Blog 51 Beyond Banksters. Further Final Notes and Quotes

Blog 51 Beyond Banksters. Further Final Notes and Quotes

 From Chapter 3  A 21st Century Trojan Horse**

"CPPIB {Canada Pension Plan Investment Board} director, Michael Goldberg, is also a director of ... Resources Works, which (according to its website) promotes "fact-based dialogue on responsible resource development in British Columbia."

Now that's what we like to hear:
   "fact-based"  (no lies, no propaganda, no "alternative facts.")
   "dialogue"     (that is, both sides heard from.)
   "responsible" (means "publicly answerable").

But, to quote Nelson again:

"Critics say Resource Works is a collection of PR flaks working especially for the oil and gas industry.
 "Resource Works is currently promoting the export of Site-C* dam-generated electricity for tar sands development in Alberta, enabling (as their website puts it) 'The expansion of the oil sands powered by clean energy to avoid  climate change.'" (My italics).

Wow! Sounds great!  The expansion of the oil sands powered by clean energy to avoid climate change.

     "Dam-generated!  That's hydro. Next to solar and wind,  that's the cleanest.
      "Clean energy."  Yep, that's what we're all after.
      "Avoid climate change." The ultimate grand global goal.

Three cheers for Michael Goldberg and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board!. 

But, Michael, isn't the tar/oil sands one of the most polluting carbon sources in the world?

No, no, no, Not if you use clean hydro power to produce it.

Oh? So it's only when the oil is refined from the tar and is actually burnt into the atmosphere that it pollutes! OK, I think I am getting it. Since this oil may be imported into the United States with President Trump's pipeline, and since it is going to be refined and burnt there or be refined there and be sold and burnt somewhere else in the world, it will avoid, (not just diminish), but totally avoid  climate change!  


Well, what a great global relief that will be!

And Canada totally exonerated! And on your good advice, Mr. Goldberg, they may also invest their people's major pension fund money into some great infrastructure projects. Thanks.


Or is this just the pissiest piece of PR bafflegab you've ever heard?

But we are getting used to that now, after the election, in what is being called "the post-truth age."

But here's hope: John Milton, a great English spokesman for freedom of speech, said:

"Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter. (Areopagitica 1664.)

And - a briefer version from my old grandmother's lexicon of proverbs: The truth will out.

Vive Truth!
It just that some days it takes a Joyce Nelson or, here, your faithful blogger to "out" it from corporate BS.
BS? You know what BS means.

Which reminds me: your faithful blogger was going to retire The Cogs Blog for a spell (Other calls), but the deconstruction of one more passage presented by Nelson is too good to leave you without.. So Blog 52 will be farewell for a spell till we all meet again. My, that sounds like a line from a musical I think I 'll write,

*Site C is a dam site for hydro-electric power development on the Yukon River in north-eastern British Columbia.

** You know the Trojan horse. It's huge, it sounds hollow inside. But you wheel it into your town like a great prize, anyway. Overnight the armed soldiers hidden inside sneak out and burn down your town. So sad.
Sometimes it doesn't look like a hollow horse, but like a gigantic infrastructure expenditure - built with borrowed money.

Blog 50 More on Beyond Banksters

Blog 50 Beyond Banksters; Resisting the New Feudalism, (cont. 2)

Two quotations from the book.

1   Chapter 3.   A 21st Century Trojan Horse, p33.
 (Toronto), 

"Globe & Mail columnist Konrad Yakabuski urged 'sober second thought' about infrastructure spending, citing examples in Spain, Greece and Japan (seduced by low borrowing rates from private lenders) where massive spending has created 'money pit' infrastructure that nobody uses. Yakabuski noted, 'If government spending on superlatively smooth highways, sleek subways and far-reaching fast trains was the ticket to success, Japan, Spain, and Greece would lead the global economy. Instead, infrastructure spending has been a major source of their debt-induced woes' "

Our Comment to Canadians.
So is Canada paying attention to what their Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and his Finance Minister, Mr. Morneau, are planning to do with their touted infrastructure plans? Mr. Morneau's day job is a principal in Morneau Chapell, which bills itself as a "pension investment adviser" and offers services such as "managing employee absence and disability strategically." (Website quoted.)

So what does a company get for its fees paid to Morneau-Chapell for that "strategy"? Would it prevent or increase "debt-induced woes" if applied to Canada? Be alert, Canadians. You can read more in Beyond Banksters...


