(and a few related quantities)
This page commenced in early August 2011
If you look up "six" in the Concise Oxford dictionary (1990 edition), among
other details you'll find the definition of the term "at sixes and sevens",
as follows:
“...in confusion or disagreement.”
Well, there's plenty of that about at the moment. This page is an attempt
to address, in a meaningful way, two of the current "bones of contention" -
and to show that they are closely related: so closely, in fact, that they
really ought to be considered together.
By way of introduction, let's play around with the numbers 6 and 7 for a
moment.
If we multiply them together, we get 42 - which, if you're familiar
with
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
by the late
Douglas Adams,
you'll recognize as the answer provided by a super-intelligent computer to
the big question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". We needn't pursue
this any further here, as
(1)
I've already made a few remarks about it in an
earlier page,
and
(2)
the kerfuffle surrounding the two very important matters I want to address
here shows that we are nowhere near finding the answer to that
"Ultimate Question"; we need to learn to walk before we can ever
contemplate trying to run.
How about if we add 6 and 7 together? What can we say about 13, the
answer in that case?
Well, for a start, this page is the 13th link in my
Unequivocal ursine utterances
menu page! So there's a connection, straight away.
But I'm thinking more about how the number 13 is often considered, in
popular culture, to be
unlucky.
The way I see it, our world will be very unlucky indeed if we don't find a
sensible solution to my twin "bones of contention" - and very soon.
- - - - - - - - - -
Let's just consider the number 6 by itself for a moment. One thing we can
say about it is that it's the
atomic number
of the element carbon - i.e. the number of protons in a carbon nucleus.
It also happens to be the number of neutrons in the nuclei of the
vast majority of naturally-occurring carbon atoms (a little over 98% of
them are "carbon-12"); almost all of the remainder - carbon-13 - have seven
neutrons, so there's another connection for 7. (Carbon-14, a radioactive
isotope which has eight neutrons and is important in
carbon dating,
accounts for only a tiny amount of natural carbon.)
Precisely this: the word "carbon" is now heard everywhere - ad
nauseum, in my opinion! - in the media, in connection with climate
change.
Now, I know I've had quite a bit to say about this already, in some
of my earlier web-pages. But the issue of climate change, and the
"carbon-jargon" surrounding it, are not going away; and neither is
the matter being resolved - which concerns me greatly. So I hope you'll be
patient with me if I find it necessary to have yet another ursine growl
about it here.
The two main carbon-containing greenhouse gases
The prior page in which I've had the most to say on this topic to date is
my
Charabanc ride
page, which I posted in late June 2010. If you'd like to browse through
some of those comments now, click on that link and scroll down until you
see this graphic:
- and read on from there.
As I've hinted there, I firmly believe that all the "carbon jargon" is
essentially nothing more than an attempt by politicians, some journalists,
and - unfortunately - some in the mainstream scientific community to appear
to be "science-savvy", while actually trying as hard as they can to promote
the view that the climate problem is going to solved (if at all) via
economic so-called "fixes" such as carbon emissions trading, carbon taxes,
carbon pricing etc. etc. - at the same time giving little more than
lip-service to the necessity of developing "renewable energy technologies",
which will be funded - presumably - using the money raised from these
financial schemes.
Even more unfortunately, it seems that a large proportion of the public are
being hoodwinked into believing it all. I'm quite sure that there are many
who are sincerely concerned about the very real global warming problem, but
who are being lulled into accepting that such "market-based" schemes are
somehow going to make everything come right.
It's become a big issue here in Australia in recent times.
Since Saturday, 24th November 2007, when the Australian Labor Party led by
Kevin Rudd finally brought a very welcome end to eleven years of John
Howard's right-wing "capital-L" Liberal/National Party régime, there's been
quite a bit of drama in Aussie political life. As mentioned toward the end
of my "Charabanc ride" page (see link above), Mr. Rudd - who had intended
to initiate an "emissions trading scheme", but not straight away - had his
prime-ministership curtailed (or
"shortened",
perhaps?) by a Labor Party coup, in mid-2010. His successor, Julia
Gillard, at first promised that there would be no carbon tax, or carbon
price, at least during her first term of office as PM. However, she
changed her mind.
There was another federal election in Australia in late August 2010 (just
under a year ago). The result was that Labor - with Julia Gillard as PM -
was able to hold on by the slenderest of all possible margins, and only
with help from the Greens and a few Independents who agreed not to initiate
frivolous motions of no-confidence in the new Government.
When Ms. Gillard changed her mind about not introducing a "carbon price" -
after the August 2010 election - a wave of resentment spread across
Australia. There have been ugly demonstrations, with much anger - quite
vitriolic at times - directed against Ms. Gillard and her government. It
seems that many who were on-side with the former Rudd government feel
betrayed, both by the manner of Mr. Rudd's removal from office and by the
new tax.
Okay - we all know that governments break promises; no surprises there. It
goes with the territory. There's always some very "good" reason why they
come to see it as "essential" to go back on their word, as "circumstances
have changed" and it would be "irresponsible" to stick with what they'd
said earlier. (It's worth noting that back in Howard's time, there was no
apology from that administration for having "core" and "non-core"
promises.) So they all do it; they always have done, and they always will.
