Posted in Uncategorized

What are the Odds, Not Even Wrong “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!”

   Published Date: January 21, 2023  1 Comment on What are the Odds, Not Even Wrong “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!”
The Unexamined Life is not worth Living. The Examined Bank Statement is not worth the paper its printed on.

The Unexamined Life is not worth Living. The Examined Bank Statement is not worth the paper its printed on.

Event 201 with Hind sight, Was it a Monetary event.Have we gone direct #CBDC #Carbon CurrencyEndGame

The Six Ways on Sunday, Carbon Currency end game 16 to 1 on, what are the odds of that?

Rationing Carbon, Carbon Currency end game. Why the Overshootist Elitist like Attenborough want fuel poverty.

Putting the Peakist cart before the usury horse. The Carbon Credit crucifixion of democracy.

Clash of the Oligarchies? Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) Oil and gas & mining (OGAM),Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE)

COOL IT BJORN LOMBERG GLOBAL WARMING REALIST PRAGMATISM FILM COOL IT: THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST

 

Chrematistics to Carbon Credits. The new Monetary System, The carbon credit “Gold Standard”

Usury Hells Fuel and Mans oppressor.

The courtiers of the Exchequer address the king;
We economists beholden as we are to the princes of usury and the false prophets of usury fit the horse foot to the shoe that suits us best it matters not that the horse becomes lame and less furlongs are ploughed. As we deny the posion in our own usurious medium we also deny that what ills our patient could be from any panacea concocted in our own alchemists crucible.
”Money is usually defined
from a functional perspective as a “unit of account, store of value
and medium of exchange.” However, this definition does not take into account the quintessential attribute of money that money always trades at par on demand and the institutional arrangements that underpin this attribute.Money claims are also hierarchical (see Mehrling, 2012),
in the sense that not all money claims are equally strong in their par on demand promise in all states of the world, and that always and everywhere money is something different for central banks, banks, shadow banks and all other participants in the financial ecosystem.
Shadow  Banking
:  The  Money  View
Zoltan  Pozsar
Put more bluntly, the hybrid character of banking – always a joint venture between private capital and governmental liquidity safety nets – is morphing more and more towards government-sponsored banking. Yes, I know that is harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Capitalism and banking may not be divorced, but certainly are engaged in some form of trial separation.
Paul McCulley
”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.
Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ”
Martin Shubik
7th April 1823.
The national debt has, in fact, made more men rich than have a right to be so, or, rather, any ultimate power, in case of a struggle, of actualizing their riches. It is, in effect, like an ordinary, where three hundred tickets have been distributed, but where there is, in truth, room only for one hundred. So long as you can amuse the company with any thing else, or make them come in successively, all is well, and the whole three hundred fancy themselves sure of a dinner; but if any suspicion of a hoax should arise, and they were all to rush into the room at once, there would be two hundred without a potato for their money; and the table would be occupied by the landholders, who live on the spot.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8489/pg8489.html

Wall Street Owns The Country

A Speech by Mary Elizabeth Lease (circa 1890)