2  Chapter 16 "Lessons from Iceland" p.133.

"John Perkins' 2004 best-seller, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, had demonstrated in devasting detail how consultants like himself had coerced Third World governments during the late 1960's and early 1970's to take on huge loans from the World Bank, the IMF and other lending agencies in order to build vast infrastructure projects. The money went directly to US engineering and construction firms, like Bechtel and Halliburton, Stone & Webster, Brown & Root, and other contracting, consulting and engineering firms, who profited immensely from such projects. Once a country had been saddled with massive foreign debt, it could by manipulated and further coerced into working on behalf of the multinationals. It could also be financially ruined by that debt.

"That is what happened to Iceland on October 6, 2008, when its banks collapsed and the country went belly up. Perkins said that there was every indication that Iceland had been 'targeted by economic hit men.' He even publicly called Iceland 'an experiment in the process of how do we hit developed countries?' "

Our Comment

But Iceland hit back. If you read no other chapter in the Nelson book, you will find Chapter 16 a rewarding snapshot of a whole global scenario.

For a much more extensive and detailed review, read ER, the journal of C.O.M.E.R (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) for Nov-Dec 2016,  http//comer.org/archives/2016. Reviewer Ed Finn also found that the only way to review this book was by quoting it.

Blog 49 Nelson Raises the Flag - Fight Feudalism

 Blog 49  Nelson Raises the Flag - 
           Fight Feudalism

 POWER

MONEY

Elbow note (That's something between a foot-note and a head-note, with little relevance to either.)

Just heard a policy statement on NAFTA from the President. Not clear, of course, but as we predicted in Blog 48, what he is after is to strengthen the investor protection powers of that treaty.

But on to Blog 49

Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

  "This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned, 

As home his footsteps he hath turned.

  From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there be, go, mark him well...

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust from which he sprung,

Unwept, unhonoured and unsung!

                   

(Thank you, Sir Walter Scott, 1805)

How do you feel about that two centuries-old sentiment about your country/nation/state/city? If it touches you, you might be interested to read Joyce Nelson's latest book,, Beyond Banksters. Resisting the New Feudalism. It is a small, 146-page book of well-researched content and - professors, please note - very readable style.

I will, however, give you two or three blogs-worth of comment on Nelson's revelations on the global feudalism project.

First, the objective: is to reduce the whole global population to two classes: Rulers (very few and very rich), and Peasants (multitudes, as long as they last, and poor). The Lords will own everything - total privatiztion - and employ only as many peasants as they need. (Cogs Blog comment: I take this view from the term "feudalism" in Nelson's title. You may review Blog 44, if you need to.)  With technological changes, like robotics and the "universe of things", not many peasants will be needed.

Secondly,  How is it to be done? Well, the "Banksters" will do it.

First, by taking from the national states their power to create money. That stage is close to completion. Most of the money with which the world's population now transacts their business is not government money, but money created by private banks, and created as debt.

The second operation  is the crippling of the national states with perpetually unpayable debt. That is achieved by infiltrating national governments and buying, bullying or bamboozling them into turning their "democratic" election promises into neo-feudalist policies, such as selling off state assets cheap to happy investors and replacing public services with profitable private ones. I also predict a large upswing in interest rates, as in the late 1980's. (Review Blog 25 on Nation X)

Finally,the abolition of all public services which are not profit-making - such as free public schools, free healthcare, public pensions, railways and highways with too little traffic, public broadcasting. And social spending generally.  Then abolishing the regulations that protect public assets, such as water, forests, mineral deposits, postal delivery to remote settlements, post office banks, and so on, and, finally, prohibiting any reversion of these to public ownership. (That's what these so-called "trade" treaties are really about. Nelson lays it all out in panoramic simplicity.)

She supports this overview with examples of government policies, names and dates of individuals involved in the transition, and by connecting the dots on lots of illustrative events, from aborting public interest lawsuits to shutting down the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Ever wonder how that well informed, well-targeted movement disappeared so suddenly and completely? She names the banksters who managed the crackdown.

Enough. More details coming up in Blog 50

Blog 48 What Will Trump NAFTA ?

The new President has vilified NAFTA and threatened to scrap the treaty. He can do that easily by giving just six months' notice to the other two signatories.

But he won't. For all he says, the United States, through its corporations, has profited handsomely from twenty years of NAFTA. For one thing, in the first five years of the treaty, Canada alone had hundreds of  Canadian companies bought up by American investors. They weren't naive. The expected return in repatriated profits in those days was 15%!