It's the nature of the beast. Click
here
to see how blatantly this has been done in relation to the Gillard
government's proposed carbon price.
It seems to me that what's different this time, and what has really got
people's backs up, is that the cost of living has increased dramatically in
recent times. For reasons that are far from clear to your average "Joe"
(and I include myself in this regard), the price of essential services such
as electricity and water have gone through the roof - and people are
justifiably furious at the prospect of "just another tax".
- - - - - - - - - -
Just an aside on the escalating price of essentials, if I may:
Have a look at
this
page on the Hobart "Mercury" newspaper's website, to get some idea of
where things stood down here in Tasmania as of 5th March 2011, with autumn
upon us and cold weather on the way. (Believe me - it was
quite cold by early June, with night-time temperatures regularly
down to -2oC in my home city of Launceston, just 200km from
Hobart, the state's capital.)
Just a few days ago, on the news (I can't remember whether on radio or TV),
came the story of how people are going to bed at 5.00pm as an affordable
means of keeping warm.
- - - - - - - - - -
Back on track, about Australia-wide anger against the federal government
over the carbon tax/price:
In spite of everything, I don't believe that the rancourous behaviour we've
seen toward the federal government will do any good at all. I think I've
finally learned that venting anger and frustration without restraint is
never a good idea.
All right: down to details. Please visit
this
Crikey.com page for an overview of how the Australian Government's "carbon
price" policy is supposed to work. In particular: while there, do make a
point of clicking on the YouTube link to Julia Gillard's "Address to the
Nation", which went to air on Monday, 10th July, 2011 - and in which she
used the word "carbon" 13 times, if I'm not mistaken
(
correct me
if I'm wrong) - and not once in clear, obvious connection with
either carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4), the two
common carbon-containing greenhouse gases.
Next, visit
this
YouTube page to view Julia Gillard's press-released official announcement
of the carbon price, which also occurred on 10th July. She begins her
argument by saying - quite correctly - that "the science is in" regarding
climate change and global warming, but again omits any mention of
either of the relevant carbon-containing gases.
Here's a challenge: count the number of times the PM used the word
"carbon" in that speech (I make it 20).
Just before moving on: I've found a web-page which takes the same position
as I do on the very silly [ab]use of the word "carbon" in recent times,
with respect to greenhouse gases, climate change and "all that jazz" - and
manages to do it in a fairly light-hearted manner. There's a discussion
section at the end, with contributions from people on "both" sides of the
debate, which make interesting reading. (Of course, there are multifarious
opinions about all this - not just two.) Check out that page
here,
and have a chuckle - as well as perhaps becoming better informed about some
of the details.
Seriously, now: let's concentrate on a few of the salient points in Ms.
Gillard's announcement. Referring to "about 500 big polluters", she says:
Because something they used to do for free now costs them money, they will
innovate, they will change, they will find a way of reducing that bill -
and in doing so, they will reduce their carbon pollution.
Let's face it: the "captains of industry" in the cut-throat world of the
early 21st Century are only interested in such things as bottom
lines, profit margins, and beating their competitors.
They're not interested in "R&D" for its own sake, or anything "innovative",
unless they can see that such things will deliver a quick buck, right
now - not in a few years' or decades' time. They're certainly not
interested in being at the forefront of pure, interest-driven scientific
research into long-term renewable energy solutions.
"Not my department, mate!"
So what will they do, when suddenly faced with big tax bills that
eat into their profit margins?
In her speech, Ms. Gillard quite clearly expounds her faith in "market
mechanisms" that will control how big companies operate when the carbon
tax gives way to an emissions trading scheme after the first three years.
(Now why am I concerned that this speech sounds very much as though it
could have been written for someone like former
Liberal Prime Minister John Howard to deliver?)
Acknowledging that these companies will pass "some of the costs" on to the
householder (you and me, basically), the government pledges to use at least
50% of the money raised by the tax to assist said householders, by way of
"tax cuts and payment increases" - and also commits to "work to supporting
Australian jobs".
Pardon me, but I just don't believe it will happen anything like the
government claims it will. What I think will happen is that many large
companies, irritated by the cost imposed upon them by the government, will
simply make the decision to leave Australia and take their operations
offshore - almost certainly to developing nations where they can avoid the
annoying costs and employ cheap labour under sweat-shop conditions,
continuing to pollute to their hearts' content in those other countries
which can't afford to alienate such businesses as are prepared to operate
there by slugging them with such costs themselves. The net result for
Australia will be that many Aussies will lose their jobs, and that
the government will not collect anywhere near as much as it currently hopes
in tax revenues - and thus will not be in a position to help Australians
(especially the newly-unemployed Australians) anywhere near as much as they
imagine. So everybody - the whole world, really! - will lose.
It may well be highly significant that, with Federal Parliament
re-assembling in mid-August to debate a number of issues including the
carbon tax, the news has come that Australia's major airline, QANTAS, has
announced its intention to "restructure" its international arm, citing the
need to retrench over 1000 Aussie staff, while employing people in other
countries. On 16th August, the ABC's "7.30" current-events program covered
the story. Click
here
to read the transcript of the introductory story, and
here
for the transcript of an interview with QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce.
