Skip to content

Economy on edge of paradigm change-

by

The politics of macro economy is based on two opposing theories, one is a theory emphasizing the demand as a major drive to economic growth and lack of demand is considered as major cause to economic crisis, and the other theory emphasizing the supply as a major phenomena influencing economic growth. Both these theories agree that economic growth is necessary for economic stability, since the capital invested into equities and loans, demands positive yield.
The Demand side economic theories claims that any kind of increased demand will always be satisfied by increased supply, what means economic growth and they neglect the possibility, that the supply can run into difficulties of limited resources. This views go so far that their followers praise the Fukushima disaster as a positive event for economic growth in Japan. They just don’t take in account the positive economic impact, accumulated assets create on the volume of economic activity and on the general standard of living. They judge economic activity only from point of view of the recent and near future economic current activity. According to this view also the WWII is sometime praised as a positive event that ended the 1929 world economic crisis, though even in US it took years until its economy, as a tool to create standard of living, returned to its prewar level. Of course, the damaged infrastructure and social-political disruptions the war caused, depressed the economic activity focusing to improve standard of living in the US, not to speak about Europe. There is no need to explain that this economic view supports macro-economic policy with a very short term goals.
On the other hand the supply emphasizing economic theory sees as the major obstacle to economic growth the limited resources and limited supply capacity.
Non of these economic theories try to create an economic model, where there is no necessity for infinite economic growth. It would of course force them to thing about economy in a completely different dimensions.
To my opinion without to be observed, we are heading toward a new economic model, in which money will be inter-mediated without the traditional financial institutions. The very best example is Bitcoin, which still exists, even if the banks try to disqualify it as a trustful financial instrument. Other example is kickstart which opens a direct channel between the entrepreneur and the investor, without need for inter-mediation.
An other important economic phenomena is the growing number of products available free of charge, that annihilate whole range of services as paid services, and as such doesn’t appear in the GDP statistics. As example for such a service i would mention the availability of academic level education free of charge on the web. We can speak also about films, music at.c. Truth is all this are virtual services, but also products from the real material world are already knocking on the door to enter the markets. Just try to imagine you have a 3D printer at home, and for the evening gala party you want to wear some costume you saw on the web. All you will need to do is virtual instruction how to print the dress. I am sure the instructions will be available on the web free of charge. And here you have a product created just in time.
Another monetary theory suggests, that a prosperous economy needs a currency anchored to basic row material item, like energy resource, or other raw material, that seems to be limited and the human civilization can’t do without it. Scarcity of currency is very important, but it has to be stable scarcity. What if some new technology makes the anchor raw material abundant? Then inflation will be inevitable. And the opposite way, meaning too limited energy resource can cause deflation.
If you ask my opinion what should be the currency anchor, it has to be “SOMETHING”, just in right volume, meaning the right quantity in circulation multiplied by its price that is equal to the volume of products in circulation as explained in my book, viz:
https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/1801/
In today’s system the anchor is created artificially by the central banks, while they manipulate with the interest rates, rules imposed on commercial banks, their regulations and interventions in government security markets. This system has several disadvantages. The main is, it is a very undemocratic system, that gives to much power in hands of too few, who are elected God knows how. They may be clever and even honest, but still very far from being Goddesses. The other disadvantage is the limited effect these monetary tools have. As an example, the interest rate cannot become negative, or the limited possibility in today’s “Western”, financial system, to force commercial banks to increase lending when deflation prevails, and decrease it when everything seems to run towards prosperity. In Chinese non democratic government system it can be done.
From my point of view a virtual anchor, based on an algorithm with unbreakable code (if exists such an algorithm) and honesty, could be a perfect tool. Yet this Googlisation phenomenon, I mean free of charge services, make these products very attractive to potential consumers and the consumption will lean more and more towards these products. It means the other products will have to compete with them. Take for example the mass tourist industry. If Google Earth will become a 3 dimensional tour experience, will this mass tourism survive with sometime stupid guides, repeating again and again the same jokes, and telling the same shallow stories? Or people will stick to their chairs and have the tourist adventure right from there?
I recently experienced in Portugal a tour made free of charge (income of guide is based on tips) of an unemployed teacher, a historian, giving us a detailed 3 hour history lecture, without compromises and without mentioning Michael Jackson and some other scandalous superstars.
If my prediction is correct, bigger and bigger part of economy will become virtual and free of charge, and the significance and hopefully also the arrogance of the whole financial system will decline.

 

Dictators and other criminals

by

Dear Ian, I have to say your analysis of the politics in Syria, Iraq is rather oversimplified. The problem is, that these countries, and you could add other failed countries like most of the Arab and African countries,since they were left after the decolonization to self rule, failed to created a functioning state, whose main aim is to improve the living condition of its citizens. Unfortunately in all these countries, and by the way also in most of the post communistic countries including the mentioned Czech and Slovak republic the only occupation of the political leadership is how to rob the country and enrich themselves. It seems to me that this kind of political behavior is caused by total loss of ideological intentionality, and also existence of masses, who still did not figure out how to control the acts of their leaders. By the way in Czech Republic few month ago the leading political party, that brought the corruption to unprecedented level, were almost completely wiped out from the political scenery. It seems the Czech citizens were the first to understand that in democracy they do have the power to punish the corrupt politician. Still it has to be seen if these corrupt politicians, who damaged the economy and the social fabric of the country, and almost succeeded to create skepticism among the people towards democracy, will be put on trial for their criminal deeds.

But this happened in Czech republic, country in the very heart of Europe, with some democratic tradition, and well educated people.

As contrary to it in the failed countries, (Arab, some Asian and African) there are relatively few educated people, and their education system is anachronistic, often based on memorization and not understanding, not to speak about exclusion of women from the education process due to cultural reason etc. This results alternative way of thinking of most of the population of these countries, not based on critical thinking and verification of evidences, but acceptance of traditional values and epical stories as dogmatic truth. And these epics are full of idealization of the Us, and hate and dehumanization and demonization of the others. And here you have the ideology of permission to kill. Add to it the growing population together with economic stagnation in these countries, concentration of the wealth in very few hands, mostly generated by unfair practices, like misusing political power and restricting competition etc.Then you have environmental catastrophes caused by general mismanagement of countries resources, and then not surprisingly you find that it is not just about political fragmentation, but more basic issues of economics, society, beliefs, ideologies etc.

  • Dear Eugene, of course my comments were oversimplified. What I am trying to do is to isolate some of the requirements for how governance should work. I do not claim to know the lot, and all I seem to be able to do in the novels I write is to illustrate the faults with whatever system I pick on. Your comments on the Czech republic highlight an additional requirement for governance to be for the benefit of the people: an absence of corruption, and that requires law enforcement above the government, and it requires a strong message from the citizens that corruption will not be tolerated, and it requires a mechanism (such as elections) that will remove a government that gets out of line. However, the topic of the post was limited to whether secession is desirable in these places. There are a number of corrupt governments around the world that seem to be stable. They do this by applying the corruption evenly! That is bad governance, but it does not necessarily lead to splits.

    Your last paragraph summarises fairly nicely what is wrong with the “democracy” concept that was imposed on those countries, which in turn were never countries prior to western intervention. Iraq was a particularly bad example, the boundaries being drawn with a ruler by some self-styled geographer after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. If the people refuse to analyse and vote for policies and instead vote for the religious/tribal/whatever head, that effectively is a vote for someone to pillage the treasury. Nevertheless, I dispute to some extent the idea that Iraq was always badly governed by Saddam. Yes, he was a dictator, and his war with Iran was disastrous, although I am far from convinced that there was not US “egging on” going on then. However, before the invasion of Kuwait, provided you were not planning a revolt, the evidence seemed to be that Iraqis enjoyed a high standard of living, with good health and educational benefits. The question then is, does the average citizen care that much who governs if their lifestyle if good? I rather fancy many Iraqis would prefer the conditions then to now.

    • Dear Ian, from Your comment about Saddam Husein it is obvious that You know very little about Saddam Husein and his acts. Even before his war against Iran, during the Shah regime, when Iran was the dominant force in the region of the Arab-Persian golf he was nothing else but a murderer. From the very first moment of his appearance on the political scenery his way of acting was bloody and murderous (according to rumors he personally killed one of his family members on his road to grasp the power). During the Kurdish uprising in the late seventies he committed war crimes, murdered hundreds of thousand civilians and used chemical weapons .

      The very best example of his character was his act in the assembly of the Ba’ath party on July 1979 a long way before any signs of war initiation against Iraqi neighbors.

      During this assembly, Saddam claimed to find treason within the Ba’ath Party and forced one party member to read list of names of alleged co-conspirators.These members were removed from the assemble room one by one and taken into custody and most of them murdered by firing squad made of other high-ranking members of the party. By 1 August 1979, hundreds of high-ranking Ba’ath party members themselves. After this Saddam congratulated to those party members who were not part of the “conspiracy” and made them partners in the country leadership. They, out of horror and fear became loyal to him like flock of sheep.
      His social and economic achievement were nothing more than cynical usage of the newly found wealth after the 1973 oil price jump, initiated by the way by the Iranian Shah, to increase his personal popularity. But this policy of investment in economy and social services was short lived, and Saddam very fast started to use Iraqi wealth to military spending and his atom weapon program supported by the French president, Jacques Chirac,the criminal politician, who among other crimes initiated atomic bomb tests in the pacific in the eighties, when everyone knew the horrific consequences of such a test to the environment. Luckily for the world and the region Israel destroyed the Saddam’s intention to become atomic weapon power.
      Then Saddam initiated war against Iran, where he used again chemical weapons to prevent military catastrophe,

      During his reign, according to his own account he murdered about 2 million Iraqi citizens. The mass graves discovered after his downfall proved that he was not exaggerating at all.

      The truth is US interference in Iraq, mainly the second Iraqi war, was catastrophic because of misunderstanding of George Bush the junior and his co-partners of the political and military realities in the region. He was confused by the annoyingly aggressive military speeches of Saddam, that had no coverage of military strength behind.
      Yes the US political leadership can be many times horrendously ignorant about the world out of US, they are supposed to lead.

      Here i would come to my opinion about the major problem of democratic-liberal political systems, that feel secure enough from any outside threat as contrary to the despoticly ruled countries. It seems, liberal societies that are managed relatively smoothly and are not threatened by some external enemy, have tendency to create within few decades a rather stable political elite, that concentrates most of the political power and economic wealth. As to the masses, that do not participate in this fete, the elites share with them a pinch from their generated wealth, so as to give them hope for better future. From time to time this system collapses with a economic crises, and a new redistribution of the wealth occurs among the elites. The masses in this scenarios pay the most heavy price, and if they feel their situation is unbearable any more, they may rise and destroy the whole political system if they are successful. The last economic crisis could be catastrophic if those very elites that brought it wouldn’t have the tools to prevent a total collapse. But it seems the modern economy do have the tools to prevent a total collapse, as contrary to what happened in 1929, when all the world leaders made all the mistakes they could do.
      Conclusion; Not only the despotic leaders have tendency to neglect the masses and endanger the political and social stability, but also Liberal-Democratic political systems.

       

Short history of Vigo

by

Once upon a time existed a city surrounded by mountains on them stood majestically castles called Castros, and they looked like this

20140518_121612

And this
20140518_121250
But then someone thought it was to much of beauty and added this

20140518_121232

And it actually looks more like this

20140518_120653

But who built it? Of course the government

20140518_120512

With the help of the municipal hero

20140518_120439

And who occupies the building if not the police.

20140518_120324

And who stands behind all this?

20140518_115702

Yet on the other side of the hill I found this

20140518_115320

But at the top I found this

20140518_114424

So no wonder they crucified even Him

20140518_121044

Why the Greeks failed to introduce modern science

by

Aristotle the great got it all wrong about the physics because the common sense and pure observation, and commonly believed “facts” where not sufficient to explain the substance behind the physical being. The Epicureans got it much farther, but their knowledge was almost wiped out by the Platonist-Aristotelians and mainly the Catholic church for more than 1000 years. The Greeks were very close to the scientific and technological breakthrough, yet they did not do it. If they would, we could have been by now maybe out of our galaxy. Interestingly the Muslim Arab world, that uncovered the old Greek knowledge and preserved it, did not find way to develop it to the modern science. I wonder why was it. Probably it had to do something with their strong belief in Monotheism.
• ianmillerblog on May 8, 2014 at 10:20 am said:
In my opinion, Aristotle got it wrong in physics because he did not use his own methodology. He believed in experiment, he had developed this concept of contraries, he worked out that dark was the absence of light, he knew about wind, so he should have realized that very light things might have resistance. But he never tested the concept of friction, and he never thought to drop two objects of different weights, but where wind could be ignored. In my ebook, Athene’s Prophecy, I fictionally show how someone might have done it, but nobody actually did.
o EugenR on May 8, 2014 at 8:54 pm said:
But what about the Epicureans? Why they did not make the breakthrough? And the latter intellectuals from Alexandria? Wasn’t Roman Empire opened to technological changes?
• Ian Miller on May 8, 2014 at 11:47 pm said:
EugenR, I think the problem is partly psychological. Once you think someone with a great reputation has solved a problem, and the solution looks reasonable, most people do not think any more about it, on the grounds, “That is solved, move on!” Roman science, in my opinion, tended to be constrained first to making things that worked, in other words they focused on applied science, and they made some wonderful devices, but they also generated the attitude that, if you could not use it, it was not that important.
Also, I am a scientist and have made some proposals that challenge existing theory or assumptions. If you do not have a big name, you tend to get ignored. This is a much worse problem now, I believe, because when scientists have to go for funding, the last thing they want to do is to annoy whoever will read their funding proposal, so the system is designed to make them fit in.
• EugenR on May 9, 2014 at 3:39 pm said:
Yes, but it seems Epicureans where kind of mainstream in Rome. The prove are the scrolls in Herculaneum. Most of the scrolls discovered where Epicurean. And the library get funding from Julius Caesar’s wife’s father.
o Ian Miller on May 9, 2014 at 11:18 pm said:
The most famous Epicurean was probably Lucretius. One of the problems of Lucretius was that he seemed to be more interested in writing good verse than in clearly explaining things, but from what I can make out he was only peripherally interested in cosmology. Again, it seems he was reasonably convinced that the Earth was fixed, but he also proposed a vacuum in space, and argued that the bodies moved in it. He was mainly interested in atomism, and came pretty close to proposing a genetic code, arguing that the characteristics of animals were determined by the array of atoms joined into some unit carried by the egg. Again, I think the answer to your question was that they believed the issue was closed, so they did not try.
• EugenR on May 10, 2014 at 11:18 pm said:
The Greeks since the fifth century b.c. had the tools and capacity and philosophical sophistication to introduce scientific revolution. All we know about their knowledge is probably only a fraction of what they knew in reality.
Why Archimedes couldn’t be the ancient Galileo? Archimedes did not have problem to fight church to distribute his knowledge. He knew mathematics at least as good as Galileo. And he has done many technological inventions. Was it because of lack of printing machine that Galileo used so successfully? Even if murdered by Romans, they were interested in his knowledge, and most probably he had followers who were aware of his findings and his books where in their disposition. If Eutocius of Ascalon wrote about his work more than 700 years latter, his work had to been far from forgotten. And it is well known, he was not the only great mathematician and inventor of the classical world, far from it.
Lucretius poem of “On the Nature of Things”, amazing as it can be, may be only fraction of what the Greeks discovered by system of meditation and deductive reasoning. And yet they had not done it into the modernity.
The claim that in society of slaves there is no need for technological inventions seems to me folly. If not for economic reasons, the Roman war machine and probably also the Greek one needed military technology as much as we do. In contrary, Roman society, was free enough to support technological initiative, definitely more than the renaissance society in western Europe.
If there is any answer to the question why the Greeks and Romans did not do it to the modernity, even if they had almost 1000 years from the first philosophers until the Christianity closed on their knowledge, it seems to me modern scientific technological development was a pure accident. Several factors came together in the right time, somewhere in the mid thirteen century, which started with the black death plague decimation of European population, that brought huge social and economic upheavals. Then the Mongol invasion weekend the Muslim world and reduced the military pressure from the Christian Europe, at the same time the classic philosophers following the christian conquest of Spain was rediscovered. Exactly in these years Fibonacci introduced mathematical revolution partly imported from the Arabs and partly developed by him. Some importance played probably the fact that Italy was a country of competing city states rather than one autocratic statehood, as was the Roman empire. Add to it the new Gothic architecture just recently introduced, invention of perspective and some more major events that i haven’t mention and you have completely new tools to judge the reality of the being. The result is new European perspective of understanding the earthly reality and the way to the new knowledge was opened for the scholars and intellectuals, Yet these new discoveries could go easily down of the drainage of the history, if not the patronage of Medici and some other Italian rulers, who competed with each other on prestige, but non of them had the absolute power to overcome the others. Probably without this, these very first discoveries wouldn’t continue to thrive.
Many start the modern way of thinking with Copernicus. I don’t agree with them. The idea of heliocentric world was probably quite widespread in the classical world. Even if Copernicus ideas helped to shake the dogmas of the church, it couldn’t make a scientific revolution by itself. To my opinion after Galileo and Kepler, who both connected mathematics to empiric data, the road to the modern scientific method was paved. So the question remains, how come, the Greeks did not succeed to produce within a whole millennia, what the Europeans had in few hundred years? And lets not forget that the renaissance scholars needed to overcome the burden of religious dogmatic thinking tradition, the classical Greeks did not had to cope with?
As to the findings of Kepler, they happened because of several fortunate sequential events. Brahe Tycho had to die, so Kepler could inherit his observations. If not he would remain probably with his esoteric theory of perfect spheres of planet movements. Also he needed a crazy king like Rudolph II, who was rather strange for a catholic emperor of holly Roman Empire. Then you had the accidental discovery of telescope, Galileo copied and redeveloped. There had to be such an arrogant self possessed man like Galileo, who so strongly believed, that the circumstantial evidence is verified proof for heliocentric planetary system, that he opposed all the Catholic establishment. Someone less self possessed wouldn’t do it all the way.
Modern science is based on connection and verification of philosophical (mainly ontological) understandings derived from rational reasoning with the empirical evidence, translated to practical technological achievements. The Greeks did not make this two necessary step far enough, and this is the source of their failure. Why they have not done it, this still has to be answered.
• Ian Miller on May 10, 2014 at 11:53 pm said:
My response to my initial topic is that the Greeks and Romans could not prove the heliocentric theory because the only way they could was through the tides, and where they lived, the tides were trivial. In the more general sense, I think you are correct in that they had got about as far as they could with what they had. They needed some serious advances, and in my view the two biggest problems were first their number system, which made calculations somewhat difficult, and secondly they had not, for some reason, thought out algebra. The ability to replace a sentence with a symbol is critical. Thus I argue that Aristotle actually discovered discrete mathematics, but because everything is written in sentences, most people do not recognize that.
With those, it is still difficult, and in some ways I think Newton was critical to establishing the scientific way of going about things. But his work could only arise through the astronomical data available to him, which, as an aside, was not as robust as we might think. Luck certainly played its part. Had there not been a plague at the time, newton would not have gone to the country and with nothing else to do, have started thinking about physics. Newton actually spent more time during his life on chemistry than physics, and he made almost no progress, and there is some evidence that he took teh inverse square law of gravity from Hooke, but it was his mathematics that made it believable. I guess the reason the ancients could not advance any further was they hit a road block that needed further tools to get through, and there were not enough of them interested to hit on the key parts.
• EugenR on May 11, 2014 at 5:46 am said:
You say the problem was that they did not know Algebra,and i would add zero, the Hindu-Arabic numeric system, etc. Of course they needed to discover these things to make farther advance in sciences, but this is exactly the point why they did not discover them? And then there is the other question, why the Arab scientists did not do the scientific breakthrough to modern sciences? Hard to believe to the claim that it was due the Islam. After all, faith in one God and the Bible did not prevent from Galileo or Newton to make their scientific breakthrough.
• Ian Miller on May 11, 2014 at 7:50 am said:
You are quite correct that assigning zero into the number system is important. For the Greeks, the problem, in my opinion, was their theory of contraries. Had they recognized that the contrary was the same thing, only negative, they would presumably have realized they needed a zero, which represents neither. Certainly, Islam was not the problem for making discoveries. I think that the heliocentric theory is critical, because it leads to developing a correct theory of mechanics, and the scientific method. The most advanced Islam astronomical facility I know of was due to Ulug Beg, who built a most impressive observatory at Samarkand. (I have seen what remains of it, and it must have been impressive.) But again, the easiest way to prove the heliocentric theory requires observing tides, and Samarkand was not well situated either. As another aside, under the reign of Timur the lame, you did not harass scholars, unless you wanted your head to be added to a pile of skulls. In those days, the scholar was respected. There was actually another way of proving the heliocentric theory, and that involved Ptolemy’s equant. Essentially, Kepler’s data showed the way, but only by focusing on teh orbit of Mars. Had he focused on anything else, it would not have worked. Ironically, it was the Roman catholic church that eventually proved Ptolemy’s equant produced results out by a factor of 2. But I think that was too much to ask of the Greeks because there simply were not enough of them thinking about this problem.
EugenR on May 11, 2014 at 11:23 am said:
Lately i started to think, maybe there is a system of thought we have never discovered, which is based rather on different elements than numbers, geometrical shapes or words, that if discovered it could uncover us completely new knowledge. Then i asked myself in what field of knowledge we failed to find sufficient useful rules which could help us to overcome the most important problems of the humanity. My conclusion obviously was the political and social sciences. It is enough to remain to ourselves, that the democratic US could easily decide to start in the last decade two wars, but it couldn’t make decision on reduction of energy-consumption, in-spite of the danger, that the current state of economic development trends and energy consumption obviously endangers the human civilization.
It is obvious also, that the democratic political system, its basic ideas were created by Greeks, and today is perceived as the most efficient political system, has no answer to the problems of modern world. Today’s democratic system is based on competition between political fractions to be in favor of intellectually the lowest level of population, whose perspective and memory is short term. But the problems of the modern world, are all long term and need certain level of sophistication to be understand.
And how all this is connected to the subject of Greek failure to cross the Rubicon of scientific knowledge?
I wonder, maybe there is some kind of a-priory analytic system of knowledge, that is beyond our understanding, that if we would be aware of (just like if the Greeks knew Algebra, Zero and Hindu-Arabic numbers), we could find the essences of the rules that govern the societies, human behavior and politics. If we would find this tool, it could maybe help us to solve the most acute human problems of today, the social-political problems, just as mathematics helps us to uncover the essence of the physical world.
This analytic a-priory system of understanding the reality, has to have its autonomous existence and principles without any connection to the physical reality, yet it has to have the capacity to define the character of connection between different events, just like mathematics helps physicists to explain these connections in the physical world.