This is a nation of inconsistencies. The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors. We fought England for our liberty and put chains on four million of blacks. We wiped out slavery and our tariff laws and national banks began a system of white wage slavery worse than the first. Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master. The West and South are bound and prostrate before the manufacturing East. Money rules, and our Vice-President is a London banker. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us. We were told two years ago to go to work and raise a big crop, that was all we needed. We went to work and plowed and planted; the rains fell, the sun shone, nature smiled, and we raised the big crop that they told us to; and what came of it? Eight-cent corn, ten-cent oats, two-cent beef and no price at all for butter and eggs-that’s what came of it. The politicians said we suffered from overproduction. Overproduction, when 10,000 little children, so statistics tell us, starve to death every year in the United States, and over 100,000 shopgirls in New York are forced to sell their virtue for the bread their niggardly wages deny them… We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks, and we want the power to make loans direct from the government. We want the foreclosure system wiped out… We will stand by our homes and stay by our fireside by force if necessary, and we will not pay our debts to the loan-shark companies until the government pays its debts to us. The people are at bay; let the bloodhounds of money who dogged us thus far beware.
As Paul Krugman the Riechsbank prize holder in Economics in honour of Alfred nobel has remarked regarding another Ecomonists views from the hetrodox school steve Keen, ”There is No There There.”
“What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there there.” -Gertrude Stein, Everybody’s Autobiography (1937), ch. 4
Keen may well equally have replied to Krugman that he was not even wrong?
Pauli remarked sadly, ‘It is not even wrong’.”[2] This is also often quoted as “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” or “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!“ in Pauli’s native German.
p.49 Tragedy and HOPEThe Two Major Goals of Bankers
Hundreds of years ago, bankers began to specialize, with the richer and more
influential ones associated increasingly with foreign trade and foreign-exchange
transactions. Since these were richer and more cosmopolitan and increasingly concerned
with questions of political significance, such as stability and debasement of currencies,
war and peace, dynastic marriages, and worldwide trading monopolies, they became the
financiers and financial advisers of governments. Moreover, since their relationships with
governments were always in monetary terms and not real terms, and since they were
always obsessed with the stability of monetary exchanges between one country’s money
and another, they used their power and influence to do two things: (1) to get all money
and debts expressed in terms of a strictly limited commodity—ultimately gold; and (2) to
get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the
ground that they would be handled better by private banking interests in terms of such a
stable value as gold.
These efforts … [were accelerated] with the shift of commercial capitalism into
mercantilism and the destruction of the whole pattern of social organization based on
dynastic monarchy, professional mercenary armies, and mercantilism, in the series of
wars which shook Europe from the middle of the seventeenth century to 1815.
Commercial capitalism passed through two periods of expansion each of which
deteriorated into a later phase of war, class struggles, and retrogression. The first stage,
associated with the Mediterranean Sea, was dominated by the North Italians and
Catalonians but ended in a phase of crisis after 1300, which was not finally ended until
1558. The second stage of commercial capitalism, which was associated with the Atlantic
Ocean, was dominated by the West Iberians, the Netherlanders, and the English. It had
begun to expand by 1440, was in full swing by 1600, but by the end of the seventeenth
century had become entangled in the restrictive struggles of state mercantilism and the
series of wars which ravaged Europe from 1667 to 1815.
Supremacy of Charter Companies
The commercial capitalism of the 1440-1815 period was marked by the supremacy of
the Chartered Companies, such as the Hudson’s Bay, the Dutch and British East Indian
companies, the Virginia Company, and the Association of Merchant Adventurers
(Muscovy Company). England’s greatest rivals in all these activities were defeated by
England’s greater power, and, above all, its greater security derived from its insular
position.
Industrial Capitalism 1770-1850
Britain’s victories over Louis XIV in the period 1667-1715 and over the French
Revolutionary governments and Napoleon in 1792-1815 had many causes, such as its
insular position, its ability to retain control of the sea, its ability to present itself to the
world as the defender of the freedoms and rights of small nations and of diverse social
and religious groups. Among these numerous causes, there were a financial one and an
economic one. Financially, England had discovered the secret of credit. Economically,
England had embarked on the Industrial Revolution.
p.57
The Key International Banking Families
The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should he more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan. Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of
financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways:
  1. they were cosmopolitan and international;
  2. they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed, at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt,
Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China, and Latin America;
(3) their interests were
almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired “liquidity” and
regarded commitments in commodities or even real estate as the first step toward
bankruptcy;
(4) they were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called
“sound” money from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of
money) and of the gold standard, which, in their eyes, symbolized and ensured these
values; and
(5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of
financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called “international
bankers” and, more particularly, were known as “merchant bankers” in England, “private
bankers” in France, and “investment bankers” in the United States. In all countries they
carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but everywhere they were
sharply distinguishable
International Bankers Felt Politicians Could Not Be Trusted
With Control of the Monetary System
The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it
was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had
not been able to persuade both these to accept two “axioms” of its own ideology. Both of
these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly,
the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by
basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of
money. To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and
people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.
Money Power Is More Concerned With Money Than Goods
The obsession of the Money Power with deflation was partly a result of their concern
with money rather than with goods, but was also founded on other factors, one of which
was paradoxical. The paradox arose from the fact that the basic economic conditions of
the nineteenth century were deflationary, with a money system based on gold and an
industrial system pouring out increasing supplies of goods, but in spite of falling prices
(with its increasing value of money) the interest rate tended to fall rather than to rise. This
occurred because the relative limiting of the supply of money in business was not
reflected in the world of finance where excess profits of finance made excess funds
available for lending.
The Money Power—Controlled by International Investment Bankers—
Dominates Business and Government
In the various actions which increase or decrease the supply of money, governments,
bankers, and industrialists have not always seen eye to eye. On the whole, in the period
up to 1931, bankers, especially the Money Power controlled by the international
investment bankers, were able to dominate both business and government. They could
dominate business, especially in activities and in areas where industry could not finance
its own needs for capital, because investment bankers had the ability to supply or refuse
to supply such capital. Thus, Rothschild interests came to dominate many of the railroads
of Europe, while Morgan dominated at least 26,000 miles of American railroads. Such
bankers went further than this. In return for flotations of securities of industry, they took
seats on the boards of directors of industrial firms, as they had already done on
commercial banks, savings banks, insurance firms, and finance companies. From these
lesser institutions they funneled capital to enterprises which yielded control and away
from those who resisted. These firms were controlled through interlocking directorships,
holding companies, and lesser banks. They engineered amalgamations and generally
reduced competition, until by the early twentieth century many activities were so
monopolized that they could raise their noncompetitive prices above costs to obtain
sufficient profits to become self-financing and were thus able to eliminate the control of
bankers. But before that stage was reached a relatively small number of bankers were in
positions of immense influence in European and American economic life. As early as
1909, Walter Rathenau, who was in a position to know (since he had inherited from his
father control of the German General Electric Company and held scores of directorships
himself), said, “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic
destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”
The Power of Investment Bankers Over Governments
The power of investment bankers over governments rests on a number of factors, of
which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term
treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to
commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between
their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes (such as
monthly rents, annual mortgage payments, and weekly wages), so a government has to go
to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places
caused by irregular tax receipts. As experts in government bonds, the international
bankers not only handled the necessary advances but provided advice to government
officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied
periods to deal with special problems. This is so widely accepted even today that in 1961
a Republican investment banker became Secretary of the Treasury in a Democratic
Administration in Washington without significant comment from any direction.
The Money Power Reigns Supreme and Unquestioned
Naturally, the influence of bankers over governments during the age of financial
capitalism (roughly 1850-1931)
The Development of Monopoly Capitalism
This conflict of interests between bankers and industrialists has resulted in most
European countries in the subordination of the former either to the latter or to the
government (after 1931). This subordination was accomplished by the adoption of
“unorthodox financial policies”—that is, financial policies not in accordance with the
short-run interests of bankers. This shift by which bankers were made subordinate
reflected a fundamental development in modern economic history—a development which
can be described as the growth from financial capitalism to monopoly capitalism. This
took place in Germany earlier than in any other country and was well under way by 1926.
It came in Britain only after 1931 and in Italy only in 1934. It did not occur in France to a
comparable extent at all, and this explains the economic weakness of France in 1938-
1940 to a considerable degree.
The Monetary Tactics of the Banking Oligarchy ( TO 1933)
The inability of the investment bankers and their industrial allies to control the
Democratic Convention of 1896 was a result of the agrarian discontent of the period
1868-1896. This discontent in turn was based, very largely, on the monetary tactics of the
banking oligarchy. The bankers were wedded to the gold standard for reasons we have
already explained. Accordingly, at the end of the Civil War, they persuaded the Grant
Administration to curb the postwar inflation and go back on the gold standard (crash of