In that interview, Mr. Joyce claims that QANTAS is "not outsourcing jobs
offshore", but is "creating new businesses" in Asian countries. He claims
that it's necessary to do so because of QANTAS's "poorly-performing
international business".
What seems certain is that this is brewing as a classic
management-versus-union
stoush.
It should be very interesting to see how it all pans out.
Ms. Gillard claims that some of the carbon tax revenue will be channeled
into research into renewable energy. Again, I'm sceptical; I don't believe
there will be enough revenue to do a lot in that direction. (Also, frankly,
I doubt that the sort of science that may be done under government auspices
will be truly innovative;
elsewhere
within this website, I've expressed my belief that what I call "science by
committee" rarely if ever comes up with anything truly ground-breaking.
That is done by individuals, or small groups of like-minded
individuals, who have a spark of genius; "mavericks", if you will -
something no government can legislate for.)
Worse: when all this comes to pass, and the scheme is seen to have little
or no positive effect, the Australian electorate - already fed up with what
is sees as lack of true representation by its government, not to mention
disloyalty and betrayal within its own ranks - will react as it did when it
felt disenfranchised back in 1996, simply throwing a less-than-relevant
Labor government out and installing another rabid right-wing outfit like
the one it finally managed to boot out in 2007, after eleven
miserable years. Perish the thought that we have to go through that again!
Do we really imagine that such a right-wing administration would not, in
very short order, return to the lies and abuses we saw under Howard's
leadership, with such things as
"work choices",
more
"children overboard"-type
outrages, and the spectre of
nuclear power,
thus setting us back in the world community by many years?
Worse still: do we really imagine that, if and when we do in fact
get a "Howard mark II"-type government, that they will repeal Julia
Gillard's "carbon tax"? When Howard's Libs/Nats won government in 1996, the
first thing they did was to invent the term
"Beasley black hole"
to refer to what they claimed was a huge debt left by the previous Keating
"Labor" government (Kim Beasley was the treasurer at that time), and
declare a period of austerity and government cutbacks. Now, leopards don't
change their spots, so you can guarantee that any such new right-wing
government will manufacture an excuse to keep the so-called carbon tax;
they'll just badge it as something else - and probably increase it, while
making sure that the lion's share will be paid by
Jack and Jane Citizen,
rather than by their corporate mates in heavy industry. Can you doubt it
for a moment?
“Now Jack, he is a banker,
You'd have to wish them luck, in these times when - in so many ways - life
does increasingly seem to be
"made of dirt",
wouldn't you? (Maybe Jack knows a few tricks...
(UPDATE, Saturday, 5th November 2011:
Check out
this
YouTube video to see the sort of thing I'm thinking about here; also,
follow some of the links there to see some other examples of how these two
characters have actually been able to find something humorous in what
really is no joking matter, when you boil it all down.)
Hence this page. I make no secret of the fact that I'm hoping to persuade
some of the Independents in the House of Representatives (the government
house) to vote against this dopey carbon tax proposal, and thus defeat it -
in the hope that the current government may somehow survive the next
election (scheduled for 2013) - and finally get its act together
sufficiently well to regain the respect of the Aussie people, ultimately to
take some actions that will do some real good regarding the dire
peril in which our planet currently finds itself, before it's too late.
UPDATE, Monday, 28th October 2013:
Today, while listening to ABC Radio National, I heard the news that
Lou Reed
had died at the age of 71. A controversial character, Lou was the founder of
rock band
Velvet Underground,
and perhaps most famous for their song "Take a Walk on the Wild Side". While
I'll admit that I don't know as much about Lou and the Velvet Underground as
I perhaps should, I must say that I've enjoyed over many years their song
"Sweet Jane" (click on the "Jack and Jane Citizen" link above to see a
YouTube video of the band in concert performing the song). At a first hearing,
this perhaps seems to be a fairly innoccuous song, with somewhat obscure lyrics;
however, a closer listen may reveal a surprising level of irony, wit and wisdom.
Thanks, Lou - you made an important contribution to the music of our times. Your
wry humour, sharp wit, and social conscience have provided the world with a
memorable breath of fresh air.
I can hear some people saying: "Now hang on a minute - it's all very well
criticizing the government; but to be fair, what about some commentary on
what the other side is saying?"
Funny you should ask; I was just coming to that.
Click
here
to watch on YouTube the response by the Leader of the Opposition,
Liberal Tony Abbott, to PM Julia Gillard's announcement. (This also went to
air on 10th July.)
So what do I make of that?
I'll be honest: on the face of it, I think that most (but not all)
of what he has to say there makes perfect sense! Much of it is basically
what I've said myself, above (even if it is couched in more "suit and tie"
language than I'm inclined to use myself). I'm not going to pretend
otherwise!
"Okay, then," you may say, "in that case, why don't you just support him
and his Liberal / National Party colleagues, and work with them to stop the
carbon tax by simply helping to get the Labor government out?"
If only things were ever really that simple.