 

Ancient theory: dynamics proved the Earth was stationary!

by

Ancient theory: dynamics proved the Earth was stationary!.

Aside

Why the ancient Greeks failed?

by

The Greeks since the fifth century had the tools and capacity and philosophical sophistication to introduce scientific revolution. All we know about their knowledge is probably only a fraction of what they knew.
Why Archimedes couldn’t be the ancient Galileo? Archimedes did not have problem to fight church to distribute his knowledge. He knew mathematics at least as good as Galileo. And he has done many technological inventions. Was it because of lack of printing machine that Galileo used so successfully? Even if murdered by Romans, they were interested in his knowledge, and most probably he had followers who were aware of his findings and his books where in their disposition. If Eutocius of Ascalon wrote about his work more than 700 years latter, his work had to been far from forgotten. And it is well known, he was not the only great mathematician and inventor of the classical world, far from it.
Lucretius poem of “On the Nature of Things”, amazing as it can be, may be only fraction of what the Greeks discovered by system of meditation and deductive reasoning. And yet they had not done it into the modernity.
The claim that in society of slaves there is no need for technological inventions seems to me folly. If not for economic reasons, the Roman war machine and probably also the Greek one needed military technology as much as we do. In contrary, Roman society, was free enough to support technological initiative, definitely more than the renaissance society in western Europe.

If there is any answer to the question why the Greeks and Romans did not do it to the modernity, even if they had almost 1000 years from the first philosophers until the Christianity closed on their knowledge, it seems to me modern scientific technological development was a pure accident. Several factors came together in the right time, somewhere in the mid thirteen century, which started with the black death plague decimation of European population, that brought huge social and economic upheavals. Then the Mongol invasion weekend the Muslim world and reduced the military pressure from the Christian Europe, at the same time the classic philosophers following the christian conquest of Spain was rediscovered. Exactly in these years Fibonacci introduced mathematical revolution partly imported from the Arabs and partly developed by him. Some importance played probably the fact that Italy was a country of competing city states rather than one autocratic statehood, as was the Roman empire. Add to it the new Gothic architecture just recently introduced, invention of perspective and some more major events that i haven’t mention and you have completely new tools to judge the reality of the being. The result is new European perspective of understanding the earthly reality and the way to the new knowledge was opened for the scholars and intellectuals, Yet these new discoveries could go easily down of the drainage of the history, if not the patronage of Medici and some other Italian rulers, who competed with each other on prestige, but non of them had the absolute power to overcome the others. Probably without this, these very first discoveries wouldn’t continue to thrive.

Many start the modern way of thinking with Copernicus. I don’t agree with them. The idea of heliocentric world was probably quite widespread in the classical world. Even if Copernicus ideas helped to shake the dogmas of the church, it couldn’t make a scientific revolution by itself. To my opinion after Galileo and Kepler, who both connected mathematics to empiric data, the road to the modern scientific method was paved. So the question remains, how come, the Greeks did not succeed to produce within a whole millennia, what the Europeans had in few hundred years? And lets not forget that the renaissance scholars needed to overcome the burden of religious dogmatic thinking tradition, the classical Greeks did not had to cope with?

As to the findings of Kepler, they happened because of several fortunate sequential events. Brahe Tycho had to die, so Kepler could inherit his observations. If not he would remain probably with his esoteric theory of perfect spheres of planet movements. Also he needed a crazy king like Rudolph II, who was rather strange for a catholic emperor of holly Roman Empire. Then you had the accidental discovery of telescope, Galileo copied and redeveloped. There had to be such an arrogant self possessed man like Galileo, who so strongly believed, that the circumstantial evidence is verified proof for heliocentric planetary system, that he opposed all the Catholic establishment. Someone less self possessed wouldn’t do it all the way.

Modern science is based on connection and verification of philosophical (mainly ontological) understandings derived from rational reasoning with the empirical evidence, translated to practical technological achievements. The Greeks did not make this two necessary step far enough, and this is the source of their failure. Why they have not done it, this still has to be answered.

Policy of boom and bust

by

The major defaults of the economic system called “Market economy” or “Capitalism” is that it enabled on one hand to pour into the economy too much financial liquidity at times of boom and overheated economy, by investing too much money in wrong and too expensive assets, and on the other hand at times of bust, when the economy needs liquidity to sustain employment, the system is rather greedy with helping investments in the same or similar assets for even very reduced price. This system a-priory has to cause bust and boom, situations.
The economist since the great depression of 1929-1933 which had disastrous consequences learned from the lesson, and the governments and the central banks took as their major task in economy (and be the price whatever it takes), to act as anti bust and boom instrument. This is why they made the economic stimulus of trillions that saved the banks and financial system from total collapse (luckily the collapse came during the time of republican presidency and they couldn’t resist this decision), and the quantitative easing that poured liquidity of government money into the economy as alternative to the private money from banks who stopped to borrow.
So if it is so easy to solve the economic crisis situations, what is the problem? Let the economy run on the waves of bust and boom, and whenever the bust comes the government interferes, and at the times of booms let the boys play and enjoy themselves. If economics would be only about mathematical formulas, probably it could work, but the truth is all the economic decisions have their moral-political aspects. And here lies the problem. Because it is morally and politically very hard to neglect the principle of punish those who do wrong and give tribute to those who has done good. And this is actually what happens when the government comes to rescue the “credit boomers”, the bankers who created a distorted financial system, that channeled the financial and material resources to wrong places to invest in wrong assets, and when the D day came, they did not have to pay the price for their wrong doings. The same happened to those who took the loans, without to ask themselves if and when are they going to pay them back. These Financiers and their creditors, who get loans of other peoples’ money enjoy free lunch twice. Once when they give and get these loans with knowledge that it will never be repaid, and second time when they enjoy the debt reduction, when the governments come to rescue them.
On the other hand those who use the wealth generated at times of boom to accumulate reserves for the bad times have to pay twice. First time when they restrain their activities during the times of prosperity and reduce by it their profits, second time at times of bust, when still they have to fulfill all their obligations, and get no praise for their responsible behavior in the times of boom.
Of course this system of Boom and Bust causes with each wave a major shift of wealth from one sector to the other, and generally from the decent and responsible entrepreneurs to the irresponsible gamblers, who happen to make bid on other people’s money. This is one of the reasons why the pension systems are all in deficit, the wages stagnate why the profits and mainly the rewards of corporate managers of publicly traded companies surge.
Isn’t it just unfair?

The system disease

by

The existing financial and political system is in deadlock situation. It’s main problem is concentration of financial resources that most of it belongs to general public in hands of few lucky ones (definitely not the most capable) and this damages the competition, since all the financial system gave preferences in its credit policy to certain kind of activities and not to others. It is not accident that most of the banks followed before 2008 financial policy of fools, purchasing unworthy trash bonds like the Greek bonds and very little money went into real investment initiations. Other problem of the financial system and it includes the government and the central bank the main institutions responsible for printing the money, is that it also failed to channel enough economic resources into the main economic problem of today and probably even more tomorrow, which is the CO2 emissions, that according to some scientific studies will have devastating effect on the world economy within 10 years. And this means it is almost a short term problem if you take in account that anything you do today will have effect only within many years, and what’s going on with the earth heat up is result of acts done many years ago. The existing democratic political system that is managed by politicians whose perspective of existence is 4 years at most (Except in France) and who are elected by some very temporary mood of margins in the society, who change their voting behavior from election to election, cannot cope with the real long term problems, that had become within the years a short term problem. (Most of the leaders in the democratic world are elected with marginal difference of votes. Bush the son in his first time period, was elected with margin of 50,000 votes.) Another problem of the democratic political system is that it failed to incorporate in the decision process the experts and the intellectuals, and in contrary the existing trends are to exclude them from the process.
Other problem of the existing financial system is that most of its players in the so called private sector entities, i mean legal entities with publicly traded shares, like banks, insurance companies, investment and pension funds, but also the largest holding companies like GE for example or GM before its bankruptcy, have managers who are self nominated and self managing and who are not really responsible to anyone for the results of their acts. They also remain in their position for years, unless their acts bring directly to colossal failure, (viz. example of Enron). If they are successful in some kind of short term act, they take reward, and if they fail they also rewarded helping with the rescue of the company from the mess they created.
It is a well known fact that every management system that doesn’t have to cope with the two ultimate improvement generators of the capitalistic system, the Competition and the Risk, will rotten at the end. This is what happened to the whole socialistic system, but the same happened to the US auto-industry that became marketing and leasing companies that forget their primary task, how to produce good cars. By the way Ford did not go to bankruptcy only because it sold at the price pick some or most of its valuable real-estate before the crisis.
So to conclude my claim, there is a basic problems in the existing corporate legal system, but also in the political system, to which i don’t see anybody came up with some solution, but what is even more disturbing i even don’t see real intellectual talk about these problems among the leading economic intellectuals. To my opinion the first seeds of the change that will have to come in the political and financial systems are the experiments like bitcoin, kickbox, university lectures in the internet, but also some kind of referendum system that would bring the experts and intellectuals into the decision process back.

Aside

CO2 accumulation

by

CO2 accumulation

The CO2 is not only about electricity generation. It is also about that most of the people in the world are becoming meat eaters, about transportation systems (cars and airplanes) based on hydrocarbons, etc. If the catastrophic scenarios of overheated planet had to be prevented, the very first step should be CO2 tax and consumption tax in US, while all this additional tax income should be channeled into development of alternative energy resources. If US is not ready to do this sacrifice by adopting less wasteful way of life, nobody else will do it.

If there is even one reader, who can find the way how to bring the US political system (democrats or republicans) to this kind of decisions, i would be happy to hear about it.

An other remark; Keynesian economics not only have no answer to the environmental problem, but it dangerously adds to the consumption overdose, that is an additional push to the environmental problem and helps to bring the world to the edge of the brink.

Aside

דת ומדינה

by

נדמה לי שמדינת ישראל יצרה חברה בה הקושי לתקשר בין היהודים חילוניים ודתיים הולך ומחריף. אני מזהה זאת אצל חברים שלי בארץ, כל פעם שאני באה למגע איתם. אל תשאלי מה הם אמרו לי, כאשר סיפרתי להם שאני תורם לחב”ד בפרג. והיחסים האישיים הטובים בין יחידים המשתייכים למגזרים השונים לא יעמדו במבחן, כאשר הדברים יגיעו לכדי עימות אידיאולוגי. התופעה של שנאת החרדים על ידי יהודים חילוניים אינה חדשה והייתה קיימת גם בגולה, כאשר יהודים חילוניים, והיו כאלה רבים גם בגולה (כך שלא רק הדת שמרה על הקיום היהודי, כטענתם של הדתיים) ייחסו לחרדים פרימיטיביות וראו בהם סיבה עיקרית לאנטישמיות. לעומת זאת המגזר שנקראה בפינו כיפות סרוגות, זאת היא תופעה ישראלית נטו, ובמיוחד כמובן תנועת המתנחלים. בכל אופן הוויכוח בין החילוניים ודתיים לדעתי הוא לא רק על אורחות החיים, אלא האם מדינת ישראל תהיה מדינה ככל המדינות בעולם, או מדינה מיוחדת שמטרתה שמירת ייחדה הדתי, אתנו- תרבותי, וגזעי של העם היהודי, תוך פסילת צורת חשיבה מודרנית, כולל פסילת זכות לחשיבה ביקורתית, ופתיחות רעיונית. מפעל ההתנחלות מעורר שסע בין “תל אביבים” ו”הדתיים” לא בגלל בעיית הסכם שלום עם הפלשתינים. הרי כל אדם בר דעת מבין שלא הגיע העת לעשות שלום עם ערבים, שמתקשים לחיות בשלום בינם ובין עצמם וזאת לא תאונה מקרית. הרי התנאי ליצירת שלום הוא לזנוח את צורת חשיבה של העבר, שבנויה על אמונה בדוגמות שמיחסים להם קדושה, ולכן הם לא ברי בחינה ואימות עם המציאות. האמת היא שכל זהות אתנו-תרבותית שבנויה על אטוס דתי-לאומי היא דוגמה שעל פי טיבעה מושתתת על בידול מהאחר, ויצירת קונפליקט עם האחר רק מחזק את הזיקה לאותה זהות אתנו-תרבותית. לכן גם הקונפליקט הוא חיוני וחיובי כדי לשמר זהות האתנו-תרבותית. מבחינה הזאת היהדות האורתודוקסית הרבה יותר קרובה לאסלם הפונדמנטליסטי מאשר ליהדות החילונית. י
היהדות החילונית, שהקימה את המדינה, מרגישה איום קיומי לא רק לאורך חיים שלה, אלא גם על עצם קיום המדינה. לדעתי כל אדם חילוני מאמין שאם האורתודוקסיה תשלוט במדינה, המדינה לא תוכל לשרוד אפילו ליום אחד. ברור לי גם, שהיהודים האורתודוקסים מאמינים שרק בזכותם קיימת מדינת ישראל והעם היהודי, ובלעדי האמונה לא היה לה שום צידוק.
על פער כו עמוק בעמדות של שני הצדדים לא ניתן לגשר, והם ילכו ויתעמקו, ככל ששתי האוכלוסיות יתקרבו יותר ויותר לכדי שוויון. אין לי שום ספק לגבי השאלה לאן יפנו בעלי כיפות הסרוגות, כאשר האוכלוסיות יתקרבו לכמעט שוויון. אגב המחאה החברתית של קיץ 2011 , הייתה הירייה הראשונה של המאבק שהולך להתחולל בארץ בעתיד הקרוב בין החילוניים והדתיים, ואפילו שיוזמי המאבק בחכמה רבה ומסיבות טקטיות נמנעו מלכנות את מאבקם בשמו הנכון והרימה את הדגל החברתי. עם זאת לא במקרה אוכלוסיית כיפות הסרוגות מיעטו להשתתף במאבק זה, למרות שהם בעצמם מתמודדים באותם בעיות כלכליות חברתיות כמו יתר האוכלוסייה. י
בחירתו הגורפת של יאיר לפיד היא תוצאה של התופעה הזאת, במידת מה הרגיע את הרוחות, והיא לא תהיה תופעה זמנית. הברית האופורטוניסטית בין לפיד לבנט היא תופעה זמנית. בטווח המידי בנט הוא זה שניצח בה לכאורה, אולם הוא במו ידיו סיעה בחיזוק הנציגות החילונית האנטי דתית, שמטרתה העיקרית לבלום את חיזוק ההשפעה הפוליטית של הדת. בשלב זה הוא מכה בעיקר באוכלוסיה חרדית, דרך הכסף ודרך דא-לגיטימיזציה חוקתית של עורך החיים והשקפה חרדית, שמצד אחד נהנית מסיוע כספי המדינה ומצד שני אינה נושאת בעול יצירת המשאבים הלאומיים. (אני לא מדבר על קבוצות שוליים שאינם מכירים בלגיטימיות של השלטון החילוני בכלל). י

אני שואל, כמה מהדתיים יתנגדו ליוזמות חקיקה דתיים שיבטלו חוקים ליברליים דמוקרטיים, אשר יפגעו בארח בלתי ניסבל בחיי החילוניים. אם יש לך קושי לחשוב על חוקים כאלה שהם יתקשו להתנגד להם, אז אעזור לך. לדוגמה האם יתנגדו לחוק החלת שמירה כללית על שבת נוסך הנוהג ביום כיפור היום, שאגב הוא לא מעוגן בחקיקה. אני בכוונה מציג את השאלה כשלילה, הרי יוזמת חקיקה כזאת תהיה צפויה מהחרדים, ויהיה די באי התנגדות של הכיפות סרוגות וגלגול עיניים של התממות כדי להעביר חוק כזה במקרה של רוב דתי במדינה. כאן גם את יכולה לראות את ההבדל בין חקיקה ליברלית חילונית לחקיקה דתית. דוגמא טובה לחקיקה דתית קיימת בסעודיה בה לנשים אסור לנהוג. בעוד חוקים ליברליים מנסים למזער את המגבלות המוטלות על האזרח, חוקים דתיים (אגב חוקים לאומניים-פשיסטיים-קומוניסטיים גם נכללים לדידי בקטגוריה הזאת) פועלים להפך. זה גם המקור לדעתי ללוחמנות של האוכלוסייה שמתגוררת במדינות בה אין חקיקה ליברלית. הרי בעוד במדינה ליברלית המדינה ומוסדותיה קיימת בעיקר כספקי שירת, ומי יתחיל להרוג בגלל טיב השרות שהוא מקבל. לעומת זאת מדינה שמציבה ערכים אידאולוגיים ואמוניים כאחד האג’נדות המרכזיות שלה, אותם היא מעגנת בחוקיה, היא הופכת להיות גורם הרבה מעבר לספק שירות. מדינת דת אחראית גם על אורח החיים ואורח המחשבה של אזרחיה. שוב אביא ,דוגמה למדינת דת מדינות איסלאם, בהם מוסלמי שמשנה את דתו דינו מוות על פי חוק. זכרי, לפי התורה אי שמירת שבת דינו מוות בסקילה. אני מבין שקשה היום לדמיין שמשהו כזה יקרה, אבל אני רואה אנשים רבים שיתמכו בחוק מאסר של יהודים המפרים חוק שמירת השבת, או חוק לבוש לא צנוע של בנות כפי שזה שקיים במדינות איסלאם. גם היום יש בישראל הרבה חוקים המגבילים את האזרחים היהודיים מסיבות דתיות, דבר שלא היה עולה על הדעת במדינה ליברלית בה יש הפרדה ברורה בין דת ומדינה. י
עלי להוסיף, שאני אינני מחשיב את עצמי לליברל-הומניסט בהשקפתי. עבורי ערכי תרבות השייכים לשבט שלי, כלומר ליהודים חשובים מאד, ומתנגד לדעות לפיהם בשם ההומניזם והליברליות יש לבטל את הערכים האלה. לכן אני גם לא הומניסט ולא רואה בזכותו של אדם לחופש ערך עליון. לדעתי יש ערך נעלה מהאדם האינדיבידואלי, וזה מתבטא במחויבותו מעבר לעצמו למשפחתו שיבטו ושמירה ופיתוח תרבותו הקולקטיבית. בלי ערכים אלה האדם הופך להיות ניהיליסט, וכתוצאה מכך מיועד להכחדה הוא והקבוצה האתנו-תרבותית שלו.
עם זאת, יש להשקפת עולם כשלי להתייחס במלוא הזהירות באשר למינון. בקלות רבה השקפה כזאת עלולה להפוך להשקפה פונדמנטליסטית לאומנית דתית, שפוסלת את זכותו של האחר לאותה מידה של אוטונומיה תרבותית. ולצערי אני מזהה מגמות כאלה אצל הדתיים היהודיים בארץ, ובמיוחד האלה שמכונים הכיפות הסרוגות, שנוטים לבטל את זכותם של הלא יהודים, הפלסטינים לקיום עצמאי, ובזה הם חוטאים למצווה מוסרית המרכזית ביהדות, אבל לפי הבנתי לא רק ביהדות, אלא גם בתרבויות אחרות, (קונפוציוס, בודהיזם, נצרות, ואפילו איסלאם, מה שמוכיח את האוניברסליות של המצווה הזאת), “ואהבת רעך כמוך”.
Aside

Putin, Russia and Ukraine

by

Dear Patrice, in your article you compare Putin’s acts to those of Hitler and William II and see danger of war. Let me add here the links to articles i wrote about these dictators;

https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/can-be-predicted-wwiii/
https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/can-we-prevent-the-world-war-iii/

Even if Putin do has tendency to become a fascistic dictator I still would see him more like Napoleon than those two. Napoleon as Putin took over his country in time of huge crisis, when people became tired of revolutionary changes and looked for stability, And both leaders due to their success became immediately heroes. But then the inevitable happened, they became victims of their own success, and did not know when to stop. The result of Napoleon losing the unnecessary war against Russia was loss of France dominant position in Europe, the France revolutionary ideas lost their legitimacy and momentum, that enabled continuous reactionary autocratic regimes in Germany, Austria, Russia and France itself at least until 1848.
On the other hand judging Putin’s act in Crimea it seems to me rather an act of despair, while everyone understands, that when Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, it was an administrative act, while no one thought about possibility that it will become a non Russian territory, Yes with the collapse of USSR and rediscovery of the crimes of this regime against Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens, Jews and you name the rest, new nationalistic feelings dominate the region and they became the dominant political idea also in Russia. But Russia today is not France in 1800, or Germany at 1914 or 1939. Its population is about 140 million but about 30 million are not Russians but mostly Muslims, Tatars etc.Other big demographic problem of Russia is far east, where half of the population and almost all the business activity is in Chinese hands. Russian sovereignty of these lands is only political, and with very gloom perspective from the Russian point of view.

