Sandpit

A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.

To be clear, the sandpit is for regular commenters to pursue points that distract from regular discussion, including conspiracy-theoretic takes on the issues at hand. It’s not meant as a forum for visiting conspiracy theorists, or trolls posing as such.

221 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. Go on, can’t help but smile at this.

    “Uncle Rob, the down home expert. “Disclaimer: Uncle Rob is a “professional” Don’t be a moron.”

    Love this one as it will get thru to many of the naysayers, as shown by 11k thumbs up, to 345 down. You can lead a horse to masks…

    “Redneck coronavirus mask test
    “Do masks work? Uncle Rob investigates by simulating coughs with aerosol starter fluid, mannequin heads and a propane torch.

    “Disclaimer: Uncle Rob is a “professional” Don’t be a moron.”

    Looks like they work pretty good.”
    https://boingboing.net/2020/07/29/redneck-coronavirus-mask-test.html

    Uncle Rob’s yootoob…
    “Do Masks Work Or Not?? Proving Whether Masks Stop Covid-19 Transmission with Uncle Rob

    Don’t try this at home as he uses ether!

    This will be a reference in my rebutal and expose of faustusnotes and masks and playj and misquotes (lies) about me. Remember fausty old boy, we are not in your ring. What a blow, eh! Teehee.

  2. Ikonoclast listening to Nitzan now. Even in the first few minutes I’m finding him very pleasing. Just from the point of view of watching a committed scholar. His Marxist background is pretty evident from the terminology he uses. But the serious research mentality suggests that his thinking goes beyond any kind of simplistic ideology.

  3. KT2, I don’t understand what you mean when you say “we are not in your ring”. You seem really focused on this idea. What are you trying to say?

    Also, I will remind you, I haven’t said masks don’t work as barriers. I have said they don’t work as prevention policy, which is what we’re talking about here.

    Again, to give the Japanese context: universal mask wearing, but yesterday we hit 1200 cases in Japan, probably 30 times the cases two months ago when we left lockdown. The news yesterday was reporting that only about 20% of the new cases studied have been infected through night clubs and bars, 20% through restaurants, and 20% through work. The rest are unknown. This is in a country with universal mask wearing. So I want you to again explain to me: why is the epidemic growing here? What is the cause, if masks are such effective prevention measures?

    We can’t move from these videos about how masks are effective barriers to discussion of policy until you can answer this basic question. Why aren’t they working at a population level in Japan?

  4. “Read Marx, read Veblen, read Bichler and Nitzan (Capital as Power).”

    How much more you got up your sleeve ikon? Didn’t that ever turn out to be a great tip? This is where the Levee breaks. Bichler and Nitzan have got it going on.

  5. Classic Radio Stories,

    The only other thing I have up my sleeve is an inversion of George Berkeley’s Monist Immaterialism into Complex System “Existentism”. That’s “existentism” not “existentialism”. Thus, I propose neither materialism nor immaterialism but existentism where no assumptions are made about the essential nature of existents and existence. This dovetails neatly into complex systems philosophy and complex systems science. Just as substance philosophy can be superseded by process philosophy (an object is a “constellation” of processes) so process philosophy can be superseded by complex systems philosophy. An “existent” is always a system or system-internal element. Existents only exist in relation to other existents and this in systems of other existents. Existence, like motion, is always relative.

    The whole system (cosmos at big bang) precedes the parts (priority monism). The parts are “emerged” and/or evolved consistent with cosmological evolution and biological evolution. This can and does lead to the emergence of “radical novelty”. This entire metaphysics is consistent with modern science without other metaphysical assumptions (thus employing Occam’s Razor) and uses the central idea of the Relational System monism of modern physics. It is a metaphysics consistent with all of modern science and hence as I call it, a “near-empirical metaphysics”.

    Hofstadter expressed the dilemma of modern metaphysics as follows. “The problem is to state a provisional conception of reality which is as far as possible continuous with the goal of traditional metaphysics and which nevertheless is of empirical import.” With the benefit of accumulated scientific knowledge acting as philosophical hindsight, we can see now that we need to redevelop metaphysics so it is, as far as possible, contiguous with hard science. A philosophical method must be developed which generates inductions from hard science, carries them back into metaphysics and thence helps to connect metaphysics to physics. The basic building blocks of this connection turn out be matter, energy and information; their transfers between systems and their transformations in systems.

    First however, a resolution must be found for the philosophical difficulties involved in examining the interactions of real systems and formal systems. The seeming ontological dilemmas presented by real system / formal system interactions become manifest in science and the humanities at the boundaries where investigations cross from the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) into the soft or social sciences, like economics. An analysis of what happens in ontological and epistemological theory terms at system boundaries, especially real system / formal system boundaries, including at academic discipline boundaries (disciplines are systems too), will be of vital importance. It is at the boundaries of systems that mass, energy and information are transferred, depending among other matters on the issue of systems being open or closed systems in thermodynamic terms. Information theory will be found to be critical; especially in the form of the theory of information as patterns influencing the creation, replication and destruction (or entropy increase) of other patterns.

    That’s a teaser. If you are interested I will point you below to some introductory texts but the essential theory is mine and not derivative (unless I have inadvertently “reverse engineered” an extant philosophy which I have not read). If the latter is this case, I have done this by following the breadcrumbs of modern science plus philosophers from the British Empiricists to one each of the American Pragmatists and Process philosophers, Charles Sanders Peirce and Nicholas Rescher respectively.

    For starters read;

    Novum Organum – Francis Bacon. (The first Book of Aphorisms will do.)
    Of the Principles of Human Knowledge – George Berkeley.
    An Enquiry Concerning Human Knowledge – David Hume.
    Process Metaphysics – An Introduction to Process Philosophy – Nicholas Rescher.
    Process Philosophy – A Survey of Basic Issues – Nicholas Rescher.
    (Still Looking for best reference for Charles Sanders Peirce)
    Philosophy of Complex Systems – Editor Cliff Hooker
    (Hooker’s Introductory Essay(s) and any other essays in fields that interest you. Don’t try to read the whole tome. You will go mad. 😉

  6. “The whole system (cosmos at big bang) ”

    You know thats all nonsense don’t you? A fellow like you should have the philosophical acumen to relook at that jive with the eyes of a hanging judge.