I've already mentioned the fact that Julia Gillard changed her mind about
not introducing a carbon tax/price in her first term of office after
the election which saw her become the Prime Minister within a very
well-hung parliament
Please, please, pretty please - click
here
to view on YouTube a 2009 interview with Tony Abbott, to see what he
thought about the relative merits (or otherwise) of an emissions trading
scheme - which Labor's Prime Minister Kevid Rudd was promoting back then -
versus a carbon tax or price, which Julia Gillard is trying to get into
law now.
ARE YOU GETTING MY DRIFT???
Pardon my cynicism, but it at least appears that Mr. Abbott is taking the
exact opposite position to the government's, at any given time, just to
engage in opposition for opposition's sake. (Note that I'm far from the
first person to suggest this; it's been all over the media down here in the
land of Oz on a regular basis in recent times.) It seems to me (and, I
suspect from what I've seen and heard in the media recently, many others
also) that Mr. Abbott wants so desperately to be PM that he is quite
prepared simply to undermine anything at all the government tries to
do, causing as much disruption as he possibly can, in order to fulfil his
ambition, come what may - even if he ends up looking downright silly
in the process. (Or is he simply out of his depth, really wishing that he
was somewhere else altogether?)
When you've stopped laughing, having viewed that video, go to
this YouTube video
of another Tony Abbott interview - and then you can start ROFL-ing
all over again. (If you look at other related YouTube videos while you're
at it, you'll find that there are plenty there which throw this issue into
sharp relief. Take a bit of time to watch some of them, just to convince
yourself that I'm not trying to sell you a
porky pie
here.)
Then, of course, we should never forget that Mr. Abbott is forever on the
record as having described the science surrounding climate change as
absolute crap
- even though he later tried to downplay the remark by saying that he was
engaging in a bit of "hyperbole" at the time. The question remains: what
does he really think about it all? I don't know! Do you? (What does
he really think about anything?
As mentioned above, much of what Mr. Abbott had to say in his reply to
Ms. Gillard's carbon tax/price announcement on 10th July seems to
make quite a bit of sense, to me at least. But does he really mean
any of it? - or is it all just a ploy to try to get himself taken seriously
at last?
Questions, questions...
OK - so there's not much to choose between the major party leaders really,
is there? How can we be expected to take anything either of them
says with no more than a mere pinch of salt?
That's why I'm so glad that, for the moment at least, we have a parliament
in which neither side can hold complete sway. For the present, both party
machines have to take serious notice of the fact that for the first time in
living memory for most Australians, the parliament really is a true
Parliament - a place where it is necessary to talk, to discuss, to engage
in genuine communication in order to achieve legislative results, rather
than merely a rubber stamp for whichever party happens to hold a majority.
As I see it, that's worth hanging onto for as long as possible! - and of
course that's part of the reason I'm hoping to persuade the
Independent members to vote against the carbon tax, so as to allow our
country to draw its collective breath and "count to ten", and thus
(hopefully) prevent the Liberal / National coalition from romping back into
unbridled power at the next federal election and re-establishing the
nightmare vision of "Howard's Way".
The longer we can hold on to a truly representative parliament, the more
chance there is that people of goodwill - both inside and outside
parliament - will be able to work towards a real solution to our
world's biggest underlying environmental problem, perhaps even with
Australia taking a leadership rôle - a solution based mainly on real, truly
imaginative science, rather than on the dull-witted, stultifying, dead-wood
approach of what "economics" has come to be all about in recent decades.
That's the dream, or vision, or quest, I'm trying to share with you. Don't
expect me to apologize for it, not for a moment. It's come to be the main
thrust of what this website is all about.
*
*
*
*
*
*
I haven't yet mentioned the place of the Greens in all this. The sad fact
is that I wish I didn't have to - but I do. So here goes.
As documented in my
It's still not easy being green
web-page, I've been around for long enough to have witnessed the birth of
the international Green movement right here in Tasmania, way back in 1972,
when the big issue that started it all was the imminent flooding of Lake
Pedder.
The Green movement started out as a very positive force for good, at last
giving distressed people in the community a voice as they wondered what
they could do to halt the wanton destruction of what was best about
Tasmania in the name of unfettered "progress". But the Greens began to lose
the respect and confidence of much of their support-base some years ago
when they took on, as part of their platform, issues that have little or
nothing to do with their main raison d'être.
Nobody was more disappointed than I when the Greens decided gleefully to
back Julia Gillard's carbon tax/price, thus giving the nod to a
fundamentally economics-based approach, rather than a fundamentally
science/engineering-based approach. I'd really hoped for better than that
from them. It seems to me that they, like the two main forces in Aussie
politics, are more interested in ideology than in real nuts-and-bolts
solutions to real problems. However did that happen?
- And now the Green members of federal parliament have basically hitched
their wagon to that of the Labor Party, for the duration of the current
parliament at least - so that they and Labor are, for practical purposes,
indistinguishable from each other.
To any Green federal MP's reading this:
*
*
*
*
*
*
As a way of trying to put all the controversy about climate change into
some kind of perspective, may I ask you to click
here
to read a piece by the Sydney Morning Herald's Ian Verrender, which I
believe addresses the matter very fairly and reasonably from "both" sides.