1873 and resumption of specie payments in 1875). This gave the bankers a control of the
supply of money which they did not hesitate to use for their own purposes, as Morgan
ruthlessly pressurized Cleveland in 1893-1896. The bankers’ affection for low prices was
not shared by the farmers, since each time prices of farm products went down the burden
of farmers’ debts (especially mortgages) became greater. Moreover, farm prices, being
much more competitive than industrial prices, and not protected by a tariff, fell much
faster than industrial prices, and farmers could not reduce costs or modify their
production plans nearly so rapidly as industrialists could. The result was a systematic
exploitation of the agrarian sectors of the community by the financial and industrial
sectors. This exploitation took the form of high industrial prices, high (and
discriminatory) railroad rates, high interest charges, low farm prices, and a very low level
of farm services by railroads and the government. Unable to resist by economic weapons,
the farmers of the West turned to political relief, but were greatly hampered by their
reluctance to vote Democratic (because of their memories of the Civil War). Instead, they
tried to work on the state political level through local legislation (so-called Granger
Laws) and set up third-party movements (like the Greenback Party in 1878 or the
Populist Party in 1892). By 1896, however, agrarian discontent rose so high that it began
to overcome the memory of the Democratic role in the Civil War. The capture of the
Democratic Party by these forces of discontent under William Jennings Bryan in 1896,
who was determined to obtain higher prices by increasing the supply of money on a
bimetallic rather than a gold basis, presented the electorate with an election on a social
and economic issue for the first time in a generation. Though the forces of high finance
and of big business were in a state of near panic, by a mighty effort involving large-scale
spending they were successful in electing McKinley.
Money Power Seeks to Control Both Political Parties
The Growth of Monopolies and the Excesses of Wall Street
The agrarian discontent, the growth of monopolies, the oppression of labor, and the
excesses of Wall Street financiers made the country very restless in the period 1890-
1900.The Primary Goal of Capitalism The third notable feature of the whole development is closely related to this special nature of capitalism. Capitalism provides very powerful motivations for economic activity because it associates economic motivations so closely with self-interest. But this
same feature, which is a source of strength in providing economic motivation through the
pursuit of profits, is also a source of weakness owing to the fact that so self-centered a
motivation contributes very readily to a loss of economic coordination. Each individual,
just because he is so powerfully motivated by self-interest, easily loses sight of the role
which his own activities play in the economic system as a whole, and tends to act as if his
activities were the whole, with inevitable injury to that whole. We could indicate this by
pointing out that capitalism, because it seeks profits as its primary goal, is never primarily
seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power,
patriotic improvement, or moral uplift. Any of these may be achieved under capitalism,
and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this
relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the
nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the
achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals.
Commercial Capitalism
The different stages of capitalism have sought to win profits by different kinds of
economic activities. The original stage, which we call commercial capitalism, sought
profits by moving goods from one place to another. In this effort, goods went from places
where they were less valuable to places where they were more valuable, while money,
doing the same thing, moved in the opposite direction. This valuation, which determined
the movement both of goods and of money and which made them move in opposite
directions, was measured by the relationship between these two things. Thus the value of
goods was expressed in money. and the value of money was expressed in goods. Goods
moved from low-price areas to high-price areas, and money moved from high-price areas
to low-price areas, because goods were more valuable where prices were high and money
was more valuable where prices were low.
Money and Goods Are Different
”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to
recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth;money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
Merchants Became Concerned with Lending of Money
In the course of time, however, some merchants began to shift their attention from the
goods aspect of commercial interchange to the other, monetary, side of the exchange.
They began to accumulate the profits of these transactions, and became increasingly
concerned, not with the shipment and exchange of goods, but with the shipment and
exchange of moneys. In time they became concerned with the lending of money to
merchants to finance their ships and their activities, advancing money for both, at high
interest rates, secured by claims on ships or goods as collateral for repayment.
The New Bankers Were Eager for High Interest Rates
In this process the attitudes and interests of these new bankers became totally opposed
to those of the merchants (although few of either recognized the situation). Where the
merchant had been eager for high prices and was increasingly eager for low interest rates,
the banker was eager for a high value of money (that is, low prices) and high interest
rates. Each was concerned to maintain or to increase the value of the half of the
transaction (goods for money) with which he was directly concerned, with relative
neglect of the transaction itself (which was of course the concern of the producers and the
consumers).
The Operations of Banking and Finance Were Concealed So