    “Thus, I propose neither materialism nor immaterialism but existentism where no assumptions are made about the essential nature of existents and existence”

    Here I get the impression that you want to throw things out. That leads to problems and potentially a dead end or the loss of knowledge. See we don’t want to be like the early Islamic philosopher who deep-sixed the concept of secondary causation. Because thats an obstacle to scientific enquiry. We don’t want to be like David Hume who ran the risk of bringing us to a philosophical dead end by his mean-spirited criticism of inductive reasoning.

    Pure materialism of the Ayn Rand or Richard Dawkins sort, is right out of the question. Because we know that there is an aether. We can assume that order developed within that aether prior to too much order developing within matter. We need to correct the science fraud of aether-denial but there is no compelling reason to throw out all basic assumptions. You’d have to be hypocritical about it because I assure you that you will continue to be careful crossing roads.

    I am listening to Nitzan now. And I’m finding it pretty illuminating and helpful. But it doesn’t mean I want to throw out the Austrian-Classical British synthesis. Nitzan starts off with a remembrance about what they found out about profits in response to inflation almost reaching 500% within Israel. And what that did for profits and growth. It lead to huge profits and unemployment/stagflation at the same time. I could have told him this would be the result just from George Reisman’s national accounting perspective. But I’m really glad he and his friend, as students didn’t know about George Reisman and knew a lot about Marx instead. Because had they known about this stuff they wouldn’t have developed their theories to do with power, capital, and the marxist notion of original accumulation. Or the related concept of what they are calling “differential accumulation.” Very handy concept.

    So their ignorance as students, combined with their scientific values, allowed them to come up with a new model, which is a fantastic research model the way its sounding to me up front. Doesn’t mean we have to declare it to be year zero and throw the other models away. We want to be more like Aquinas and contrast various perspectives.

  7. It’s certainly worth revisiting a number of aspects of the COVID-19 controversy, including the ever-hot mask topic which I might as well kick off with.

    1. The CDC recommends face masks. See “Considerations for Wearing Cloth Face Coverings”. The Mayo Clinic recommends face masks. See “COVID-19 – How much protection do face masks offer.” The main Lancet study suggests face masks provide possible benefits:

    Click to access PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf

    None of these opinions and studies even try to suggest that masks are highly effective on their own. They all suggest masks should be used with other strategies like distancing and frequent hand washing. They all indicate caveats on the effectiveness of masks and conditions on their proper use. To repeat, none suggest masks alone will be adequately effective.

    If you have any relevant symptoms or if any place you are intending to go to is dangerous enough (or it’s a legal or work requirement) for you to mask up then you should not be going to that place at all, unless it is for an absolutely life-essential or essential occupation reason and then of course you should mask up and take all other medically advised and legally prescribed precautions. If you do otherwise you are a bloody idiot and potentially committing manslaughter morally if not legally.

    2. The advice from certain doctors, epidemiologists and economists to lock-down to effective elimination has been entirely vindicated by current events in Australia. We now have a disastrous second wave causing many more deaths and much more economics damage that any full first lock-down would have caused. There is only one thing that will currently work for the COVID-19 pandemic. That is effective elimination at the national level with people movement isolation from the rest of the world.

    3. There is now strong preliminary scientific evidence that COVID-19 can be caught more than once by at least some persons and that second infections can be more serious than the first. It is not known yet how widespread this is among the population. The precautionary principle suggests we assume this is possible for any one us and only heightens the importance of not catchign COVID-19 even for a first time.

    4. All herd immunity strategies are highly ill-advised as they will impose huge mortality and economic costs on any nation foolish enough to attempt them. Herd immunity (below about 90% infection rate!) for this disease remains a theory with absolutely no empirical support for the pathogen in question. No human has yet been shown to be able to develop permanent immunity to any corona-virus.

    5. “Scientists fear the hunt for a coronavirus vaccine will fail and we will all have to live with the ‘constant threat’ of COVID-19” – Business Insider Australia, April 25, 2020.

    “Some scientists fear that an effective coronavirus vaccine may prove impossible to produce.
    The UK’s Chief Medical Officer warned on Friday that there is “concerning” evidence suggesting that people can be reinfected with the virus.
    He said evidence from other forms of coronavirus also suggests that immunity quickly wanes.
    No vaccine has ever been approved for use against previous forms of coronavirus.
    David Nabarro, professor of global health at Imperial College, said the world may have to learn to live with the “constant threat” of COVID-19”

    These points indicate that effective elimination (in Australia is currently our ONLY hope. Failing to pursue this policy with war-footing vigor will be disastrous for Australians and Australia.

    Those persons who continue to threaten other Australians with manslaughter by corona-virus deserve the highest legal sanctions and legal restraints for their criminal indifference to the health and lives of other Australians. The toughest legal and epidemiological measures now need to be enforced across Australia. This should entail at time of writing the highest level of total lock-down for the entirety of Victoria and NSW. All states and territories in the country should completely close all their borders to all other states in the country. All travel to and from Australia should be suspended indefinitely excepting high level governments figures and then only in cases of critical importance. Plus all states should continue all tracing ands quarantine measures as appropriate.

    To do less than the above is to court a national on-going disaster which could seriously weaken Australia socially, politically and economically for a decade or more. Combined with other problems like bush fires and climate change the collapse of Australia into failed state status within as little as two decades is possible.

  8. Ikonoklast:

    If you have any relevant symptoms or if any place you are intending to go to is dangerous enough (or it’s a legal or work requirement) for you to mask up then you should not be going to that place at all, unless it is for an absolutely life-essential or essential occupation reason and then of course you should mask up and take all other medically advised and legally prescribed precautions.

    At present basically anywhere that meets the conditions of the 3Cs (closed, crowded, close-contact situations) meets these conditions. That includes all forms of commuter transport and most workplaces. There is no evidence that transmission is restricted only to bars and nightclubs and restaurants or other “frivolous” or “non-essential” activities. In Japan, where this evidence is available, people are using masks continuously from when they leave the house to when they get home. Yet they’re still catching the virus on the train, or at work. The presence of those other, higher risk activities enhances this infectiousness and makes it impossible to contain. At this stage at the very least a partial lockdown has to be considered – closing all bars, restaurants, clubs and brothels, all schools, and (sadly) gyms – until this whole business is done and dusted.