(While not necessarily suggesting any solutions, the article does
shed considerable light on the very real problem - and that's always
the best way to start to tackle any puzzle, wouldn't you say?)
Highly recommended.
- - - - - - - - - -
Well, so far I've had something to say about "sixes" (two of them), i.e.
6 + 6 = 12, with a brief mention of "a six and a seven" along the way, i.e.
6 + 7 = 13. What about two "sevens", i.e. 7 + 7 = 14?
I'll return to 14 shortly; but first I'd like to talk about somewhat
larger numbers.
Let's now consider a much bigger volume - an Olympic swimming pool. The
standard size is 50m long by 25m wide by (a minimum of) 2m deep. The volume
is thus 50 × 25 × 2 = 2500 cubic metres.
Since one cubic metre contains a billion cubic millimetres, it follows that
the Olympic pool can hold 2.5 trillion cubic millimetres. Note that
a trillion is a thousand billion, or a million million - i.e. a 1 followed
by twelve zeros:
1,000,000,000,000
(If we only filled our pool up to a height of 80cm, i.e. 0.8m, the volume
would be 50 × 25 × 0.8 = 1000 cubic metres, i.e. exactly a trillion cubic
millimetres.)
Let's come back to 14 again - in fact, let's see what the volume of 14
trillion cubic millimetres might look like. If we had a very deep
rectangular hole in the ground, 50m long by 25m wide (just like an Olympic
pool in cross-section), and filled it to a depth of 14 × 0.8 = 11.2 metres,
that would be a volume of 14 trillion cubic millimetres:
(You can also visualize this as 5.6 fully-filled 2m-deep Olympic swimming
pools, stacked vertically.)
Where's all this leading?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Over the last couple of weeks, the media have been full of what appears to
be "GFC part 2". We've seen the emergence of the US "debt crisis".
In the unlikely event that you haven't heard anything about this, click
here
to get a Wikipedia perspective.
It's about whether or not the US government gives itself the right to go
into debt beyond a certain amount in order to pay its bills - which
includes paying its own public servants. Until a few days ago, the
allowable "debt ceiling" was approximately
14 trillion dollars.
I don't know about you, but I find trying to understand how this kind of
thing can have any bearing on the reality of life for the ordinary person
in this world to be a mind-numbing experience. I know I'm far from stupid,
but I find myself shaking my head and thinking: "Whaaat the...?"
(Scroll up to the top of the Wikipedia page just mentioned, read down to
the bottom, and see if has the same effect on you!)
So that's why I've taken the trouble to present the graphics above as a
(perhaps somewhat nerdy) way of trying to illustrate just how big things
get when we start talking in trillions: how 14 trillion tiny crumbs can
fill a volume probably big enough to serve as a quite respectable aircraft
hangar.
But if you don't particularly like my approach, help is at hand. You may
prefer another page with graphics showing how this can be expressed in more
obviously "financial" terms. Have a look at this beauty, to which someone
close to me drew my attention a few days ago:
(which, incidentally, also refers to aeroplanes as an aid to size
comparisons
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Are you still finding it all a bit hard to get your head around?
Here's one more attempt to help put it in perspective:
I'm sure you must have withdrawn money from a bank and been amazed at the
speed with which an experienced bank-teller can riffle through a stack of
bank-notes while counting them. (Probably ten notes per second is a good
average.)
Well, imagine how long it would take to count a trillion dollars, in $100
notes at ten notes per second. That's $1000 per second; so it will take a
billion (one trillion divided by one thousand) seconds to count. How long
is that?
Here's the calculation:
1,000,000,000 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 365.25 = 31.688 years
Note that this is without having any sleep, or breaks for eating or
attending to other essential bodily functions.
So how long would it take our intrepid bank teller to count $14 trillion?
... × 14 = 443.633 years
Now have I made my point?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
There's been a lot of hand-wringing in the US as the politicians on both
sides of the political divide have tried to grapple with what this all
means. Apparently, it seems, it came down to whether Congress (the US
parliament) was prepared to vote itself a bigger "debt ceiling" or not: if
it did, people would get paid; if it didn't, they wouldn't. In the end, it
did; so, with an even bigger national debt, at least people won't starve
(not just yet, anyway).
So how are they going to deal with it?
I did a double take - and almost choked laughing - a few days ago when I
saw on my television screen
Dr. Alan Greenspan,
former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, looking straight at the
interviewer and saying:
“We can always print money...”
Yep - out of their own mouths, as the saying goes! I'll admit this was a
godsend for me, when I was casting about trying to find a way to put these
points across in a clear unambiguous way within this page - and bingo,
there he was! "Thanks, Alan - couldn't have put it better myself..."
How did the US - and the rest of the world along with it - ever come to be
in this ridiculous situation?
As I write this, there are several YouTube videos featuring the good doctor
saying this. Some of them are basically half-minute grabs, but there are a
few longer ones which have it in context. Perhaps one of the best in that
regard is
this
one, almost five minutes long, in which that classic statement occurs
just past the one-minute mark.
