Sensible Politics.

A random collection of scraps, yet to be sorted out, that together could become parts of a Sustainable Future, unfortunatly its writen by a dislexic.

 

 

Proclaim

"Now that we know we are alive, 

how shall we organise ourselves?

What shall we do with this great project of ours"? 

 

 

INDEX for this page:

INTRO.

Car Free Networks for walkers and cyclists.

Should people be forced to contribute to society?

suggestions, observations and explorations

Politicians

Ideologys

OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

Bank Managers

A NEW MORALITY.

Populations Increase

We will destroy nature because we cant deal with our own invention,,that of money.

POLITICAL REFORM.

How can you make nature justify itself in terms of capitalism?

But this system is killing us all!

Power Pyramids

The Greed Motive

 

 

 

 


INTRO

One thing is clear;  we need to change the way we do it now.

If we wanted to make a great society, we would not come up with this.

You cant have infinate growth in a finate system.

And 

(shhh)

Work Can Be Done For Free.

 

 

The whole money idea is what both makes us so poor, and destructive, and seems to keep us in slavery. 

I can see us changing it fundamentaly, or even dropping it.

Our relationship with money is messed up. 

As long as we all think we need to work so hard, we will give up larger and larger parts our real lives than is necessary to produce all we need.

 I believe in utopia but to get there we need to get rid of all forms of slavery.
And to do that we need to get rid of money, or at least the way we use it.

It is a very useful way to move energy around but that basic function has been masivly corrupted by a small group of highly motivated, self interested people who, over time , have now pursuaded most of us that there is no other way to arange a world. The truth is that there are many ways to run a world. The way we do it now is just one and it is a very bad one. It needs everyone to work hard makeing stuff we dont need which is wrecking the planet and locking us into a work ethic which is no better than slavery.  Lets do things differently.

*

---------_____*____----------

*

 

Car Free Networks

    •    Car Congestion and Pollution
    •    vs
    •    Cycle Quiet Ways and Green Streets
    •    Facts –
    ▪    How many of us own cars?
    ▪    The Tax angle
    ▪    Costs
    ▪    Harm from cars
    ▪    Pollution
    ▪    Noise
    ▪    Stress
    ▪    Solving the problems
    ▪    Needs

    
▪    The idea –
What are Green or Healthy Streets?
    ▪    The Basic Argument
    ▪    Solutions - Quiet-ways
    ▪  Advantages
    ▪    Practicality
    ▪    Walking and Cycling
    ▪    Summary

Facts - Cars, Pollution & Problems

Fossil fuel & CO2 emissions threaten our health and safety. More people are being diagnosed and dying each year from asthma brought on from air pollution. We need a carbon neutral alternative and we need it as soon as possible. That’s why TFL have made walking and cycling 1st and 2nd priority.

The car has squeezed itself into every nook and cranny of our lives and having insinuated itself onto every road in existence, it continues to squeeze out other road users, making it less and less possible for anyone outside of a car to use the roads in safety.
Cars are pumping out poisons, screaming by at lethal speeds and cluttering every road, pavement and many cycle lanes. They are alternately dangerous, poisonous or in the way. All of this puts off potential cyclists.

HYPERLINK "http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cycling_joy_in_chicago.jpg" Urban cycling can be a joy - as in Chicago[/caption]

 

How many of us own cars?
In 2016, London’s car population rose by 170,000.
Official guesstimates suggest there are about 27 million households in the UK and about 31 million cars.
In broad terms, a quarter of households don’t have a car, 45 per cent have one car, a quarter have two cars, and the remaining five percent have three or more cars. Do the maths.
So about 61 per cent – or 19 million of the cars on UK roads – are the family’s 2nd 3rd or 4th car.
20 Million people own cars, and 45 Million people do not own cars.
This means more than two thirds do not own cars. So, car owners may be majority of households, but they are a minority of the people.

The Tax angle
Drivers do not pay for the roads, though having paid a lot of money for their cars, seek to be treated with special privilege when it comes to road use.
Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads.
In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937.
So, who does pay for the roads? We all do.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation; thus a child buying a sweet somewhere along the line, is paying for the roads. And yet, it is car drivers that make roads dangerous and unpleasant for everyone else.


Costs
Roads without cars don’t get damaged.
Bicycle only roads, needing less upkeep, cost less and last longer, with the added bonus of healthy people costing the NHS less.

Harm from cars
We have an understandable love affair with cars, but the harm that cars do is massive and accepted as inevitable. The use and manufacture, the sheer clutter on every road, the uglification of our surroundings, an unbroken stream of vehicles running through every scene, bringing noise and danger at every turn, raising chronic asthma and occasional sudden death (about 3000 times a year), not to mention all the greenhouse gases, CO1, CO2, NO2, habitat destruction & climate change! For all the convenience they bring, the negatives are long term and overwhelming.


Pollution
Pollution is appalling and most cycle lanes are right next to busy traffic which is constantly pumping out poisonous fumes and particulates. The media just published figures that are breath-taking: 29,000 deaths a year in London are attributable to traffic pollution. This is equivocal to a humanitarian disaster.
Cars create toxic fumes and cyclists and pedestrians are forced to breathe in this polluted air. It is actually illegal to ask anyone to breath that air!

Noise
Planes, helicopters, lorries, cars, boom boxes, bass heads, building construction work, police sirens & TV; it’s all loud. We live in an increasingly noisy world, a non-stop cacophony accompanies every moment of our lives. It has been shown to be stressful to the point where it produces cancers, poor memory and dementia. Cars are a major part of that noise. Greenery soaks up noise, the more greenery, the less noise. I believe people don’t walk, because there are few places to go that are nice and quiet.


Stress
        Health: Perhaps the most serious problem created by sound pollution is the impact it has on our health. Because sound pollution can trigger the body’s stress response, one of its major health effects is chronic stress and the high levels of stress hormones that go with it. As a result, noise pollution has also been linked with health problems such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke. It’s also been linked with musculoskeletal problems, as a Cornell University study on office noise found that those working in noisy office environments can also be less likely to ergonomically adjust their workstations for comfort, which can contribute to physical problems. Noise pollution can also impact sleep quality by preventing sleep and disrupting sleep cycles. And, perhaps most significantly, because chronic stress can lower your immunity to all disease, noise pollution is a general threat to health and wellness.