Its GDP is about 2.5 trillion US$ compared to 3.5 trillion of Germany and 15 trillion of EU. Above all its economy is not produced by its population but out of exploiting its natural resources, and it leaves its economy very vulnerable and dependent on its main market, the EU.

Yes you can rightly say economic interests were never an obstacle to start a war, and the Russian vulnerability can make them nervous and aggressive, as it happened in Germany before WWI. But i don’t see Putin has mood to defend Russian position as superpower, but rather trying to continue its recovery and modernization to become one of the main European nations taking part in the political game in European level. To my opinion Putin has to understand that Russia as Europe, with their declining and aging population is in process of marginalization, while Russia on its backyard has to try to cope with the new emerging China, and better if it have the support of Europe than its enmity.

But what about Ukraine? To my opinion Europe has a lot to do about it. The most obvious act would be to invite Ukraine to EU membership. This act would help not only to Ukraine but also to Europe, its economy is stagnating due to luck of investment opportunities. By the way i suggested few years ago, viz my article;
https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/open-european-union-to-the-east/
I know this idea will have many enemies among those who look only on their short term interests, but the only alternative for Europe to stop its slow but steady degradation is expanding to the east, and not only to Dnieper but even farther to the east. One day the nationalistic sentiments and Putin will be gone and most of the post USSR countries will understand that the best solution for them is to join the EU, and so it is also for EU. Russia was always part of the European civilization, and wanted to see itself as such. I believe the advantages for Russia and EU from joining forces are to obvious not to let it happen.

Aside

הבעייה הפסיכו-פיזית

by

http://alaxon.co.il/article/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/

aranse היקר, תרשה לי לחלוק עליך באי אלו דברים שלך. אתה כותב;
….
המדעים המדויקים ספגו תבוסה שאין קשה ממנה מידי מדעי הרוח עם הופעת מכניקת הקוונטים (הצופה משפיע על הנצפה, אין אפשרות לקביעה מדויקת של מאפיינים שהיו הכי נחשבים עד אליה לצורך מדידה,מה זה ? זה פיזיקה הוא שיעור ספרות מחורבן ?)

מכניקה קוונטית איננה טריטוריה של מדעי הרוח אלא של פיזיקה, כלומר מדעים המדויקים. זה שבעולם בקנה המידה תת אטומית התופעות הנצפות אינם עולים בכנה אחד עם התופעות הפיזיקליות של העולם העל אטומי, לא אומר שלמדעים המדויקים אין כלים להתמודד ולהסביר את התופעות האלה. לעומת זאת מה שאתה קורא למדעי הרוח וכפי הנראה הכוונה למטפיזיקה, אין הסברים לתופעות העולם אם לא משתמשים בכלים של מדעי הטבע.
באילו כלים מדובר? בכלי מחקר בה נערכים ניסויים מבוקרים, שבאמצעותם מנסים לבחון אמיתות של טזות המנבאות התנהגות של העולם בין אם בקנה מידה של העולם שלנו, בקנה מידה של תת חלקיקים, או בקנה מידה של היקום כולו. כך לדוגמה לפני כ-30 שנה התנבאו פיזיקאים לגבי קיומו של תת חלקיק היגנס, אשר היה צריך להיות בעל תכונות X ולא אחרות. ואומנם לא מזמן נצפה החלקיק בניסוי שנערך בשווייץ.

בהמשך אתה כותב;
….
אבל מבט ששואף ומבין את נחיצות הסינטזה בין הגוף לנפש….
החלוקה הפילוסופית של המציאות לרוח ולחומר עברה מהאופנה. היום המדע מנסה להתמודד עם תופעת התודעה (רוח) באמצעות מחקרים בתחום מדעי הטבע (החוקר את החומר) כולל ניאורולוגיה ואף פיזיקה, microtubuls  וכו’, כמו כן בכלים פסיכולוגיים ופילוסופיים, וכולם משתפים פעולה להבין את התופעה הנקראת תודעה. חלקם נוטים להסברים יותר פיזיקליים, בעוד אחרים ליותר פסיכולוגיים, ויש שמחפשים תשובות במודלים מתמטיים, לוגיים, לינגוויסטיקה וכו’ ואף אחד לא פוסל בזלזול את גישתו של האחר.

מכאן אני מגיע להערה האחרונה שלך;
ישמח על כל זליגה של תפישה מתחום אחד לתחום שני,לבבון הטריטוריאלי זליגה כזאת נתפשת כאיום קיומי, ורוב המדענים הם לא יותר מבבונים משודרגים, בדיוק כמו כולנו, והם הרבה יותר נטועים בתפישת החברה שסביבם, ברוב הזמן, ממה שהם היו רוצים להאמין, אם זה לא היה כך היה לנו מדע אובייקטיבי, אין לנו כזה, וגם לא יהיה בזמן הקרוב

אם אתעלם מכך שאתה קורא לכל אנשי המדע בבונים, שאין באמירה הזאת דבר הראוי להתייחסות, אתייחס לאמירתך, “מדע אוביקטיבי”. ואשאל אותך מה כוונת המשורר? האם הכוונה שהמדע מיצר אמיתות מוחלטות אובייקטיביות? לדעתי אף איש מדע רציני לא יומר לך זאת. לכל היותר יאמר שהממצא הזה תומך בטזה הזאת. אם מחר ימצא ממצא שיסתור את התזה, המדענים ישמחו לנטוש את הטזה הלא תקפה וינסו למצוא תחתיה טזה חדשה. כך פועל המדע, וכך הוא הגיע להישגיו, שמאפשרים לנו לקיים חילופי דעות זאת על הבלוג של אלכסון, דבר שלפני עשרים שנה לא היה אפשר אפילו לעלות על הדעת.

  יום שישי 7 במרץ 2014 בשעה 21:06

aranse

ער, הרשה לי להציע לך עצה פשוטה,תנסה קו דם כל לקרוא, ולהבין, את הדברים שעליהם אתה מגיב, כי אתה הרי מתפרץ לדלת פתוחה ומטיף דווקא לאדם שכתב כאן בשבח הסינטזה בין מדעי הרוח למדע הטבע על נחיצותה.

התגובה שלי כוונה למי שכתב שמדי הרוח הפסידו כי הם משתמשים בכלים ממדעי הטבע, ועל זה עניתי לו שגם לשיטתו מדעי הטבע נחלו תבוסה הרבה יותר חרוצה כי התיאוריות הכי בסיסיות בפיזיקה שואלות כבר יותר ממאה שנה מונחים וגישות הנטולים מתחומים “רכים” יותר כמו אמנות ומדעי החברה.
אני כשלעצמי לא מאמין במציאות עימותית, בסימון מנצחים ומפסידים אלא שמח באפשרות לזליגת המונחים והתפישות מצד אחד לשני, לכן לא ברור לי למה אתה מתאמץ כל כך להוכיח לי בדיוק את מה שכתבתי ולמה נדמה לך שאתה חלוק עלי במקומות שבהם אתה בעצם כותב בדיוק את מה שאני כתבתי.

בכל מקרה, עובדתית אתה טועה, בגדול, למדעים המדוייקים אין כלים שיכולים להסביר וליישב כהלכה את מה שעולה מהתצפיות והתיאוריות של המכניקה הקוונטית, וכל זה למרות מאמצים שנעשים כמעט כבר מאה שנה גם על ידי הענקים שהגו את התורה וגם על ידי ממשיכי דרכם המוכשרים לא פחות מהם,
תפישת הזמן והמרחב שלנו לא מסתדרת עם מה שעולה מהמכניקה הקוונטית,יש לשער ולקוות שעם הזמן הדברים יפתרו, עד היום, בניגוד מוחלט למה שאתה כותב זה טרם קרה, כנראה שיש עדיין למה לצפות גם בתחום המדע.

כמו שניכר גם ממאמר זה וגם ממגוון הדעות והגישות בספירה האקדמית וגם מחוץ לה אז החלוקה הפילוסופית, והאחרת, בין רוח לנפש ממש לא עברה מהאופנה, רחוק מאוד מכך,הבעייה הפסיכו-פיזית רחוקה מפתרונה ולא רק שאין לאף אחד שום מושג לגבי המרחק שלנו מהאפשרות לפתור אותה אלא שהדעה השגורה אומרת שאינה ניתנת לפתרון כלל (אני כשלעצמי מאמין שהיא פתירה אבל אני מתבסס כאן על אינטואיצה ותחושה ומעט ידע על ההיסטוריה של התפתחות הרעיונות ופחות על מה שנחשב כמידע מדעי מוצק ) נכון שאפשר לזהות מגמה לרב תחומיות, ונכון שהמגמה הזאת מצביעה על שיפור בגישה, אבל לדעתי זה קצת מופרז לקבוע משום כך שהבעייה הזאת כבר מאחורינו, זה קצת אפילו קצת שחצני,הבעייה הזאת נפתרת לאיטה בקצב משלה וזה לא משהו שגילינו אתמול ולא משהו שנפתור מחר, במקרה הטוב עשינו עוד צעד אחד קטן.

אני קורה לכל האנשים בבונים,וגם אנשי המדע הם אנשים, ולפי עוצמת הרגש והתשוקה שהם מפעילים על מנת לגדר ולשמור על הטריטוריה שלהם הייתי אומר שכנראה רובם קרובים יותר לבבון מלאדם הממוצע,
וחבל,
לא צריך לקרוא את המאמר שהובא כאן בשביל לדעת את עוצמת המשטמה והזלזול והביזוי בין אנשי מדעי הטבע לאנשי מדעי הרוח, כל מי שדיבר אי פעם עם אחד מהם או קרא מעט ממה שהם כותבים מכיר אותה,ולעוצמה זאת אין שום קשר למדע, יש לה קשר רק לשורשיו של האדם בשימפנזה.

ברור שהמדע אינו מייצר אמיתות אובייקטיביות,
בדיוק כשם שברור שזו שאיפתו העיקרית של המדע,
לייצר אמיתות אובייקטיביות,
ומכשלון לכשלון הוא מצליח קצת יותר,
זו אינה אפשרות כיום אבל זו המטרה האולטימטיבית,
ובלי לדעת את האופק אי אפשר לדעת לאן אנחנו הולכים ולמה.
ולדעתי, וזה גם מה שכתבתי בפירוש, ככל שהסינטזה בין התחומים ה”רכים” יותר של מדעי הרוח והחברה לתחומים ה”קשים” יותר של מדעי הטבע תהיה יותר טובה ככה נתקרב יותר לאפשרות של הכרת האמת האובייקטיבית, והמהלך הזה, לסינטזה,מתקיים, למרות הנטייה המובהקת, גם ובעיקר בשדה המדע, להתנגד לו.

ממה שאני רואה ומבין אז כל הצלחה, ולו חלקית וקטנה, ביצירת מרחב לא טריטוריאלי, מאפשרת יותר צמיחה לכיוון הלא עימותי, הלא מלחמתי, והרשת היא באמת דוגמה לכך, למרות שחלק מהאנשים שתרמו רבות לאפשרות לקיומה הם אנשים שבכלל לא הצליחו להבין בשביל מה צריך אמנות וספרות ופילוסופיה (קראתי לא מזמן את הביוגרפיה של דיראק,הבן אדם באמת לא הצליח להבין מה זה אמנות וספרות ובשביל מה זה טוב בכלל,לא שהוא שנא את זה, מנטלית, כמו הרבה מאנשי מדעי הטבע, הוא לא היה מצוייד להבין דבר ממה שהתקיים מחוץ לטריטוריה של המתמטיקה והפיזיקה)

c יום שבת 8 במרץ 2014 בשעה 6:54

 

ער

 arnse היקר. אם תגובתי הקודמת הצליחה להביא אותך לכתוב את תגובתך החדשה המלומדת והמלמדת אז כמו שאומרים, דיינו. הרשה לי הפעם לא לחלק לדבריך ואף להצטרף אליהם ולתקן הרושם שתגובתי הקודמת עוררה;

אני אחרון שיזלזל בתרומתו של מדעי הרוח להתפתחות הידע האנושי בתחום המדעים או מה שאתה מכנה מדעים קשים. ללא פתיחת אופקים באמצעות אומנות המדע לא היה יכול להתפתח. הדוגמא הידוע ביותר היא גילוי הפרספקטיבה בציור, שפתחה עיניים להוגים וברבות הימים אפשרה לראות דברים מזווית שונה מהשכל הישר, או הפיסיקה האריסטוטליאנית. אבל יש הרבה דוגמאות כאלה וודאי יש משכתב על כך, רק אני לא מכיר ספר כזה, ואם טרם נכתב ספר כזה, יש כאן רעיון מעניין לעבודת דוקטורט למי שבתחום התפתחות הידע האנושי. אגב דיראק ידוע כאוטיסט חברתי, ואין לשפוט מדענים אחרים לפיו.
בהמשך אתה כותב; …….בכל מקרה, עובדתית אתה טועה, בגדול, למדעים המדוייקים אין כלים שיכולים להסביר וליישב כהלכה את מה שעולה מהתצפיות והתיאוריות של המכניקה הקוונטית,…………

מצד אחד אתה כמובן צודק, מדעי הטבע ומדע הפיסיקה רחוקים מלענות על כל השאלות שבמהות הקיום הפיסיקלי. אם לא היה כך, לא היה עוד מקום לכל מוסדות המחקר עם תקציבי עתק, שהגדול בהם הוא ההדרון קולידר בשוויץ שעלה נדמה לי 7 מיליארד יורו. עם זאת אני חולק עליך שלפיסיקה אין כלים להתמודד עם תופעות הקוונטיות. אולי התופעות עצמם הן נוגדות מאוד את שמוכר לנו בפיסיקה העוסקת בתחום האטומי והעל אטומי, וכמובן נוגדות את הכל שאדם מסוגל להבין בשכלו הישר, אבל הכלים להבנת התופעות שפיתחו מדענים מאפשרים היום ליצור טכנולוגיות רבות שבלעדיהם לא היה לנו. לדוגמא ננו טכנולוגיה שהיום יוצרת טכנולוגיות והגדרת חומרים שימושיים שדומה ואף עולה על ההתפתחות של המצאת החומרים הפלסטיים שבאה בעקבות הבנת התהליכים בכימיה אורגנית. כבר היום לא ניתן לחשוב על העולם בלי ננו טכנולוגיה כמו שלא ניתן לחשוב על עולם ללא פלסטיק. (אני מקווה שננו טכנולוגיה תנקה גם את העולם משאריות הפלסטיק שהצטברו במזבלות בחמישים שנים האחרונות, ומקווה שלא יצור זיהום חדש אף מסוכן ממנו).

לכנות אנשים בבונים לא מסביר דבר. יכולתה לכנות בני אדם אבוקדו והיה לזה משמעות זהה. זה לא מוסיף הבנה לכלום, ומפחית מערך טענותיך שלטעמי דווקא ראויות להתיחסות.
בהמשך אתה כותב;
…..
ברור שהמדע אינו מייצר אמיתות אובייקטיביות,
בדיוק כשם שברור שזו שאיפתו העיקרית של המדע,
לייצר אמיתות אובייקטיביות,
ומכשלון לכשלון הוא מצליח קצת יותר, …..
אם כוונתך שמטרת המדע היא ליצור אמיתות דוגמטיות כמו בדתות  המונותאיסתיות אז אתה טועה. המדע לא עוסק בזה. לדוגמה יש מעמד של קדושה, לכן אסור לבחון אותה, בזה היא שונה מאקסיומה שאומנם גם היא אמיתה שעליה מושתת ידע מערכתי שלם, ובכל זאת ניתן לבחון ולנסות לסתור את אמיתותה. הדוגמא הטובה היא הגאומטריה הלא אאוקלדית שהתחילה להתפתח במאה תשע עשרי.
אשר העימותים והסכסוכים בין מדעים ומדענים שונים, זה רק מוכיח שגם הם בני אדם (ולא בבונים). הרי נאמר כבר מזמן, קינאת סופרים מרבה בינה.

 

אין אהבה

by

05/03/2014
אהבה בת חלוף, גרועה מבדידות,
אהבה חפצת שליטה, גרועה מאדישות

אהבה לרגע, היא הבזק בזיכרונה,
אהבה הרוצה להכחיד, משולה לשנאה.

המקריב על מזבח האני מושא אהבתו,
עוקדה בעיבה…………………………………….

קנאית, הרוצה בו לקניינה, מולידה שנאה

או הכנעה………………………………………..

אין מרחב אהבה לבועלת מושאה,
דין אהבה המצפה לתמורה,……… אכזבה,
לא קיימת אהבה, ללא רצון לשאת בעולה,
נותן הפרסים בעבור אהבה, לא בנמצא.

ואני תוהה ומשתאה, הקיימת אהבה לשמה?

.

Jews as a nation and antisemitism

by

Jews as a Nation and antisemitism

Christianity as any other belief system that is based on dogmas, expects that everyone excepts it as the final truth. When opposed it has tendency to become violent againt any phenomena that doesn’t fit to these dogmas. And the very existence of Jews was exactly about this. Saint Augustine solved the Jewish problem more humanly than Luther. He pointed on them as wretched people, whose suffering is a proper punishments for their refusal to recognize the truth about the Savior. But as compared to Luther , he was for continuous Jews existence, just not to let them thrive. But then Augustus lived in the fourth century, at times when the Vandals and Visigoths threatened the very existence of his community.

 Luther lived more than thousand years later, before the European religious wars of the 17 century, that his own ideas woke up, on the other hand was an extreme example of Christian theologists, who had problem to cope with the very existence of Jews, who as it appears stubbornly refusing to except Jesus as the Messiah.

As contrary to some apologetic claims of some Christian scholars, Saint Augustine is the very prove that the antisemitism didn’t start with the crusaders but is derived from the foundations of the Christian faith itself. But then let’s not forget, that Augustus lived in times, when it seemed that nothing will stop the destruction of Christian Roman empire, (he died when the Vandals besieged his city). Naturally his approach had to be more mild than that of Luther, who lived when Christianity looked as the superior faith.