They Appeared Difficult to Master In sum, specialization of economic activities, by breaking up the economic process,had made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest. The process was not only broken up into producers, exchangers, and consumers but there were also two kinds of exchangers (one concerned with goods, the other with money), with almost antithetical, short-term, aims.The problems which inevitably arose could be solved and the system reformed only by reference to the system as a whole. Unfortunately, however, three parts of the system,concerned with the production, transfer, and consumption of goods, were concrete and clearly visible so that almost anyone could grasp them simply by examining them, while the operations of banking and finance were concealed, scattered, and abstract so that they
appeared to many to be difficult. To add to this, bankers themselves did everything they could to make their activities more secret and more esoteric. Their activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider.
The Relationship Between Goods and Money Is Clear to Bankers
In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the
relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. This relationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods. An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of
money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants.On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary.
Inflationary and Deflationary Prices Have Been a Major Force in History for 600 Years
Such changes of prices, either inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in
history for the last six centuries at least. Over that long period, their power to modify
men’s lives and human history has been increasing. This has been reflected in two ways.
On the one hand, rises in prices have generally encouraged increased economic activity,
especially the production of goods, while, on the other hand, price changes have served to
redistribute wealth within the economic system. Inflation, especially a slow steady rise in
prices, encourages producers, because it means that they can commit themselves to costs
of production on one price level and then, later, offer the finished product for sale at a
somewhat higher price level. This situation encourages production because it gives
confidence of an almost certain profit margin. On the other hand, production is
discouraged in a period of falling prices, unless the producer is in the very unusual
situation where his costs are falling more rapidly than the prices of his product.
Bankers Obsessed With Maintaining Value of Money The redistribution of wealth by changing prices is equally important but attracts much less attention. Rising prices benefit debtors and injure creditors, while falling prices do the opposite. A debtor called upon to pay a debt at a time when prices are higher than when he contracted the debt must yield up less goods and services than he obtained at the earlier date, on a lower price level when he borrowed the money. A creditor, such as a bank, which has lent money—equivalent to a certain quantity of goods and services—on
one price level, gets back the same amount of money—but a smaller quantity of goods
and services—when repayment comes at a higher price level, because the money repaid
is then less valuable. This is why bankers, as creditors in money terms, have been
obsessed with maintaining the value of money, although the reason they have
traditionally given for this obsession—that “sound money” maintains “business
confidence”—has been propagandist rather than accurate.
The Two Major Goals of Banker
Hundreds of years ago, bankers began to specialize, with the richer and more
influential ones associated increasingly with foreign trade and foreign-exchange
transactions. Since these were richer and more cosmopolitan and increasingly concerned
with questions of political significance, such as stability and debasement of currencies,
war and peace, dynastic marriages, and worldwide trading monopolies, they became the
financiers and financial advisers of governments. Moreover, since their relationships with
governments were always in monetary terms and not real terms, and since they were
always obsessed with the stability of monetary exchanges between one country’s money
and another, they used their power and influence to do two things:
(1) to get all money
and debts expressed in terms of a strictly limited commodity—ultimately gold; and
(2) to
get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the
ground that they would be handled better by private banking interests in terms of such a
stable value as gold.
These efforts … [were accelerated] with the shift of commercial capitalism into
mercantilism and the destruction of the whole pattern of social organization based on
dynastic monarchy, professional mercenary armies, and mercantilism, in the series of
wars which shook Europe from the middle of the seventeenth century to 1815.
Commercial capitalism passed through two periods of expansion each of which
deteriorated into a later phase of war, class struggles, and retrogression. The first stage,
associated with the Mediterranean Sea, was dominated by the North Italians and
Catalonians but ended in a phase of crisis after 1300, which was not finally ended until
1558. The second stage of commercial capitalism, which was associated with the Atlantic
Ocean, was dominated by the West Iberians, the Netherlanders, and the English. It had
begun to expand by 1440, was in full swing by 1600, but by the end of the seventeenth
century had become entangled in the restrictive struggles of state mercantilism and the
series of wars which ravaged Europe from 1667 to 1815.
Supremacy of Charter Companies
The commercial capitalism of the 1440-1815 period was marked by the supremacy of
the Chartered Companies, such as the Hudson’s Bay, the Dutch and British East Indian
companies, the Virginia Company, and the Association of Merchant Adventurers
(Muscovy Company). England’s greatest rivals in all these activities were defeated by
England’s greater power, and, above all, its greater security derived from its insular
position.
Industrial Capitalism 1770-1850
Britain’s victories over Louis XIV in the period 1667-1715 and over the French
Revolutionary governments and Napoleon in 1792-1815 had many causes, such as its
insular position, its ability to retain control of the sea, its ability to present itself to the
world as the defender of the freedoms and rights of small nations and of diverse social
and religious groups. Among these numerous causes, there were a financial one and an
economic one. Financially, England had discovered the secret of credit. Economically,
England had embarked on the Industrial Revolution.

 

Notes for a Poem or some prose. Globalisation, A big Question?

Bourgeois resolution. A poem in Three Voices for added 4th part Harmony.

Counsel for the people charge usury of its crimes.

This baron abstract that claims fruit.
This heavy invisible burden,
a yoke. Fashioned in language,
felt but never seen.
inflicting scars as deep as any lash,
claiming lives as real as any canon.
This nightmare device of imagination.
Who are the slayers of this mythical dragon?
Coleridge saw beauty in nature where sweet amaranths bloom. And Shakespeare compared his summers day.
What of this hamlets ghost of a spectre?
something is rotten in the danegeld,
many more promises are written than can be kept.
So much nectar strained from thin broth,
which bargains can be made?
When the music stops and the dancers
sit down. Chairs are our metaphor for the real.
Always too few.
Rascals become clothed in robes
and honesty is reduced to rags.
Elisabeth lease had a purchase on truth.
”When people starve how can overproduction stand charged. It is money promises, kept short in supply that causes starvation. The consumption in the lungs of the community, is the usurers confection.
A counterfeit Nobel laureate, theres an irony.
Denies that in money there can be a place that gertrude stein called there, home once but no longer there , there in Oakland. A precursor to some sub prime heritage.
A speaker of truth to power could follow Pauli ´Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es is nicht einmal falsh!
Not even wrong, not even there.
All counterfeit, yet to counterfeit the counterfeit? a crime.
CHatGPT.
rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Is Climate Alarmism not even wrong

“Climate alarmism” is a term that is often used by those who believe that concerns about climate change are exaggerated or misplaced. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a significant threat to the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a body of scientists from around the world established by the United Nations, states that it is “extremely likely” (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century. The impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe heatwaves, and more intense storms, are already being observed. Therefore it is not accurate to say that climate alarmism is not even wrong.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Judith Curry UAI satellite record and Climate etc challenge the AGM co2 sensitivity as well as the accuracy of modeled temperature anomalies . The number of supporters of the AGM hypothesis comes from a non scientific source and many ipcc authors have withdrawn support for the narrative around their work. It seems disputable to say Climate Alarmism is not even wrong. Indeed Alarmism seems pseudo scientific and religious in nature not objective and empirical.

While it is true that there are some scientists who have raised questions about certain aspects of the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a significant threat to the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a body of scientists from around the world established by the United Nations, states that it is “extremely likely” (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century. The IPCC is a consensus-based organization, whose reports are based on the work of thousands of scientists from around the world, and its conclusions are supported by multiple lines of evidence.

It is also worth noting that there are some scientists and organizations that have been criticized for their association with groups that are funded by the fossil fuel industry or have ties to conservative think tanks. These individuals and groups have been accused of spreading misinformation about climate change and working to undermine public trust in the scientific consensus on the issue.

It is important to remember that scientific understanding is a dynamic process, and new research and data may lead to revisions or updates to current understanding of certain aspects of climate change. However, the overall scientific consensus on the reality and causes of climate change remains robust and supported by a large body of evidence.

In summary, while there are some dissenting voices on certain aspects of the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a significant threat to the planet. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that climate change alarmism is not even wrong.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Is the main focus of Carbon rationing financial rather than environmental in motivation Clive Spash’s paper on The Brave new world of carbon trading seems relevant still to this question as well as Sandors work

Carbon rationing, also known as carbon pricing or carbon trading, is a policy approach that aims to put a price on carbon emissions in order to reduce them. The idea is that by putting a price on emissions, companies and individuals will have an economic incentive to reduce their emissions, as it will be more expensive to emit more carbon.

Some critics have argued that the main focus of carbon rationing is financial, rather than environmental in motivation. They argue that carbon trading is primarily driven by the desire to create new financial markets and generate profits for banks and other financial institutions, rather than being motivated by a genuine desire to address climate change.

The work of Clive Spash, a researcher in environmental policy, has been critical of carbon trading, arguing that it is primarily a way for governments and corporations to avoid taking more direct and effective actions to reduce emissions. He has also argued that carbon trading could lead to the creation of a new form of colonialism, in which the developed world continues to emit greenhouse gases while buying carbon credits from developing countries.