Is it remotely possible that Dr. Greenspan hasn't heard of how,
in pre-WW2 Germany, people were quite literally taking wheelbarrows full of
nearly worthless money
to the shops to buy food? Surely not, you'd think! Surely, the Weimar
Republic's huge economic problems would have been covered in "Economics
101" (or similar) in Dr. Greenspan's B.S. degree, so that he must
know; but in that case, does he really want the US - the whole world,
perhaps - to undergo anything like that hyper-inflationary agony ever
again? Give me a break...!
If you watch that almost-five-minute interview right through, or at least
until just past the 3.5 minute mark, when the interviewer asks Dr.
Greenspan if there will be a double-dip recession (i.e. "GFC part 2", which
I
predicted
just over a year ago), he answers:
“It depends on Europe, not the United States.”
He has got to be kidding...
It's pathetic, really. I can't remember ever having heard any major figure
in US public life ever having declared anything other than that the US is
the world leader in everything, with the
US dollar
the most widely-held currency in the
Allocated Reserves
- but now, when it comes to the
crunch and it's entirely possible that the whole world is going to be led
by the US power-brokers down the path to economic ruin, here we have
"Johnny on the spot" trying to blame someone else!
Granted, the
Eurozone
countries in general, and Italy in particular, have some serious financial
issues at the moment; click
here
to read a transcript of ABC-TV's "7.30" program of 10th August 2011, which
reported on the matter. But to blame America's woes on Italy's problems is
just a joke. As we say "down under":
“Fair go, mate!”
While on the subject of the European situation: can you spare a little less
than ten minutes to watch
this
YouTube video, entitled "Global Financial Crisis 2011: Prophecy
Fulfilled"? It features someone described as "Endtime Prophet Dr. Owuor"
(of whom I'll admit I've never heard), but includes worthwhile, very
graphic footage which shows how the citizens of countries like Spain,
Portugal, Italy and Greece are responding to the increasing cost of living.
I think it's absolutely tragic that Greece has been
dragged into this.
My heart sank a few weeks ago when I saw on my TV the news that the Greek
government, in defiance of its people's wishes, had caved in to pressure to
inflict austerity measures in order to get a bailout from the IMF.
Greece has long been recognized as the
cradle of democracy.
Greek citizens' rights to have a say in their government were established
well over 2000 years ago, and set a standard for the world to follow.
During the Second World War, Greece - a small country in the modern scheme
of things - stood up first to Fascist Italy and then to Nazi Germany, and
helped to give the free world hope that victory was possible (see
this
very interesting web-page to read more). How ignominious, then, that
Greece (famous not only for its early democracy, but also for its many
contributions to civilization: logical thought, art, literature, theatre,
music, science, and mathematics) should now have to cave in to the ugly,
very anti-democratic monster known as the "global economy" - which
is nothing more or less than a blatant attempt to turn the whole world into
a single dumbed-down
hyper-capitalist
state.
I make no secret of the fact that I despise the "global economy", and
everything it stands for. I've expressed this in several other pages within
this website - none more so than in my
The Loan Sharks
page which I originally wrote over a decade ago, in the wake of the
protests
at the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle and the related
subsequent events
in 2000 in Melbourne, when I was just beginning to try to come to terms
with what it all meant and express it in my own way - and which I
incorporated into this website when I launched it in mid-2006. If you
haven't visited that "Loan Sharks" page before, may I invite you to do so
now. I'd like to think that my writing style has evolved a bit since then
Wednesday, 21st September 2011:
Just over a month after first posting this page, I've decided to copy a
verse from "The Loan Sharks" song here (which I can do with impunity; after
all, I own the copyright!) - simply because it is so appropriate in
context:
“They think that people cannot see,
Go ahead - click on the link above to hear the entire item. Just a thought:
if you can sing (which I can't, since a bout of 'flu pretty much destroyed
my vocal cords several years ago), perhaps you'd like to record yourself
doing so and post the result on YouTube? Feel free to use either or both of
my musical accompaniments, and/or the chord guide, posted there.
Let me know
if you do...
[Incidentally - while on the subject of how the amount of money in the world
can apparently increase without limit - just by printing more, if seems! -
the subject of economic growth is perhaps worth a mention here. The
usual spiel by our leaders is that it's essential; that its
opposite, rather than being economic stability, is economic
stagnation.
We live on a small planet about 8,000 miles (12,800km) in diameter, whose
resources are being depleted at an alarming rate. At what point do we
accept the truth of
Edward Abbey's
assertion that "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer
cell"? For more on this, do have a look at this most interesting web-page:
- in which many quotes from other thinkers are presented, along with its
author's own thoughts on the topic.]
- - - - - - - - - -
In ABC Radio's
Science Show
program of Saturday, 20th August 2011 (the day on which I am posting this
page), respected science journalist
Julian Cribb
presents an item entitled
"Homo sapiens - time for a new name?",
in which - at 6 min. 49 sec. into the 9 min. 57 sec. item - he says:
“...we are in the process of destroying a great many things which are
real -
[he gives a list]
- for the sake of a commodity that mostly
exists in our imagination: money.
While money has its uses as a medium for exchange, humanity is increasingly
engaged in mass self-delusion as to what constitutes real wealth, as is
quite clear from the current financial crisis.
...”
- a sentiment with which I agree absolutely, and which I have expressed
myself in various pages within this website over the past several years.