The Christianity based on Luther’s ideas is as dogmatic and vigorous as the Catholic Church,   if not more than that. Yet the Reformation movement made an U-turn from its dogmatic anti culture and education position, yet not due to spiritual but rather material reasons, mainly colonialism and renaissance in arts and sciences partly supported also by the Catholic church. The truth is, the Catholic church was a very corrupt organization at the time, but as to my view, corruption of any autocratic entity is the good news, because it give hope that the autocracy is close to collapse. The bad news are when the autocracy succeeds to keep its zealousness popular and murders all its real or imaginary opponents. An other urban mythology is the intellectual openness of the Lutheran movement that brought to enlightenment and scientific revolution of 17-18 century. France was Catholic and its achievements were comparable to that of protestant English. The English were more lucky because they had a rather gradual and not revolutionary political change to non autocratic political system. Then they invented the steam engine because of need of coal to heat the cities, but above all because North America became rather a protestant English country than a French one. And it could easily be otherwise if not the stupidity of the French kings and dictators. Yes the English King Gorge III was disastrous too, but he had the parliament that eventually forced him to come to reason (or rather to lose his reason).

The theological foundation of Judaism is the intensive God-human-God relation loaded with tension and activity based on recipe prescribed in the Five Books of Moses the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy or in other words the Pentateuch. This books of stories and law prescribe to Jews many complicated rules God ordered to follow. Most of the laws have no human to human consequences, and it is almost impossible strictly to follow them without to fail. This creates a constant relation of sin and guilt, to which the all mighty God reacts with continuous punishment, threats for the future, but also consolation and promises.

 

One of these promises is to help the Jews to create an independent statehood under a king directly appointed by the God, the Messiah. (Messiah in Hebrew means one who was anointed, or greased, which is the part of act of ceremony of apotheosis of a king.) The best known Messiah was of course King David (Who according to last archeological findings was rather a local chieftain between the mountains of Jerusalem and Hebron than a great King). But since David times, for thousand years of Jews living in the Levant the “Holly Land”, the Jewish statehood had only very few years of real independence. In the eighth century b.c. came already the Assyrians, followed by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally the Romans. All these empires of the region left very little gap for Jewish independence.

After 1000 years of God’s not fulfilled promises for independent Jewish Kingdom ruled by king Chosen by God how could the Jews cope with this frustrating situation? And on top of sll this, the Promised land was again ruled by a Roman dictator, who was not only non Jew, but claimed that he and his horse are God. To a Jewish believer like Jesus, his followers and many other Jews it had to be a shocking experience to see, that God allowed these people to rule the Promised Land, and it seems it is not going to change very soon. But you can’t go to complain to your all mighty God and claim your promised kingdom, viz. what happened to Job in the Book of Job.

So what could the Jews do in their frustration? Leaving the belief in Torah was not an option, so some of them tried to find new definition for Messiah. Not anymore an earthly creation, but a divine creature, who’s promised kingdom is not on earth but in the heaven. All I wanted to say is that Christianity is a understandable development of Jews theological concept, of Jews living in the first century under Roman governance.

So why had it become the major source of anti-Judaism? First, because in the Canonical gospels when the general public heard about Jesus crucifixion ceremony, where the mocking audience are called Jews and not just “the audience”. The second and even more important issue is, that when Christianity has become the dominant political religion in Rome, they tried to destroy every hint, that could shake the foundations of their obscure belief, and every thought that is not compatible to their expansionist intentions. So they destroyed all the gospels except of the four canonical gospels. They persecuted the Arians and many others like them, and of course the Jews, who happened to have the copyright for gospels, yet they themselves or at least some of them refused to except the ultimate truth, the truth of the official Christian church.

Zion is a hill but also became in late eighteen century a symbol. Symbol of Jews who believe that the Jews have the right for homeland at least as much as the Albanians. This need for homeland at beginning of the Zionism seemed to be a rather spiritual need than material so not many were interested. Then around the turn off 20 century, with rise of neo-antisemitism the need became material and more Jews became interested. The Holocaust unfortunately proved how right they were. The remaining left overs of European Jews believed that they can secure their physical and cultural survival only by establishing a independent Jewish state. And then the world community feeling ashamed of its own deeds agreed to it. The Jewish state proved its competence as it successfully absorbed the Jews from the Islam world and most probably saved them from a new holocaust.

But since the seventies and eighties started again the “old new” voices continuing the tradition of St. August, Luther, the Russian Czar, you name the rest who worked very hard to de-legitimate the very right of Jews to exist as a separate culture, with all its anomalies for good or bad. This voices started under the cover of internationalism orchestrated by the imperialistic intention of the post WWII bastion of evil, the USSR. After the collapse of USSR, it’s agents who lost their directive, out of confusion continue until today the crusade against the Jewish culture, under the pretext of anti Zionism. I wonder for how long they can nourish this internationalism pretext until they realize that the enemies of Israel the Muslimo-Nazis are not exactly partners for internationalism, unless it will be an internationally imposed fundamental Islam on the non Islamic world.

As to the question is Judaism just a religion or also a nation, we have to ask what it means nation. Once I read somewhere that Stalin wrote “nation is group of people with common language and common land they occupy”. From this perspective the Jews in diaspora are not a nation while the Jews in Israel are. But who really cares what this primitive butcher has to say about the subject.

My opinion is very different from his. To my opinion nation is a group of people with joint cultural heritage and a joint epic story or history they identify with. From this point of view of course Jews are a nation even if without a common land. The oddity about the Jews is that their epic story is more than a tribal-national story, it is a theological epic story or in other words a religion.

What’s more their theological story became the basis for theological epics of the Christians and Muslims as well, and this annoys them a lot. ” How come such a wretched nation claims the priority upon our epic story?”

It may be interesting to compare the Jewish identity with that of the Greek national identity. The Greeks have a very long history with a influence on western civilization that is comparable with the influence of the Judaism. But the modern Greeks are hardly connected to their ancient culture. They are orthodox Christians and don’t believe in their ancient myths. Their language is very different from the classical Greek etc. Yet they claim they are the rightful descents of classical Greece. Viz how they opposed the usage of name Macedonia. So what are the Greeks? nation? culture? an epic story? it just shows to you that the definition of what is nation is more complicated than what Stalin thought.

Jews as a nation and antisemitism

by

Jews as a Nation and antisemitism

Christianity as any other belief system that is based on dogmas, expects that everyone excepts it as the final truth. When opposed it has tendency to become violent againt any phenomena that doesn’t fit to these dogmas. And the very existence of Jews was exactly about this. Saint Augustine solved the Jewish problem more humanly than Luther. He pointed on them as wretched people, whose suffering is a proper punishments for their refusal to recognize the truth about the Savior. But as compared to Luther , he was for continuous Jews existence, just not to let them thrive. But then Augustus lived in the fourth century, at times when the Vandals and Visigoths threatened the very existence of his community.

 Luther lived more than thousand years later, before the European religious wars of the 17 century, that his own ideas woke up, on the other hand was an extreme example of Christian theologists, who had problem to cope with the very existence of Jews, who as it appears stubbornly refusing to except Jesus as the Messiah.

As contrary to some apologetic claims of some Christian scholars, Saint Augustine is the very prove that the antisemitism didn’t start with the crusaders but is derived from the foundations of the Christian faith itself. But then let’s not forget, that Augustus lived in times, when it seemed that nothing will stop the destruction of Christian Roman empire, (he died when the Vandals besieged his city). Naturally his approach had to be more mild than that of Luther, who lived when Christianity looked as the superior faith.

The Christianity based on Luther’s ideas is as dogmatic and vigorous as the Catholic Church,   if not more than that. Yet the Reformation movement made an U-turn from its dogmatic anti culture and education position, yet not due to spiritual but rather material reasons, mainly colonialism and renaissance in arts and sciences partly supported also by the Catholic church. The truth is, the Catholic church was a very corrupt organization at the time, but as to my view, corruption of any autocratic entity is the good news, because it give hope that the autocracy is close to collapse. The bad news are when the autocracy succeeds to keep its zealousness popular and murders all its real or imaginary opponents. An other urban mythology is the intellectual openness of the Lutheran movement that brought to enlightenment and scientific revolution of 17-18 century. France was Catholic and its achievements were comparable to that of protestant English. The English were more lucky because they had a rather gradual and not revolutionary political change to non autocratic political system. Then they invented the steam engine because of need of coal to heat the cities, but above all because North America became rather a protestant English country than a French one. And it could easily be otherwise if not the stupidity of the French kings and dictators. Yes the English King Gorge III was disastrous too, but he had the parliament that eventually forced him to come to reason (or rather to lose his reason).

The theological foundation of Judaism is the intensive God-human-God relation loaded with tension and activity based on recipe prescribed in the Five Books of Moses the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy or in other words the Pentateuch. This books of stories and law prescribe to Jews many complicated rules God ordered to follow. Most of the laws have no human to human consequences, and it is almost impossible strictly to follow them without to fail. This creates a constant relation of sin and guilt, to which the all mighty God reacts with continuous punishment, threats for the future, but also consolation and promises.

 

One of these promises is to help the Jews to create an independent statehood under a king directly appointed by the God, the Messiah. (Messiah in Hebrew means one who was anointed, or greased, which is the part of act of ceremony of apotheosis of a king.) The best known Messiah was of course King David (Who according to last archeological findings was rather a local chieftain between the mountains of Jerusalem and Hebron than a great King). But since David times, for thousand years of Jews living in the Levant the “Holly Land”, the Jewish statehood had only very few years of real independence. In the eighth century b.c. came already the Assyrians, followed by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally the Romans. All these empires of the region left very little gap for Jewish independence.

After 1000 years of God’s not fulfilled promises for independent Jewish Kingdom ruled by king Chosen by God how could the Jews cope with this frustrating situation? And on top of sll this, the Promised land was again ruled by a Roman dictator, who was not only non Jew, but claimed that he and his horse are God. To a Jewish believer like Jesus, his followers and many other Jews it had to be a shocking experience to see, that God allowed these people to rule the Promised Land, and it seems it is not going to change very soon. But you can’t go to complain to your all mighty God and claim your promised kingdom, viz. what happened to Job in the Book of Job.

So what could the Jews do in their frustration? Leaving the belief in Torah was not an option, so some of them tried to find new definition for Messiah. Not anymore an earthly creation, but a divine creature, who’s promised kingdom is not on earth but in the heaven. All I wanted to say is that Christianity is a understandable development of Jews theological concept, of Jews living in the first century under Roman governance.

So why had it become the major source of anti-Judaism? First, because in the Canonical gospels when the general public heard about Jesus crucifixion ceremony, where the mocking audience are called Jews and not just “the audience”. The second and even more important issue is, that when Christianity has become the dominant political religion in Rome, they tried to destroy every hint, that could shake the foundations of their obscure belief, and every thought that is not compatible to their expansionist intentions. So they destroyed all the gospels except of the four canonical gospels. They persecuted the Arians and many others like them, and of course the Jews, who happened to have the copyright for gospels, yet they themselves or at least some of them refused to except the ultimate truth, the truth of the official Christian church.

Zion is a hill but also became in late eighteen century a symbol. Symbol of Jews who believe that the Jews have the right for homeland at least as much as the Albanians. This need for homeland at beginning of the Zionism seemed to be a rather spiritual need than material so not many were interested. Then around the turn off 20 century, with rise of neo-antisemitism the need became material and more Jews became interested. The Holocaust unfortunately proved how right they were. The remaining left overs of European Jews believed that they can secure their physical and cultural survival only by establishing a independent Jewish state. And then the world community feeling ashamed of its own deeds agreed to it. The Jewish state proved its competence as it successfully absorbed the Jews from the Islam world and most probably saved them from a new holocaust.

But since the seventies and eighties started again the “old new” voices continuing the tradition of St. August, Luther, the Russian Czar, you name the rest who worked very hard to de-legitimate the very right of Jews to exist as a separate culture, with all its anomalies for good or bad. This voices started under the cover of internationalism orchestrated by the imperialistic intention of the post WWII bastion of evil, the USSR. After the collapse of USSR, it’s agents who lost their directive, out of confusion continue until today the crusade against the Jewish culture, under the pretext of anti Zionism. I wonder for how long they can nourish this internationalism pretext until they realize that the enemies of Israel the Muslimo-Nazis are not exactly partners for internationalism, unless it will be an internationally imposed fundamental Islam on the non Islamic world.

As to the question is Judaism just a religion or also a nation, we have to ask what it means nation. Once I read somewhere that Stalin wrote “nation is group of people with common language and common land they occupy”. From this perspective the Jews in diaspora are not a nation while the Jews in Israel are. But who really cares what this primitive butcher has to say about the subject.

My opinion is very different from his. To my opinion nation is a group of people with joint cultural heritage and a joint epic story or history they identify with. From this point of view of course Jews are a nation even if without a common land. The oddity about the Jews is that their epic story is more than a tribal-national story, it is a theological epic story or in other words a religion.

What’s more their theological story became the basis for theological epics of the Christians and Muslims as well, and this annoys them a lot. ” How come such a wretched nation claims the priority upon our epic story?”

It may be interesting to compare the Jewish identity with that of the Greek national identity. The Greeks have a very long history with a influence on western civilization that is comparable with the influence of the Judaism. But the modern Greeks are hardly connected to their ancient culture. They are orthodox Christians and don’t believe in their ancient myths. Their language is very different from the classical Greek etc. Yet they claim they are the rightful descents of classical Greece. Viz how they opposed the usage of name Macedonia. So what are the Greeks? nation? culture? an epic story? it just shows to you that the definition of what is nation is more complicated than what Stalin thought.

Judaism versus Zionism

by

Jews as a Nation and antisemitism Christianity as any other belief system that is based on dogmas that have to be excepted as final truth, become violent against phenomena that doesn’t fit to these dogmas. And the very existence of Jews was exactly about this. Saint Augustine solved the Jewish problem more humanly than Luther. He pointed on them as wretched people, whose suffering is a proper punishments for their refusal to recognize the truth about the Savior. But as compared to Luther he was for continuous Jews existence, just not to allow them to thrive. But he lived in the fourth century, at times when the Vandals and Visigoths threatened the very existence of his community. Luther who lived more than thousand years later, before the European religious wars in the 17 century, wars his own ideas woke up, on the other hand was an extreme example of Christian theologists, who had problem to cope with the very idea of existence of Jews, who stubbornly refusing to except Jesus as the Messiah. Saint Augustine is the prove that the antisemitism didn’t start with the crusaders as contrary to some apologetic claims of the church, but is derived from the Christian faith itself. Lets not forget, that he lived in times, when it seemed that nothing will stop the destruction of Christian Roman empire, (he died when the Vandals besieged his city). Naturally his approach had to be more mild than that of Luther, who lived when Christianity looked as the superior faith. Not due to spiritual but rather material achievements, mainly colonialism and Renaissance in arts and sciences partly supported by the Catholic church, that due to Reformation made a U-turn in its pro culture and pro education policy. Truth the Catholic church was a very corrupt organization at the time, but as to my view, corruption of any autocratic entity are the good news, because they give hope the autocracy will collapse soon. The bad news are when the autocracy succeeds to keep its zealousness popular and murders all its real or imaginary opponents. An other urban mythology is the intellectual openness of the Lutheran movement that brought to enlightenment and scientific revolution of 17-18 century. France was Catholic and its achievements were comparable to that of protestant English. The English were more lucky because of gradual and not revolutionary political change to non autocratic political system, invention of steam engine because of need for coal to heat their cities, but above all, North America becoming a protestant English speaking country rather than a French speaking Catholic. And it could easily be otherwise if not the stupidity of the French kings and dictators. Yes the English King Gorge III was disastrous too, but he had the parliament that eventually forced him to come to reason (or rather to lose his reason). The theological foundation of Judaism is the intensive God-human-God relation loaded with tension and activity based on recipe exactly prescribed in the Five Books of Moses the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy or in other words the Pentateuch. This books of stories and law prescribe to Jews many complicated rules God ordered to follow. Most of the laws have no human to human consequences, and it is almost impossible strictly to follow them without to fail. This creates a constant relation of sin and guilt, to which the all mighty God reacts with continuous punishment, threats for the future, but also consolation and promises. One of these promises is to help the Jews to create an independent statehood under a king directly appointed by the God, the Messiah. (Messiah in Hebrew means one who was anointed, or greased, which is the part of act of ceremony of apotheosis of a king.) The best known Messiah was of course King David (Who according to last archeological findings was rather a local chieftain between the mountains of Jerusalem and Hebron than a great King). But since David times, for thousand years of Jews living in the Levant the “Holly Land”, the Jewish statehood had only very few years of real independence. In the nine century b.c. came already the Assyrians, followed by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally the Romans. All these empires of the region left very little gap for Jewish independence. After 1000 years of God’s not fulfilled promises for independent Jewish Kingdom ruled by king Chosen by God how could the Jews cope with the frustrating situation, after again having the Jewish statehood was ruled by a Roman dictator, who claimed that he and his horse are God. To a Jewish believer like Jesus, his followers and many other Jews it had to be a shocking experience to see, that God allowed these people to rule the Holy Land, and it seems it is not going to change very soon. But you can’t go to complain to your all mighty God and claim your promised kingdom, viz. what happened to Job in the Book of Job. So what could the Jews do in their frustration? Leaving the belief in Torah was not an option, so some of them tried to find new definition for Messiah. Not anymore an earthly creation, but a divine creature, who’s promised kingdom is not on earth but in the heaven. All I wanted to say is that Christianity is a understandable development of Jews theological concept, of Jews living in the first century under Roman governance. So why had it become the major source of anti-Judaism? First, because in the Canonical gospels the general public when hearing about Jesus crucifixion ceremony, where the mocking audience was called Jews and not just “the audience”. The second and even more important issue is, that when Christianity has become the dominant political religion, they tried to destroy every hint, that can shake the foundations of their obscure belief, and every thought that is not compatible to their expansionist intentions. So they destroyed all the gospels except of the four canonical gospels, they persecuted the Arians and many others like them, and of course the Jews, who happened to have the copyright for gospels, yet they themselves or at least some of them refused to except the ultimate truth, the truth of the official Christian church. Zion is a hill but also became in late eighteen century a symbol. Symbol of Jews who believe that the Jews have the right for homeland at least as much as the Albanians. This need for homeland at beginning of the Zionism seemed to be a rather spiritual need than material so not many were interested. Then around the turn off 20 century, with rise of neo-antisemitism the need became material and more Jews became interested. The Holocaust unfortunately proved how right they were. The remaining left overs of European Jews believed that they can secure their physical and cultural survival only by establishing a independent Jewish state. And then the world community feeling ashamed of its own deeds agreed to it. The Jewish state proved its competence as it successfully absorbed the Jews from the Islam world and most probably saved them from a new holocaust. But since the seventies and eighties started again the “old new” voices continuing the tradition of St. August, Luther, the Russian Czar, you name the rest who worked very hard to de-legitimate the very right of Jews to exist as a separate culture, with all its anomalies for good or bad. This voices started under the cover of internationalism orchestrated by the imperialistic intention of the post WWII bastion of evil, the USSR. After the collapse of USSR, it’s agents who lost their directive, out of confusion continue until today the crusade against the Jewish culture, under the pretext of anti Zionism. I wonder for how long they can nourish this internationalism pretext until they realize that the enemies of Israel the Muslimo-Nazis are not exactly partners for internationalism, unless it will be an internationally imposed fundamental Islam on the the non Islam world. As to the question is Judaism just a religion or also a nation, we have to ask what it means nation. Once I read somewhere that Stalin wrote “nation is group of people with common language and common land they occupy”. From this perspective the Jews in diaspora are not a nation while the Jews in Israel are. But who really cares what this primitive butcher has to say about the subject. My opinion is very different from his. To my opinion nation is a group of people with joint cultural heritage and a joint epic story or history they identify with. From this point of view of course Jews are a nation even if without a common land. The oddity about the Jews is that their epic story is more than a tribal-national story, it is a theological epic story or in other words a religion. What’s more their theological story became the basis for theological epics of the Christians and Muslims as well, and this annoys them a lot. ” How come such a wretched nation claims the priority upon our epic story?” It may be interesting to compare the Jewish identity with that of the Greek national identity. The Greeks have a very long history with a influence on western civilization that is comparable with the influence of the Judaism. But the modern Greeks are hardly connected to their ancient culture. They are orthodox Christians and don’t believe in their ancient myths. Their language is very different from the classical Greek etc. Yet they claim they are the rightful descents of classical Greece. Viz how they opposed the usage of name Macedonia. So what are the Greeks? nation? culture? an epic story? it just shows to you that the definition of what is nation is more complicated than what Stalin thought.

Aside

Is Christianity antisemitic?

by

Patrice Aim in her essay http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/luther-hitler-unelected/#comment-20127
says, „Martin Luther, a famous religious fanatic, remains of great ideological importance to the established order. A good reason to sink him. Luther is central to the ideology that praises “market” superiority, and “Reformation”. These are actually their true meaning, plutocracy and exploitative reformation into barbarity, no holds what Luther was really preaching flows from his 65,000 words treaty. As a few quotes below demonstrate, it is full of genocidal threats against Jews (and thus, as Luther’s reasoning makes clear, it is also genocidal against all and any minority, and those who do not believe that he, Luther, is not a friend of “Jesus”, whatever “Jesus” is the name of… apparently another homicidal maniac.