    So I agree, closure to achieve elimination is the only way.

  9. “So I agree, closure to achieve elimination is the only way.”

    The only way? The ONLY way? You’re out of options? The option generation phase of your analysis is tapped out this early?

  10. Classic Radio Stories ,

    It’s okay. I get that we don’t get each other. Monist is monist and dualist is dualist and ne’er the twain shall meet. In fact this is the main reason East and West do not meet philosophically. Eastern philosophy is largely monist and holistic and Western philosophy is largely dualist and reductionist. Of course, there is the (minority Western) Heraclitan tradition to which I obviously belong. Evolution, modern physics and the complex systems sciences are definitely validating the Heraclitan and monist traditions, so I think I am in the correct and progressive camp. But as I say, I get that we don’t get each other.

  11. The position of faustusnotes is correct. Some form of closure, or grid closures plural, to achieve effective elimination is the only viable strategy. That is short of a successful vaccine which is still hypothetical at this stage. It’s not a matter of being tapped out of option generation. It’s a matter of empirical reality offering us very few viable options in this real world dilemma. That is unless we are prepared for up to 50 million to die globally from COVID-19. Actually the deaths from other related causes and related disruptions would be likely to double that.

  12. I don’t know about that. I think I get you quite well. But can you deep-six the big bang for me to prove your credentials in epistemology. Sometimes the kids in the physics department go kind of wild when unsupervised by the adults in the philosophy faculty.

  13. “The position of faustusnotes is correct. Some form of closure, or grid closures plural, to achieve effective elimination is the only viable strategy. ”

    So you are tapped out then? I don’t think you should tap yourself out without having a notebook in front of you and listing all aspects of the problem. How about preparation? You haven’t talked about that. How about treatment? Thats not part of your analysis. How about looking at those masks again?

    “That is short of a successful vaccine …”

    You are holding out hope for a vaccine for a corona virus? Where is our vaccine for Sars-1? Or for those common colds associated with other corona viruses? Fat chance I’d reckon. So forget about a vaccine. Thats not merely hypothetical. Its a pretty silly idea right from the start.

  14. One common characteristic of people who attack others for promoting a non orthodox “conspiracy” explination of a historical event is to find a flaw in the non orthodox explination and use that flaw to discredit the entire explination.
    Example: Most “conspiracy theories of the assassination of JFK claim that Lee Oswald was not the lone gunman. It is most likely he acted on his own initiative and was the lone gunman. But that does not mean that there were people at high levels in the US government who did not know what he was planning. The bullet that ended up being found on the stretcher that JFK was carried on is an extraoridinarily suspicous aspect of this case. It by itself is not proof of a conspiracy. To a well oiled mind it is a mineshaft of evidence that all is not as it appeared. Oil is good for something when it is used to make one’s mind work with less friction.
    Example: The World Trade Center was rigged with explosives from with in. That seems extremely improbable to a well oiled mind. But once again there are lots of indicators that people in high levels of the US government knew in advance that it was going to happen and when and where it was going to happen. There is even a story connected to this event that is similar to the bullet on the stretcher.
    It is the airplane radio in the hotel room of an Egyptian traveler that was “accidently left behind by a previous visitor of that room.
    Example: Attacking the big bang theory using Ether as a weapon in the attack. Ether is a woman’s name, nothing more. Äther on the other hand is what connects to two universal simulations being carried out by the same hard drive. But the knowledge of how it works is retained for specialists.
    This story should help oil your minds so that your mind does not discredit supportable ideas becaause part of the support framework is rotten.

  15. There are two senses to “holding out hope”. These are “hope” and “expectation”. I hope for a vaccine but I have only a moderate to low expectation of it being developed and being effective. I quoted in my long post above:

    “Scientists fear the hunt for a coronavirus vaccine will fail and we will all have to live with the ‘constant threat’ of COVID-19” – Business Insider Australia, April 25, 2020.

    Clearly that is my view.

    There are quite a few serious diseases where not catching them is a course far more preferable than catching them and then pinning hopes on treatments. COVID-19 is one of those diseases with its lethality and serious sequelae effects. I also place far less hope in quack treatments than some do.

  16. On the issue of capitalism.

    The entire system of capitalism must be dismantled and replaced by democratic socialism. Any goal less then that is simply accomodationist towards capitalism. We can now see very clearly that capitalism is completely unsustainable in both environmental and social terms.

    I go to several “progressive” economic sites and they all attract lots of people who are still essentially supporters of, or accommodationists of, capitalism. This is the whole problem. Capitalism is unsustainable and CANNOT be lastingly reformed. It always reverts to form: the form of being completely exploitative and destructive of environment, ecology and human life and potential.

    Accommodating capitalism is unviable. It must be overthrown it its entirety. Pushing for socially enlightened policies, UBI’s and JG’s, is all fine. Any tactic positive for the poor and working poor is fine, so long as the long term goal is still the complete overthrow of capitalism. Anything less sees civilization collapse from unsustainability followed by the likely extinction of humanity.

  17. “The entire system of capitalism must be dismantled and replaced by democratic socialism. Any goal less then that is simply accomodationist towards capitalism. ”

    The power analysis that these boys put forward seems to show this. But the WAY its done is pretty important. After all its the same powerful elites who are likely to take control of the process and after all we cannot simply forget all that we know already about economics. Or about the financial elites role in the establishment and operation of communism. The key objective is to defeat the financial elite.

    Making socialism democratic cannot turn a cat into a dog. Complete socialism is impossible. It literally cannot be achieved if by socialism we mean ending the price system via 100% government ownership. What a socialist could rightly hope for is perhaps the banking sector to be taken over. Maybe 50% of housing to be socialist. The businesses that need to be very very large to be nationalised … Thats all doable. But you are still going to need a thriving small to medium sized business capitalism at the core of the system or you will fail. Think about Sco Mo at the moment? Does he have enough on his plate? Or you want to pile him up with extra duties running the carpet installation business just for example?