Needs
To help cycling become a viable alternative to the car and become the main preferred method of
getting from A to B, it needs to be an absolutely and demonstrably safe alternative to driving for all.
Be it men, women, children, the old, the frail, the timid, the bold and the young fit cycle warrior.
Safety is paramount and to achieve this, investments would need to be made.
There have been many suggestions about what needs to be done however most are just tweaking the problem when what we really need is a complete re-evaluation of who gets to use the roads.
Is the car still the ruler of the road? Is it time for a change? I think so.


SOLVING THOSE PROBLEMS:

Cycling & CO2
Transport accounts for about 50% of the CO2 we can get control of in our cities.
If we want to be safe in the future, we can't use the oils we have now, let alone that which fracking etc can provide. Oil fuelled vehicles must be used less.
We need now, and have for a very long time needed, a carbon negative economy. Car free routes would provide a truly viable alternative.
If the Government were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, it would make it enjoyable to walk and safe for all cyclists to use the roads.
Therefore, the Government must make it safe for my 80 years old mother and my 5 year old daughter to cycle. Otherwise, my mum will continue to drive and I will be forced to drive my children, because I don't want them killed on the roads.
Achieving this is actually quite easy, but it's scary for government and councils, because it's a big change in the accepted way of doing things and the car lobby is strong and organised. Politicians fear voters will not vote for those who threaten car use.


The idea - What are Green or Healthy Streets?
To create a network of car free roads right around London - and the whole country.
Imagine roads as parks. Imagine these roads with no cars and children playing in safety. People extending their gardens into the roads, growing vegetables and fruits. Imagine the buried rivers brought back to the surface.
Imagine benches under trees where people can sit out and enjoy the peace and calm. All around is green and verdant and rich with life. The air will become cleaner as plants grow. People will become healthier physically and mentally.
The streets become, not a conduit for cars, but a space for people to live and thrive in.
This plays into the Healthy Streets, Linear Park and London as National Park ideas.
Picture is from http://content.tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london.pdf
Roads into parks.
I do recognise that this will take time to achieve, but it is the ultimate goal.

The Basic Argument
Cycling has many benefits. It can be a positive elixir; a simple solution to so many problems. Imagine, if you will, you want to travel to your mum’s house 5 miles away: Your group includes your 85 year old grandparents and 5 year old child. Normally you all go in cars, because gramps doesn't like the bus, walking is too far and cycling on those busy roads is simply madness. However, in this story, you all get on bicycles and cycle the whole way along quiet, car free, leafy avenues, only stopping at junctions, to let the cross traffic pass. You arrive calm, relaxed, healthy, happier, fitter and unharmed, sounds idyllic, doesn’t it?

"Ok, nice story, but that won't happen", I hear you say. Well, let's not write it off, quite so quickly.
The Healthy Streets initiative from Sadiq Khan's office is basically this, but without stopping cars. There are many advantages to car free roads and many are very seductive.
There are a lot of road users who presently can't use the roads safely; they include equestrians, dog carts, walkers, cats, stall holders, street food sellers, kids playing.
It must be remembered just how exclusive roads for cars have become.

We can combine all the various Quiet-Ways, Healthy Streets, Open Streets, cycle routes, unused back streets, parks and abandoned railways and stitch them into a network of calm, green corridors, for non- drivers.

Solutions - Quiet-ways
Things work best when they are community led and not imposed. I suggest we could start by finding roads with the fewest car owners, proposing the idea and letting communities volunteer their roads, then see how they could be connected. Ask, advertise and explain the advantages with gentle persuasion.
Even though we do have a pressing ecological imperative, we may need to offer incentives and encouragement. Although, as these pilots begin, people will become more aware, even envious and want their streets to be as nice as those with Healthy Streets (similar to the Play Street Orders where local roads in Hackney had regular closures for children to be able to play out after school wp.hackneyplay.org).

‘Quiet-way’ is a Transport for London (TfL) idea. Most of them are old London Cycle Network routes with new signs and a few minor improvements, slightly less cars use them. The name is lovely.
[caption id="attachment_3418" align="alignnone" width="1000"] HYPERLINK "http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/garden_street_vauxhall.jpg" INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/garden_street_vauxhall.jpg" \d Green streets are great for cycling - and for living. They can also have space for car parking (Vauxhall, London)[/caption]


ADVANTAGES

Quality of life
This scheme would bring calm and joy and safety to so many people, that, that alone should be enough. But the real pay back will be in many years’ time ...

Health
It is obvious that we all value our health and that the NHS has to fork out billions to help us when we are sick, but if we did have a greener, car free, cycle network we would walk and cycle more.
How many times have we wanted to go out but don’t because, well where would we go? It’s all a built environment, its brash & dull and isn’t a nice place to walk.
Walking and cycling more will keep us fitter and that means we won't have to visit our GP’s quite so much. So, there would be a clear cost reduction in healthcare for the State and financial benefit to households.

Plants Can Reduce Air Pollution in Cities by 60%,  
The study reports that levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, both hazardous to humans, were lowered by 40 and 60 percent, respectively.
https://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/25/plants-can-reduce-air-pollution-in-cities-60-according-to-study/

Wellbeing
Wellbeing studies carried out by the NHS have shown that living near green spaces has a definite, positive and measurable impact on our health. Green walking & cycle networks would bring green space closer to all of us and we would all benefit from this.
This also will reduce NHS costs significantly.


Desirable living spaces
People would like to live on these new cycle routes. Indeed, it could actually make the houses on those roads worth a lot more than those on the infernal combustion routes.
The quieter, greener roads would be lovely places to live and work as well as places for walkers and cyclists to travel through.

House prices
Most of us would opt for those homes in quieter streets, instead of those on busy routes, it would certainly increase the value of those homes.

Crime Drops.
Several studies nationwide suggest that gardens and green space might help to lower crime rates. In San Francisco’s Mission District, crimes dropped 28 percent after a community garden led to the formation of a neighbourhood watch group. In Chicago, professors Frances Kuo and William Sullivan compared crime rates among 98 apartment buildings in a public housing project. They found buildings with high levels of vegetation had 52 percent fewer crimes than buildings with low levels.

There are 10 Healthy Streets Indicators:
    •    Pedestrians from all walks of life -
London's streets should be welcoming places for everyone to walk, spend time in and engage in community life.

    •    People choose to walk, cycle and use public transport. A successful transport system enables more people to walk and cycle more often.

    •    Clean air
Improving air quality delivers benefits for everyone and reduces unfair health inequalities.

 

    •    People feel safe
The whole community should feel comfortable and safe on our streets at all times. People should not feel worried about road danger.

    •    Not too noisy
Reducing the noise impacts of traffic will directly benefit health and improve the ambience of our streets.

