Once again the British Broadcasting Company, BBC, has put together a spectacular television production; the epic story of how geology, geography and climate have influenced mankind. It is remarkable and fabulous viewing as you can sample in these opening minutes from the first episode on Deep Earth.
The four programmes, Deep Earth; Water; Wind; Fire, are testament to both the incredible symbiosis between mankind and the elements and how that relationship is critically balanced in a way that allows us to survive. Some of the images are truly outstanding, for example, the section on Prof. Iain Stewart exploring the Naica Cave system in Mexico.
Naica Cave system, Mexico
This theme of the balance of geological circumstances that allows, just, mankind to survive comes across time and time again in these films. For example, our relationship with fresh water which we all take completely for granted.
Have any of us really pondered how long we would survive if there was insufficient clean, safe drinking water to go around?
The programmes also reveal something of the technological prowess that mankind has achieved to allow the way these films have been produced.
So why, oh why, are we also such a stupid, stupid species – so stupid that we foul our own nest to an incredible degree.
Europe puts on a grand farce for the rest of the world to watch and wonder at.
The “Greece scuppers the euro” soap opera is steaming along at top speed and the iceberg ahead is more than big enough to sink the Euro, the flagship of those seeking a United States of Europe.
The Euro coin
Several very interesting things are becoming clearer about all this:
A) Greece (and for that matter some other countries) was NOT “ready” for the straitjacket of a single currency in the same bed as Germany, Holland and other serious (well, sort of ) countries, particularly in the North ….
B) The EU hierarchy set some stiff rules for entry to the Euro, which Greece LIED about to gain entry.
C) I firmly believe the EU leaders KNEW that Greece’s figures were the delusional fruits of fraudulent pretention, but they PRESSED ON regardless.
The question is, WHY did they let Greece in? And the reason was – I maintain – their GREED. Not directly for money (though that is ever in the background) but for POWER. The more countries in the Euro the bigger the organism and all organisms seek to grow to their maximum.
The bigger the Eurozone the more unstoppable the momentum would appear (and “appear” is certainly the right word) and the more power would accrue to Brussels and Frankfurt. POLITICAL GREED overcame economic and financial logic.
But the chickens always come home to roost and the result could now be the OPPOSITE of what they wanted to achieve.
Coming back to the roost
Instead of a tight core of financially-stable and righteous Eurocountries that could have thrived as a model for others to emulate and join, Euroland has become a haphazard bodge of totally-disparate economies that has every chance of unravelling in chaos.
I have no desire to see the Greeks or anyone else in economic trouble, but we cannot build a new Europe – let alone world – on lies and a lack of realism. A touch of hubris is direly needed. More practically, we need more long-term planning and less short-term political greed and cowardice.
If this Greek crisis had happened when the EU was flush with funds then it could perhaps – temporarily – have been bodged over as usual. Now we are still on a financial knife edge, and it could go either way. There is some talk that this crisis could accelerate political and monetary union, but I can’t see individual countries giving up their financial independence to Frankfurt and Brussels …. what is true is that we are in dangerous waters out of control and maybe heading towards the rapids … (or the iceberg …) Most EU countries are already in serious trouble; the last thing they need is a further drain on scarce resources. The Greek patient could well bring down the German doctor …….
One of the funniest things (if you like black humour) was soon after the EU bigwigs fixed a ceiling of 3% above GDP for countries’ budget deficits. In other words, countries joining the Euro had to guarantee to take steps to ensure this ceiling would not be breached, and this in the interests of Euroland as a whole; a sort of collective responsibility.
Yet as soon as FRANCE found it could not apply the self-discipline to keep to this promise (do promises matter at all in politics?) then some French government spokesperson said when challenged on this that “the rule could not be applied to big countries.”
Many of the situations that we face are well understood … or, at least, we think they are! Then someone comes along with a different approach and breaks through into a new regime.
This can be unsettling, but then the new approach becomes the norm. What was previously obvious is now ridiculous; and what was previously ridiculous is now obvious! No wonder these things do not happen often, because, if they did, they would not be so unusual!
Eli Godratt has had an enormous impact on many businesses through his approach to understanding business processes. Some of his most effective works are novels! How many business consultants write novels to help people to learn? “The Goal” was his first and captured the main elements of his approach which he termed the Theory of Constraints. He has gone on to describe new approaches to project management, which he calls Critical Chain.
Like most people if most western nations, for many years I had a cell phone, or a mobile phone as they are known in the UK.
I can recall a few years ago there being a scare in the UK about the microwave radiation hazard involved in using a cell phone but it certainly passed me by in terms of not really worrying about it.
Now a recent report in GQ Magazine seems to be gathering some momentum: once again, it’s about how your cell phone may be hazardous to your health. It would be too easy just to dismiss this as just another poke at a very successful technology but something about this article caused me to write this Post – make of it what you will.
Here’s an extract:
Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He’s a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn’t used, so I’ll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. “Not for nothing,” he said, “but in investment banking we’ve been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone.” When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. “I got a sense that he was pissed off,” Jim told me. A handful of Jim’s colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn’t a coincidence. “I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors,” Jim says. “Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways.”
Back in 1955, air travel was an adventure and the age of the jet airliner had already dawned in the UK, albeit with some major setbacks along the way.
As the US prepared to enter the market that summer, there is the well known incident of Boeing test pilot “Tex” Johnston rolling a prototype Boeing 707.
From today’s perspective, under those circumstances , the integrity of the people involved was impressive. As the pilot describes, he was called into the office of the president of Boeing to explain his actions. For me, the most telling comment is his final line:
Here’s one person who doesn’t agree with the President.
The President seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants and no one will hold him accountable. He now claims that “every economist, from both sides of the aisle, believes that the stimulus program created jobs.”
I am an economist, Mr. President, and I know, based either on simple first principles of economics, or on a more rigorous controlled study of labor markets in each major sector of the economy, that the unemployment rate would have been much lower today had the stimulus program never occurred.
You are either woefully unaware of the facts, Mr. President, or are purposefully distorting the facts. Neither is good. When are you going to realize that just because you say something does not make it so? The world does not contort itself to support your version of the truth.
Some little time ago I wrote about the word “fair”, which I tongue-in-cheek referred to as a Word of Mass Destruction (WOMD) insofar as if one REALLY put into place practices that were truly “fair” then western capitalism would break down completely. (The story of the CEO of Goldsmiths and his $100,000,000 bonus is for another day ….)
Well, my OTHER WOMD is “rationing”.
I was drawn to this topic by the words of a British minister about the desirability of introducing rationing into AIR TRAVEL. The thinking goes (and to be honest it is in fact obvious, isn’t it?) that IF we are serious about reducing climate change (a VERY BIG IF!!) then we cannot continue to hope to fly where and when we want to as in the past. For aviation is a growth industry despite the current crisis, and as people in developing economies in Asia in particular grow more prosperous they will want to travel more and more. I have seen estimates to suggest that within a decade ONE HUNDRED MILLION Chinese will be travelling to Europe EVERY YEAR.
This is of course totally incompatible with any hope of doing anything serious about climate change. The logical conclusion is that (until some boffin invents an emission-free jet) we MUST reduce flying. This is likely for most adults to be about as palatable as denying burgers and chips to British teenagers, but I really cannot see the alternative IF Global Warming is to be taken seriously (which it probably won’t be until it’s too late).
But let’s for the moment remain positive …. supposing it is decided by some courageous government (are there any?) that we must reduce flying then there are two ways to do it.
A) TAX it so highly that only the rich can afford it
B) RATION it – everyone has a quota of air miles per annum.
Now option A is the usual free-market/capitalist way. After all, Ferraris are rationed by their price; otherwise all males over 18 would have one, or in my case several. But – much as I recognize what the free market has done in terms of wealth creation – we are in a new scenario, aren’t we? Can we really hope to say that only the rich can fly? I think not, and therefore rationing is the only way to do this.
Now, there is a minority of people that abuse anything, and no doubt rationing would be abused by some, somewhere, somehow. But it is the only FAIR way to go about it, isn’t it?
In London and other big cities we are now seeing a TAX imposed on driving into the city centres. Yes, very sensible, but of course, the RICH aren’t bothered. In effect, schemes like London’s are simply a way of excluding the masses from the city centre. The same idiocy is seen on French motorways, which are becoming increasingly expensive. The rich are not bothered by the tolls but the less well-off certainly ARE and so drive on other roads which are less safe; survival of the richest …….
No, the free-market is not going to work in the Brave New World which we are entering. If you have a birthday party for your kids then EVERYONE gets an equal share of the cake. This principle is going to have to be applied in other areas of life, otherwise we are going to get serious social unrest. Besides, any other way is just not FAIR, is it?
Of course, once you concede the point on AIR TRAVEL there is – in a world of increasing populations and diminishing resources – no way of limiting the concept purely to air travel, is there?
I am just old enough to remember my Mother’s WWII ration card, which she used up to the very early 50s I believe. Will we soon start to see a modern reincarnation, and not only in carbon credits?
The unacceptable face of the big agricultural businesses
Another wonderful link from Naked Capitalism. This one refers to the way that the definition of ‘organic’ as in organic milk is being twisted and distorted to favour the huge indoor milking herds, up to 10,000 cattle, that in any sensible mind could never be regarded as the organic production of milk.
This to me is a picture of organic production of milk:
An English meadow
This to me is NOT! Yet the milk from these cows is defined as organic!
Organic milk?
This last picture is courtesy of The Cornucopia Institute, another web site worth a visit whether or not you take an interest in farming – after all, one presumes that you do eat!
A looming low point in the long history of the Greek empire
It seems the EU is considering whether to bail out Greece, in danger of defaulting on its loans, so high is its debt.
Athens
A spokesman has been quoted as saying “it is unthinkable” that Greece should default and that “something would have to be done.”
I imagine the rest of the EU countries (their citizens at least, those who actually pay the taxes) are not exactly slavering over the prospect of their money being used to bail out yet another organism living beyond its means.
And this is the point, we ALL have to start living within our means: individuals, countries, the planet. ANY other course leads to doom. And as an EU taxpayer I feel very hesitant about bailing out ANY country. Not though lack of fellow-feeling (it could be us next time) but because IF you bail them out then they WON’T change their habits. We bailed out the banks; have you seen THEM change their habits? I certainly haven’t, except that they won’t lend small businesses (the TOTALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS of all this) any money. The obscene fat-cat “bonuses” are starting up all over again like mushrooms in the meadow. No, let them go bust; only that will concentrate their minds.
And let us not forget that Greece LIED about its finances in order to qualify for the EU in the first place! An end to lies! An end to the easy option. An end to my taxes bailing out an indisciplined over-spender!
Keep in mind, even as the number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose again recently, that the 10% U.S. unemployment figure understates the actual number of unemployed. Even the 17% underemployment figure, which includes those who are either unemployed or who are working part-time but would like to work full-time, fails to include many of those who have lost their jobs but, because they fail to qualify for unemployment, are not being tracked. I know several such people personally; one has been unemployed for over a year.
My point? Structural unemployment is a serious economic issue. But the solution is not to funnel more unemployment benefits to the unemployed. The best thing the government can do is to reduce the barriers it has erected to a vibrant economy, including oppressive taxes, fees, paperwork, bureaucracy, and regulations that repress business productivity and raise prices. By reducing these explicit and implicit costs, there is absolutely no doubt that the private economy will be able to employ more workers as it produces more output at lower prices.
The best thing we can do as private citizens and neighbors is to treat each other right. Keep the economy moving. Put in a good day’s work. Volunteer or learn a new skill if you can’t find a job. Fill a need. Buy smart. And, finally, elect business-friendly local and national politicians. It matters.
Learning from Dogs 