    Your mentality is to throw things away. Its the year zero type of thinking. Pol Pot and his boys were very highly educated in Marx and Rousseau and others in French universities. They made a pigs breakfast out of it. Really they did no good.

    I cannot see us having a fantastic economy without having some sole traders running businesses of up to about 450 people. I don’t think an operation of that size constitutes the same kind of threat to democracy that these guys have shown that bigger businesses (dovetailing with financial elites) seem to do. If you have a boss, and he has 20 subordinates and each of these has 20 subordinates thats three layers of management and 421 people. That can be a tight competitive machine and it can exist not by interest apartheid but by authentic competitiveness. Yet outfits of that size should not threaten democracy once the government has taken over finance. The banks are now so useless and incompetent its the one area where socialists running finance might probably outcompete them. Its the finance elites dovetailing through the giant businesses …. thats the force multiplier that ruins all things. Since its controversial the boys treat this power like a black box. They have their analysis and it allows them never to utter the word “conspiracy” But its financial elites conspiring through big business that causes the problems Nitzan and Bichler identify. Bad people doing bad things.

    Zero interest loans should go to small businesses on the expectation that they buy producer goods in such a way as to require extra employment. Bigger outfits should survive on retained earnings and not ponzi money.

    “There are two senses to “holding out hope”. These are “hope” and “expectation”. I hope for a vaccine but I have only a moderate to low expectation of it being developed and being effective”

    Don’t be hoping for a vaccine. Its a ridiculous idea and its getting in the way of ending the treatment denial that the terrorists have engineered. If you think of yourself as a philosophical adept you ought to be able to apply these skills to all aspects of the problem. Preparation and treatment included. Even just having the hope in your head has gotten in the way of your preparation: What nutrients have you been taking and what do you have stored in the house? You haven’t been doing any of these things I would suggest.

    You have missed the finance-big-business collusion in this matter that has manipulated you into next to zero preparation. Its this vaccine fantasy that has stopped you from preparing. Its those same power relationships the lads have identified that have set off the terrorist attack, stockpiled one type of treatment, and denied all rational treatment to almost everyone else. Nitzan/Bichler theory is partly a conspiracy substitute. But its notable for its powerful predictive abilities. Well the same “capitalist” entities have conspired to attack us with this virus, conspired to stop you even thinking about preparation and conspired to deny you treatment if you do catch it. So you want to widen your analysis of the problem.

  18. “I also place far less hope in quack treatments than some do.”

    Could be a test of your philosophical prowess to name some of these alleged quack treatments and make some accounting for the name-calling on this matter. You think Nitzan/Bichler analysis doesn’t apply to the medical cartel?

  19. Classic Radio Stories,

    I could accept and work with your prescriptions for;

    (a) The banking sector to be taken over.
    (b) 50% of housing to be socialist.
    (c) Businesses that need to be very very large be nationalized
    (d) A small to medium sized business sector at the core of the system.
    (Sole traders running businesses of up to about 450 people)

    I would be hoping for more social evolution beyond that but I would certainly pay attention if the empircal signals were indicating don’t go further.

    You advise to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. That’s fine. This also means don’t throw out science while throwing out Big Pharma. The corollary of that is to not rush to potentially quack cures without doing the science properly first. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy of treatment denial. If treatments work they will be used. There’s more money in treatments specifically than in vaccines. Though it is true that the entire economy will do better IF a vaccine is found.

    https://quackwatch.org/consumer-protection/covid-19-consumer-protection/

  20. Well thats good. We can agree on some things. But there is a conspiracy of treatment denial and you should have picked up on it. Quackwatch is part of this. You should have found that out with your philosophical training.

    The modern medical cartel was started by the original Rockefeller billionaire and his opening shot was the Flexner report. Thanks to his efforts the industry now swallows up huge amounts of the US GDP. For this not to be part of Nitzan/Bichler analysis is just insane. And the first full-blown “war on quackery” goes back to the 1960’s. This war attacked every competitor to Rockefeller medicine. They were against anything that couldn’t be patented and actually worked. So they outlawed B17. They wanted to maintain their cancer rort. Like HCQ not every last person in the world can tolerate Laetrile. Just almost everyone. Laetrile has been a subject of CDC whistleblowers. Doctors are now speaking out on the attempt to deny HCQ treatment which is THE treatment for corona viruses. Quackwatch is just a continuation of the original “war on quackery.” That is to say the war on anything that worked and couldn’t be used for differential accumulation.

    Your philosophical training means nothing if you don’t apply it. For most things you appear to just goose-step to every dumb left tune going. In terms of the terrorists denying us treatment, every HCQ trial was constructed to do this. They already knew it worked brilliantly. They knew this back at least as far as 2005. It works very well and zero evidence has emerged to the contrary. Its been used for 70 years and though the manufacturing sites have recently all changed hands (as you would expect with a terrorist attack) the terrorists haven’t managed to restrict this HCQ from your local pharmacy. HCQ (and all other treatments that work) has been denied exclusively to people who actually need it. You don’t need it for Lupis you won’t die. You don’t need it for Rheumatoid athritis you will live. You need it for Covid or you won’t be able to breath.

    So thats a failure of application on your part. Its one thing to advocate Bichler and Nitzlan. But you need to apply what you have learned. In the US the medical cartel is bigger business than oil. They are both hand in glove with big finance. Nitzan/Bichler implies conspiracy. Although of a more organic form than I am used to thinking about. Its kind of refreshing because it means we don’t have to go ethnic on the criminality. They are convincing enough to show that carpet bombing the “City Of London” or arresting hereditary financiers may not solve the problem ………. But still. You know. These things might help.

  21. (a) The banking sector to be taken over.
    (b) 50% of housing to be socialist.
    (c) Businesses that need to be very very large be nationalized
    (d) A small to medium sized business sector at the core of the system.
    (Sole traders running businesses of up to about 450 people)

    Yes I’ve been thinking along these lines for a very long time. But its your recommendations yesterday that have pushed me out of the closet so to speak. These problems we are having with the big end of town aren’t going away. Nitzan and Bichler are pretty convincing in showing that it won’t be enough to just round up a few criminals. Its much more systemic than that. The old idea was to try and separate business and government. But I’ve been playing Nitzan last night and all morning. Its showing me that these are vain attempts. You need to get things right structurally. Even if it takes hundreds of years.