    •    Easy to cross
Making streets easier to cross is important to encourage more walking and to connect communities.

    •    Places to stop and rest
A lack of resting places can limit mobility for certain groups of people.

    •    Shade and shelter
Providing shade and shelter enables everybody to use our streets, whatever the weather.

    •    People feel relaxed. More people will walk or cycle, if our streets are not dominated by motor traffic, and if pavements and cycle paths are not overcrowded, dirty or in disrepair.

    •    Things to see and do
People are more likely to use our streets when their journey is interesting and stimulating, with attractive views, buildings, planting and street art.

    
Practical Solutions:
Filtering
There are many types of filtering, a simple one is bollards across the road; wheel chairs, walkers and cyclists can pass, but not cars.
This allows for green streets.

Access for cars
Cul-de-sac’s, no through roads.
No one should be stopped from getting to their homes or stopped from parking close to their homes.
The main thing that would change is that vehicles could only enter and leave from one end of a green street.
This would give us all access.
Where we cannot prevent through traffic, chicanes can be used as in this image.

Parking
Green Cycling Routes would not all be totally car free. Although ‘no cars’ is the goal, presently we still need parking space. GCNs could accommodate substantial and convenient car parking. Providing more car clubs and secure cycle pods would reduce the need to own a car.
Councils and Governments can offer inducements.

Emergency access
What if we need to get an ambulance to your home?
On many roads, this won't be a problem. For places where there is a risk all accident & emergency services vehicles already have the standard key.


    ▪    Walking and Cycling
Encouraging cycling is as much psychological as anything else.
Cycling is dangerous; If we think were not safe, that’s it, we won’t cycle.
Quietways are a step in the right direction true, but any moving vehicle represents a threat, if it touches you or your child’s bike, it will send a body flying.
Close scrapes terrify and injure and dissuade people from cycling.

Are Quiet-Way’s safe?
Is your child safe on a Quiet-Way? No.
The danger that a car or lorry presents to a human on a bicycle is obvious. The painted lines used to make most UK cycle lanes will not stop drivers whose attention wanders from ploughing through cyclists. The same applies to raised kerbs. Would you let your 5-year-old use a typical UK cycle lane? Would you even think them safe on Cycle Superhighway or Quietway? No? Me neither.

Pootling vs Warrior Mode Cycling
The joys of cycling include pootling, meandering and taking it easy. This is not something you can do on dangerous cycle routes where you need to be in ‘warrior mode’ all the time. Powered vehicles are a threat to walkers and cyclists. How can one relax and enjoy the scenery when you are constantly at risk of being knocked down? Fear discourages cycling.

Would anyone be forced to cycle?
Certainly not. You can still drive your car, hopefully an electric Zip car, from your house and park it by your friend’s house just as before, it's just that some roads would be for cyclists and walkers alone to travel through.


Summary
Something has to change.
London pollution levels are going through the roof (latest London news report 18th Oct 2017).
We need to make walking and cycling car free and safe.
London needs a network of streets to become ecologically sound, healthy living spaces, not car conduits. 
Quality of life would rise and CO2 emissions would drop.
Road repair would fall, as would the costs to the NHS.    
Green, Car Free Routes, as suggested above and supported by Sadiq Khan are visions of Healthy Streets
Together we can do this.

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Should people be forced to contribute to society?

 

 

   Its a distraction from the point but; 

and,,, in the interests of a great society Just ask yourselves, "What would make a great society?"

It Dawned on me yesterday during a conversation about wether people should be forced to contribute to society, that we should not preclude the idea that if we could manage to arrange things so, just so perfectly so, that if we chose a life of total indolence,,, we could be allowed to; and that it would be fine to do that if thats what we, as adults, chose to do.

 

And this being an excellent goal we should always strive to achieve it.

 

In other words, in great society it would be ok to drop out and we should be allowed do it if we want.

There are so many of us that dont actually do anything real, we just float around in the haze of energy created by those tiny few w who actually do real work. I am talking of those builders, nurses, miners and farmers and those who do essential manufacturing. The whole cluster represents a very small percentage of society. Handled well the need to work is actually very small. 

I used to live in a house that was 700 years old, if all the things we did make were made as well we would not have to work so dam hard. Imagine going to your draw and getting out your tin opener and imagine that it is 400 years old. 

Think about not having had to buy a new one every year. 

Think of the mining, the transport, the smelting, the fashioning, the drawing the melding and moulding. The teams of people getting it from manufacture to shop and then to your home and then to landfill. Think then about those involved in taking away the broken one, the transport the dust man and the lorrys & barges of it all just to get it to the landfill site, and the years it will lay in the ground polluting the soil until nature eventually does its work.

And imagine the CO2 footprint, shere wasted energy and man hours of it all.

And then imagine if the tin opener was well made and did last 400 years and we saved all that work all that digging and pressing and selling we didn't have to do. Think of all that work you were forced to do to keep this obselesence festival going. And now imagine that that applies to everything we make, all those man hours saved, all that energy not wasted; Imagen how your life could be without waste. 

Bertrand Russel said "The morality of work is the morality of slaves" and clearly he is right.

Yes I can imagine a society arranged just so well, one in which the work needed was so small the it would be fine, if one chose, to not have to work.

Having said all that the work thing is a distraction from the point which is that we should always strive to create a society based on freedoms not limitations, on liberties and not the versions of slavery we seem at present to be strangely ignorant of, even though it runs right through ever fiber of our society.

Of course its a daft proporsition because very few humans can cope with indolance, mos cant help themsalves. Humans have from the beginning of of our time we have been defined by tha fact that we cant sit still, we are allways up to something. Indolance is not really a massive human trait.

I guess the real answer is we could create a society so much better that what we have and that any time now is is a good time. Now is always a good time to do things.

Just a thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

suggestions, observations and explorations:

I have gotten so fed up with the myopic stupidity of our political leadership that I have decided to try to make it better by giving some constructive ideas a view.

 

I have a few suggestions, observations and explorations, so it’s not all negative.

FIRSTLY it is clear that any society that destroys its environment will not last. It has happened before Mayans with water and Easter Islanders with wood, both times the cultures colapsed 

We are destroying the environment, not just for us, but also for everything alive on this planet..

Let's not mess about, in truth we are fucked and unless we really change things very pro-actively.

I have read this subject extensively for over 30 years and it is my conclusion that there will be death throughout nature and we will suffer. This is not definite, but very likely.

To prevent catastrophy we need to challenge too many of the accepted truths that we certainly wont be able to do it in time.