Here's
an article which attempts to examine exactly what money really is,
written by someone who saw trouble coming a long time ago (it's been on the
web since 1998). Well worth a look.
- - - - - - - - - -
To my mind, it's quite clear that the new false religion of economic
globalization - whose foul god is the
unholy trinity
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and the World Bank - is broken beyond repair, and has absolutely
nothing to offer the world to help it clamber out of the mess in which
it now finds itself.
So what do we do? Do we take the stand of the "Endtime Prophet", preaching
about how the current situation fits biblical prophecies about the
"end times", and (depending on which view of these events one believes)
perhaps trying not to look too gleeful about how the true believers
will be transported - or
raptured
- out of it all, while the rest of the world goes through years of pain
and suffering?
Well, of course, we can if we want to - and I'll admit that, in years past,
I went along with that basic idea. But I've since come to believe that one
can do better.
As I've pointed out in earlier pages
(here
and
here),
these may indeed be the "end times", and all the biblical prophesies may
indeed be spot-on for today's world - but that we have no way of knowing
for sure. Jesus himself said that "no-one knows the day or the hour",
and encouraged his followers to go about their normal activities to the
best of their ability - but to be always aware that the "end times" could
begin at any time, and thus live their lives accordingly.
So my take on all this is that one does what one can while there is still
time. That's what this website is very largely about: I'm trying to share a
vision of what we can do in the world, just as we find it right now
- at sixes and sevens - to try to make it a better place to live for our
children, and for theirs. I'll leave it to the "Endtime prophets" to jump
up and down about all the other stuff!
Okay, then - so what, specifically, am I suggesting?
We can start by admitting at an international (not "global"!) level
that the global economy is a disastrous, failed "one size fits all"
experiment, and allow for individual countries to resign from it, thus
resuming their right to sovereignty over their own political and economic
affairs. If and when more and more countries jettison it, it will become
increasingly irrelevant and will ultimately die a natural - and very
welcome - death.
After all, the monster has only been around for a few decades; a saner,
more just world is well within living memory for anyone over the age of
thirty. The unfettered global economy is certainly not part of any
long-established "natural order", and it needs to be got rid of - and the
sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. So let's just do it!
As part of this process, it will be necessary to abolish the "unholy
trinity", which - initially - will need to be restructured and given
something useful to do with that slice of the world's wealth which
it currently controls, thus redeeming itself to some extent on the world
stage before being finally dismantled, wound up, and consigned to history.
I've got some ideas...
By way of introduction, I'd like to present here a few quotes from one of
the great minds of the not too distant past, Albert Einstein.
This
web-page is the first in a series of eleven which present quite a lot of
the wit and wisdom of the founder of the Theory of Relativity and early
researcher into quantum mechanics. They're all worth reading; here are some
which appeal to me:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the universe."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"You never fail until you stop trying."
"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."
"Creativity is intelligence having fun."
"I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right."
"To invent something, all you need is imagination and a big pile of junk."
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed."
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow."
E = mc2
If energy - the mc2 of
Einstein's famous equation - is indeed the fundamental reality in the
physical universe, then all the trillions of dollars - whether in the form
of gold (or other metals such as brass or nickel), paper, plastic, or
nothing more substantial than glowing pixels on computer screens - pale
into insignificance by comparison.
(Just by the way: I've had a few choice words to say about gold - and such
limited value as it actually has, in real, practical terms - earlier in
this website; click
here
to visit my "All that glisters..." page.)
The idea that playing "money games" is ever going to fix our troubled world
is simply an illusion - or "Maya", to use the Sanskrit word that George
Harrison used in his beautiful song
Beware of Darkness:
Ultimately, it's all about energy. As Einstein pointed out, there is no
other physical reality in the universe.
It is my firm belief that if we are ever going to sort out this world's
environmental problems - if we don't want the world to enter another dark
age (quite literally, as Weimar Republic-type inflation drives the price of
electricity out of many people's reach) - we will have to come to grips
with this in a meaningful way, and very soon.
Since its inception, this website has had a lot to do with the work of
Nikola Tesla, who a century ago had the dream of developing a way for the
entire world to have access to clean, cheap energy. I've made numerous
references to this in several pages; rather than reproducing all the links
here, may I recommend that you click on
this link
which will take you to a short but well-written page which summarizes the
story of Tesla quite well. (If you'd like to read more, you'll find some
relevant links at the top of my page about
quasars.)
I first became aware of Tesla and his work in the 1960's, when I found a
book in my high-school library which gave instructions for building a small
bipolar Tesla coil somewhat similar to the one shown
here;
also have a look at
this
YouTube video. (If you're interested, you can find more information about
my own early interest in this kind of thing in my
Electrical stuff
menu page.)
Around 2000, having been on the internet for a year or two, I remembered my
schoolboy interest in such things and started digging - and was surprised
to find lots of information there provided by fellow nerds. As I
continued to "bone up" on these matters, I found references to something
called "zero-point energy" - and came to realize that, far from being
"crackpot science", it has a great deal to do with how the entire universe
functions. Ultimately, it became the main focus of this website, which I
launched in mid-2006.
I learned that Tesla, and other researchers following in his footsteps, had
encountered stiff opposition to their efforts to bring clean, cheap energy
to the world - and it was always about what Einstein described as
"stupidity, fear and greed" (see the purple comments above; dare I suggest
that these three terms correspond respectively pretty much exactly to my
own
three P's:
"pride, politics and power"?). Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Those
who run the "global economy" don't want this knowledge to become
widespread, because they know that it will mean the end of their "vision"
for the world if it does.
Well, with that "vision" now being seen as the nightmare it really
is, the time has arrived to replace it with a real vision - one in
which adequate, clean, affordable energy is made available for all the
world's citizens, as a serious first step towards mending our broken
planet.
Of course, it won't happen overnight. If we start now, it will take some
years to put everything in place - and it is going to cost quite a lot.
So do we simply slap yet another tax on the long-suffering people of the
world? Or is there a more creative way to go about it?
Here's what I believe needs to happen:
1.
Admit that the global economy - with its obsession with everlasting growth
- has done colossal damage, is going nowhere, is now on its last legs, and
needs to be scrapped as soon as possible.
2.
Channel the vast amounts of money currently controlled by the "unholy
trinity" into research, involving the best original scientific and
engineering minds the world has to offer, to develop the ZPE technology we
are going to need to give us a meaningful clean-energy future. As part of
this process, wind up the global economy, thus restoring sovereignty and
true democracy to individual nations.
Of course, this will have to involve huge changes to the way the world
operates. I'm under no illusions: I know that human nature is basically
selfish, and that there will be many who detest the fact that their lust
for power and unlimited wealth can no longer find a foothold. No doubt,
there will still be huge problems to overcome for those of us who long for
a world in which fairness, justice, and mutual respect play the biggest
part.
But what's the alternative?
Sixes and sevens
and posted on Saturday, 20th August 2011
So what, you may ask?
Carbon dioxide, CO2
Methane, CH4
Well - on 9th August, with winter drawing to a close in a few weeks, on the
front page of "The Mercury" was a story headed
"POWERLESS", which tells how "Tasmanian
households are going for days without electric power in a bid to stay on
top of cost-of-living pressures", with "candles, takeaway food, blankets
and the warmth of friends' houses being used as tools to survive".
So much for living in a "first world" country...
Warning: if you don't like the
feeling of being patronized, or "talked down to", I suggest you have a - uh
- suitable container handy...
And Jane, she is a clerk.
They hope they'd save their moneys, honey,
When they come home from work...”
)
, pointing out that this is
precisely the sort of thing that party politicians do. Well, guess what?
Tony Abbott is a party politician too!
Is he
really just
"Phoney Tony",
nothing more than an
empty vessel,
simply making lots of noise - or are there some hidden depths in there
somewhere?)
A litre is a volume of 1000 cubic centimetres, i.e. 1000cm3,
1000cc, or 1000 millilitres (ml); those units are equivalent. We can
visualize a litre as a cubic box with each side 10cm in length, with 10
layers each of volume 10 × 10 = 100cc stacked up.
Similarly, we can visualize a cubic metre as a large box filled with 1000
of these one-litre boxes. Thus a cubic metre contains 1000 × 1000 =
1,000,000 (one million, or 106) cubic centimetres. (Using commas
from here on makes things neater.)
Again, it's possible to visualize a cubic centimetre as a small
cubic box containing 1000 tiny cubic millimetres in the same way. So
it's easy to see that a cubic metre contains 1000 × 1000 × 1000 =
1,000,000,000 (one billion, or 109) cubic millimetres.
Just to give you an idea of how small a cubic millimetre
(mm3)
is, I laid ten matches side-by-side with a ruler over them, to show a total
width of about 2.15cm. So an approximation for the width of a single match
is 2.15mm. If we cube that figure, we obtain a figure of 9.938375 - or 10,
near enough. Thus if you were to carefully cut a small cube off the end of
a match, its volume would be about ten cubic millimetres. So
one mm3 is just a tiny crumb,
really.
).
× 10n
As a trillion = 1012, n=12 currently; but
how big will it eventually get? (How long is a piece of string?)
For example, compare the lyrics of Tom Paxton's song
I'm Changing My Name to Fannie Mae
with those of his earlier song
I'm Changing My Name to Chrysler
(as both sung by Arlo Guthrie).
, but I still stand by everything I said there.
They think that we peasants don't know,
As on their despicable cynical way
The rich and powerful go.
The price of their gain is the whole planet's pain -
Her agony increases with each sov'reign state they overthrow.”
... and ...
"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong.
What we have called matter is energy,
whose vibration has been so lowered as to be
perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
As you can see, I've deliberately given my "ripples" animation yet another
airing in this page, and for a very good reason. As I've mentioned in an
earlier page,
I use that animation as a kind of logo for zero-point energy, about which
I've already had a
great deal to say
in this website.
“Beware of Maya.
Watch out now, take care -
Beware of greedy leaders;
They take you where you should not go...”
There is nothing to love about money. Indeed, as the Bible says,
"The love of money is the root of all evil".
How long is it going to take humanity to understand the truth of this?
Return to
Unequivocal ursine utterances
menu