  22. Its kind of refreshing because it means we don’t have to go ethnic on the criminality.

    Nobody ever has to go ethnic on criminality.

  23. RICO had too. How could they have broken up the Italian Mafia without recognising that it was a problem in the Italian community? All American organised crime has had an ethnic flavour to it. Italians no longer make a lot of whining noises about being singled out. The Irish don’t engage in a lot of whining about their early Emerald Isle involvement in organised crime. This is why we cannot fight terrorism and organised crime. Special pleading and chosenness. So for example its next to impossible to dig Israelis out of American airport security. Just because we cannot call them out as a risk factor. Yet all terrorist attacks involving airports without exception has involved these people.

  24. Classic Radio Stories,

    Your conspiracy theories and quack medicine nostrums are where we part company.

  25. Since everyone has an ethnicity then all crime is performed by someone from an ethnic group. My ethnic group is mainly British / Anglo-saxon with apparently a bit of Cornish, Scottish, Irish, Spanish and maybe some Moorish thrown in. Most of us are “mongrels”… or “vigorous hybrids” if you want to use a polite and positive term.

    To take the main group for me, there’s plenty of crime committed by anglo-saxons. How’s this for theft?

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html

  26. Well the fact is that you are not that bright. You can take a few philosophy papers at university. You can single out a few people you like particularly. But its not going to help with your gullibility problem if you don’t apply what you have learned. Take the big bang for example? The result of good scientific practice you reckon? “A Farewell To Alms” is good scientific practice. A Nazim presentation shows good scientific practice. A creation myth with a lot of numbers? You think thats sound work?

  27. Cute, Classic Radio Stories thinks businesses of up to 450 employees aren’t a threat to democracy and are small to medium traders. Only 0.2% of all businesses in Australia employ more than 200 people. Who knew Classic Radio Stories was all for the 1%? Also 50% social housing? Not even Singapore.

    And everyone now knows HCQ doesn’t work. Classic Radio Stories, I don’t know which website you get your conspiracy theories from – maybe you mainline them straight from Trump’s twitter – but you could try to catch up on some facts.

  28. Well thats what I’m saying is good about the analysis of these two boys. It reduces the need to overdo the ethnic side of things. So we can blame both the English elite and their creditors for some of these things. We can look at Barclays and not just Rothschild. We don’t need to merely note that the highly leveraged banking system was losing silver to China when British foreign policy turned nasty against China. These things ought not be ignored but the analysis can take us further than that. You cannot both logically endorse Nitzam/Bichner and reject conspiracy. It would mean that their structural analysis would have no transmission mechanism. Differential accumulation cannot be disembodied from human action any more than original accumulation can. That would be like Byzantium not being able to identify their competitive relationship with the forces of Islam. Its very handy for the terrorists if you take that approach sure. But manufactured social stigma’s are not outside of this analysis.

  29. “And everyone now knows HCQ doesn’t work. ”

    No we know that it works. And we knew it before the terrorists practiced treatment denial (they also deny IV vitamin C outside of New Zealand for the most part). And we all know it now too. It works absolutely brilliantly. No evidence has ever been found to the contrary. Check the fake studies yourself. You will see that they have all been set up to fail. You can still get HCQ at your local pharmacy but just not if you actually need it.

    The media is not outside Nizam/Bichner analysis.

  30. RICO had too. How could they have broken up the Italian Mafia without recognising that it was a problem in the Italian community?

    There are no references in the text of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act which are specific to the Italian Mafia, the Italian community, or any other ethnic group. Legal action under the RICO Act has been taken successfully against a State Cabinet member, a local police department, State judges, and officers of FIFA, and unsuccessfully against the Hells Angels and against Major League Baseball.

  31. It reduces the need to overdo the ethnic side of things.

    By definition, there is never a need to overdo anything; that is part of what ‘overdo’ means.

  32. “Cute, Classic Radio Stories thinks businesses of up to 450 employees aren’t a threat to democracy and are small to medium traders. Only 0.2% of all businesses in Australia employ more than 200 people.”

    Well doesn’t that show that the restrictions are doable and compatible with wealth creation? Ikon’s original prescription would inevitably lead him into a backdown. Being as his wealth restriction would rule out even a well-capitalised 300 acre farm. So you have to be serious about it. I presume you are coming from a Marxist point of view but businesses were much smaller than now in his day other than those giant and horrific trading company privateers. And yet like Keynes he tried to minimise (at least in the first volume) problems with usury and place all the dysfunction onto general business. Which is one reason why these two got promoted so much. Although I do recognise the high quality of the work of Marx (but not that of Keynes).

    But getting away from the Marx/Keynes subterfuge, a company of only 450 people doesn’t represent a great threat to Democracy once finance has been turned into a public utility. Its the finance dovetailing with media, medicine and big business … Thats where the problems lies

    And if a 450 employee business is subject to a land tax…… Very hard for them to move their focus away from productivity and onto political shenanigans.

  33. Macromancers and monetary mystics objecting to the technical excellence and responsible advocacy of the latest thread: What makes you think that current money supply and rates of growth have not accounted for your feeble objections? If they haven’t then the central banker should resign, give the job to me, and I’ll handle it as a part time gig with some help from the bureau of statistics. Save everyone a lot of revenue. I would like to remind you that there is no free lunch in economics.

    But actually there is a free lunch. And it comes from getting back the seignorage off the bankers and giving it to the treasury. And also by ruthlessly getting rid of Graebar BS jobs and replacing them with a participation income. Fast monetary growth has been part of the hollowing out of the economy, leaving us involved in not too much more than quarrying and real estate. Which is why its hard to slow down coal exports for one thing. We should slow down monetary growth and ease the pain by forcing maximum interest down to 3% retrospectively. Maybe even zero per cent retrospectively and 3% going forward. With every further lockdown coming with debt and rent relief. The banks get subsidised daily. Its them that should have borne the pain and not small business.

    I think we should be leaning on the corporate sector to get rid of BS jobs also and hire more frontline workers. The big guys have participated in benefiting from the seignorage misdirection by way of the combination of low interest loans and their tax deductibility against corporate income. Thats why they are so fat, happy and next to useless right now. Thats why Coles and Woolworths can go around buying up everything in sight.