Some one must have explained that to the Presidential candidate during the election, because partway along he switched from "scrap" to "renegotiate". 

Let me tell you what part of the treaty he will be advised, pressed, or commanded to renegotiate. It will not be about trade in goods of any kind.

It will be the duration of the treaty. He will press to increase the locked-in term from six months to, say, twenty or thirty years, like former Canadian Prime Minister Harper's China treaty (31 years!) The aim will be to secure those investor protection clauses. for as long as possible 

These so-called "trade" treaties over time always benefit the larger country, not the smaller one. And benefit corporations rather than workers. No matter what "trade" rhetoric is bandied about, the main objective will be to seal in those Chapter 11 investor protection rights. Want to bet I'm wrong?

Here's a cartoon from the early days of NAFTA. (Can't credit it. Just found it loose in a file). Today is seems even more relevant than it did then.

Blog 47 Here's to an Enlightening Year

Hello, 2017! May you be an enlightening year.

We sure need enlightenment in a world of commercial advertising, political spin-doctoring, and economic bafflegab. So here are two quotations from two impressive thinkers, that are worth repeating.

No.1    "The ideas of economists and political philosophers when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back...  It is ideas, not vested interest, which are dangerous for good or evil." John Maynard Keynes

Cogs Blog comments/highlights/translations

  -  Experts (past and present) can be right or wrong.

  -  Current self-styled "practical" men (and women, Mrs. Thatcher), without knowing they are doing it, mindlessly spout beliefs derived from some past expert or thinker who might or might not have been right. Or I would add, may have been right then but are wrong, now.

  -  So we need to be alert to ideas,and to call out the propaganda with which the current rulers (Keynes's "vested interests") try to bamboozle us.

  -  Ideas, however may be either good or evil (Example of an evil one: what we need is one world government. Wrong, because the best and most inclusive and compassionate form of government is democracy, which, I would argue, works best in small human communities, and is next to impossible in large ones. (Think Russia, China, the United States. So, ask, who are the "we" who are pushing that evil idea? And why?

No. 2   "Competing in the world marketplace: the strategic view that countries are in competition with each other in the same way that companies are; the long stagnation of middle-class standards of living is attributed to a failure to compete effectively.

What's wrong with this? Like the claim that globalization changes everything, it seems to economists to combine a conceptual confusion with an apparent lack of knowledge about the data.

At a conceptual level, the most basic point about trade is that it is a process of exchange. Any country is both a seller and a buyer on world markets, and market forces will guarantee that over the long run, sales (exports) and purchases (imports) are roughly equal. And the purpose of international trade, the reason why it is useful, is to import, not to export.That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import what it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves. The need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. So the whole idea that "competitiveness" is crucial, or even that it means anything, is usually rejected by economists."

Paul Krugman: Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense...

Cogs Blog comments/highlights/translations

 -  Exports are not the essential aim of trade. The only reason exports are useful to trade is to pay for imports. 

 -  Competitiveness, however is part of American DNA. It has been educated into the American consciousness and highlighted in American history. And, though perhaps a bad idea, it has been exported all over the world. Maybe it was a good idea in 1800, but in the world of 2017 we should clearly be thinking more about its opposite: - cooperation.

Well, that's a not-so-little introduction to a recent book I have just read: Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism* Joyce Nelson, It's a dynamite book, to be mined at next posting.

*Feudalism. You might want to re-visit Blog 44.

Hello, 2017. Are you there?

Blog 46 Boxing Day

Blog 46  Boxing Day, 2016

Unless you happened to get a set of stuffed leather mitts for Christmas, "Boxing Day" must have another meaning. Well, Children, I can tell you. Boxing Day was the day after Christmas Day, when all the boxes the gifts came in were packed away for use another year. You might call it domestic recycling. That was Step One.

Then, your boxes stored, you took your Christmas money and went shopping.

When the owners of stores checked the figures at the end of a Boxing Day, they found they were onto a good thing, and extended their pre-Christmas Sale prices another day, and advertised their Boxing Day Sale! That was Step 2.

Lately, I notice, it has become "Boxing Week Sale!" And surely we can predict a universal Boxing Month Sale! Wow! Then, the Boxing Year Sale, December 26 to December 24!!

Certainly the corporate chain stores, whose employees have forgotten that Sunday used to be called "the day of rest", will rejoice at Boxing Year. The shareholders will demand it, ecstatically.