EugenR Says: Luther was an extreme example of Christian theologists, who had problem to cope with the very existence of Jews, stubbornly refusing to except Jesus as Messiah. Christianity as any other belief system that is based on dogmas, that have to be excepted as final truth, become violent against phenomena that doesn’t fit to these dogmas. And the very existence of Jews was exactly about this. Saint Augustine solved the Jewish problem more humanly than Luther. He pointed on them as wretched people, whose suffering is a proper punishments for their refusal to recognize the truth about the Savior. But as compared to Luther he was for continuous Jews existence, just not to allow them to thrive. But he lived in the fourth century, at times when the Vandals and Visigoths threatened the very existence of his community.

gmax Says: I remember reading, both directly and indirectly genocidal stuff from Saint Augustine about Jews. Genocide ain’t just about killing people. Aussies down under set up a genocide against Bushmen in the 1960s, by stealing their kids. Saint Augustine wanted Jews out of Israel, their home. That’s genocide.

EugenR Says: Dear gmax, agree, i intended to be ironic about Saint Augustine. He is the prove that the antisemitism didn’t start with the crusaders as contrary to some apologetic claims of the church, but is derived from the Christian faith itself. Lets not forget, that he lived in times, when it seemed that nothing will stop the destruction of Christian Roman empire, (he died when the Vandals besieged his city). Naturally his approach had to be more mild than that of Luther, who lived when Christianity looked as the superior faith. Not due to spiritual but rather material achievements, mainly colonialism and Renaissance in arts and sciences partly supported by the Catholic church, that due to Reformation made a U-turn in its pro education position.Truth the Catholic church was a very corrupt organization at the time, but as to my view, corruption of any autocratic entity is the good news, because they give hope the autocracy will collapse soon. The bad news are when the autocracy succeeds to keep its zealousness popular and murders all its real or imaginary opponents. An other urban mythology is the intellectual openness of the Lutheran movement that brought to enlightenment and scientific revolution of 17-18 century. France was Catholic and its achievements were comparable to that of protestant English. The English were more lucky because of gradual and not revolutionary political change to non autocratic political system, invention of steam engine and above all, North America becoming a protestant English country rather than French. And it could easily be otherwise if not the stupidity of its kings and dictators. Yes the English King Gorge III was disastrous too, but he had the parliament that eventually forced him to come to reason (or rather to lose his reason).

Gmax Says: Dear Eugen: Ah you’re joking about Augustine? I feel better already. I feel Christianism has had a terrible effect: the dark ages, as Patrice always say.

Patrice Ayme Says: Dear Eugen:The difference space between England and France has several ignored dimensions: The French peasants owned their land. That made them less prolific. The “West Country Men” a set of very nasty plutocrats, dominated English politics, and made it viciously expansionist. They used liberal amounts of human fodder, especially from vagrants in cities… that had to be rid of. So they were offered the rope or the boast. They took the boat. By contrast, the French felt that going to America was a great honor. (The French were also exterminated by Philippe II: they were the first to settle the present USA.) Since Roman times, England has had readily exploitable coal. Interestingly, it’s a French professor in Germany who invented the first serious steam engines we know of, and the first steam boat (destroyed by monks). All this in… Germany.

EugenR Says: The steam engine was invented by Heron the Greek almost 2000 years before the industrial revolution, but for what usage? The important thing was not its reinvention but the usage. The English needed coal, and it forced them to make the steam engine a practical tool and the rest came because of some smart people around. One of them was Brunel, a French living in England.

Patrice Ayme Says: Dear Eugen: The Egyptians, early on, used the steam engine to open temple doors magically. That’s where the Greeks got it from, and it was used similarly.(Whenever looking at the Greeks, look all the way to Egypt, and don’t forget Crete!). As far as the Romans were concerned, they had absolutely all the engineering, potentially, to make steam boats (paddle powered: they invented, and used massively the paddle mechanism, to measure ships’ speeds). But, of course, under the Principate, new ideas, even in tech, were officially the enemy. Denis Papin crossed the Rubicon, as he traveled more than a 100 miles with his steam boat. Everybody knew this, and could see how useful it was. As everybody knew deforestation was an acute problem (it became catastrophic in 1300 CE). As I said precedingly, Edward III took anti-pollution edicts in London around 1325 CE, because of the heavy coal burning. Coal developed more in England, because there was more of it, and fewer forests. Another French engineering team made the first (steam powered) cars… Or, rather, tanks. The program was paid by the Ancient Regime military, and the idea was the idea of the tank: go cross country. The first car accident, duly notified quickly resulted in Paris.

EugenR Says: I read what I wrote above…………”the antisemitism didn’t start with the crusaders as contrary to some apologetic claims of the church, but is derived from the Christian faith itself…….”, I got a strong urge to correct myself.

The theological foundation of Judaism is the intensive God-human-God relation loaded with tension and activity based on recipe exactly prescribed in the Five Books of Moses the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy or in other words the Pentateuch. This books of stories and law prescribe to Jews many complicated rules God ordered to follow. Most of the laws have no human to human consequences, and it is almost impossible strictly to follow them without to fail. This creates a constant relation of sin and guilt, to which the all mighty God reacts with continuous punishment, threats for the future, but also consolation and promises.

One of these promises is to help the Jews to create an independent statehood under a king directly appointed by the God, the Messiah. (Messiah in Hebrew means one who was anointed, or greased, which is the part of act of ceremony of apotheosis of a king.) The best known Messiah was of course King David (Who according to last archeological findings was rather a local chieftain between the mountains of Jerusalem and Hebron than a great King). But since David times, for thousand years of Jews living in the Levant the “Holly Land”, the Jewish statehood had only very few years of real independence. In the nine century b.c. came already the Assyrians, followed by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally the Romans. All these empires of the region left very little gap for Jewish independence.

After 1000 years of not fulfilled God’s promises for independent Jewish Kingdom ruled by king Chosen by God how could the Jews cope with the frustrating situation, after again the Jewish statehood was ruled by a Roman dictator, who claimed that he and his horse are God. To a Jewish believer like Jesus, his followers and many other Jews it had to be a shocking experience to see, that God allowed these people to rule the Holy Land, and it seems it is not going to change very soon. But you can’t go to complain to your all mighty God and claim your promised kingdom, viz. what happened to Job in the Book of Job.

So what could the Jews do in their frustration? Leaving the belief in Torah was not an option, so some of them tried to find new definition for Messiah. Not anymore a earthly creation, but a divine creature, who’s promised kingdom is not on earth but in the heaven. All I wanted to say is that Christianity is a understandable development of Jews theological concept, of Jews living in the first century under Roman governance.  So why did it become the major source of anti-Judaism? First, because in the Canonical gospels the general public watching the Jesus crucifixion ceremony was called Jews and not the audience. The second and even more important issue is, when Christianity has become the dominant political religion, they tryed to destroy every hint, that can shake the foundations of their obscure belief, and every thought that is not compatible to their expansionist intentions. So they destroyed all the gospels except of the four canonical gospels, they persecuted the Arians and many others like them, and  of course the Jews, who happened to have the copyright for gospels, yet they themselves or at least some of them refused to except the ultimate truth, the truth of the official Christian church.

Aside

Can be predicted WWIII

by

I will try to cope in the following pages with the question, is any possibility to predict WWIII. “Luckily” I do not have to cope with the obvious, like what will be after WWIII.

So, let us take as an anchor or the starting point of our historical, prediction the obvious result of such a war and ask, who could sincerely think about a WWIII, without to be afraid of the annihilation of the human civilization? Only those with tendency for suicide, or those who act out of ignorance and instinct, without to be able to think about consequences of their acts. 

War is a common act of a community of people, who have an emotional glue strong enough, to persuade every individual in the community to endanger its life in the sake of preserving the community as whole. What are these glues? An obvious case is family or tribe, very similarly as it happens in the nature with certain highly skilled animals that live in communities.

But the humans have an additional glue, the cultural bond. This makes us, us and those others different. Yet culture is a very wide phenomena, and I have to ask does all cultural phenomena have potentiality to cause a conflict or alienation of one group from the other? Take for example the most simple one, the food you eat or don’t eat. I am sure, a religious Muslim or Jew is annoyed by seeing a non Muslim non Jew eating pork. The same is with the clothing. The hijab or yarmulke as well as too exposed women clothing may cause fury and anger among those out of the community. If so simple and apparently neutral cultural phenomena have potential to create need for segregation and animosity what about more basic and fundamental cultural differences like cultural epic story strongly believed, religious faith, code of rules, ethical behaviors, etc.? All these cultural uniqueness phenomena, if connected, arise in the individual humans negative emotions towards the other, the different. If we add to it lingual and facial and body feature differences, even if the slightest ones, it can bring animosity that may result war.

There are many reasons for wars in history, but roughly they can be divide to two. The wars between separated political entities and civil wars happening within the borders of one political entity.

The well known examples of civil wars are the Russian and French revolutions, which are wars within the society, where people who were left out of political influence fought to change the ruling elites and the whole political system they represent. On the other hand the Spanish civil war, even if also fought within the borders of the same political entity, was different. It started as a military coup, where the army, that was part of the political elite, supported by certain part of the society, used its military force to replace the existing political system. The Spanish civil war started when big parts of the society decided to oppose this act of their army. Then we can take as a different example, the civil war in Rome following the murder of Julius Cesar, this was a war among the ruling elites. So if to categorize the wars called revolutions, the question is who fought it. Was it one segment of society against other segment of society, or segment of society against the ruling elites, or one ruling elite against the other one.

And what about the wars between the separate political entities? For example what kind of war was WWI. A war among different nations? Did really the Germans hated the French or the Russians more than they hated their own neighbors? Hard to believe. Maybe for a moment. And still they were enthusiastic to enter the war.

On one hand WWI was caused because of competition of the ruling elites, who fought each other for dominance, on the other hand it seemed as if whole nations were recruited in this effort to achieve dominance. National wars are relatively new phenomena that started in Europe with Napoleon and the redefinition of the European political entities from dynastic monarchies, kingdoms, oligarchic city states to national entities. The most common joint feature of national state was a common language (or what they were told that is a common language in spite of wide range of dialects), religion and race. The definition of nation is not so clear as it may sound. For example the Jews mother tongue in Germany, Hungary France etc., was German, Hungarian or French, still they were excluded from the definition of the nation. Probably the best definition for the nation would be one language and one national epic that we all believe or suppose to believe.

Before Napoleon the wars in Europe were;

a.     religious – Crusaders, 30 years war, Muslim wars,  Protestants against Catholics, etc. ,

b.     socio-economic -Barbarian take over of Roman empire, the Viking invasions,  

c.      wars for dominance of one cultural empire upon the other,  -the Romans against Cartago, the Greeks and later the Romans-Byzantines against the Persians),

d.     wars for achieving imperial dominance with tolerance to the different culture  – The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and so we can go on in whole line of the history,  

e.     battles among different fractions of the same ruling elite -the very best example is the 100 years war between the English and the French, but many other conflicts were of this kind.

Since Napoleon it became clear that national identity is a very strong tool to create cohesion within the political entity that gives military advantage, almost  invincibility, when used against political entity that doesn’t have it. For example, the weakness of Austrians in WWI was the absence of such a cohesion, after Catholicism, that gave to them cohesion since the thirty years war, lost its attractiveness among the secularized elites. On the other hand this Austrian weakness became one of the reasons for the Austrian leadership support of war before WWI, while hoping that a war will mold such a cohesion within the borders of the Austrian Monarchy. Unsurprisingly the result of the WWI was liquidation of the Austrian Monarchy in spite of their relatively long history, if compared to the short time the German state existed. And still Germany survived the defeat in WWI with even stronger national identity than before the war, while Austria has not, and their identity become unclear. This became obvious with the Austrians support for the German Anschluss. By the way the German Anschluss paved the road to the Munich agreement, etc.

So if we look more deeply into this rather lingual division between wars and revolution, we will hardly find a clear cut between wars among different political entities or revolutions happening within the same political entity. At the end of the day, all the wars are about competition for dominance of one group of leading elites against other group of leading elite and the difference is rather the pretext used to mobilize the masses by these elites.  Of course many leaders among the leading elites don’t have the sophistication to understand this reality, and have honest faith in their cause. But their illusion based on faith is always short lived, while the reality is very, very prolonging.  I do believe in Robespierre’s honesty, but who survived after him? Fouche, Talleyrand, Napoleon and then the Bourbons.  The same can be said about Lenin, who was followed by Stalin. I could bring up many politically successful idealists, who against all the odds successfully changed the political system according to their ideas, but very soon the cruel reality overcame their best intentions.

Here I would like to start with a new perspective of categorization of the wars. I would divide the wars to those to be the totalitarian wars, their aim is destruction and annihilation of certain segment of human community, and wars with limited destructive aim. The Punic war of Romans against Carthage  was this kind of war.

In twenties centuries we could find many wars, their aim was destruction and annihilation of certain human society segment, be it a national, racial, religious, economic or social segment. The German intentions to start WWII aimed from the very beginning to annihilate subordinate races. In Nazi Germany they started with homosexuals and mentally ills, then it went to Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and probably all the “ non Aryans” would follow, if Nazi Germany would win the war. An other totalitarian war was the “Big October revolution”, that at the beginning aimed to annihilated the ruling elites of the Russian society, then the bourgeois and the kulaks followed them,  and then the Ukrainians, the Generals, the intellectuals and who could say where it would end if not the WWII, that eventually saved Russia from ever more crazy plans to annihilate new and new segments of the society.  To these examples we could add, all the genocide type of conflicts, like in Cambodian, Ruanda, but also the Chinese cultural revolution, that aimed and was quite successful to diminish the Chinese cultural identity. It seems, in these days in Syria a new rampant totalitarian war fulminates, while the Sunnis try to annihilate the Shia and the opposite, and both sides try to annihilate the Christians, the Druze and all the others. 

All this leads me to the thought, that we should be rather focused on the potential totalitarian war than the political war. These are the wars with potential to start a WWIII.

Let us remain to ourselves;

a.     The modernity did not secure the humanity from the totalitarian wars.

b.     The cultural belonging is still a very strong biding force among people.

c.      People are strong in their readiness to kill and to be killed for all the non-rational reasons that the human fantasy can imagine. The major and most persuasive substance behind the conflicts is the “Our Story”, as contrary to “Their Story”.

 

If to look for the next potential conflict, we shouldn’t look for the economical problems, since these have become more and more marginal, unless  there will be some total collapse of the economic system, as it almost happened at 2008.

We also should not look for the national conflicts, even if some of the world powers, like Russia and China, tend to behave nationalistically. But both these countries adopted the rational modernity as the only way how to manage and solve political problems.

To my opinion, the conflict that appears to have potential to become a pretext to start WWIII is conflict between societies, who look for salvation for their problems in modernity, science, technology, or in other words the future, and those, who oppose all this, and are looking for truth and legitimacy in the stories of the past. While doing it, they deny the modernity as legitimate way of life, but still are ready to use the tools the modern technology creates as legitimate to achieve their aim.

Can we prevent the World War III

by

The outbreak of WWI, brought directly to WWII, with all its catastrophic results. Yet, as contrary to the WWII, that was 100% German initiation, and here i blame not only the Fuhrer but the majority of Germans, who supported him actively or passively (i don’t speak only about the less educated masses, but also the authentic leading elites), the outbreak of WWI is much more complicated story.
We have to start to understand, Germany came to existence only few decades before the outbreak of WWI, after Prussians winning the 1871 war against France. Until then but also after the unification of Germany, the Germans felt inferior against the French. Paris was Paris and Berlin couldn’t come close to its importance. So they tried to cover up these feelings of inferiority with stories of superiority about the German race. After the unification, as Germany became a dominant force in Europe, it wanted to become also major worldwide player. This explains also the strong connection of German after 1871 to its traditional rival the Austrian empire, with whom they fought war just few years before the unification (1866). This also explains the German friendship to the declining Ottoman Empire, that caused enmity with Russia, that later became a decisive factor in the outbreak of WWI.
The unprecedented German economic rise in 40 years following the unification, made it the biggest European economy, while still remembering the history of continuous humiliations they had to absorb from France in the years previous to 1871. It made the Germans paranoid about losing their recently achieved dominant position in Europe. This feeling strengthened with the enormous Russian economic development, that started at late 19 century and got extra push with the political reforms following the revolution of 1905 and the French-Russian pact from 1892.

This was the psychological-emotional background, that made Germany paranoid and also aggressive. All the generals including Molkte (the hero of the Franch-Prussian war at 1871), wouldn’t be able to start a world war, if not the German feeling of being unjustly kept as the underdog of Europe.

Of course there were some additional unfortunate circumstances, like the murder of Ferdinand, who personally strongly opposed the war in the Balkans, and his murder weakened very much this opposition. Ferdinand was also close associate to Wilhelm II, and his murder provoked in psychologically not very stable Kaiser, state of unpredictability. And the last but not the least, the old monarch Franz Josef, aged 84 at 1914, couldn’t oppose the militarily activist intentions of Leopold Graf Berchtold von und zu Ungarschitz, Frättling und Püllütz or shortly Count Berchtold who was obsessed greatly with the Balkan wars.

Conclusion;  emotions and psychology are the driving force behind the history and as so the human history is arbitrary and unpredictable. All the idea that there is causality in human history comes from the Bible and as so many other claims in the bible, it is also not correct.

I know with this statement above i will make angry many historians and rightly, because there are times, when i do think the history is predictable, like i would claim that the Arab revolution could have been predicted, and i have done it few month before its outbreak
viz; https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/some-history-and-an-accurate-prediction/
still if you would ask me to where this revolution is heading too and what impact it will have on the world, i wouldn’t know.

So let us just stick to the notion, history is unpredictable, and better to be careful, not to start a WWIII.

Emotions are the driving force of human history

by

Emotions are the prime reasons driving the human acts and also the human history. And since the human emotions are unpredictable and uncontrollable it is the major cause of the tragedy play called “The History”.

Lets take as an example the brake out of WWI. Nobody predicted it and there was no rational reason to start it. At 1914 everything seemed to be in positive trend and positive evolution. Science (Atomic and sub atomic discoveries, psychology, etc.), technology (benzine and diesel motors, electricity, aeronautics, etc), economic prosperity due to new technologies and products, social evolution (introduction of social legislation of pension systems, education and health care) and also international political stability due to family relations of all the European kings. And suddenly a confused student, who lost his way, kills a prince, and an 80 year war starts, that its tragic political consequences diminished only recently with the collapse of USSR.

Now lets take the world today and to where the emotions drive us;

On one hand the world economy is advancing to more riches and more evenly distributed wealth among different regions. The Asian and South American economies are caching up with the highly developed US-Europe-Japan. Technology is advancing at accelerating speed, introducing to the market every few years a consumption paradigm changing new product. Science is advancing in wide range of new fields. Birth rates are collapsing in increasing speed. These are all good news.

But what about the bad news?

a. The environmental problem. The world failed to create a global institution that can enforce environmental protective policy with all the price to be paid of such a policy. As an obvious example of price to be paid is the need to reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage, but also the need to change the custom of meat eating.

b. The wake up of irrational anachronistic ideologies mainly in the Muslim world, that see destruction as a legitimate tool to achieve their goal of imposing their faith on rest of the world. The worst of all this is that their system denies the reality, that political-legal-social-religious system, that was very successful 1400 years ago, cannot be applied on a world with population more than twenty fold higher, with hunger to consume more and more products. It may be said that when the realities exposes the difficulty to implement their fundamental policy (as it is happening in these days), the religious fundamentalist movement will be eventually marginalized. Yet, because of the level of commitment of the followers, by using the tools of the modern world (as they showed they know to do), even very small group of believers can endanger the whole human civilization.

Pretentious chat of neophytes about physics II-

by

Dear Patrice, If may i to make a summary of your theory just to figure out if i understood you correctly, You claim, since the observations show us that the Universe expansion is accelerating, logically should be expected that this acceleration existed from the beginning of the time, (when the so called Big Bang occurred). This theory solves the problem of need for inflation, which is not coherent with the existing paradigms of the science, like speed of light etc. Yet your theory raises new problems, like how to explain the flatness, homogeneity, and isotropy of the Universe as thadroberts mentioned above.

I want to remain to you our previous correspondence in the subject where i propose an alternative theory called the big spin viz;

https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/pretentious-chat-about-physics/

I am fully aware of me being very far from understanding the field and the Mathematics of it, and don’t want to be pretentious to understand to much about the subject. Yet i take the courage to suggest out of my ignorance an extra universe explanation to the very existence of all.