    Mentioning Coles and Woolworths we see a misdirection of investment towards retail rather than production. All part of the same high monetary growth syndrome we’ve been saddled with since the collapse of Bretton Woods.

    Sadomonetarism is the pain associated with high interest rates that get imposed on us when we try and slow monetary growth down. There is no real choice then but to make interest rates go down retrospectively by force, so we escape that drawn out part of the adaptation. We can’t go through sadomonetarism again. Thats out of the question. Time for the bankers to pay back their gluttonous subsidies. We could do them a favour by buying them up and nationalising them at district operating centre level, piece by piece, as they struggle to learn to make an honest living.

  34. “This then raises the issue of where to levy the higher taxes and where to withdraw existing subsidies, which latter is also a logically necessary action. Higher taxes should be levied on;

    (a) the richest 1%, persons and corporations;
    (b) fossil fuels;
    (c) properties and land;
    (d) health damaging and environment damaging consumption.”

    Putting aside the embarrassment of riches we have when it comes to cutting spending this is not a bad list. We should preface any tax reform by saying that no sole trader ought ever pay taxes on retained earnings. Land tax with a threshold yes. GST (grudgingly) okay for the moment. But never retained earnings. So that should go as soon as possible.

    I have to mention point (c) next. Yes we should introduce land tax first for publicly listed companies. Then for other companies. Then for individuals but with a big threshold for individuals for quite a long time. We should not try and get too much off individuals at the federal level for a few decades. Really we want the corporations to be forced to sell off their land to individuals.

    Point (a). The key thing here is to get rid of all these rich slob trusts. Get assets under real human beings names. Also once we get rid of retained earnings on the sole trader, plus land tax with a big threshold for individuals, that sets us up nicely to be able to quit the corporate tax, which the big guys can get out of, and which distorts their decision-making away from wealth creation ……….. and instead nail them all on total revenues, which is what Pauline Hanson has been advocating. The first time around many years ago her proposal failed because of the alleged problem of vertical integration. I have my doubts about that criticism then and now. But once the corporations are having to sell assets to the human beings that is less of a problem. And with no retained earnings on the sole traders they will become bigger players in the production chain.

    (b) fossil fuels. Sure we can go higher with coal royalties. Particularly for exports. Gas ought to be given a pass. We can go higher with fuel excise at the pump also. Forcing society to act in more energy efficient ways. The tradesman stays on his side of town for example. The jobs are done more locally. Less car ownership, smaller cars, more electric bikes or indeed bikes. Better settlement layout.

    But with paying huge amounts on royalties you really don’t want the extraction industries also paying retained earnings tax. The combo being advocated here leaves less money in the hands of the banks, more with the government, and encourages a slow, patient, cost-effective extraction of resources. Sometimes if you want to hit people hard on royalties you are going to have to let go of retained earnings tax or you might just destroy the industry. Rather than slow it down and make it more efficient. We don’t want zealotry pushing good ideas too far.

    Point (d) might seem to be covered already by other means. And an attempt to cover it directly will probably result in inefficient taxes. Feel good taxes. We don’t really need to triple up on things.

    Lets not forget though, that the whole thing can and should be done on the spending side, and tax reform ought to be its own reward.

  35. “Ikonoclast, through your entire life you were likely in the top 5% of ecologically destructive people on earth, no matter how “frugal” you think you personally were. You eat meat, don’t you? There you go.”

    After showing his ecological incompetence (herbivore manure is soil development and carbon internment) fatuousnotes goes onto wondering what the jobs guarantees the now unemployed will actually do? How about building land hydration features? Getting rid of floods, droughts severe bush fires and creating runaway carbon internment, just for starters? That should have been sorted a century ago.

    How about turning all runaway tree weeds into firewood? That might be helpful. African olive and Lantana all chopped up and drying for next winter. How about that? Many thousands of acres of land reclaimed from these dominant trees.

  36. We have a country to save. So its up to people who know what they are talking about, to speak outside of the Overton Window. Which is something public figures cannot do. And I no longer expect them too. Speaking outside of the Overton window is a job for anonymous people. If you don’t like it may, think about emigrating.

    Now I’ve got to hand it to conman Mosler for getting some of these guys to C minus level in basic monetary realities. He’s taught them just enough to make complete suckers out of them. But particular to his con job is the claim that his people make, that we don’t have fractional reserve banking any more. He confuses people enough to make them think that there is no fractional reserve, rather than that there is an extreme version … an extreme subsidised version of fractional reserve. The bankers are so fat, happy, subsidised and coddled that its true enough, that they would seldom worry about what is in their vaults prior to writing a new loan. Mosler characterises this extreme version of fractional reserve as NOT BEING fractional reserve.

    What this allows the con artist hedge fund leech to do, is it allows him to think that the public can be the beneficiary of monetization of debt(-or-new-spending.) on the fly. Monetisation not due to deliberation of central bankers … but on the fly at the whim of treasury and politicians.

    The public cannot be that beneficiary. The banks are the beneficiary of monetization. Because without banking reform, every new dollar of spending that is monetized, allows for bankers to lend 10-30 new dollars on RUBBISH. And if you read the financial papers you know that the bankers lend for rubbish and wealth destruction. So there is no way the public purse can win by this fantasy. The damage done by the extra lending will always outdo any gain to the public purse unless there is reform.

    And yet see the push-back on the new thread? The dopes, the suckers, the goose-sterppers that accept everything that comes down the dumb-left-funnel. Its simply unbelievable. Its like watching a lot of bloodhounds barking their way down river, while Mosler slinks away uphill on the other side.

    Mosler wanted a 15 USD per hour job program …. Thats a great thing. If the Americans had that already, there wouldn’t be this rioting on the streets. We don’t want riots right? We want a fair lifestyle for Australians right? We want people to gain job skills and confidence right? So something like this would be good here also. 5 days per fortnight.

    Mosler wanted to get rid of the regressive and job destroying payroll tax. Also a great idea from the conjurer. But these programs have to be paid for. The Americans should have these advances, but they must be paid for. And there are three sources of funds. Spending cuts. Tax increases. Banking reform. There are three sources there are not four sources. Three only. Got it?

