of Survey have found their way into the hot little hands of journalists such as Christian Kerr.

    Other valuable sources of information on Rhiannon come from former comrades, such as Mark Aarons, including his book The Family File and an article in The Monthly.

    Paul Norton, a former CPA member, Larva Prod author and occasional commenter here has attested to Aarons’ integrity.

    The real problem I have with Rhiannon is that she has sought to downplay her misdeeds and make excuses. Until she has the guts to own up for her vile past, I will regard her as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  7. Malthusista,

    You have written numerous posts praising the brutal murderer, torturer and serial rapist, Muammar Gaddafi.

    I also note with considerable merriment and mirth that your Can Do Better website runs pro-Lyndon LaRouche and anti-fluoride propaganda.

    I’m unable to take you seriously but please hang around because you are way more fun than our resident paranoid android and ageing, beer-soaked communist, Mr Rabbit ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. Mel, you speak as if you have first hand knowledge, which you obviously do not.

    Lee Rhiannon has responded to these claims, will you accept her word?

    Gerard Henderson misrepresents my political history and commitment to environmental protection.

    Citing Mark Aarons and Paul Howes as authorities on my political background is strange as both have allegiances to the ALP, which is determined to smear the Greens.

    Neither my parents nor I were Stalinists. The crimes committed under Stalin were horrific and I and Greens members certainly condemn them. For the record I joined the 1968 protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

    In trawling over my past Henderson fails to mention that I am a qualified botanist and have campaigned for many years on issues such as native forests, the environmental impacts of coalmining and air pollution. These aspects of my life do not fit with Henderson’s attempt to make out I am not committed to the environment policies of the Greens.

    He says there are leadership “tensions” in the Greens. I have the greatest respect for Bob Brown and have already publicly ruled out challenging him for the leadership.

  9. Mel’s McCarthyist lie:

    Lee Rhiannon, who:

    – denounced the people of Czechoslovakia for the โ€™68 uprising

    The truth, from Lee Rhiannon:

    For the record I joined the 1968 protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

    So will our Mel stop spreading lies for political purposes, and apologise?

  10. @Jordan

    You are right that consumer credit can reduce saving.

    Note that when credit is used to increase invesment, it causes corresponding changes in saving and the trade balance. Credit is not something besides saving that causes invesment, it is one of the ways in which saving is chanelled into invesment and conversely allows investment to generate savings.

    This comes from the definition S=Y-C. If I goes up due to credit creation, Y=C+I+NX goes up and so does S.

  11. Lee Rhiannon has written at length about the matters raised in this thread. I think there are some important conclusions that can validly be inferred, without malice aforethought, from this article.

    Mel @39 is right about my own background and also that I will attest to Mark Aarons’ integrity. This includes the fact that I do not believe Mark Aarons had any kind of personally malicious or politically tendentious motive for writing his recollections of Lee Rhiannon (Brown) in The Family File.

  12. Mel and Howes and also perhaps Aarons and Henderson are acting like a pack of McCarthyists. They disgust me.

  13. It’s pretty clear that Mel makes up slanders recklessly. He made up one about me in a previous thread, saying that I was a climate denier troll seeking to ridicule AGW by making excessive claims about climate change. Then he proceeded to abuse me after I made a self defence. Now he has slandered Lee Rhiannon. I don’t why JQ tolerates these abusive right wingers and McCarthyists (not TerjeP as he is not those things) but bans harmless but maybe dotty over-posters like Alice used to be.

  14. I’m calling a halt to this discussion. Those who want to fight out can do so on some other blog, or Twitter.

  15. @Paul Norton

    And speaking of someone who has interacted with Lee Rhiannon over about two decades, for most of it as someone politically unsympathetic to the Greens, Lee Rhiannon seems very far from the caricature painted of her by the right.

    IMO there are excellent grounds for accepting that Lee Rhiannon is privately what she seems to be in public — an honest left-liberal with an insistent interest in social inclusion, equity and the integrity of the natural environment.

    She is ever solicitous of the wellbeing of those about her, warm and direct and was to the best of my capacity to infer, entirely genuine when she said she had no desire to seek the leadership at Bob Borwn’s expense. Like all of us today, she bore him enormous respect.

  16. Survey brings back memories. Some kind soul subscribed us to it. A monthly delivery of humour in how far you could stretch a story to meet the axioms of your personal dogma. And the frisson that this ridiculous little magazine was an arm of the evil empire. I think in today’s media it would seem terribly naive but the basing the story on what it’s meant to prove rather than what happened is now mainstream.

Comments are closed.