Some of the power games  stopping us address urgent problems are: Politicians, This  of pro capital ideology, probably all buisnesses, No tryed and tested alternatives, 

Politicians

Politicians skew politics.

Most politicians and companies simply wont have the vision or will. Put another way, Ecology means lower profits, and companies can destroy politicians. So even though we are talking about the only world where life is, politicians, while skewing most things toward the vested's interests, still do too little, too late, (and that with bad grace while crowing about how much they do do). That is why business, like religion, should have no place in politics. They are vested interests that look after their own interests before anything else and thus skew politics. Their interests are not those of people or the planet. Buisness has pursuaded politicians the economy is is most important, it is not our boss, we are its boss.

 

 

Ideologys

We are killing our planet so we dont have to chalange our ideology; our idology is more important than my long term survival.

The world is at risk and we don’t stop destroying it because we can’t see a way to make a profit out of it. Or more specifically, any thing that includes the price to the planet is prohibitively expensive. Our "profit is the motivation" ideology is stopping genuine alternatives.  We are killing our planet so we dont have to chalange our ideologys.

 

Look at it this way; our boat is sinking because the people who are breaking it, (are making vast profits out of it). Are we really going to wait for the market to create a "profit stream" allowing you to profit from preserving nature? - Or maybe- we could just stop breaking the boat, stop destroying nature. Hu? Guys?,,,,  Guys?

What do I mean? 

 

No amount of money can replace a single Dodo let alone a whole ecosystem. When its gone, its gone forever. 

During WWII we changed our whole economy. We put people on the land to farm, had rationing, blackouts and all the rest. We acted as if there was a war on.

But for some reason the our whole planets ecosystem is not as important.

Within the Ven diagram marked ecosystem, is Man. We can only exist with that circle. If that goes, we all go.

Here you will see how out of touch our MPs and systems are. And how the powers that be, and vast megga-rich companys, are actually preventing us from protecting ourselves and Earth. 

Having said that all is not lost now but we have about 5 or 10 years to act.

We will need very concerted effort and vision from the biggest organizing body we have,,, The Government!

The Government is living in a mental bubble and cannot conceive how serious it will be to us humans let alone how it and we will effect all other life on this planet as a result.

The methods and systems we have at present, are not and maybe cannot, deal with the enormous task ahead. Unfortunately this is at a moment when we really need visionary leadership not the mediocre "telephone Hygienists" and pathetic excuses we have now, tedious bank managers all.

OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

 

THE TRUTH IS WE HAVE BUY-OCRACY. WHEREIN WHAT YOU BUY DIRECTS THE WORLDS DIRECTION.

Apart from it being startalingly un- democratic, this has very obvious problems that all corporations and pollititions gloss over;  

You then need to have:

1. Very knowlagble public

2. Highly motivated buying public.

3. This highly educated and motivated public has to be making educated decisions (covering agriculture, chemistry, genetics, packaging, CO2 production, air miles, carbon foot prints, child workers, water supplies, local politics and corruption across the world,) for every single item we buy!!!

4. For any of this to work the information has to be redilly available, which it is not.

This clearly is a bad way to do things. It has disempowered people, made them into consumers, not dooers, aditionally it has also given vast power to people who's best interests are not our own.

Now they are in competition with each other and squeezing people into becoming nothing more than  consumers; commited by mortgages etc to work for the rest of their lives.

 

 

 

Bank Managers

Example, It's no good governments saying "Why should I stop polluting if others still do it".

Just change some words to see how silly that is. "Why should I stop Abusing Children if others still Abuse Children". Hmm it doesn’t sound so good now.

My reply is of course that child abuse is still child abuse, regardless. This "why should I stop when others don't", attitude is most governments answer to many things, i.e.  Investment in road building, airport expansion, nuclear fuels, all supported by governments yet the one truly good, un-critisizable thing, Rail Support, got shuffled to the back, nothing was done. It was promised but nothing was done. Unfortunately that list goes on and on.

If we don’t substantially change almost all the things we do now, not only will we experience terrible hardship, but all the species on this planet will also suffer terrible reduction and as the disruption cycle speeds up, sadly most of them will become extinct.

 


A NEW MORALITY.

THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE OUR MORALITIES AND WHY WE HAVE THEM.

What is a Morality? One element is, I think, nature evolving a survival mechanism in humans brains and that it is still at a developmental stage. It may well take a long time before it coalesces, if at all.

So why do we have morals?

Crudely, 

Its purpose is to create a sustainable philosophy in the relatively new, in evolutionary terms, big brain we have. It is an expression of evolution trying out new survival techniques.

Our personal moralities are systems developed by people and societys to enhance there chances of survival.

Given that survival is the underlying drive in our moralitys, we can now evaluate each moralities ability to carry out that task and devise new, more sucessful ones. This should be fun.

Here Ecology becomes primary because

without Nature, there is nothing. Everything is dead.

So build that into a morality desinged to help us survive.

I guess that tells us what we can and cant do and why it has to have, underpinning everything, an understanding of its impact on nature. If we ignore this and we act as if the world is infinite, which it is not, we will damage Nature so fundermentaly that it is unlikely

Obviously the more we damage nature the less able it will be to support us. This is a really good reason to start right now. We are at a bow wave of a huge increase in human expansion and resorce useage.  If we dont change the reasons we do things then in 150 years the planet will be so seriously damaged that few humans will survive and times will be hard.

So to damage nature is "Bad" and to nurture nature is "Good". Thats your simplistic starting point for any viable morality (one that intends to survive a long term).

But because we can see that its only a matter of the underpinning morality being out of kilter we can do something about it. I am always in favour of good, creative things whos intention is to allow us to live happyer more satisfiying, safer, healther and longer lives. It is the best way to go. Without that we might as well not bother.

There will always be those who want a bad system, many did well out of facism, power is seductive; but If we are going to change anything, we might as well make it better and have good reasoning even a joi-d-vivre, behind the change. I am not religious but I can see that we do indeed live in Eden. We have just made a bit of a mess of it but we can change and tidy it up and all live wonderful lives.

We designed our world so we can design a different one.

But how? What drives our decision making? Well long term survival in the best quality of life possible. So

We are killing our planet so we dont have to chalange our ideology; In other words our ideology is more important than our long term survival

 

SCALES of things, Inc Time, and relative moralitys.

If we had in infinate world then our morality could be different to a finite world. 