    Mosler’s trickery is to convince the formerly ignorant of something, by way of giving them a small amount of dangerous knowledge. Mosler’s Jedi Knight trick is to tell you you can have the new funds without reforming banking. But there are three sources. Not four.

  37. Thanks May for “logorrhea’. Apt.

    I used to call it, and on occasions been accused of ‘machine gun mouth ‘.

    I crushed my logorrhea gun recently. No one offered to buy it back.

    Good to learn something every day.

  38. Ikonoclast writes

    It’s not classist or racist to point out the capitalist-nexus problems of professional sports. Indeed, such analysis operates in the other direction to uncover further ways the working class and its social consciousness formation are constructed, exploited and manipulated by capitalists

    (see what I did there KT2?)

    This proposal to do away with professional sport is astounding. Yes, we absolutely should eliminate one of the few remaining ways working class and uneducated young people can become rich and influential, and we should make sure that these young people cannot make money from something they love, for their own good. Furthermore, it’s important that we stifle nascent women’s sports like surfing and MMA, for their own good of course (something they’ve never heard before!) because we can’t have working class women diversifying their income opportunities. A bit of pin money from some amateur prize sure, but a real job? No way!

    Now of course the boys and girls at my kickboxing gym might respond “Sure faustus, we understand professional sports corrupts working class culture and exploits our labour, but don’t you think that with 120 years’ experience of left wing activism and leadership, your movement might be able to find a way to liberate us from the capitalist chains that stifle us, but also maybe enable us to continue making a living from what we love? Can’t we kick heads for a living, as well as just for the revolution?”

    To which I would no doubt reply sadly “No! Your case is too complex. We can revolutionize the food system, transport networks, the energy system and all labour relations for the good of all, but to find a way for you to kick heads for a living while being free of exploitative labour relations is simply too hard even for us!”

    And they would grudgingly accept it is a very difficult case, and respond “Oh very well then, we shall lay aside our gloves, we wouldn’t want to be unwitting agents of the undermining of working class social consciousness. Do you have some work we can do then?”

    And I would surely then reply “You boys and girls seem quite fit, perhaps you could work cleaning up the rubbish after the Central Committee Meetings? It’s very rewarding work and much more suited to your class.”

    I’m sure after an exchange like that those boys and girls will be 100% behind our revolution!

  39. faustusnotes,

    My statement is NOT a proposal to do way with professional sports. Professional sports, as we know, are performed primarily for money or payments in kind and amateur sports are performed solely for enjoyment of the game and its social aspects. Most of the kids at any local dojo are not professionals and have little to no prospect of ever becoming one.

    Slightly abbreviated for conciseness and clarity I wrote:

    “Professional sports should receive zero subsidies from the state. They should be regulated for safety, insurance and worker/performer income and rights reasons. If they are viable on that basis of appropriate regulation and user/fan pays then I would certainly place no further impediments or obstacles in their path.”

    How does this equate to a proposal to “do away” with professional sport? It equates to “if you are going to do something for profit then you must make it pay its own way. Don’t expect state subsidies for personal for-profit activities.” That’s a perfectly socialist principle. I am not sure why you can’t understand this. I suspect it’s because you actually understand very little about socialism.

    BTW, I won’t waste my time by engaging with you further.

  40. On the left, every other day, someone gets a wild hair up their ass and figures they want to ban something. They don’t seem to realise that between any half dozen of these guys, if you put their Nazi fantasies together, no-one could do anything at all.

  41. Ikonoclast, how about instead we take the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies and use them to fund a large program of financial support for sport and the arts, based on need, and send out a new generation of professional sportspeople to take on the world, who can contribute to public funds when they return through a decent progressive taxation system?

    And you did say you wanted to ban professional sports – you specifically talked about “ceasing a wasteful activity like professional sports and replacing it with a useful activity”. That’s a ban. You didn’t say “removing subsidies for a wasteful activity”. I bet you don’t even know what the balance of subsidies and income is. You made a blanket statement based on aesthetics. Now you’re backpedaling! But that’s what you wrote.

  42. “John, how does the digital economy change this calculus of total consumption being limited?”

    Oh look at that? I just woke up in a parallel universe where the Reserve Bank Governor hasn’t already adjusted aggregate demand in accordance with his data.