My theory says, “Since everything in the Universe is in movement, and the movement is the basic bloc to the very existence, why the universe itself shouldn’t be in movement?”.
In the link above i still suggested that the Big Bang should be called a Big Spin, while suggested all started with a Big Multi-axis spin of the universe.

You answer to my ideas was as follows;

Your model would fit a linear “Hubble” expansion law. Unfortunately, as I said, the usual BB model has an enormous inflation, to start with, and now apparently we observe an accelerating inflation.
Another problem is that in a rotation appears a so called “Coriolis force”. On Earth, it causes “Trade Winds”. In space, it would cause something similar, on a larger scale, a systematic Coriolis deviation. an anisotropy of the universe. To my knowledge that has not been observed (although some other features seem present, of unknown origin). it would in particular affect cosmological photons (redder in one direction than in another).

Still another problem would be that the tremendous acceleration necessary initially would prevent the gathering of matter long present, and observed, as gravity would be nothing relative to that acceleration.The usual Big Bang is in part here to convince the public that the “Standard Model” is of some use (that’s my cynical view of it). Although, personally, I think it’s interesting by itself. It’s true it provides a neat explanation of the 3K cosmological background radiation…
——————————————————–
After thinking again as an amateur, i thought, why to stick only to circular movement, there are after all many other forms of movement we know, just to mention some, expansion and contraction, vibration,linear straight movement, etc. All of them could be created/happened at the moment of the very beginning. And if to relate the theory to your model of “100 Billion Year Universe”, if the Universe started its expansion gradually, why couldn’t be that the movement like spin, vibration, etc. started gradually too, and its acceleration continuous to this days?

Yet i understand every mathematical model has to have some anchor presupposition. I would start with the speed of light, unless even in this phenomena were found some irregularities, which i don’t know about.

If to continue with the idea, Mathematically i would try to see what kind of movements of a Planck scale dot are necessary to explain the expansion of the universe from one point to the today vastness, and explain all the unexplained phenomenons that oppose the existing paradigms of the science.

As a supplementary of my naive theory of everything i would assume that the very creation happened, when certain type of movement (spin, vibration, etc.) caused the split of the nothingness at Planck scale to matter and antimatter, while certain kind of asymmetric movement made the matter more abundant then the antimatter.

Alan Greenspan

by

I remember when the Dow-Jones reached 10,000 Alan Greenspan warned the investors from bubble. It was well before the housing bubble. But the bulls like the bulls, continued their rush towards the inevitable brink. I believe Greenspan learn then a lesson, that he is not really controlling the situation and better not to try to avoid the unavoidable. Rather he prepared tools for the day when the crisis comes. Also he knew, that if the crisis comes, better if it will be not a mild one. He knew in a mild crisis no stimulus of trillions could go through the US political institutions. Even with the perspective of disaster at 2008, the first vote about the stimulus, still under Bush, ended negatively. I believe, Greenspan and like him understood very well that it will be better to have a big crisis than a small one, and then the frightened politicians will let the professionals do what is best to their understanding. Just try to imagine what would happened if the US congress would act as irresponsibly at 2008 as it is doing it in these days, opposing everything without any explainable reason. Today they do it because they can do it without to feel that they are threatening the whole system. And we all know, nothing is sacred in politics but the system.

World War I and its consequences-

by

Europe from the Rhine river to the east before 1914 was ruled by illegitimate regimes. The two Kaisers, the Sultan and the Tzar, who were unable to understand the huge social and political upheaval Europe went trough with the industrial-technological revolution, massive urbanization and population growth since the end of the Napoleon wars. The authority of these kings was derived from fables and folk stories, and not from popular support. They had no political system to reinvent themselves. Not surprisingly the two kaisers ruled by 1914 in their countries for more than 50 years. The two Kaisers felt the loss of popular support among growing urban population, who were mainly dispossessed proletarian, supportive to socialistic parties, while the agrarian communities, who were rather supportive to the tradition leadership, declined in their numbers. The two Kaisers, each in different way where obsessed by these trends and believed that a “good war” can stop these “negative” trends. The war, even if broke out because of a rather peculiar reason,(murder of heir) was well prepared and discussed for years before the war among the ruling elites of Germany. The surprise was the machine guns effect and the stupidity of anachronistic generals, who could not predict the slaughter of millions of soldiers in the very first weeks of the war. Then there was no political courage to stop the war without some justification, like territorial achievements. So they continued the slaughter until destroying themselves and if you take WWII as direct result of WWI the whole Europe as well.
Europe never really recovered from the two world wars. It lost its morale and political legitimacy to spread its cultural, social, political and philosophical achievements, and now it is in retreat while its cultural existence is threatened by newly awaken religious fundamentalism of its neighbors.

Unfortunately i see similar illegitimacy in the US and EU politics, where the politics is driven by short sighted, pro-plutocracy interests, protecting the existing financial elites on account of the rest of the population. This was the main reason for the 2008 economic crisis and will be the reason for next crisis. These politicians support economic system, where publicly traded companies are managed by interconnected individuals, who are guarantees for each other, while by their short sighted policy and drive to personal rewards dilute the real owners of the companies, the general public, and mostly the pension funds depositors. Not surprisingly this system cannot cope with the main danger of the world today, the environment, the despotic regimes in Africa and Asia, and the demographic explosion of uneducated masses in the underdeveloped countries.

The essences of market economy-

by

The essences of market economy are.
1. The sacredness of private ownership, (lately strongly damaged by the publicly owned corporate managers and banksters, who changed the aim of the companies from profit to the owners to the profit to the self nominated managers).
2. The existence of risk taking system, where every failure is punished and every success is priced. A permanent failure has to bring annihilation. (like in the case of Kodak, that refused to reinvent itself, so was destined to be annihilated).
3. Freely fluctuating product prices, that are too many times disturbed by subsidies initiated because of political means and bully kind of acts of the markets leading players.
4. Reward for excellence and punishment for the failure.

If to summarize the question what is the main difference between the economic entities run by government and the privately owned ones, the answer would be;

1. While the first is financed by money collected as taxes and to establish and maintain its activity this money doesn’t have to generate high yield the second needs to attract privately owned financial resources and this money can be attracted only by higher yield and what appears to be as lower risk.
2. If an entity run by government fails to attract sufficient demand for its product it still can continue its existence, while if the privately owned economic entity fails to attract sufficient demand, eventually it will perish.

The need to control

by

The human need of controlling the events, be it daily events or destiny is universal and comes out of the need to overcome the fear, that escorts the homo sapience since he was completely at the mercy of the nature. The illusion of control is connected to the need for perfect order, where everything has its exact place, character feature. This need for order is translated to the need for clear-cut answers. Very few can master successfully and calmly situation of continuous changes and challenge the new and the unknown. In free societies these individuals will become the natural leaders and in closed societies they will be the persecuted outcasts.

Aside

התדרדרותו המוסרית של המערב

by

המערב החל את התדרדרותו המוסרית תרבותות עם פרוץ מלחמת עולם הראשונה. זאת הייתה מלחמה מיותרת לחלוטין בשים לב לשיגשוגו הכלכלי של העולם המערבי בעת פרוץ מלחמת עולם הראשונה, לרגל גל חדש של סידרת המצאות טכנולוגיות מדהימות, שהומצאו בין השנים 1890-1910. על קצה מזלג מדובר בהמצאת החשמל, תאורה, רדיו, מכונית מונעת בדלק, קולנוע, אוירונאוטיקה ועוד, שהביאו איתן הבטחה למהפכה באורך חיים ורמת החיים של האזרחים האירופאיים. אולם אירופה לא שמה לב שהשינויים החברתיים שהתרחשו במקביל להתפתחויות האלה, שהעיקרית בהם הייתה גידול עצום באוכלוסיה העירונית בעלת השכלה כנגד הצטמקות האוכלוסיה הכפרית הלא משכילה והשמרנית ברובה, הביאו צורך בשינוי פוליטי מהשליטים, שהלגיטימיות שלהם הייתה בנויה על מסורות ופולקלור של העבר.
אדרבא, בעיקר מנהר הריין ומזרחה המשכו למשול אותם דיקטטורות-קיסרויות (ובמקרה של גרמניה ואוסטריה אף אותם קיסרים), כמו לפני חמשים שנה, מבצעים רפורמות פוליטיות בעצלתיים רק כתגובה ללחצים ומרידות עממיות דוגמאת 1848 ו- 1905. הקושי בהצדקת הלגיטימיות שילטונית של השליטים האלה, בעיקר של אוסטריה אבל גם של רוסיה וגרמניה, שלוות בתחושת השליטים שזמנם מוקצב אלא אם כן יעצרו את התהליכים שמאימים עליהם, הביא בסופו של דבר לפרוץ מלחמת עולם הראשונה ובעקבותיה כנסיון לרוויזיה של תוצאות המלחמה, למלחמת עולם השניה. תוצאת המלחמות האלה הייתה הרת אסון לכל העולם וגרמה לאובדן תחושת העליונות המוסרית של התרבות האירופית, והביאה בתחילה לדרישה לדאקולוניזציה שמשמעותה פירוק השליטה האירופאית על העולם. שנים ספורות מאוחר יותר עם צמיחת דור צעירים שלאחר המלחמה, והכרתו את אובדן הדרך המוסרית של הדורות הקודמים, יצר נטק תרבותי בין דורי. תהליך זה הביא לשיאו את ההתכחשות לערכי תרבות המערב של הדור הצעיר, ונהירה אחר ערכי תרבות השונים מתרבותו של הדור הקודם, כולל התענינות בתרבויות המזרח.
מאז פרוץ המשבר הכלכלי של 2008, התווסף לאותה אובדן דרך המערבית גם תחושה של נסיגה כלכלית בלתי נמנעת במערב לעומת הכלכלות הצומחות של אסיה.

Napoleon and the rest

by

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/plot-against-france-1912-2013/

Dear Patrice. First i want to thank you for exposing the protocols of German leadership before WWI.

Reading your material, “Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy”.

Then “The Kaiser thought that Britain, Germany and the U.S.— the best representatives of Christian civilization—were natural allies against the “semi-barbarous Latin and Slavic nations” (including France and Russia), but that all should defend civilization “against the Oriental races.” The alliance was to exclude what was defined as the “racially inferior French“.

These sentences show clearly that Hitler was not a historical accident. In contrary. It is well known that racist concepts penetrated deeply the German conservative leading elites and not only the military but also the intellectual parts of the society. Unfortunately after the first world war and defeat this philosophy-ideology only strengthened and become more widespread among the simple people. The result was Hitler.

To my opinion the crimes committed by Europe during the two world wars delegitimized it’s moral stance in any issue, even if today it preaches for peace and humanism. And as times passes and these crimes are subject of intellectual research, they seem more and more horrendous and unacceptable. If there will be no ideological revival of some kind, European civilization will be buried under the wight of its crimes.

Patrice Ayme Says: 

November 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Reply

Dear Eugen: Hitler was no accident. All he did he learned from his superiors. Luddendorf, for most of WWI the de facto head of the Kaiser’s army was in the Nazi party before Hitler. In the 1923 fusillade he kept on marching towards the troops, after many had been killed, including right and left of Hitler. Hitler fled to an American plutocrat mansion. The pluto had fled to Austria. Nimeyer (or so), his wife, dissuaded Hitler to commit suicide.

In 1919, instead of trying and executing all the German war criminals, one decided forgiveness. 25 years later, one decided to cut the crap. Even then, the punishment of war criminals was less than France intended: IBM escaped french justice, for example (with the help of he OSS).

Leclerc, head of the French SECOND ARMORED DIVISION (HEAVY) got to Strasbourg in three hours after extremely heavy fighting in the Vosges. The American army had prepared Leclerc’s division as a sort of high powered dart.

Don’t forget the French Republic deliberately declared war to Hitler. Hitler had no plans to attack France, and had no pretended he wanted to attack France. So France, clearly, stood for civilization.

She paid a heavy price. However French tanks arrived first to the Rhine, November 19, 1944 (OK, they were Sherman tanks manned by De Lattre crazed out First French army)

The “racially inferior” were found all over Europe, according to the Kaiser and HOUSE. At the time, there were “HUMAN zoos” in the USA.

French civilization is European civilization, the sort of barbary that was dominant in the USa and Germany for a while is its antithesis.

And this is completely actual, right now, in the fight against plutocracy.

PA

 

Dominique Deux Says: 

November 12, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Reply

EugenR – I generally share your analysis but I cannot accept “the crimes committed “by” Europe during the two world wars”. Europe, as such, did commit crimes during its history, but that was earlier – Crusades, Wars of Religion, Colonialism. By WWI and II Europe had grown out of its delinquent past. The horrendous crimes committed during those two wars must be laid on the doorstep not of Europe, but of its steadily losing darker side, whose eradication had started with the Revolution, and which spent most of the nineteenth century fighting back with the Papacy and Whitehall’s full support, and is now a shadow of its former self, albeit dangerous still, and malodorant.

(in that outlook, Napoleon was like Bomber Harris, Europe’s nasty weapon against a much darker evil – I know Patrice will disagree).

A “marker” of that dark side has been, of course, plutocracy; another one has been institutionalized, policy-shaping racism. Both have plagued Europe, but they are, in essence, anti-European, or “unEuropean” (as they say of “unAmerican” activities).

In that respect, as a French Celt and therefore mostly white (Celts are happily mixing creatures), I always felt, in my earlier days, that I belonged to the “guilty” rather than the “receiving” end of racism: I could choose to embrace or reject it, but did not feel targeted by it. I very slowly came to realize that as a Frenchman, I have been in fact targeted by racism – like other Latin or Mitteleuropa populations – but I thought I could shrug it off as the consequences were much lighter than the horrific and ongoing plight of Africans or Asians. Yet that realization was … educational. That racism was most (and first) visible in American media and society, because of the US’ pretty uninhibited approach to societal issues in general and race in particular, but I have no delusions about (say) British or Dutch society – which I know well

Thus Patrice’s revelations about the superior races plotting for world empire in 1914 may horrify me, but they do not surprise me. They perfectly fit in with many cultural and societal symptoms which were visible at that time.

 

Patrice Ayme Says: 

November 13, 2013 at 12:03 am | Reply

As soon as I hear the word Napoleon, I man my guns… OK, the situation was this:

Britsh plutocracy of the worst type (the Pitts, no I did not make that up!) attacked revolutionary France. Big mistake said Loyd George later.

Then English attack and invade Provence. Messy ineffectual siege of Toulon relevied by artillery genius Napoleon, wounded in combat.

Napoleon goes crazy, egged and empowered by a would new clas of plutocrats.

Nap’s victories could, and did happen with other generals. It was the spirit that won.

Nap was no Bomber Harris, because Bomber Harris, when he was told to hit fuel, he hit fuel, although he would have much preferred to keep killing Germam babies. nap took orders from no one, not even his mother, or common sense.

OK, I agree that by the time of the Russian campaign, he was stuck. And also that failed because of typhus epidemic, extreme winter, etc. and indifferent generalship (huge losses on the European army from frontal attacks)

Otherwise I seem to agree with the rest.

PA

 

‫עוגן רודן (‪EugenR‬‏)‬‎ Says: November 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply

Napoleon was the greatest waisted opportunity to unite Europe without to much bloodshed. After Austerlitz he could easily unite France with the fractioned  Italy and Germany, Austria, Prussia and Spain, while leaving their anachronistic kings and princes as formal heads of countries they rule. These sometimes half retarded heads of countries would eagerly cooperate with Napoleon to reform the administration in their countries, to try to copy the great success of Napoleon’s reformed France administration. If this would happen, Europe as whole would be more than ready to adapt the steam industrial revolution, that started just few year after Napoleon. Then Europe could release the Balkans from the grip of the Ottomans, and even the British could not oppose it.

But even the intellectual Napoleon couldn’t do better than its predecessors. He nominated himself to be a Cesar, then attacked Spain and allowed to his Marshall Murat to murder the Spaniards who gathered out of curiosity in the main squares of Madrid, just to make them bitter enemies of anything French. Still Napoleon did not learn the lesson of limited capacity of abused power usage to achieve the goals of the attacker, and he attacked Russia. The rest is well known.

Just to add some conclusion, the again fractioned post Napoleonic Europe learned from Napoleon the lesson of potential efficiency of a military dictatorship and discovered the nationalism as a driving force of hate to the others, so useful to the illegitimate rulers of the new urbanized Europe that rose out of the Napoleon wars, and the scenario for the disastrous twentieth century was ready. 

Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Reply

Dear Eugen: Agreed. I will reply on another post, because threads come out bad in smart phones. If Napoleon had been like George Washington, it would not have happened. Nap said washington was “the greatest man that ever lived“… when he heard about his renunciation of power… Very telling.

Nap needed to be president, not “emperor”.
PA
EugenR Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Reply

Yes the great founding fathers of US, G.Washington, J.Madison, T.Jefferson, B.Franklin, A.Hamilton. All of them gave their rightful share to this amazing achievement the USA. I would write a book about them, but there are so many better than me to do it. I wonder if you ask in France who is more admired, them or Napoleon, what would most of them say. To me as economist A.Hamilton is a real wonder, how out of nowhere he created modern economy with central bank, which Jefferson the republican later abolished. It was of course a mistake. But who can criticize him after those amazing words, The self evident truth……
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Reply

The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as Jeffersonian Republicans, was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It was opposed to the Federalists.
It split in the Democrats and Republicans (1854) later.

Jefferson was an enslaver, a liar, a child abuser and rapist, plus a holocaust category massacrer of Indians who conquered more than Germany and France combined. But, true, he had good words. The Jefferson memorial is the most worthy thing in Washington. I suspect that, when he wrote them, he stole them somewhere (Montesquieu).

When in Paris, although protected by diplomatic immunity, he was told he could not keep slaves. He had to free them, and pay them a wage. However he lied to the relative girl he sexed and had enslaved. So she followed him back to the USa, where he enslaved her again. For life.

As a person, even Napoleon was not THAT bad. Another supreme achievement of Jefferson was supreme hypocrisy, and that, in turn, became the superior weapon of the USA. See Obama.
PA

Napoleon and the rest | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Reply

[…] http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/plot-against-france-1912-2013/ […]
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Reply

However, when he attacked Russia, he had little choice, from his point of view. His army was mostly German and Polish.

The forces in presence were launched even before naughty Nap. The obduracy of the plutocrats, the Pitts in england, and the fact the revolutionaries did not understand well enough what the Marquis de Sade, the greatest philosopher around, was talking about.

Verily, Nap was a nap of intelligence. I find the Nap cult, even found in the USA, deeply disgusting. Or then one should be logical, and put a bust of hitler next to that of Napoleon.

Just like they CCed the holocaust of the Indians by the Americans, the Nazis CCed Napoleon, very consciously.

Amusingly, that worked very well. Napoleon had the coldest winter in several millennia, and the Nazis got the most severe winter in decades. In the former case, human breath would froze and stay up in the dense air. In the later, Nazi machines stopped moving entirely, and all they could see was Stalin’s 250,000 very fresh Siberian troops skiing around, thanks to Pearl Harbor.
PA

EugenR Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply

Some addition to the founding fathers. The most amazing thing about them is not their intellectual capacity, after all i am quite sure they existed also in France during the revolution or even in pre-revolutionary Russia, but that they found their way to the top of the leadership. But the founding fathers of French revolution became Talleyrand, Fouche, Robespierre, Barras and Napoleon, the Russian revolution Lenin and Stalin and the Iranian revolution Khomeini.

Then Washington refused whole life presidency and invented the presidency of four years.And before that he resigned from the head of the army an act even Gorge III admired. I don’t know of any historical precedence for such a move. Do You?

They were very unusual people of correct principles. By the way, where are hiding these people now? In the academy 🙂
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Reply

To be answered is separate comment (to break the nesting effect). They had NO choice. They were vicious bastards, but nobody wanted to dies for them.
PA
EugenR Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply

Dear Patrice, I have also problems with Jefferson. Yes he is not as clean as a mountain spring. He had more than 100 slaves in his farm. All i can say to his defense, he lived in a different time with different values. I know for such an educated man as him it is a very weak excuse, but i just don’t have any better.

Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Reply

Eugen: American Founding Fathers could not grab too much power for themselves. NO choice. Sometimes even the most vicious bastards find no one to die for them.

EugenR Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Reply

So you say it was balance of power out of necessity? Also in case of Washington? I don’t think so. He was a man of honor, above the rest, even if less intellectual than Jefferson and Madison.

Yes, Jefferson with his pen created political rivality of new heights. I wonder is it good or bad?