 


 

Populations Increase

Inevitably as human populations increase and pressure on the earth’s systems increases, as meanwhile, global warming makes droughts that will reduce farmable areas and then starvation will set in. Then people will try to move (This is happening in Somalia right now 2009). As more people move and become refugees the pressure on neighboring states will be extreme, they might even be suffering the same problems, this can destabilise governments and then people die in millions. But this time it wont just stay over there. Countries, faced with total wipe out will not go easy. I suspect many wars over water and farming land. World wide all the natural spaces that can support farming will be doing just that. Any species that doesn’t fit into that or that doesn’t taste nice will go, hunted to extinction or most probably extinction through habitat destruction.

People, when starving, will kill and eat everything, and move to richer environments. Thus speeding up the process.

 

Quick Maths

Do the math’s: Less Land + More people + Over fishing + Short term farming + Greed motive + Climate Change+ diminishing resources = A Vicious Cycle and a Bloody Dangerous Situation!

There will come a time

when you will have to kill starving people

just to protect ones food supplies.

Can we afford to put armed guards on fields of crops? That will mean even greater hardship, leading to total or near total disintegration of society, as we know it. That is assuming there are any humans left to carry on. (I suppose humans are incredible resourceful and if life is possible at all, some humans will survive). but society could decend to the stone age.

I think we are in for a severe shock.

=*= 

 


We will destroy nature

because we cant deal with our own idea,

that of money.

This sounds really dire and I am sorry but having studied ecology and politics for 30 years I think we are in for a severe shock.

Our politicians are worse than useless and, though we vote them into power, they are actualy owned by business.

Political parties actually destroy politics and should be banned along with any "packaged politics" Political parties main concerns are to continue to exist. So naturally they don’t want to speak any hard truths. This is our only political representative, not dealing with the most important subjects of our time.

The parties become more important than the politics they present. Enormous jugganaughts that claim power whether usefull or not. existing to give polititions jobs but not a voice for people.

To be fair, politicians are, to a degree created by the system we have which is clumsy, open to manipulation and altogether rather crude.  

So the way we do politics needs to change, Good grief, is this even possible?

We need massive vision and leadership at this moment in time but instead our idiot credo is "the market will prevail".

We will destroy nature because we cant deal with our own idea, that of money.

 ==============================================================

POLITICAL REFORM.

Clearley this is central and there are many tweeks that could be made but really a total rethink is nessecery.

TWEEKS: How many tme have we seen important bill going through pariiament and the chamber is almost empty? I want my politian to be there when any and every bill is voted upon or debated.

We pay their wages and we deserve to have them do the work we pay them to do. Clearly that mean

 

 

 

Notes for more,,

No Parties.

Jury system parliament.

 

No Lobbying.

No buisness or religions

Starting at the same level as the Neibourhood watch local groups 1 to 150ish . next level would be the entyre street, then 4 blocks or so. Each time taking good ideas up and down the structure. 

Any individual can get there "Bill" before our house of equals.

 


How can you make nature justify itself in terms of capitalism?

Nature is over if we apply the rules of the business market place to it. If we apply the rules of buisness to nature we will destroy nature. How can you make nature justify itself in terms of capitalism? Applying the business ideology of "survival of the fittest" to nature would produce a single vicious predatorily monster who after consuming everything would die of starvation. Which funnily enough is exactly what is happening.

It just shows how out of touch our invented world is with the actual world.

In our world we work to make stuff that breaks and we throw it away and we have to work again to make more disposable rubbish. This parasitic cycle goes on endlessly and nobody asks why are we alive and  "If I am alive, what shall I do?" Or "Now that I am alive what do I want to do with my life?" and the very important question, "Why are we doing this?”

Now that we are alive, how shall we organise ourselves?

If we asked that, we would not create what we have. But to change, it’s a bit like that Irish reply to a lost driver "Well I wouldn’t start from here."

 

So it becomes clear that so many things, and the way we do things, need to change in so short a time.... The only thing I can do is this, BUT I CAN come up with some ideas.

The cash system itself keeps us in wage slavery

Our collective wealth is greater than it’s ever been. We are wealthier and more productive than the human race has ever been and yet we are all working as hard as ever. It now needs both parents to work in order to have a family, that’s worse than in the 1950s. 

 =====================================================

But this system is killing us all!

Power Pyramids, Politicians and Business’s really cannot see any way to do things without top-down manipulation and the total and uncritical acceptance of the cash system which keeps us in wage slavery and by the way,  is eating up our planet. Their problem is that they stay rich and powerful by insisting that there is no viable alternative system. To which we must reply "But this system is killing us all". Also they insist that the economy is so important that we must work hard to keep it a-float (??). Again shout loud and clear, "We invented it, it should be working for us, not us working for it"!

We really lack leadership and vision.

Actually very small bunch have taken control and built power pyramids for themselves, this allows them to direct how we actually live. In the last 1000 years we have progressed from the Feudal system only slightly. The shape and names have changed and also the routes to power have changed. But the actual pyramid hasn't changed much at all and I don’t think its helping.

I don’t think we will ever really be weaned off cash but we have to do other stuff fast because the greed motive is so destructive.

 ===============================================

Power Pyramids

Everywhere I look I can see money apparently doing good, driving economies etc but as one investigates it deeper things look very different. Trouble is we have spent 8,000 plus years building tribe shaped pyramid shaped structures (deriving from ape family structures,) and spent at least 3,000 years working out how to use money to wield power over each other. It’s very difficult to work out a persuasive alternative. Especially as we regard the use of money as one of the immutable true cornerstones of life. We never question it, and thus it is treated like a religion, where we are the believers. When so many people really believe in something and put so much investment into it, it is very difficult to present any argument that sounds sensible; they all sound mad to those who have no idea that there are alternatives.

Power Pyramids:

Bullies, for the benefit of bullies, designed our system.

It’s quite simple really. They don’t want any change that might make them less powerful.

"They" include Banks; all large companies especially Multinationals, Any organisation or institution with an investment in the things, which need change. Not surprisingly they resist the change. It would strange if a company head got up one day and seeing the ecological destruction being wrought by his firm, told his workers to stop, down tools, who would get less strong if people et al.

As long as we all think we need to work so hard we give them larger parts our real lives than is necessary to produce all we need.

The reason you buy crap products is so that you can buy another one when it breaks, thus you get "addicted" to their crap product. Its not by accident the thing is crap. It is meant to break so that you buy another and that is why the maker does not want to make a good one. Why sell a good one for £1 when you can sell 20 crap ones for 50p each; Insane stupidity, criminal waste, self imposed wage slavery. We have given up power over our own lives by giving that choice to a body whose interests conflict with our own.