  43. The comments that I am about to make will tie far ranging subjects together. Football will be wraped up and tied with a security Bow(l).
    Whether or not fractional reserve banking is an important concept in the grand design is not the crucial historical banking factor. The crucial historical banking factor is that when practically the entire banking industry was in danger of going bankrupt the banks were bailed out. Now the way that capitalism is taught to the masses is that when someone goes bankrupt whoever bails them out takes possession of thier assets. But the reality is that capitalism is actually just a euphamism for anarchy. The powerful make the rules for capitalism up as they go along. In the USA, and perhaps elsewhere the Supream Court serves as the rubber stamp for those rulers, who I admit can not be individually identified. But those who hold positions in which the lines of massive amounts of money, massive amounts of information, and massive amounts of military power come togehter would be the chief suspects.
    Therefore by the correct definition though not the legal definition of a conspiracy which I have identified, the failure of the states to take over the banks that they bailed out was one of the largest frauds in history up to that time. But no one will be arrested or tried for that crime because it was defined as not being a crime by those who get to define the rules. The banking criminals and their governmental enablers escaped justice due to a currently operational legal technicality.
    This same technicality serves the military industrial complex of the USA and perhaps elsewhere.
    The members of the joint chiefs of staff are not officially in the chain of command. They only give what amounts to advice. Therefore they have a legal firewall between them and criminal charges.
    Yet I charge that this whole system was designed for the high level members of the system to escape legal justice. The system is designed in such a way that everyone inolved in commiting criminal acts can point the finger at someone else to obsolve themselves of responsibility. Therefore since the purpose of the system is to escape justice and not to serve justice it is not only morally illegitimate it is legally illigitimate. If any lawyer would dare to contridict that assertion they themselves would be committing a crime by helping to further the operations of a continually operating criminal enterprise.
    This example should be an example of what a continually operating criiminal enterprise is and leaguely why.
    This is where professional sports come in. But first we must identify the world’s oldest professional sport, prostitution. Prostitution has been legally outlawed in many places, justifiably so. Because prostitution is very risky to those that engage in the practice. And it is a practice that has negative side effects for society as a whole. But the prohibition of prostitution like the prohibition of narcotics has negative side effects. The pros and cons of legalization and prohibition are two mixed bags. What should be competely clear is that people who pay money for sex are moral deviants. But if a govenment were to legalize it or turn a blind eye to the government workers involved in such a policy would not be engaged in criminal activity. Unless they were doing so because they were recieving money or other payments from the prostitution industry.
    Now the reason that I had to bring up prostitution is because there is a similarity between that and high risk professional sports. That is the high risk of damage to ones health of those who engage in such sports. I consider such sports to be for the most part American Football, Rugby, Boxing and downhill sking. By offering huge bribes to people who are often from economically disadvanted backgrounds the team owners are potentially corrupting the values of those in unfortunate circumstances just as much as a john, or joan is when they engage in a sex for money transaction.
    Now we get to the key difference between Rugby, downhill sking, and American football. These sports create sublime, priceless works of art for the enjoyment of all those who have taken the time to learn the rules of the sport.
    Mankind does not exist so that it can colonize Mars let alone a more earth like planet in another solar system. No mankind exists so that humans can create sublime priceless works of art. We know that this is true because that is how I have pronunced it. I would not have said so if it was not a prefectly reasonable thing to say. Art makes scientists happy. Scientists help to create the knowledge base neccessary to create art. No one can make anything unless the take something first. Science helps us do that more efficiently. The result is a circle of increasing good karma.
    What I have just demonstrated is that pro sports is very important. But it comes at a high human cost.
    Fortunately since I am a very clear sighted scientists I can offer some suggestions to lower those costs.
    First of all I would like to point out the reason that salaries of pro players have become rather high is because most fans that the teams depend on for their financial success want a team that wins a lot of its games. The fans want a winning team not a losing team.
    The fans must accept part of the blame for this perdiciment. The fans should be happy seeing two well matched teams playing against each other.
    What this leaves us with is when a reasonable Adept, or a reasonable Abbot consider all that I have just written in the context of a collapsing environment that needs to have a very progessive income tax system to discourage private over consumption they would make reccommendations for the following changes.
    At the high school, or something equivelent to the HS level if the education system is greatly revised, in the USA and Canada teams will play very few games. The first two games will be to carry on the US highschool homecomming tradition one of the two games will be for homecomming the other game will be played away so that the opposing team can have their homecomming. Should the game end in a tie after 4 quarters of regulation play there will be no overtime. Then each team will play in a double elimination tournement with 7 other teams. In this tournment overtimes will be neccessary. The overtimes will follow NCAA rules not NFL rules.
    High School conferences should value geographic proximity very highly.
    There will have to be limits on the amount of full contact practice between games. Star players who sign with a semi pro college or equivelant, team must be insured by that institution to offer payment if the player should suffer a career ending injury.
    Now for the good part. The NFL should be nationalized. It should become part of the Department of Defence. The more reasonable owners can be offered GS jobs in some position with the team.
    The players will be Warrent Officers in the US military branch of their choice. WO-9s to be precise.
    Someone might object and say there is no such thing as a WO-9. Bullshit. Such people have no faith.
    WO-9 has one paygrade no matter how long one has been in service to the country. 200,000 dollars per year, net income. Non Taxable Bonuses for pain and suffering due to injuries will also be authorized. Retirment pay based upon years of service or degree of permanent injury will also be authorized out of appropraited funds.
    The head coaches will be authorized GS 15 pay. Lower level non playing team employees will be authorized pay between that of a GS 5 and a GS 14. A head coach can only be fired after a minimum of 3 straight losing seasons.
    If there are any Warrant Officers in the US military who think that the work that they have been doing is more important for US society than the work of college and professional football players they have demonstrated such stupidity that they should be stripped of their citizenship and be deported to their choice of Ireland during one of its potato famines or Haiti between the years of 1809 and 1826 AD.

    I thought that the movie Burn Notice was pretty good.

  44. “The crucial historical banking factor is that when practically the entire banking industry was in danger of going bankrupt the banks were bailed out. Now the way that capitalism is taught to the masses is that when someone goes bankrupt whoever bails them out takes possession of thier assets.”

    Yeah exactly. And the fact that these proven failures didn’t get nationalised, shows who is really running this mess. Who is calling up one catastrophe after another.

    But you cannot ignore fractional reserve. Because fractional reserve either gets subsidised and accommodated, or it always fails, or both. So for example Paul Volcker also bailed the banks out. He priced the daily subsidy out of the market (ie he raised the discount rate really high to it was no longer a subsidy) then when the whole industry got wobbly he bailed out the bigger guys. Its impossible that a fractional reserve banking industry can ever act responsibly or without subsidies.

  45. “Thanks May for “logorrhea’. Apt.” Oh is this a drive by I see before me?

    Don’t make fun of things you are too stupid to understand.

  46. “The basic building blocks of this connection turn out be matter, energy and information; their transfers between systems and their transformations in systems.”

    Chicken and egg beginnings?

    Why did the chicken cross the road?
    Richard Feynman: It didn’t cross the road to the other side. It actually came back to where it started but was momentarily moving backward in time.

    Chickens and eggs meeting here:

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/are-theoretical-physicists-mad/12420660

  47. I made a serious mistake not including Ice hockey, horse racing, and motorcylce racing especially motocross in the especially dangerous (professional) sport list. In addition from looking at just one wikipedia page a person could not help but conclude that organized crime is a very important factor in ice hockey around the world. This conclusion can be reached by reading about the unusual number of hockey players that die from unnatural causes during their playing career.
    In addition when one sees how many players die from thier hockey injuries I suspect that it is much higher than US football, or Rugby. Perhaps the number of games allowed to be played in a regular season should also be reduced.
    Also I made a minor mistake refering to the movie as Burn Notice rather than Burn After Reading.
    But the TV series Burn Notice was good as well.
    My references to these works of art could idicate that I am a serial killer. I kill time every day. I kill thyme frequently too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s