A conclusive proof for the existence of God

by

To those who can perceive the reality only as material, I have to ask,”do you feel you fully control your thoughts? “Most probably if you think sincerely about it, you will have to admit that not,  most of the time not only you don’t have control upon your thoughts, but you are not conscious of them. Your physical brains controls your body most of the time unconsciously. The only aspect of conscious control of your body is when you use your hands, mouth, eyes, and legs, or in other word all your instruments of senses. The rest of your body is acting autonomously. But if most of the times your thoughts and your material body are autonomous from your will , your will has only very little to do with your behavior. Then if not the will of the “I” is the manager or the big boss, who is the boss? Is there any? At the end someone has to control our behavior, otherwise it would be just too chaotic or what we call mentally disordered. And in normal state of our mind we do act out of order, or in other words we are under control. Then who is in control? Who is controlling the boss?  Are those phenomenons in the territories we call feelings? But we, self conscious humans with capacity of critical thinking know perfectly well, feelings, good or constructive ( love ) or bad and destructive ( hate) are out of the reach of our will.

Then other words for hate, feelings like fear or desire for domination are just other side of the same coin. To try to explain chimpanzees or human behavior on rational terms, like territorial fight would need a big rationale decision maker, the ultimate Will of the I. Is there any? But we know already that most of our minds activity connected to our body is subconscious,  and most of the cognitive activity of our brains is also autonomous to the will of the I. Then who is in control if not us? I need to ask now a question of Apicoress for this site, is it someone or something called God?

Senate swiftly passes US debt bill

by

Senate swiftly passes US debt bill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24559869

How can anyone take seriously the US politicians? It was not even funny.

Just like bad clowns

Read more…

Greece again

by

EugenR October 13, 2013 at 22:11 #

Dear Yanis, to look at the European scenario only from point of view of Greek politics, that never could be characterized as very moral can’t impress the Germans or any other Europeans. The Greek people have to clean the mess they and mainly their politicians created. Greece has to remember, it is on the margins of Europe, economically and geographically and as such has no capacity to threaten the EU. As contrary to Greece when the Nazis took over Germany 80 years ago, it was a whole World problem. If the far left or right will take over the Greek government, it will be purely Greek problem.

Before the last Greek election i predicted (sarcastically) what will happen when left-righ government will be established in Greece;

https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/greece-agains-europe/

Luckily the political scenario of right-left government, i predicted did not happen. Yet as you admit in your interview, the Greek politicians have learned very little. They again propose unrealistic budget deficit (unrealistic tax collection) and falsify the data.
As to the tragedy of Euro-Gold standard you mentioned, its only solution is exit from the Euro zone. The major aim of Greece economic policy should be how to make a slow and well regulated exit from the Euro zone, to prevent the alternative scenario of Euro-Drachma as i predicted two years ago.
With all my sympathy I don’t see the Germans, the Slovaks, the Dutch and all the others recruit their financial capacity to save again the Greek economy. There are to many others in the line. Slovenia, Spain, Portugal some Baltic states etc. Two years ago Greece default could still cause a financial panic with unpredictable results. Not any more. Sorry.
Reply

anna v October 14, 2013 at 07:15 #

@EugenR you end your comment with :

“I don’t see the Germans, the Slovaks, the Dutch and all the others recruit their financial capacity to save again the Greek economy. …….Two years ago Greece’s default could still cause a financial panic with unpredictable results. Not any more. Sorry.”

The “save ” is revealed for the EU self serving function it was by your last sentence.They did not try to save Greece, they tried to buy time to save their own economies by the whole maneuver with the memoranda and the loan. They got the time to get rid of toxic greek products, by hook or by crook, so that now the statement ” no longer Greece could cause a financial panic” is true.

We should have defaulted in 2009, and God only knows why we did not: somebody blackmailed the then prime minister? sleight of hand believed by limited intelligence? bad counselors? ….

Take a fat person and put him on a starvation diet by cutting off the food supply. He may be helpless for a few days but will gather his resources and get food somehow from the surroundings. The fat in the body is enough for hardship times as long as they do not last for a year ( as with ascetics).

Had we defaulted in 2009, we would have been in an uproar and starvation for two or three months, until a solution stabilized, but the populace had some fat in the banks that would have sustained the society for such an interval.

What has happened with the arm twisting solution of loans with memoranda we found ourselves in is:

a)Unemployment hits 30% ( as many are not in the formal lists). Had we defaulted this would have been much less as many companies would have survived at a lower financial income expectations. Many defaulted because of lack of liquidity.

b) The people, hoi polloi, are bewildered. They think the government has money and is not giving it to them, so continual strikes and demonstrations further pulled down the economy. Had we defaulted, it would have been like a fall in an ice lake: people would be aware what bankruptcy was , that the money tree had no fruit. Much less unrest and phenomena like golden dawn that managed the flower in these four years.

c) All the money saved for hard times has gone to taxes, taxes, taxes and there is no more, as the salaries have bottomed and every pensioner is supporting one or two unemployed with their children. ( with drastically cut pensions ).

c) The extensive diaspora of greeks would also have been awakened, with a “suden death” helping the helpless relatives as had been done during 400 years of ottoman occupation and was extensively done in the 1922 disaster. These memoranda and false rescues lulled them that not much bad was happening, just a tightening of the belt, good for the soul.

So do not sit there sanctimoniously and wave your finger at us. EU saved its skin so you can make the statement :”Two years ago Greece default could still cause a financial panic with unpredictable results. Not any more” . The “sorry” is hypocritical for those who saw the plot.

I do not agree with our host who has been seeing Greece as a possible wake up call for the rest of Europe by doing what Syriza proposes. I think the EU will shrug and say “Sorry” , too. I believe we should stick to this onerous program, taking our medicine until a recovery or the dissolution of the EU. A move now would be catastrophic and will set us at a level lower than Albania.

EugenR October 14, 2013 at 12:58 #

Dear Anna, thanks for your illuminating comment. To my understanding we have no argument what so ever. Maybe you don’t like my sarcasm but it is about style and not essence. But my sarcasm above was aimed to the extreme right and left politicians, who seemed to have at the timechance to win the elections. I tried to be sarcastic about their political claims, that contradicted themselves in each sentence. As if the Greeks were not the one who developed logic:). How can someone claim, that its policy is to stay in the Euro zone, and on the other hand doesn’t want to respect its policy and obligations to it. Not to speak about the fact, that Greece at that time had deficit in its current balance even without repayment of its debts, what means it needed additional cash to sustain the standard of living the extreme right-left promised to its electors. I always wonder how can so many people believe to all this lies of populist politicians. But then i remember how so many people drink Coca Cola, as if it was taste of life (one of their marketing slogans in the past), while it is nothing more than a sweetened water.

But back to economics, it is obvious Greece can’t expect help from other European countries. They are fed up with them, have no popular support for such a policy and above all it will not help them anymore. The times when Greece had the power to drag the rest of Europe into their dungeon are over. So what is left to do? To exit the Euro zone, devalue the Greek currency, and hope for better future. If it will be done wisely in few years Greece can be back on its heights. Of course there is an additional price to be payed, until the Greek skies will be again deep blue again. What’s most important is justly distributed economic hardship among the people, without to damage the potential economic growth, and this is the major task of the Greek politicians. I visited Athens more about 20 years ago. It was a huge village, where about half of Greek population lived quite a humble life, if compered to standard of living of rest of Europe. There is no need to return there. The public infrastructure built during the times of plenty will not disappear. The way out will be by recruiting the well educated youth used to think internationally, and understanding the global world. If they will be rejected by the political establishment based on the previous generation, there will be no bright future for Greece. The educated youth will vote with their legs as you rightfully wrote.

To try to cheat again the European economic system will not work in the near future. The Greek misbehavior in the recent past is still well remembered.

The economic system called capitalism

by

The economic system called capitalism, is based on capital looking for ever growing yields in form of interest, rents, dividends and other forms of capital gains payed out of profits. But increase in profits needs continues economic growth. Since the management is always in the hands of the capital barons, the bankers or the equity investors and their representatives, they created an economy with continuos necessity of profits that demands continually production volume growth. (By the way, when it was in the hands of the “workers representatives”, they performed even worse results. They tried to replace the representatives of the capital in management, denying the need to have their skills and refusing to implement their knowledge earned after centuries of experimentation).

The result is an economy with drive to produce more and more with increased production efficiency and profits. Increased production efficiency means to produce with fewer and cheaper labor. But then the major share of the demand for increased production volume of consumers goods should come from the employees, after all the capital owners are only a very small minority. But the employees income is in stagnation or even in decline. At beginning the system tries to overcome this problem by creating seductive advertisements to increase artificially consumers demand. When all the tricks of the marketing “experts” are exposed, and stop to be efficient, the system turns to another tool, easily approachable consumers credit. But credit is debt, and if most of the borrowers are the employees and their income is in declining trend, it necessarily will create a crisis. And here comes the most common secret lie of the economists. They call private dwelling purchase an Investment and not a Consumption. This gives to the banks full legitimacy to lend almost unlimited loans in form of mortgages. The returns of these loans is not based on income created out of the premise but out of employees, wages. And the poor employees, who feel great to be an “Investor”, since they know very little about profits, yields, interests etc., unless he is an economist, but even then only if he doesn’t live life of self denial, as most economists do. They believe they had became property owners. Capitalists. But their “investment” in dwelling is not a yield creating investment. It is just an another consumers product giving no return, unless the owner gives it for rent. But then he himself has to become homeless to generate net income out of his possession. (Subject to understanding that it is his only possession, otherwise the dwelling purchase would be a real investment). What is even more disturbing, his wages (in average) is in decreasing trend.

And here you have a perfect scenario stage for the next economic crisis.

Aside

Can USA have a default?

by

Someone asked if US can default, and answered “NOT” because of US military strength, energy production capacity and having a reserve currency. From all these answers i take the military. If you have military advantage upon other countries at level of US, energy may be a problem of price but never an availability. As to the position of US$ as a reserve currency it is a weak argument. The US$ may lose its priority (the process actually started) and still the economy will not default. It will cause devaluation of the US$ against the other currencies but in terms of US$ it will stand behind all its debts. Then who will pay for the exaggerated US debts? The US public, while holding value losing US$s in deposits and savings, or earn US$ as wages or any other form of income. Then the debtors, who will lose part of the real value of their US$ reserves.

If so, why would country like Chine, Japan or any other country want to give new loans to US? Why China in the past when still the problem of the US debt did not reach the today’s impossible level didn’t let to appreciate its currency and make it freely floating? After all the Chinese population would enjoy jump in their living standard with such a policy? Instead they subsidized the US citizens lust for consumption of “luxury items”. (For most of the Chinese almost every product above the basic needs is a luxury). I really don’t have the answer for that. Probably it is connected somehow to US military power mentioned above.

But what if the Chinese decide to change their policy of subsidizing the US consumerism now and with one step? It would create a big economic shock-wave, its consequences is hard to predict. Of course it would happen only as an act of enmity between USA and China. And here we have again the brute military force, which US as a sole world power not always uses with all the prudence. So if to minimize the lose, the creditors of US will have to let the US to descend from the high tree of debt slowly and carefully, (and it is already happening), while all the world is attentively watching the US is creeping down from the very top of the debt heights.

חידת משמעות חיי

by

עליזה, אני הבנתי לאחרונה שכל החיים שלי למעשה אני עסוק בחיפוש אחר בית. הבית שלנו בסרדהי היה תמיד מקום ממנו רציתי לברוח. באופן אירוני הכאבים הנפשיים שחווית שם בתקופת התבגרותי דווקא קשרו אותי אל המקום. לכן גם הביקורים הרבים שלי בשנים האחרונות במקום. כמובן זה רק עורר מחדש את הנשכחות, האירוניה לועגת לי ישר בפרצוף בעובדה, שטיבור גר בדיוק בבית שהוא למעשה אותו המוסך עם החלון המתונף עליו אני כותגב בסיפור על העבד. כמה מוזר הוא שאני לא יכול לברוח מהמקום הערור הזה, למחוק את הסבל ששקוע עמוק בתאי התודעתי. לא מצליח לעקל ולהפריש כיציאה מורעלת של אוכל מעוס.
לצערי בארץ לא הצלחתי להקים בית, ולא רק בגלל המרשעת שהגורל התקיל אותי אתה. אני זוכר איך לא מצאתי את מקומי בחייפה, למרות שלכאורה היה לי טוב, עברתי מדירה לדירה, לא מצאתי מנוחה, הרעייון להתישב במקום ספציפי כלשהו נראה לי אבסורדי. בסוף עזבתי את הלימודים באמצע למרות שהייתי די מוצלח, ולאחר נסיון כושל לעזוב את הארץ התגייסתי לשנתיים לצבא. היו אלה עוד שנתיים של סבל של מכונאי שלקחתי על עצמי בהתנדבות. שוב הייתי יחד עם אותם ערסים שלא היו שונים במאומה “מהקולגים” שלהם בדונה-סרדהי. אחרי זה תל אביב, האוניברסיטה, ובפעם הראשונה נפתח לי חלון הזדמנויות של נחת ואושר, לשנה, התחלתי להנות מהחיים שלי, מהחופש, מזה שפרעתי את חובי לכולם, לאמה ב- 4 שנות סבל של מכונאות בסרדהי, לישראל ב- שנתיים סבל של חייל מכונאי. והייתי כבר על סף לסיים את הלימודים וזאת אומרת קרוב מאד למימוש תוכניתי לנסיעה הרפתקנית בעולם, אותה הצבתי לי עוד ביושבי דחוי בטינופת של הבור “המוסך”, שותף חלקי מכוניות בנפט שחור מזוהמה, ורוקם בדמיוני פנטסיות על העתיד, של אהבה וחופש. אני מבין שאין אדם בעולם שיכול להבין איך הרגשתי אני ואיך מרגיש כל אדם, שנטלו ממנו הכל, וכלאו אותו במקום מעוס עליו, למצב שאין בו תקווה למילוט. שהוא נאלץ לחיות יחד עם אנשים ירודים ממנו בהרבה בעולמם הערכי והחשיבתי, שבזים ולועגים לו בגלל היותם שונים כל כך ממנו, ובגלל הבנתם את איכויותו הנעלות שהם מתקשים אפילו להבין, עד שזה מפחיד אותם. הערצה מהולה בפחד זה מקור רועה ההמונים. אבל לחזור לתל אביב, האושר הזמני נקטע בגלל מלחמת יום הכיפורים, שערר את הכל. אחרי המלחמה הכל היה כבר אחרת. מה שלא השתנה זה שאני עדיין הייתי ללא בית, והמעגן היחידי בחיי היית את, הבית שלך בהוד השרון, וחיים.

hanalisablog

 

חידת משמעות חיי הרועדת כמו דמעת טל שחר טהור 
הנלכדת בקורי עכביש של האין סוף 
ומופיע ברשת מבטי.
היא הייתה שם תמיד 
אך ללא זוהר המיקוד נעלמה בצנע
כאמי הקטנה שלא נכנעה לבוז לרקון את ראשה העיקש 
עם זיכרון שואת אהוביה
מורתי לרחמים. 

אם כך, בגילי, 
המקדם את גופי למתה-פיזיקה סופר אנטי- אקזיסטנציאלית 
הגיעה הזמן שאדבר חופשי מהפיזי. 
שאזכור משמעות חיי עלי אדמות 
בעומק תפארתה ובורות קבורה
אחרי שהסתבר לי 
שאמי הפשוטה וחומרית בעצם צדקה 
ושהסופר גוראוים הגדולים ומטה-פיזיים וכריזמאטיים ביותר 
אגוטריפרים, פדופילים, רמאים, סקסמניאקים, גאוותניים, ועוד, 
ושמכריזים בעונג שלווה אלוהית בביטחון אינסופי: 
עבר/ עתיד לא קיים- רק הרגע הזה 
ואם אינפורמציות ערומות אלה אני שואלת בכל זאת 
האם יש משמעות…
וכרגע יצאתי מרחמה של יידישא מאמה קדושה 
אשר באמונת חייה העיקשים עברה את מצעד המוות 
ללא אלוהים. 

רק אחרי שלעת טיפת דמה האחרון ויתרה על גופתה 
הופיע בחלומותיי קלילה, שמחה, ללא שום דאגה למיטלטליה, 
התבררה לי פשטות קדושתה. 

View original post 148 more words

Will be a new Real estate buble in the US-

by

While the Fed is purchasing government securities, in parallel it is pouring cash money into the monetary system. Since the banks have deposits excess to the Minimum Reserve Rate Requirement (MRRR), this cash could be potentially used to give new credit without to cause interest rate increase. It does not happens since the potential borrowers are over exposed to old loans, backed with reduced asset values (mainly real estate). So the banks don’t have clients to whom they would like to give new loans, and the potential borrowers feeling unsecured also reduced their readiness to be exposed to new loans. The result is too liquid banks.
Yet this situation will not exist for ever. The aggregated old loans are in process of reduction. For example; (*) the mortgage loans went down from 10.5 trillion US$ in 2008 to 9.3 trillion US$ in Q2 of 2013, while the real estate value jumped since the beginning of 2013 to 21.1 trillion US$, from less than 20 trillion US$ at end of 2012. At 2006 the real estate value was about 25 trillion US$, while the mortgages values were about 10 trillion US$. If the banks feel comfortable with this ration of 2.5 US$ real-estate value to one US$ mortgage value, it means, if this trend of real estate value increase will continue while the mortgage value is declining, the banks will find the house owners again credible for new loans very soon.
And now comes the big thing. The commercial banks have excess deposits in the Fed of more than 2 trillion US$. Theoretically the banks could use these excess deposits for new credits in ration of 1 to 9, so we are talking about several trillion US$ of new potential credit. This is a perfect scene for a new credit explosion and real estate bubble.

But all this can be prevented if the banks are going to be more regulated.The interest rate paid to the bank deposits in the Fed seems to me a very weak tool while its rate is 0.25%. On the other hand if increased, it will increase the interest rate but also the banks profits and liquidity. And lets remember, the bank deposits in the Fed are without any risk. I wonder, why would the tax payers agree to such interest payments, unless they are madly in love with the commercial banks and their managers. So some other tool should be implemented to reduced the excess potential financial liquidity in the banks, like to increase the Minimum Reserve Rate Requirement from 10%, to adequate level, or implement the equity requirement (Basel). This will of course reduce the commercial banks function as money creator and will bring it back to the Fed. Is this such a big disaster?

(*) Reference; Federal Reserve statistic release, B.100 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations

Aside

An economic prediction –

by

1. The annual World economic growth in the last 20 years with some exceptions was between 3-4 % (only negative year of 2% was 2008). It means the world economy almost doubled in these years, viz
http://lb-stage.economist.com/news/briefing/21582257-most-dramatic-and-d…
This increase created demand also for increased financial liquidity that was supplied by US$, and the result is the US deficit.
2. The Euro partly replaced US$ as world currency with some recent setback. I believe the Euro crisis is nearing to its end and and most probably Euro will be back in the near future. Yet, the European economy is a long term stagnating economy, due to demographic and political problems. So the Euro will never really have the capacity to compete US$ and endanger its position.
3. China with its increased self confidence, probably will start to shift its policy from exporting and net lending economy towards more balanced economy, with increased local consumption level. (This trend is already happening). If this process will be cleverly done, (and i believe the Chinese know what they are doing) this process will be done with creating a stronger and internationally recognized freely convertible currency. The Chinese Yuan will be appreciated in real terms against the US$, Yen and the Euro (the alternative is inflation). This process, even if marginally damaging exports will only strengthen the position of China in the world economy.
4. As to unprecedented world economic growth, the modern economy is based on debts expecting to generate returns as interest and equity investment expecting high yields. This can be secured only while the economy is growing. Otherwise an economic crisis is inevitable. Yet if there will be no major technological breakthrough in the fields of energy, basic raw materials, accumulated environmental unbalances, this resources have their limits, and when reached their price jump is inevitable. The world economy will have to react to these commodity price increases caused by limited resources with slow down. This is why to try to solve the problem of low economic growth with encouraging increased consumption, like in US is a very short term short sighted policy. Not to speak about its negative effect on the US current account deficit. Viz;
https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/economic-stability-without-gr…

Fiat Money –

by

As to fiat money, it is a dangerous game. After all you can’t seriously believe that when unlimited amount of money is thrown to the economy it will not cause degradation of the currency. The price of any marketable item is fixed by its relative scarcity (and not by its essence, enough to compare diamonds to food.). The same is with money, its value is relative to its relative scarcity. If abundant its value will decrease, or in other words the prices will go up. This means in economic jargon inflation. The process of Inflation usually starts with a general increase in prices, which after a while prompts the unions to complain that wages are ceasing to cover the daily expenses of employees. Then pensioners and the other sectors of society that live on social security payments start to protest. Last but not least the banks react, by increasing interest rates to keep them above the level of the price increase level.