But what about the money - what the Cogs Blog is all about?
Where does the money come from for a year-long Boxing Day? I should expect to see department stores, as long as they exist at all, to be manned (or womanned) by robots. (Shapely female robots for the Men's Department, of course.) Some wage-savings there will go straight to the bottom line. And the corporate bosses who work seven days a week anyway, will convince the government that its job is to provide the customers with money to spend. Governments will do as they are told as always and, instead of taxing, will just send out a steady flow of GAI payments. 

GAI? It's an old idea: Guaranteed Annual Income - for all citizens. Maybe, Baby, its time has come at last!

And where will the governments' money come from? Won't that be inflationary? 

Oh, come on, now, get with it. Government money (the kind with the presidents' pictures on it) is rapidly disappearing. And banks don't print money. Banks create credit, which already covers almost all of our money needs. So governments can create credit, too. Indefinitely.

As for inflation, so what? Even if it happens, the law of money will still operate: money goes where money is. It will still accumulate at the top. The Forbes Five Hundred listing of the world's richest people will simply list more billionaires and fewer millionaires, then more trillionaires than billionaires. Quadrillionaires? Sure. We might want to shorten the names of our monetary units to "bills", "trills" and "quads". Everybody will soon forget the zeroes. This is no pipe dream. (Some old folks can remember when a loaf of bread cost 12 cents. Really.) Inflation is just something we do already. Only, with GAI, everybody gets what they want. The poor get three meals a day. The management classes get do their satisfying, creative work. The shareholders get their dividends, and the accumulation addicts, accumulate.

All that sounds like an almost boringly good alternative to the world's current situation..

Happy New Year!

             Your devoted blogger.

Blog 45 "Free" Trade and Global Power, or Why Danny Won't Mow My Lawn.

Blog 45  Free Trade and Global Power

I hired a boy to mow my lawn. At least I think I did. It was his idea. He knocked on my door and asked if he could mow my 1500 square feet of ratty turf. Ten dollars. His lawnmower. "Okay," I said "Start Monday." He did a good job. Every Monday he came. Every Monday, I paid. 

About halfway through the summer, I received a birthday present, a shiny green power mower. Well, that should be an improvement, I thought. I'll save a hundred dollars over the summer and also benefit from some needed exercise. So when Danny came on Monday, I told hin that would be his last cut. I paid him, and added a $10 tip.

That evening Danny returned with his lawyer father, who told me that I could mow my own lawn, but I had to pay Danny another $120 for another twelve weeks of the season, plus another $10 tip. He used the phrase, "compensation for the loss of future profits." Keep that phrase in mind. We'll get back to it.

Neighbourly discussion followed, which got nowhere (though at one point he did attempt to twist my arm behind my back. I stepped on his instep, and he swore, but let go of my arm. Finally we hailed a passing neighbour and asked him if he would help resolve a dispute, acting as a third party we both trusted. He agreed, and we each stated our case. He thoughtfully turned it over and then said, "Well, if I am going to be a judge here, I'll have to charge you $10, plus a $10 tip, each." 

To avoid an assault charge, I capitulated, and paid..

Does that phrase "compensation for loss of future profits" suggest what the next 200 words of this blog is about?

Part 2

Well, it's a new breed of international trade treaties, which began with Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994, a deal between, Canada, the United States and Mexico. 

NAFTA's Chapter 11 is not about trade; it was about investor protection. Essentially, it says that if an investor (read: "corporation") of one signatory country invested in another country, and that country's governments made any regulations or laws that affected the profits of "the investor", said investor could claim compensation from the offending national government for loss of profit, including loss of future profits.  (You may want to read that sentence again.)

The lawsuit format is as follows:
Each party, the investing corporation and the national government that made the regulation, appoints one adjudicator, and the two appoint a third one. Two out of three is a win.

(I read a recent piece on the exorbitant fees charged by the three adjudicators.)

Every so-called free trade agreement since 1994 has contained these investor protection clauses.
From the corporations' point of view, all of the hundreds of pages of a treaty's trade provisions about tariffs on turnips and regiulations about raisins are mere window dressing. What counts is the investor protection clauses.

In the current global conflict between global corporations and national states, when this joker is in the pact, the deck is stacked. There are now, in fact, dummy corporations set up for the sole purpose of suing a national government for loss of future profits! 
Time for the nation states to fight back?

Actually, they are. At least some peoples are - by turfing out corporate-friendly governments and electing...  Well, you know who... 

                                            Okay.
                                                        Okay!


Well, at least I feel good about the exercise, and the green mower works well, too.