 

Politicians strut about telling others how things should be done and these same puffed up incompetents haven’t any idea how the world actually works.

This next piece of "evidence" is a good example.

IE 50 years after the scientists started saying we are doing terrible damage to the world Our UK government has finally been forced by the EEC to make a 50% reduction in CO2 over 40 years sounds good but look at it another way; 40 years after it was obvious change was needed and in an environment when we need a Carbon Negative Economy politicians decided to reduce the CO2 output to 50%,,,, over 2 generations!

These incompetent Telephone Hygienists have wrested power from the common people and are so biased, twisted, corrupt and lacking in any fore-site or vision or statesmanship allow a disasterous situation because to do otherwise would be to question our ideologys. They have let us down badly.

The “Party” system people wont step out of line or tell the truth in case they rock the boat or upset business. Meanwhile that very business which is destroying the planet is also promoting worsening personal economic dependentcy and unsustainably ecologicaly destructive lifestyles.

 

Politicians Are Telephone Hygienists. Sodding disingenuous bunch of useless, out of touch and ineffectual ladder climbers. Ask yourself if life here has actualy improved compared to what you imagen it could be.

For the last 50 years scientists have been saying there is a serious problem and here we are saying that we will reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% in another 40 years. It is rising at time of writing and this at a moment when if we totally stopped there would still be a serious problem and breakdown of societies.

 

If we provided ourselves with the essentials on a 2-day week, we would just loose interest in working quite so hard. It threatens manufacturers because you wont be rushing out to work quite so readily, but the Planet will love it. You might even have much more fun.

 

 


The Greed Motive.

We have been given a society in which many things a set up before we get here and we rarely question them. Cash and the way we use it. A system developed over maybe 8,000 years is a very difficult one to trash but it is so integrated in the way we act that it does now need to be questioned.

In part it is a way of measuring work.

It is a powerful way of controlling people.

It has become the only reason to do anything.

Anything that does not make money is not followed up or pursued.

 

 

Survival of the Fittest vs. Co-Operation and Integration.

Utter rot. If that were true we would not have the banking system we do now. It is only a part of the system: More accurately it is "Dubious survival for the weakest".

It misses out the really true picture of co-operation and integration throughout nature, which gives a much greater chance of survival that just plain competitive aggression.

It works in the business world and produces vast monopolies, which governments have to tame and split up etc but nature simply just does not work that way. 

We can outwit the Cod in the sea and if we continue to do it we will kill all the cod.

Not to mention that the idea that "cod only exist as a human resource" is horrifying anthropomorphic arrogance. Why is it wrong? Hmm well if you destroy your food supply, you die.

We are not so unique as we like to think. Yes we do have very clever brains but in all other things we are a mere hairs breadth from most mammals. We love nurture our children that implies many things. In Emotions such as Empathy, Love, Loss, Anxiety, Jealousy, anger, Fear, and so many more subtle signs that we recognise in ourselves

I did like Gandhi’s idea that "As long as we have slaughter houses, we will have war".

 

===========================================

 

What have the Torys ever done for you?
1st made it more difficult to get rid of a bad government.
The young sleeping on night busses.
Food banks
5 hour A&E waiting time
Push your rents up
Pushed your wages down
Pushed begging up
Beggars
Homelessness.
Zero hours
Smaller Windows
Less greenery
Lower ceilings
Removed pensions
Closed local POs
Sold off our Post Offices
Sold off police stations
Sold off railways
Sold off Water
Sold off council housing ( ghettoising the poor and dysfunctional)
Sold off schools
Sold off school playing fields
Sold off public toilets
Made our streets stink of piss
Sacked park keepers
Closed and sold off park keepers houses.
Closed and sold off library's
Sold fire stations
Asset stripped the entire country.
Trying to stop FOI questions
Closed CAB offices making justice unaffordable.
Museum entry charges
Undermine AND TRYING TO SELL OFF the NHS
Closed and Sold off all the psychiatric hospitals.
Closed and sold of cottage hospitals.
Closed Accident and Emergency.
Took milk from children!
Drained water from moorland , flooding towns downstream but drying uplands for grouse shooting.
Made classes larger thus teaching standards for the poorer drop.
No job security
Zero hours contracts
Help foreign investors charge higher rents.
Gave banks £2,000,000,000 of our wealth to lubricate society and they kept it and have not spent it.
Continue to pay banks £800,000,000.pcm QE to banks


Oh and where did all that money go? Look to the rich who creat no wealth but know how to accumulate wealth created by people who actually work and create wealth

==================================================================

 

BREXIT

I kept hearing "regain control" and its got me thinking that, apart from everything else, people as fed up with being powerless in their communities, country, work (and in their finances).
Being powerless will bring on that need to "regain Control", but will leaving the EU give us, you or I, any more control?
No, No it wont. It will make no difference to our ability to affect things in our community's.
And this is my point, society's structure will remain much the same.

For example;
Communities will not be approached by developers who ask "What do you want and need?" Then try to work out a way to provide it (profitably).
They certainly wont converse will the entire neighborhood and it wont be democratic.
No, the planning department, driven directly from central government controls those decisions and we do have any control, all objections will be neutralized and swept away.
Regaining control is meaningless unless it means we get to have a real meaningful say.
So The next things to do are to give people some real power in their communities.
Lets make it simple for the average person to say "No, we don't want more flats here, we want a park". Or "No thanks Tesco, we want a funky arcade for local small businesses not another ubiquitous Tesco store".
This has been about planning but the same dis-empowering problems are true right across civil society. Councils and companies are faceless, there is precious little consultation, its all about profits and people get squashed into the spaces left.
This makes people feel alienated and they do because they are.  
Right now we have a great opportunity to promote greater true democratic systems that really do give our communities more control.
Restructuring with local forums, weekly referenda, Open Space meetings, Proportional Representation, asking the community what they want and not imposing top down solutions.
Anything that give us more of a say in our societys.
This is what we can offer the British people after Brexit. A chance to truly regain control!

 

=================================================================

Car Free Cycle Routes


Car Free Cycle Routes Or Green Cycle Routes
My idea is to create a network of car free roads right around London (& and the whole country).
If cycling is to grow significantly and become the main preferred method of getting from A to B, then it needs to be invested in hugely.
There are many suggestions about what needs doing but most are tweeking when what we really need is a complete re-evaluation of who gets to use the roads, we need to question the primacy of the car on our roads and maybe slaughter some sacred cows.
Somehow the car has squeezed itself into every nook and cranny and having insinuated itself onto every road in existence continues to squeeze out other road users, making it less and less possible for anyone outside of a car to use the roads. Cars are either pumping out poisons, screaming by at lethal speeds or are left cluttering every road and many pavements. They are alternately dangerous or in the way.

Harm from cars.
The harm that cars do is manifold and accepted as inevitable. The sheer clutter on every road, the uglification of our surroundings, a continuos stencilled constant running through every scene bringing noise and danger at every turn, rising chronic asthma due to particulate pollution, and occasional sudden death (about 3000 deaths a year and uncountable amounts of minor accidents). Not to mention green house gasses, CO1, CO2, and climate change!

The Tax angle.
Drivers do not pay for the roads! So who pays for the roads?
Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. .
Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation.
In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937.
A child buying a sweet somewhere among the line, is paying for the roads. And yet it is car drivers that hog and dominate all roads.

The Basic Argument.
cycling has so many benefits. It could be characterised as a positive elixir, a simple solution to so many problems.
Imagine, we need to get to mums, 5 miles away. Our group includes your 85 year old grand parents and my 5 year old children. Normally they all go in cars, gramps doesn't like the bus, walking is too far and cycling on those busy roads is simply madness but in this story they all get on bicycles and cycle the whole way along quiet, car free, leafy Avenues only stopping at junctions only to let the cross traffic pass. We arrive calmly, relaxed, healthy, fitter and unharmed.

"Ok nice story but that won't happen", I hear you say. Well let's not write it of quite so quickly.
There are many advantages to car free roads, many are very seductive and there are a lot of road use who presently can't use the roads because cars are dangerous including Equestrians, walkers, stall holders, street foods, kids playing football. It must

Desirable living spaces.
People would like to live on these new cycle routes, indeed it could actually make the houses on those roads worth a lot more than the infernal combustion routes.
The quieter, greener roads would be lovely places to live and work as well as places to travel through.

House prices.
Most of us would opt for those homes in quieter streets instead of those on busy routes, in fact it would probably increase the value of those homes.

CO2 emissions.
Transport accounts for about 50% of the  CO2 we can get control of in our city's. If we
If we want to be safe in the future we can't use the oils we have now let alone that which fracking etc can provide. Oil fuelled vehicles must be used less.
If the Government were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions it would make it safe for all cyclist to use the roads. Therefore the government must make it safe for my 80 year old mother and my 5 year old daughter to cycle. Otherwise my mum will continue to drive and I will be forced to drive my children because I don't want them endangered.
Achieving this is actually quite easy but it's scary for government and councils because it's a big change in the accepted way of doing things.

Health.
It is obvious the we all value our health and that the NHS has to fork out billions to help us when we are sick but if we did have greener, car free, cycle network we would cycle more. Cycling more will keep us fitter and that means we won't have to visit our Dr quite so much.

Wellbeing.
Wellbeing study's carried out by the NHS have shown that living near green spaces has a definite, positive and measurable impact on our health. Green cycle networks would bring green space closer to all of us and we would all benefit from this.

Parking.
These Green Cycling Networks would not all be totally car free, after all we still need parking and GCNs can provide huge amounts of convenient parking for all.

Access for cars.
No one will be stopped from getting to their homes or stopped from parking outside their homes. The only thing that would change is that car could only enter and leave from one end of the road. This is all that is necessary for us all to have a far rosier future.

More greenery.
Having all these quiet roads would allow for a great deal more greenery, and flowers and fruit and many other things that are now impossible on our busy and overstretched.

Would any one be forced to cycle?
Certainly not. You can still drive your car from your house and park by your friends house just as before, it just that some roads would be for cyclists alone to travel through.

Quality of life.
This scheme would bring calm and joy and safety to so many people that that alone should be enough on its own. But the real pay back will be in many years time when the environment is not as damaged as it would otherwise would be.

Who pays for the roads?
Firstly, “road tax” does not exist, and has not existed since the 1930s. What drivers do pay, however, is Vehicle Excise duty. What you pay for is your car’s tax disc - it's based on your vehicle’s emissions and since a bicycle creates no emissions, it is not liable for Vehicle Excise Duty.
Also it is worth nothing that bicycles do not damage roads in the same way that cars and lorries do, thus the roads designated green way, calm ways or car free cycle routes will last many years longer and cost so much less to maintain.
So if we encouraged cycling Instead of driving, we could all save a bit of cash.
This has got to be a win.

 

===========================================================

 

The NHS is arguably the most amazing thing ever created by humans Unquestionably the eighth wonder of the world. A truly egalitarian organisation helping all without question or asking for bank account details. We have it here, right here, where we live and we should value it. Rich or poor it offers world class medical care to all of us who need it.

It was created after WW2 when we had no money and the whole country was in serious debt. We are now far wealthier being the 6th biggest economy on the planet. We a life of luxury we could not even have imagined in 1945. Yet over the last few years our wonderful NHS has been brought to its knees. There is not a nurse or Dr would disagree. Everyone of them is tired and overworked. Most have been sacked and immediately re-employed at lower wages and longer hours. Tired Drs make mistakes. Good Drs and nurses are leaving the NHS i droves because they are stressed and unhappy and overworked. working conditions are more like 1970s car factory that a caring service. Huge sectors have been sold off or handed over to private companies raising the real possibility that the NHS would become just the name over the door of an American style health service.

The killer bugs MRSA and clostridium difficile etc spread because the cleaning service was privatised. Private companies need to make profits as well as provide a service. This money that would otherwise be spent on the NHS is instead  being made as profits out of the NHS by private companies. PFIs costs us around £200 billion, a year and locks us into 30 year contracts that no private company would ever sign up to.

National Insurance contributions go down as you wages go up. If you earn between £8,060 and £42,385. you pay 12%. If you earn above £42,385 a year, you pay 2%. I.e. as your wages go up, the shocking truth is, again that the poor subsidise the rich.

PFI’s cost two to three times what it could have cost if it had been normally funded. That profit goes into equity investors and bankers pockets. Edward Leigh, the chair of a Treasury committee report into PFI, called investor returns the “unacceptable face of capitalism”. PFI deals have very high interest rates, they impose much higher debts upon the taxpayer than the actual value of the infrastructure they originally helped to build. In 2011 the taxpayer owed £121.4 billion to pay for infrastructure which was only valued at £52.9 billion) and they often include expensive maintenance and service contracts which charge the public purse vastly inflated fees for performing simple tasks. One PFI hospital was apparently charged £333 to have a new light bulb installed under the terms of their maintenance contract.

So instead of making the NHS stronger and more effective we have weakened it. We have undermined every corner of it as private interests cherry pick the most profitable parts leaving the difficult, dirty and unprofitable bits for us to deal with. While wages have been falling, spending on temporary & agency staff grew by £1bn in 2013/14 this pattern is repeated right across the NHS.

We have a vast, highly professional world class organisation with an unbeatable reputation. Across the world everyone knows and trusts it reputation, knowing that, being a non profit organisation, its morals and motivations are good. It is trusted. If the NHS were allowed to sell its world leading skills, pioneering research and, most importantly, make and sell its own drugs, it could easily cost less and fund large parts of itself from its own funds but instead it is hobbled and undermined. The interest of business is to make profits the business of the NHS is to make people well.

It seems as if the politicians could, we would have one vast hospital in, say, Birmingham and close every other hospital in the country. This is clearly a bad idea but everywhere we look we see closures. The ludicrous cuts closing local hospitals, A & E s, ambulance stations, fire stations schools, social services, psychiatric hospitals, rubbish collections, etc etc etc all blamed on Austerity and National Debt. Politicians claim we need to make these cuts to pay off Debts. Well lets look at that.

 

================================================================

 

BANKS again

 

Austerity

i.e. Banks went bankrupt and now we all need to give them our wealth. We do it by creating more tokens for the same wealth while the banks get to keep the difference. Many economists are suggesting that the best solution is not to give money to failed banks but instead give us all that money and we can spend it to re-energise the economy from the ground upwards.

National Debt.

Banks did not have any of this money, they made it up. Money is not wealth, just as the map is not the territory. What we have are tokens. Banks give us tokens and we work to give them back real wealth. 96% of money is debt. A government or people owned bank could create tokens and write of the debt repeatedly. Honestly, however odd that may sound, it really is that simple.

Governments and politicians lack imagination and courage to take these simple steps because they are scared of the banks, big business and the powerful media.

 

banks creating the debt crisis and you not covering it.
Listen to the BBCs Four Thought. It explains exactly what I have been saying.
Bank create money out of thin air thus I say that dropping the debt is entirely possible. Ie if the banks lent nothing real, we have nothing to give back because we cant give back that which was never given.
This is central to any and all conversations about banks, banking and debt.
Why do you never mention it?
Leon Maurice-Jones.
Four Thought: Ben Dyson
Wed, 24 Oct 2012
Ben Dyson explains how his disillusionment with mainstream economics led to his campaign for understanding of how money works as the first step in fixing a failed banking system.

 


Re banks creating the debt crisis, the simplicity of dropping the debts and you not covering it.
Listen to BBC radio 4s Four Thought. It explains exactly what I have been saying.
Bank create money out of thin air thus I say that dropping the debt is entirely possible. Ie if the banks lent nothing real, we have nothing to give back because we cant give back that which never had.
This is central to any and all conversations about banks banking and debt.
Why do you never mention it?

Four Thought: Ben Dyson
Wed, 24 Oct 2012
Ben Dyson explains how his disillusionment with mainstream economics led to his campaign for understanding of how money works as the first step in fixing a failed banking system.

I know this means the emperor has no clothes but it is not untrue, Yet this is  never menttioned
 Sincerely puzzled
Leon Maurice-Jones
 

 


Re banks creating the debt crisis and you not covering it.
Listen to your own BBC radio 4s Four Thought. It explains exactly what I have been saying.
Banks create money out of thin air thus I say that dropping the debt is entirely possible. Ie if the banks lent nothing real, we have nothing to give back because we cant give back that which never existed.
Thus not giving back something which never existed is obvious. Yes we can simply drop the debt rather than crucifying society at large.
This is central to any and all conversations about banks, banking and debt.
Why do you never mention it?

The only place I have heard it mentioned was
"Four Thought: Ben Dyson
Wed, 24 Oct 2012
Ben Dyson explains how his disillusionment with mainstream economics led to his campaign for understanding of how money works as the first step in fixing a failed banking system."

I know this means the emperor has no clothes but it is not untrue, Yet this is  never mentioned
 Sincerely puzzled
Leon Maurice-Jones
 

Re banks creating the debt crisis, the simplicity of dropping the debts and you not covering it.
Listen to BBC radio 4s Four Thought.

Banks create money out of thin air, its called fractional reserve banking, thus dropping the Debt is entirely possible.
Ie if the banks lent nothing real and we cant give back that which they never lent.
This is central to any and all conversations about banks banking and debt.
Why do you never mention it?

I know this means the emperor has no clothes but shouldn't you point it out?
 Yet this obvious fact is never mentioned.
Are you the hoodwinked crowd or the observant child?

Four Thought explains this exactly.
Banks create money out of thin air thus They can't loose something they never had.
Which is why many say that dropping the debt is entirely possible. Ie if the banks lent nothing real, we have nothing to give back because we cant give back that which never existed, that is obvious.
So the implications are that we can simply drop the debt rather than crucifying society at large.
This is central to any and all conversations about banks, banking and debt.
Why do you never mention it?

The only place I have heard it mentioned was
"Four Thought: Ben Dyson
Wed, 24 Oct 2012
Ben Dyson explains how his disillusionment with mainstream economics led to his campaign for understanding of how money works as the first step in fixing a failed banking system."

 Leon Maurice-jones
 


about banks and debt.

After studying economics for the last few years I have been considerably surprised by this.
The money in society is 96% debt not wealth.
This debt is created by fractional reserve banking ie we don't lone you money we have but give you non existing money which to "pay it back".
We do work in order to transfer wealth from wealth creators, usually farmers, miners and a few manufacturers, into our hands and then on to the banks who did not posses this wealth in the first place.
In other words the banks did not have the wealth we are wrecking society to  "pay back".
This is fundamental to any debate about wealth and debt yet in five years of following the BBCs coverage I have never heard this mentioned.
It is so central to every part of our present economic situation yet somehow it is never mentioned.  I can only assume ignorance or complicity.
This is sent from a phone so I have not gone into its complexity but it is no secret and thus I am wondering why you never mention it.
It is so important because it means that debts CAN be written off and no harm will come of it.
Sure a few super wealth organisations will have there noses put out of joint but compare the to entire nations being bankrupted.
I want to know why this is not being mentioned and when you will start to do so. Please contact me if this is not clear.

Why do we put the bankers ahead of rest of the population?

============================================

============================================= 

===================================

============================

========================

==================

================

=============

======

===

Sensible Politics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


You are visitor no.


Free homepage created with Beep.com website builder
 
The responsible person for the content of this web site is solely
the webmaster of this website, approachable via this form!