Sandor’s work also criticized carbon rationing as a financial mechanism rather than a real solution to the problem of climate change, and pointed out that it could lead to manipulation of the markets, lack of transparency, and other issues.

It is important to note that Carbon rationing is one of the policy approach to mitigate the climate change and it is not the only one. The effectiveness of carbon pricing mechanisms depends on how they are designed and implemented, and different policy approaches may be more or less effective in different contexts.

In conclusion, while carbon rationing can be a valuable tool for reducing carbon emissions, it is important to recognize that it is not a silver bullet for addressing climate change. Critics argue that the main focus of carbon rationing is financial, rather than environmental in motivation, and that it may not be the most effective way to address the problem.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Dyson Freeman disputed the notion of global temperature measurement and Claes Jonson dispute the mathematics of the CO2 warming effects,

It is true that there are some scientists and researchers who have raised questions about certain aspects of the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, including the measurement of global temperatures and the mathematical models used to estimate the warming effects of CO2.

Dyson Freeman, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, has disputed the notion of global temperature measurement, arguing that the temperature records used to estimate global warming are unreliable and that the warming trend is not as significant as commonly believed.

Claes Johnson, a mathematician and engineer, has also disputed the mathematics used in climate models to estimate the warming effects of CO2, arguing that the models exaggerate the warming effect and that the actual warming from a doubling of CO2 is likely to be much less than the models predict.

It’s worth noting that while some scientists have raised questions about certain aspects of the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a significant threat to the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a body of scientists from around the world established by the United Nations, states that it is “extremely likely” (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century. The IPCC’s conclusions are based on the work of thousands of scientists from around the world, and are supported by multiple lines of evidence.

It is important to keep in mind that scientific understanding is a dynamic process, and new research and data may lead to revisions or updates to current understanding of certain aspects of climate change. However, the overall scientific consensus on the reality and causes of climate change remains robust and supported by a large body of evidence.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Belief in the scientific method would suggest that what is provable empirically is what counts climate models fail to model the past they have been falsified how then can they for the basis for policy making when they have been at best crude based upon their reults

The scientific method is based on the idea that scientific knowledge is acquired through observation and experimentation, and that theories and hypotheses must be tested and supported by evidence in order to be considered valid. Climate models are a tool used by scientists to simulate and predict the Earth’s climate system, and are based on a set of assumptions and equations that describe the physical processes that govern the climate.

It is true that climate models have some limitations, and that they are not perfect representations of the real world. There are uncertainties associated with the input data and the model parameters, and the models may not fully capture all of the processes that influence the climate. Additionally, climate models are only able to simulate the past climate to a certain degree of accuracy, and small differences between the modeled and observed climate can occur.

However, it is important to note that despite these limitations, climate models have been able to accurately simulate and predict many aspects of the climate, such as global warming, sea level rise, and changes in precipitation patterns. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) periodically assesses the performance of climate models and concludes that climate models have been successful in simulating the past and present climate and in providing projections of future climate change.

Moreover, the models are constantly being updated and improved, and new observational data is continually being incorporated into the models to improve their accuracy. The use of multiple models and different scenarios allows scientists to estimate the range of possible future outcomes and take into account the uncertainties associated with the models.

In summary, while climate models have limitations and are not perfect representations of the real world, they are still valuable tools for simulating and predicting the Earth’s climate system. They have been successful in simulating the past and present climate and in providing projections of future climate change. They are constantly being improved and updated, and new observational data is continually being incorporated into the models to improve their accuracy. Therefore, climate models still provide a solid basis for policy making.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Claiming that Climate models have been accurate requires proof, Manns Hockey Stick and Hansons original data has been found wanting and The UAE hide the decline scandals all point to a failure to have repeatable results from the models this tends to refute any claims you are making about the IPCC and its claim to model efficacy.

It is true that some criticisms have been raised about certain aspects of climate modeling and the data used to support the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.

One example is the “hockey stick” graph, first published by Michael Mann in 1998, which depicted a sharp increase in Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the 20th century and was widely cited as evidence for human-caused global warming. Some critics have argued that the hockey stick is based on flawed data and methods and does not accurately represent the historical temperature record.

Another example is the “hide the decline” scandal, in which emails from climate scientists were leaked and some scientists were accused of manipulating data and hiding information that didn’t support the idea of human-caused global warming.

It’s also worth noting that climate models are complex and require many assumptions and inputs, which can introduce uncertainties to the results. The models are also based on our current understanding of the physical processes that govern the climate, and as our understanding improves, the models will be updated accordingly.

It’s important to keep in mind, however, that despite these criticisms, the overall body of scientific evidence supporting the reality and causes of climate change remains robust. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regularly assesses the performance of climate models, and concludes that climate models have been successful in simulating the past and present climate and in providing projections of future climate change.

Additionally, many independent studies have confirmed the overall warming trend and the human influence on it. Furthermore, the scientific understanding of climate change is not based on a single study or a single set of data, but on a wide range of observational evidence, including temperature measurements, ice core records, and satellite data, as well as multiple lines of evidence from different sources.

In conclusion, while there have been some criticisms of certain aspects of climate modeling and the data used to support the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, the overall body of scientific evidence supporting the reality and causes of climate change remains robust. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regularly assesses the performance of climate models, and concludes that climate models have been successful in simulating the past and present climate and in providing projections of future climate change.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
the claimed 97% consensus is false John Cooks paper has been widely falsified

It is true that there has been some debate about the extent of scientific consensus on the reality and causes of climate change. One study, published in 2013 by John Cook and colleagues, surveyed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers on climate change and found that 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause of recent global warming endorsed the view that it is primarily caused by human activity. However, this study has been criticized by some for the methodology used in determining the level of endorsement among the surveyed papers.

Another study conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences found that among actively publishing climate scientists, the consensus that humans are causing recent warming is over 90%. Also, numerous studies have been conducted in the past and most of them have reached similar conclusions.

It’s worth noting that while there is a broad scientific consensus on the reality and causes of climate change, it is important to keep in mind that scientific understanding is a dynamic process, and new research and data may lead to revisions or updates to current understanding of certain aspects of climate change.

In conclusion, while there has been some debate about the extent of scientific consensus on the reality and causes of climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a significant threat to the planet. Studies conducted in the past have found a high level of agreement among actively publishing climate scientists on the reality and causes of climate change.

rlddevelopments@gmail.com
Are there parallels between the Nial Ferguson modeling of Covid and the Climate models both are wildly inaccurate and have a record of poor performance in thier predictions

Both climate models and models used to predict the spread and impact of COVID-19 are complex mathematical tools that are used to simulate and predict the behavior of systems that are influenced by many factors. Both types of models have limitations and uncertainties associated with them, and there have been instances where predictions made by these models have not matched actual observations.

Climate models are based on a set of assumptions and equations that describe the physical processes that govern the climate. They are used to simulate and predict the Earth’s climate system and its response to various scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate models have been successful in simulating and predicting many aspects of the climate, such as global warming, sea level rise, and changes in precipitation patterns. However, they are not perfect representations of the real world and have some limitations, such as uncertainties associated with the input data and model parameters, and the models may not fully capture all of the processes that influence the climate.

Models used to predict the spread and impact of COVID-19 are based on a set of assumptions and equations that describe the transmission and progression of the virus. They are used to simulate and predict the spread of the virus and its impact on the population. These models have been used to inform public health policy and decision-making, but like climate models, they have limitations and uncertainties. Factors such as underreporting, asymptomatic carriers and changing behavior of people can make the predictions of these models less accurate.

It is worth noting that despite the limitations of these models, they can still provide valuable information and insight. Climate models and COVID-19 models are constantly being updated and improved with new data and research, and provide a way to explore and compare different scenarios.

In summary, both climate models and models used to predict the spread and impact of COVID-19 are complex mathematical tools that are used to simulate and predict the behavior of systems that are influenced by many factors, both of them have limitations and uncertainties, but they can still provide valuable information and insight.

 

Author: rogerglewis

Real Estate Entrepreneur. http://www.realrld.com/

1 thought on “What are the Odds, Not Even Wrong “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!””

  1. Pingback: Keep Dancing til the Music Stops, or Don’t stop til you’ve had enough, Riffing on the Levellers. – Not The Grub Street Journal

Leave a Reply