…Then, as production costs rise, the exporters complain that their competitiveness against other producers from other countries has been damaged and they will have to lay off some of the workforce unless a compensatory adjustment is made. It is also common knowledge that without exports no foreign currency will be available to purchase the import commodities necessary for the economy. So the currency is devalued. But then all the imported goods that have to be bought for foreign currency become more expensive and the round of price increases starts all over again.

Because the different segments of the production chain have lost confidence in the stability of the price system, the new round of price increase will necessarily be higher than the previous one. As expectations of further price increase among the people mount, everybody wants to be compensated not only for the last price increase, but also for the expected next price increase, which they believe will be higher than the last one. To secure their position, all the participants in the society ask for exaggerated price and wage increases. By this stage the price increase is gathering extra momentum and is driven by expectations rather than by realities. And the expectations tend to be self-fulfilling.

And so as the spiral winds ever upwards, first the employers and the employees and last the institutions of social benefits like social security, pension funds etc., create a system of indexation based on an agreed anchor for prices, wages, tariffs, fees, charges, expenses, fares, premiums, rates, tolls, whatever…

At first the indexed raises occur every quarter, but then they happen every month and at the end every week. Theoretically everybody – the employees, the pensioners, the exporters and even the producers – should get proportionately the same progressive increases in income, but that does not happen in practice because it is impossible for people to keep their bearings in the avalanche of numbers. Those with a strong negotiating position get more and the others get less. Some economic entities even cease to exist, either because they lack the means to cope with the frequent price increase, or because they just don’t understand what is going on around them.

At a certain stage the prices start to rocket exponentially, and this stage is called Hyperinflation. In Hyperinflation the prices change daily until nobody has any remaining sense of the relative value of products, for Money has lost its major function as the supreme measurer of the value of Product price. During hyperinflation if you ask someone how much a loaf of bread costs he will probably just shrug, or if he is more polite he will tell you the price in a foreign currency. This is the stage at which the market starts looking for an anchor for measuring prices other than the local currency. Usually the anchor is a stable foreign currency, for example the dollar, or some other form of indexation.

pshakkottai Says:

Dear Eugen: Fiat money is not dangerous. It works like this.
My analysis: Fiat money is a token that changes hands to make transactions more convenient than barter.

Initial state of the economy: Idle capacity, available workers , available resources both inside and outside the nation. By work I mean all work, physical, academic, intellectual, artistic…

Final state: workers employed for many years, resources processed both inside and outside the nation. All workers paid, the bridge or dam or whatever built. USA has a new resource.

Money spent: project funded by fiat money has made prosperity possible and everybody gained including exporters to USA.

Who lost? Nobody. National debt is also fiat money that USA owes to itself and has to do nothing to pay it back. It is simply a record of all transactions.

In this example it is seen clearly that money is not wealth. You can’t do any of this in the Sahara desert because resources are scarce. You can do things if there are resources and humans willing to work. The nation should fund all infrastructure because the nation will be stronger.

Then how to we grow the economy starting from today?
Increase spending to set a reasonable deficit, say, Deficit1 =Net imports + 5% GDP
See how employment picks up
The deficit falls to Deficit2
Increase spending again
Wait another quarter to see if Deficit falls again
Repeat until full employment occurs
Now watch for inflation and if it picks increase interest rates.
Partha

  • EugenR Says:

    Dear Pshakkottai, i have do disappoint you, unlimited fiat money printing is solution for some problems in certain circumstances, but definitely not a solution for every problem in every circumstances. When all the resources are not fully utilized in the economy it can have positive effect, but only on the short term. It is enough that one essential resource (energy for example) out of many is limited and printing new fiat money will cause only damage and no economic growth. Then other problem is the long term problem. If for long term to much fiat money is distributed to the population, what way it can be done? It can’t be by investing indefinitely in new projects, because in certain stage the investments will be more damaging than useful with low or negative yield (white elephant projects). So the solution will probably be allowance payments without expecting any repayment back to the society. Such policy will have deep negative impact on functioning of the society. This is what is happening in some European countries. If in Greece and Spain you have 50% unemployment of the youth until age 25 it is not just because there are no jobs on the market. On the long run this phenomenon of unemployment is not just a economic phenomena, but also sociological. It destroys the feeling of duty towards society and towards personal needs of the individual.
    The other negative impact of fiat money is the necessary unregulated wealth allocation. Usually, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at times of excessive fiat money printing and money value degradation that follows it. If fiat money printing becomes the major tool to finance government activities, as you suggest, it will be followed by government take over of bigger and bigger chalks of the economy. But it is well known the government is a very ineffective product and service supplier. Again the economy will go into waste of resources, and will stop to grow. This is what happened in USSR and other “socialistic” countries before it collapsed.

    I could continue so, pages and pages, but enough of it. All i have to say is that there is no magic wand in economy called Fiat Money, after all someone do have to produce the products, that the magic Fiat Money will be exchanged for it. But why would anybody work and produce if he can live from Fiat Money distributed freely? This i call a logical paradox.

Economic stability without growth-

by

The modern obsession of all the economists for economic grow in terms of GDP increase is a false perception. Of course it is caused by addictive need to pay to lenders real term interest and to investors real term yield (profit on their investments). This makes the economic growth a need without consideration if economic growth has positive or negative impact on the welfare being of the majority of the population. This concept on the long run inevitable enriches the wealthy property owners, whose income is based on property possession.
The whole economy is based on false assumption that increased consumerism is necessary for economic growth and is the best way to sustain healthy economy. The inevitable result of this concept is the ever present nuisance called advertisement. Army of salesmen, marketing experts, public relation experts chase you in every corner of your existence, yet if you have a real need to buy a product, there is no-one to ask for advise, and probably instead of what you need the army of seducers will try to seduce you with alternatives you don’t want. And above all stands the cost effectively devastatingly wasteful urban solution of suburb dwellings, with malls and traffic solution based on private cars trying to feel freedom of movement while standing in endless queues to and from the work or to and from the weekend vacation.
Is this system about bringing welfare and well-being to most of the humans? I doubt it. It is a system of selling illusion of “wealth and happiness”, while trapping most of the humans in delusion of gatherers, who take possession of mostly worthless artifacts, and pay high price of enslavement to debts. This system is not only about the wealthy with possessions and those without it, but about those, who are aware of the realities of the system, and as outsiders can benefit from it, and those who are sunken in the system up to their neck and have no escape out of it.

Image

Who likes new cars more ? –

by

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1239343_10201729016821181_1044611423_o.jpg

Image

Consumerism eliminating cultural differences-

by

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1277661_10201728907138439_1548665686_o.jpg

Consumer’s society

by

https://sphotos-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/199977_1757085500953_2029073_n.jpg

Consumer’s society

by

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/197385_1757085300948_5311531_n.jpg

Consumer’s society

by

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/190518_1757018699283_5454573_n.jpg

Image

Consumer’s society

by

Propaganda, taxation etc.-

by

To my opinion, (not a scientific opinion, but created by watching people around me), i don’t believe in tools like propaganda. It may work in the short term, on the long run the truth will win. But then who has the time to wait for this “final” victory?

  • Patrice Ayme Says:
    Dear Eugen: Propaganda is everywhere. Islamophilia, Krugman style (Ibn Khaldun invented everything! Aristotle, Polybius never existed!!) is also propaganda.Bad education can lead to mass death (recent example: Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism; and even the non-intervention of the USA in 1939, 1940). Just ask the departed souls of millions of American Indians, who just did not have the means to resist from…lack of education. The Japanese, by contrast, were making their first guns, 22 years after the first contact with Europeans… They were technologically more educated (a bit the same in Dahomey, too!)
    PA
  • pshakkottai Says:
    Hi Eugine R:
    Propaganda is highly effective. Monetary sovereignty is almost unknown for example.
    There are 2 kinds of debt. Private debt is bad. Govt debt (the DEFICIT) is good. They move in opposite directions. See the plots in
    http://mythfighter.com/2013/01/01/screwed-again-and-proud-of-it-federal-debt-vs-business-debt/
    Jobs are created when govt produces more deficits. Empiirically 1$ of deficit produces $5 of GDP. The created money will find its way into the economy (the private sector.)
    Welfare is a peoples’ need. If no welfare why do we need a govt?
    Deficits automatically require a work force and produce prosperity.
    Regulation (a peoples’ need) is required to prevent poisoning of the biosphere.
    Taxes are not required for the federal govt which can create all the money required.
    MORE deficits will cure the economy painlessly with zero risk.
    Money is merely a token and a bookkeeping tool.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:
      Agreed, Partha. That’s why economy ought to be built around energy, that is, work, employment. Everything else, including property, is convention.
      PA
    • EugenR Says:
      Dear Pshakotay, Is it really all so easy? If so why should the government bother to collect taxes at all, and more than that, if the government distributes freely money (welfare), why to bother to go to work at all?
      If you have answer how it can work i am happy to listen. Or maybe you say, the government should distribute the money only to chosen ones (Plutocrats), while the others not and let those others go to work? Do you like this solution?
      To be more serious, government deficit can be helpful to economy and start economic growth, if it is a temporary and marginal phenomena during times of recession, when part of the production capacities are not utilized. Yet even then the increased government expenditures has to be used very carefully not to create a long term precedents, that may destroy the production capacity of the economy. Like if you are too liberal with unemployment allowances. This is why at times of recession the governments prefer rather to invest the deficit in infrastructure than to consumerism.You probably wonder how come the US Fed prints so much money and still there is no inflation in US. The reason is that this newly printed cash money is exchanged against government bonds and securities. Since the money in circulation is mostly created by the commercial banks and not by the Fed, the question is what the commercial banks are doing with this additional cash as compared to what they have done with the government bonds, meaning did they accept the bonds as securities against loans and by doing it the bonds were very similar to cash? Probably yes. It is a very common practice. What i know for sure is that the extra cash the Fed poured into economy, went back to the Fed in form of increased commercial banks reserves deposited in the Feds vault and had mainly negative influence on the monetary liquidity. This is why the monetary easement did not work as it was expected. This phenomena will exist until the banks and the borrowers feel that the economic entities are over-exposed to credit they took in the past.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:
        dear Eugen: The government can run the full gamut, from total command and control to total freemarket. Yet, in the latter case, still submitted to the law. So, only C&C can be total. The free market is just a toy. So is currency. I’m not talking out of fishy theory, just, but also direct historical examples.

Thoughts about macroeconomics-

by

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/real-economics/#comment-17371

Dear Patrice, i feel sorry for the devastation of the forest close to your home and has nothing to add. As contrary to it, to your ideas about economy i have a lot to add and most of it rather complementary than contrary.

1. You correctly said macroeconomics is far from being a science in way as the natural sciences are, where most of the predictions are verifiable. Macroeconomics as all the other social “sciences” speak most of the time about tendencies and not necessary outcomes. The Fed’s policy of Quantitative Easing‘s  aim is to try to increase the aggregate demand in the economy. It’s very partial success was caused by the TENDENCY of the US public since 2008 to decrease their borrowings, and the commercial banks TENDENCIES to keep their liquid money reserves above the required minimum rather in the Fed’s vault than borrowing it. As you can see i used twice the world tendency and not even once the world “the outcome will be”. By the way, if these tendencies would not exist but would be to the opposite direction, the inflation would “PROBABLY” rise its head. I say probably and not for sure, because the production capacities are unemployed. Probably the inflation if appears, it will be caused by the energy and/or other commonality price increase rather than limits of production capacities, that seem to be unlimited.
2. The golden standard money is history, and even more, a false history. The coins never really represented real value even when minted out of pure gold (it can’t be done even technically). Because of scarcity of certain metal the rulers used to mint coins, they needed to limit themselves and this gave credibility to the system. Still inflation existed also before the invention of the paper money.
Since 2008 the US and European governments have overdone with printing money. The trillions of dollars sounds very frightening, yet surprise, no inflation. But what if??? What if the tendencies of the public to save will go again down and the tendencies of the banks to borrow will go up? The answer is the government has many instruments how to influence the monetary liquidity which have bigger impact on money circulation in the economy than the money printing itself. For example the minimum reserve rate requirement from the commercial banks. The problem is, if used these tools, the leading role in the monetary system will be transferred from the commercial banks to the government. But this is already more a political question than a economic question, i just would add that seeing the performances of the banksters in the last years i wouldn’t see it as such a big catastrophe.
3. The external debt of US is much more disturbing. If one day the Chinese would decide to stop to finance the US current deficit, again rather for some political reason than economic reason, it could cause a big shakeup with the world economy. Lets hope this change will be rather gradual than one step act.
4. As to the fraction reserve system. Since the minimum reserve rate requirement went down in the last 40 decades to disturbing low levels, (In England and i think in Australia too, it is “0”), so the system actually transferred the right to print money from governments to the privately owned banks. (The result among others are the unprecedented rewards of the banksters). How and why it happened is a good question and i really don’t have the answer for it. Probably because the governments have done pretty lousy job, while siting on the printing machine.
Now the new Basel regulations try mildly to correct the situation with the new equity requirements. I can’t go into explaining this issue, it is explained in my book;
https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/1801/

Important to say is, that as result of changing the fraction reserve system will be necessarily return of the role of money printing to the government. Maybe again it is not such a bad idea, but it is rather a political issue than an economic one.

richard reinhofer Says:

The Chinese own a very small piece of our debt, we could pay them off any time we wish. And if they decided to stop buying Treasuries the Fed could replace them with a keystroke.

EugenR Says:

I would say the reality is much more complicated than this. If the Chinese, or any other net importer will decide to stop to lend to US, It means they have to stop to export to the US all their products. Then if they go even farther and start to sell their Treasury securities, this may have two possible consequences. a. the Fed will not intervene and the Treasury price will go down, it means the interest rate will go up. Not good for economy and employment. b. The Fed will purchase the treasuries. If it happens when the resources are stretched to their limits, it will cause inflation. This will happen exactly at times when the imported merchandise will have to be replaced by local production, this means other pressure on the resources. Conclusion; instability to the US economy.
But what will happen to the Chinese and the World economy? Probably the Chinese will have to re-valuate their currency against the US Dollar, to reduce their surplus in the trade. Otherwise the only way to reduce their export to the US can be done only administratively, this means over regulated economy, and this even the Chinese don’t want. And what about Europe. Europe will on one side enjoy the revaluation of the Chinese Yuan, but on the other side its own import from China will be much more expensive.

I can continue to develop the scenario on and on, but the main thing is that until US lives on borrowed money, the real decision about what will happen in the world economy is in Beijing and not in Washington. If you believe you can trust them, they make always the right decisions, then you can calm down. Probably they are not worse decision makers than the guys in Washington, but……..

Why this failure of the Arab world?-

by

It happens ever and ever again, that whenever and whoever comes to write about the political social failure of the Arab-Muslim world instead to look inward to uncover the real obstacles preventing these countries to enter the road of modernization and creating decent social life and civil society, they look to blame someone else. The usual accused is of course the USA and Israel but never some internal political force, social reality or a despotic supporter like the formal USSR.
Who is to be blamed that after decolonization in the fifties of last century Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and all the rest become military dictatorships oriented on USSR. Who is to be blamed that G.A. Nasser, the most prestigious Arab leader since the times of Selahedine, the leader of Egypt, Arab world, one of the triumvirate of Third Word leaders, used his political prestige mainly to endorse international military conflicts, (and not only against Israel). Who is to be blamed that these dictators did not create some sort of liberal society that would at least educate its people and not bring Egypt to 21 century with 30% illiteracy? Who is to be blamed, that even after the collapse of USSR, when the failure of their centralized political, social and economic system of governance become so obvious that even some Sub-Saharan countries turned to democracy, in all the Arab countries the dictatorships continued as if nothing happened? Who is to be blamed that these dictatorships, let all the religious conservative political forces to be active beneath the official political leadership, while they strangled any secular God forbid liberal politically active civil society? Who is to be blamed, that to achieve political legitimacy, instead to loose their grip of political power, all these dictatorships turned to political Islam and by doing so, it even more postponed the adaptation of modern values in their countries, that are necessary to be able to run an effective political, social and economic system? Of course all the blame is on USA and its allies.

The problem is illiteracy of the mothers-

by

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/peace-from-war/

I  overheard about 10 years ago some expert saying, “If free elections will be held in the Arab world, the Muslim brotherhood will win it”. And so they did. If you count all the Muslim religious parties even in “secular” Tunisia they got more than 50% of the votes. This is much more than the 33% the Nazi party achieved at 1933.
This causes me to ask several questions;
a. How come at 2010- so many people vote for a party, that is rejecting any form of liberalism and individual freedom, and obviously has  no solution to any of the practical problems of the Arab society, which can be defined in general terms as economic and social dis-functionality. The answer will be probably in the high level of illiteracy, in this societies. (Even in most advanced Tunisia 30% of the women are illiterate).
Here i would like to remind a long forgotten fact, the Afghan uprising against the Soviets and the communistic government started because of the communists led policy to try to advance girls education and to give equal rights to women.

Illiteracy is more than just statistics. It gives high ground to ignorance about the world out of the family circle and definitely to the out of the local tribal society. Just try to think what it means to be illiterate in today’s world, littered with written words, most of it junk. It is almost like to be blind. Then you should not be surprised by what is happening in the post revolutionary Arab world.

b. What to do with it? I lately overheard a very relevant joke, “What to do if the election results doesn’t bring the right results? Change the people”.
No need to say, societies that are not supportive to education have no chance to create decent life to their citizens. (Apparently learning religious studies is not an education, that makes people more literate to understand how to create a economically and socially functioning society.)
c. Can Europe and the world close its eyes and let these societies opposing real education to solve its problems alone? The answer seems to be, NO! The problems these societies create will be eventually exported to Europe, and even beyond it.

So what should be the next step?  I just don’t know

Regulating or not regulating the economy-

by

The major and very first political-economic question is not if the best system to coordinate the economy is the markets or the politically motivated regulations. Also the question is not  who runs the economy the private entities, or the political entity. Both this systems and instruments have their advantages and defects.

Just to mention the very first and most important ones;

Markets are absolutely unable to cope with long term problems, viz. their failure to handle the environment catastrophe overwhelming and endangering the human existence. On the other hand the politically motivated  governments proved to be again and again totally incompetent to manage efficiently an economic entity. But even if the government policy is not to interfere in the functions of the markets, and its actions are of a regulator and not as direct manager, its management system is centralized by its character. Eventually the decision process of all the governments is concentrating in very few hands This is the reason why the governments fail again and again to recognize the difference between the issues that serve the interests of wide general public and those that serve interests of particular group of people. At certain period of establishing its rule, the politically chosen government officials will be influenced more and more by their personal inclinations and at the end of the day prefer the particular interests and not the general ones.

Yet these major defects of the two systems are just cover up of the real problem both economic systems have, the difficulty to cope with; “How to create a system of continuous self destruction and rebirth, without to fall into too big calamities”. While the market economy followers claim that it has composed in its system the law of orderly default, the believers in the politically managed system claim that tight regulation and supervision is the tool to ensure clean and smooth continuous revival. Yet we all know both systems brought the economy many times to absolute collapse. The politically managed system, was in continuous collapse since its very beginning, until it was finally dispersed  in 1992, the market system came to brink of collapse in 1929 and evidently again in 2008. (We still don’t know when and how will this last crisis end).

When the both systems show signs of weakness, the usual response is, “The rules of the system were not implemented rigorously enough”. I would prefer if the signs of weakness would be checked inwardly in the system and not outwardly in rejecting dogmatically any combination of the two systems. If someone says the market economy failed because it didn’t implement rigorously its principles, by introducing some government regulations it is stuck in a dogma as kind of  religion.

Since every political system is a centralized system with few individuals on top of the political hierarchy, which is truth in any kind of political system (except maybe of the cantonised Switzerland with all the referendums, that doesn’t need real governance, since its economy is based on bank deposits of thieves, burglars and other kind of scoundrels,) it shouldn’t surprise us that the politicians tend to associate with the few at the top of the economic hierarchy. In the modern history the cure to this phenomena was centralizing also the economic system, with all the grave consequences it necessarily brings.  

Inverted logic

Philosophical thought from an amateur and armchair thinker. No expertise, just speculation.

Reasoning from first principles

Breaking down Mainstream news using first principles

Spirit of Cecilia

Music, Books, Poetry, Film

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence

Adult Level Fiction

Exploring alternative narratives

OneXCent

Economy and society under a heterodox perspective.

Bliss

The ISS Blog on Global Development and Social Justice

%d bloggers like this: