Author Topic: Unpublished JT letter . . .  (Read 4387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Unpublished JT letter . . .
« on: May 28, 2009, 09:48:26 AM »
Probably because it's not strictly on local issues, but I touch on the issue of the banks, and our national money supply (161 words):

Quote
With unemployment rising to historic levels (according to Julia Gillard), and banks snatching back houses, it’s about time we understood that the money men don’t lend us “Their” money, rather it’s created out of thin air with every new loan.  Further, Governments don’t create the national money supply, that’s done by a cabal of private bankers misleadingly known as “The Federal Reserve,” which is neither “Federal,” or a “Reserve.”  How do they do it?  With a wave of their magic wand.  I guess the likes of Tony Soprano or Don Corleone would kill for that job.  Both John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln challenged the powers of this private group, the first with “Executive Order 11110,” the second with the “Greenback.”  For those who think I’m nuts, or want to know more, I highly recommend Paul Grignon’s cartoon, “Money as Debt,”  plus Hollywood director Aaron Russo’s documentary, “From Freedom to Fascism,” and Ellen Hodgson Brown’s 2007 book, “The Web of Debt.”

. . . and as more background on the above, a while ago now, I spent a week at Binna Burra with "The Ethos Foundation":   http://www.ethosfoundation.org/

One of the speakers was Queensland economist Richard Sanders.  He was also a key advisor to our previous Qld Minister for sustainability, Andrew McNamara MP:  
http://www.quest2025.net/about/    Anyway, he gave us the low-down on how our "Fractional reserve" banking system works, which in a nutshell, means that bankers literally create money out of thin air, loan it to us (and Governments), at interest - and then get real stuff (land, houses, businesses), when the inevetiable defaults occurr.  Further, "Defaults" are a mathematical certainty built into the system (because at its heart, it's a Ponzi scheme).  Who does (or doesn't), default is a function of luck and/or skill, plus the point in the "Business cycle" they took out the loan.  As for the "Interest" paid back by Governments, that comes out of our pockets as income tax.

This also begs the question, if private bankers can "Loan" the money supply into existence at interest, why can't national Governments create the money supply themselves, and "Spend" it into existence?  Rather than "Borrowing" it (at huge cost), from private bankers?  This also occurred to John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, and you can get some more info on that by Googling:

abraham lincoln greenback

and:

john kennedy executive order 11110

Lastly, here's some links to the resources I mention in my letter.  Paul Grignon's "Money as Debt" (can be viewed on-line here, in full):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544

. . . and purchased here:   http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

Here's Aaaron Russo's documentary, "From Freedom to Fascism":   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

. . . and here's Ellen Hodgson Brown's book, "The Web of Debt":    

http://www.webofdebt.com/

. . . and another resource I didn't mention in my letter, but it's a brilliant tool/explanation, "The Ecology of Money" by Richard Douthwaite:

http://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/contents.htm

. . . and as a "PS" to this, I regularly get my hair done in Jimboomba (Tongue & Groove), and I was chatting on this subject with Tim, my hairdresser.  He found it hard to get his head around the fact that private bankers literaly create our money supply out of thin air, for their private profit.  Of course, he then asked the obvious question, why can't anyone do that?  Good question . . .










« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 09:55:22 AM by Kim »

Offline bpratt

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
    • Local Internet
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2009, 10:09:55 AM »
Probably because it's not strictly on local issues, but I touch on the issue of the banks, and our national money supply (161 words):


That'd probably be your answer.... it wasn't local enough for them.

However, they also appear oblivious to sources for other local information, such as the recent rainstorms/flooding in the local area, where they once again conveniently forget that there is a privately run local weather station Logan Village Weatherhttp://www.loganvillageweather.com , where they could have easily have obtained the rainfall figures from that rain storm... which btw, was 240.2mm at Logan Village.

I emailed the journalist who wrote that article on Wednesday morning, but appears that this person must be on holiday or something as I haven't received a response yet, even if it was to say "I didn't know of that weather station" or similar. :)

Other than Tamborine Mountain, Logan Village received more rain than Canungra, Maclean Bridge, Greenbank, and Beaudesert individually of those listed in her article.

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2009, 01:24:01 PM »
Quote
However, they also appear oblivious to sources for other local information, such as the recent rainstorms/flooding in the local area, where they once again conveniently forget that there is a privately run local weather station Logan Village Weatherhttp://www.loganvillageweather.com , where they could have easily have obtained the rainfall figures from that rain storm... which btw, was 240.2mm at Logan Village.

That's very interesting.  Strange weather we're having for Winter.  And sometimes people just forget about local resources (which are very important), you'll have to keep reminding them . . .  8)


Offline Beefeater

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • BEEFEATER
    • View Profile
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2009, 09:14:36 AM »
All very true,  but that is capitalism, of course there is an alternative and I have lived under it.  That is far worse, so maybe while all true, it is the lesser of two great evils.  Some say there is an in between, but human nature is such that we are extremists, one way or the other. Sad.

We must also remember we live in a gimme gimme society, blessed with selfishness and apathy, that want's everything now, on a golden platter and for no effort.  We want handouts, a perfect environment,  that someone else has to pay for, and on and on......we choose coal power over nuclear (because the coal and oil industries funded the campaign to discredit nuclear) and we believed it!!!
We love the media feeding us nonsense and we treat is as gospel...
Could go on all day, but it is what it is, and now we wear the consequences and we don't like it...  and this is nothing...
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment.  Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
    Albert Einstein

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2009, 11:29:43 AM »
I did click (I thought), to get emails when there were new posts to the forum, but it doesn't seem to be happening.  Just checked in again to-day on the off chance.  Is there any way to automatic email notification when there are new posts?

Quote
All very true,  but that is capitalism, of course there is an alternative and I have lived under it.  That is far worse, so maybe while all true, it is the lesser of two great evils.  Some say there is an in between, but human nature is such that we are extremists, one way or the other. Sad.

Check out that DVD I recommended, "Money as Debt."  It gives a basic explanation of how circulating "Money" is created, and who creates it.  You'll see it's actually a "Pyramid" scheme (or "Ponzi" scheme), which is structurally required to grow forever, or collapse.  Problem is, we live in a finite World which cannot accomodate never-ending growth.  Eventually, you bump up against shortages of a key requirement.  Oil is the first off the starting blocks, though there are others following closely behind.  Here's a basic explanation of the physical limitations of global oil extraction (a presentation to the British House of Commons), by one of the World's leading oil geologists, Dr. Colin Campbell:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/Campbell/commons.htm

. . . and here's his CV:

http://www.energycrisis.com/DE/cv.html

Further, all forms of energy are subject to "EROEI" (or "Energy Return on Energy Invested"), which means that you have to get more energy out of a source than you put in, which is why there will always be some oil left in the ground.  In other words, when it takes the energy from a barrel to get a barrel, the game's over.  Currently all the "Low hanging fruit" has been picked, and it now takes much more energy to get oil to the the consumer.  Why?  Increasing inaccessibility and remoteness of prospects, decreasing size of prospects, and increasing impurity of prospects (much more work and energy to refine).

And here's an introduction (by Richard Heinberg), to his fairly new book, "Peak Everything," where he explores looming declines of many other cornerstone resources:

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_peak_everything

. . . And there is also "Peak Uranium" to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

Known (global), good quality uranium reserves would supply the World with all our electricity needs for 3 years.  After that, "EROEI" kicks in with a vengance, as the lesser quality ores require as much energy to mine/crush/refine as they eventually provide.  Further, there's a massive public subsidy to the nuclear industry in the form of underwriting (and taking responsibility for),  risk.  No insurance company in the World will take on the nuclear industry (for very valid commercial reasons), and without this massive public "Subsidy," the industry would be completely unviable.  What other industry is allowed to operate without public liability insurance?

Lastly, when you factor in the embodied energy of having to contain the waste for thousands upon thousands of years, you'd find that "Energy-profit" wise, nuclear is a net loser. 

Have to go now (stuff to do), but it's an interesting discussion.  There's more stuff I could have added.

Have a great day, Kim       8)




Offline Beefeater

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • BEEFEATER
    • View Profile
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2009, 02:48:24 PM »
It is all very interesting reading, however, they are more postulations, rather than facts.  Whatever the case maybe, they provide a huge amount of objection rhetoric, but which one of all these professors emeritus has come up with viable, practical, doable solutions, to any of the myriad of problems presented...?  That I have seen...none.  Has anyone?

Doomsday writers, preachers and distributors are a dime a dozen, and they make a lot of money in the process, but they have no answers, and I mean real answers.

EROEI is a "predictable reality"?...However, predictions have so far been proven erroneous by the test of time.  Thankfully, for the prophets of doom that is, no one remembers.

In the 50s we were told that oil and coal would reach EROEI in the 60s, the masses believed it (you had to be around to know that) so oil prices went up (and so did taxes); In the 60s we were sold the same story so oil prices went up (and so did taxes); and so on in the 70s and 80s and 90s and now in the 21st century, the peak of civilization and knowledge, we the smart generations sold the same "stuff", and we still believe it??? The arguments are getting very shallow, no matter what the credentials posted are supposed to be. 

The bottom line is that EROEI was supposed to happen 40 years ago, and did not, so are we any closer? Given the success rate of the predictions...then probably not.  And the nuclear issue is all very speculative. 

I can't help falling in with the crowd that believes it is a conspiracy between the cartels and governments, regardless of their political persuasion; they conspire, they rip us off, they convince us it is palatable, set us against one another and divided we are conquered.

I am a solutions person, if someone, a professors emeritus, can write a paper stating a problem, it should make up no more than 20% of the business case for the solution.  Can anybody point us to a real solution site for a change?

My recollection is that anyone that came up with an invention that reduced fossil fuel dependence either got bought out or disappeared, but their inventions were never developed.

If you go to the doctor, it is because you already think or even know you are not well, but you don't want the doctor to just agree, or tell you how much worse you could be.  You want a solution, a treatment, or a remedy, that will ultimately heal you, otherwise you will cry blue murder, call the Dr a quack and demand compensation or sue.
It is the same here, but we don't  seem to have the same expectations.  So we think we know we have an energy/pollution problem, but the quacks, just quack; sell us a story, give us a sugar pill and send us home, happy they can send us the next bill we cannot refuse: higher energy prices, more taxes, and now...remove subsidies too!!!!!!...

I feel it is taken for granted that we are extremely gullible and can be fed anything, so long as it sounds very scientific and above our heads; and if we question it...who cares anyway...

After reading all the suggested articles, I can't help but ask: So what now?  Should we give up now, sit on the beach and wait for the cruel end?

Because it was a waste of time.  The novel I'm reading at the moment provides more answers to life than they did, and I know it (the novel) is fiction.

***I suppose I have an advantage here, I'm pretty good with the bow'n'arrow, so too with th'knife, I can live in the open or up a tree, hunt for food and cook in the wild, so when the time comes I'll be sweet, how are about you, are you ready?***

Just kidding, just kidding, I made the last bit up, but could it come to that, if everything we are promised comes true?  Does make for further interesting speculation!!!

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment.  Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
    Albert Einstein

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Unpublished JT letter . . .
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2009, 11:37:20 AM »
Quote
It is all very interesting reading, however, they are more postulations, rather than facts.

There's no professional oil geologist on the Planet that disputes the eventual peaking, then irreversible decline, of:

1.  Individual oil fields.

2.  Regional/national oil fields.

3.  Global oil fields.

The only "Fact" in contention is the date of the Global peak.  Some say the Globe has already "Peaked," with the very outside, most optimistic predictions being a global peak around 2030.  Further, oil companies are not known for being anything other than realistic and hard nosed (with billions of dollars riding on their scientifically informed decisions), and these very same oil geologists have worked for many, many years in the industry.  As an example, check out Dr. Colin Campbell's CV.

Quote
Whatever the case maybe, they provide a huge amount of objection rhetoric, but which one of all these professors emeritus has come up with viable, practical, doable solutions, to any of the myriad of problems presented...?  That I have seen...none.  Has anyone?

We don't have a choice.  We're facing the limitations of the Planet, and the Planet doesn't negotiate.  In the end, there is no "Solution" to carrying on "Business as usual," because a decline of over 30% in Global oil production by 2020 won't allow it. 

Quote
Doomsday writers, preachers and distributors are a dime a dozen, and they make a lot of money in the process, but they have no answers, and I mean real answers.

Characterising professional, qualified oil geologists, employed in the oil industry (at the highest levels), all their entire working lives, in this way, is very unreasonable.  Further, one of the first oil geologists to sound the alarm on this issue (M. K. Hubbert), was hated by his employers (the oil industry), for his unflinching honesty.  Here's some background on him:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Hubbert/

. . . and here's a "Solution" he proposed:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Hubbert/hubecon.htm

Quote
In the 50s we were told that oil and coal would reach EROEI in the 60s, the masses believed it (you had to be around to know that) so oil prices went up (and so did taxes); In the 60s we were sold the same story so oil prices went up (and so did taxes); and so on in the 70s and 80s and 90s and now in the 21st century, the peak of civilization and knowledge, we the smart generations sold the same "stuff", and we still believe it??? The arguments are getting very shallow, no matter what the credentials posted are supposed to be. 

The bottom line is that EROEI was supposed to happen 40 years ago, and did not, so are we any closer? Given the success rate of the predictions...then probably not.  And the nuclear issue is all very speculative. 


I'm not quite sure you understand "EROEI."  It simply means that for any living organism (from the simplest amoeba upwards), to obtain energy, they have to expend energy.  For example, a predator has to expend energy hunting and chasing its prey.  If (at any point), the organism expends more energy on obtaining its food source, than the food source provides, then death is assured (if the situation continues over time).  In the same way, humans have to expend energy in getting energy - and this also applies to all fossil fuels.  It also stands to reason that the "Easier to get" resources are exploited first.  From then on, more and more energy has to be burnt in the process of getting energy (fossil fuels).  Why? Because the "Less easy to get" reserves are deeper, in more remote/difficult areas, and are less pure (more refining needed).   For example, when oil was first drilled, the "Energy return" was about a 100 to 1 (e.g. it took the energy from 1 barrel, to obtain the energy from a 100 barrels).  Nowadays, that has fallen to about 10 to 1 (because "The low hanging fruit" has already been picked).

So "EROEI" doesn't "Happen," or "Not happen."  It simply "Is."  It's physical law of the Universe, to which all living things are subject.

Quote
I can't help falling in with the crowd that believes it is a conspiracy between the cartels and governments, regardless of their political persuasion; they conspire, they rip us off, they convince us it is palatable, set us against one another and divided we are conquered.

Obviously, oil companies are in the game for profits.  However, they have strenuously resisted all notions of "Peak Oil" until very recently.  Why?  Because their share price rests on adequate and ongoing reserves (or at least, the Market perception of that).  The idea that those "Reserves" are in irreversible decline is absolutely NOT in their interests.  It's no conincidence that all the oil geologists ringing the loudest alarms are retired.  As for M K Hubbert, he was a well known curmudgeon who just didn't give a damn.

Quote
I am a solutions person, if someone, a professors emeritus, can write a paper stating a problem, it should make up no more than 20% of the business case for the solution.  Can anybody point us to a real solution site for a change?

Try "Transition Towns":

http://transitionnetwork.org/Primer/TransitionInitiativesPrimer.pdf

. . . but if you're looking for a "Solution" to "Business as usual," I'm afraid both I (and the Planet), will disappoint you.

Quote
My recollection is that anyone that came up with an invention that reduced fossil fuel dependence either got bought out or disappeared, but their inventions were never developed.

I've no doubt there's some truth in that.  However, there's no form of "Alternative energy" that gives such a big "Energy profit" as fossil fuels.  And for a deeper understanding of that, Richard Heinberg's book "The Party's Over" is excellent.  We can (and will have to), get energy from "Alternative" sources, but no "Alternative" source will sustain our current level of Global consumption (let alone growth).  Interestingly, I believe wind power is approaching the current EROEI of oil (wind gives an "Energy profit" of about 10 to 1, once construction & maintenance of equipment is factored in, which approaches the now diminished EROEI of oil).

Anyway, have to go now.  Hope the above's of some use.   8)