Climate Change: Observations

Climate Change
Climate Change: Debate
Climate Change: The Convenient Lie
Climate Change: The World Natural Health Organization

Carbon dioxide is one of several gases that exhibits a greenhouse effect and many references exist that explain the theory of the effect of this gas. It has a low proportion (as one of the trace gases) in the atmospheric mix (mainly nitrogen = 78% and oxygen = 21%), but does contribute to the issue of climate change theory. However, this is also the one gas that has the maximum effect through its indirect financial contribution: global taxes based on fossil fuels that provide energy.

Dinosaurs should be left to die: car manufacturers. They make a product that in its current form has no place on Earth. The taxpayer underwrites the 'finance' to bail-out the car manufacturer and in the process this 'makes' grotesque amounts of interest for... someone. The wholly emotive argument is that jobs will be at stake. The speciousness of the argument is absolutely made clear.

Cut back on production of CO2 or trade quotas (what a ridiculous concept!!). Produce more fossil-fuel guzzling cars and promote air travel. This, of course, simply transports and spreads the CO2 'pollution' to other parts of the world, but implies that a gas can be contained in one place. Both illusion and delusion. Cynical and dishonest.

People should buy a product and drop themselves into huge debt to save others' jobs. The risk is destitution to save jobs. It's a magnanimous gesture to sacrifice one's own livelihood to rescue others, but not very sensible. Lenders would have everyone believe that they do the right thing by self-sacrifice. It is revealing to examine the scenario: the taxpayer can hardly pay himself interest for borrowing his own money. So how does it all work? Where does the 'money' come from to pay someone all that confounded interest? Obviously not the taxpayer. So, the question remains:

Who?

It's all designed to be hidden in the complexity, but the Occam's (Ockham's) Razor principle is don't look any further beyond the simple and the obvious. It's designed to obfuscate and perplex the borrower. If there's something not understood then questions must be asked. Many people prefer to say nothing so as not to appear stupid.

The really stupid ones accept
everything. Without question

Presidents (USA) or prime ministers UQ (aka UK) Ltd are highly predictable and can dump an impossible loan on the people. They will be long gone while the 'loan' of virtual money is still very active and still 'creating' a very great deal of theoretical vaporous money for... someone.

A good way to debunk the concept that governments are the agents to extract money from the people by taxation is by seriously considering the trinity of wind energy, wave (tidal) energy (Moon) and solar energy (Sun). These are free and will exist essentially forever (hundreds of millions of years). The wind is a product of the other two. Once upon a time in a fairytale land it's possible that governments had a reasonable number of honest politicians (!) in it to serve the people and not themselves or wield power. It's naïve to imagine so, but it's still possible, however unlikely. Finance should (theoretically) be raised through taxation to only pay for the provision of essential services to the nation. The taxpayer would receive due recompense for the service provided. A non-profit ethos, even though never before seen in a capitalist society that worships money.

The government + taxpayer combination
defines a true Them and Us partnership

The really smart capitalist would work towards a way of getting money in return for the free and very natural resources (wind, tidal, solar) that are by their nature completely sustainable. Creative capitalism could be a new concept.

Truly, to get something out
from nothing in. All profit

• The obvious flaw is in the justifiction for charging for a free resource (they did it with oil - DA). Nevertheless, it would not be inappropriate to make a charge for supplying the service. The problem is how to charge excessive amounts that equate at least with the loss of revenue from the move from oil-based products? The ingenuity of the capitalist who worships growth could manage some specious argument. Or they cannot describe themselves as true capitalists.
  

• Consider budgets: if you don't use it, you lose it. In the same way that any underused budget will be withdrawn, so it is with revenue: the loss of revenue MUST be made up, so unless some creative accounting can be devised that 'creates' the justifiction for raising taxes on a 'free' product, then any potential solution to the specious argument about climate change can never happen. Even if the world comes to an end. It won't. But the argument will be revealed for what it is: fallacious and insincere (specious).
  

• Imagine, the safety of not having the wild animal in the living room (nuclear power-derived energy), but the security of a never-ending source of energy, but it demonstrates that just the threat of termination can introduce a grotesque levy.

The bonus would be that the capitalist might not be a figure of hate, but admired. This could even promote a concept of fair play and still make money and save the planet. The inspired moron is a beast unto itself that would cut off its own hand with which it feeds itself (nothing new here, though).

The next 'theory' to be spun will probably involve nuclear-derived power that generates the steam to generate electricity since it does not produce carbon dioxide, but the disposal of the nuclear waste will need to be heavily taxed. Something has to replace the money-generating potential if old fuels are replaced. The oil-based waste products (petrol and diesel) that fuel vehicle engines must be replaced by something. It is an impossibility to dispose of the radioactive 'waste' as it cannot be destroyed. It will exist for thousands of years. It is at best simply deferring the destruction of all biological life on Earth for a few more years. A few more years of money redistribution. The lunacy of the concept is that denial condemns all biological life to inevitable destruction. Crustaceans may survive and have proven to be one of the most successful groups to have ever existed on planet Earth. They will continue as the human race destroys itself.

The cash cow carbon dioxide con works because at the superficial level it is plausible. At closer examination it becomes a very unstable argument. Continued production of carbon dioxide will not result in the gas being compressed and liquefied. The atmosphere will simply extend to a higher altitude. As the lungs of the Earth continue to be destroyed the generation of 'new oxygen' is dangerously compromised. The concentration of carbon dioxide in an upwardly expanding atmosphere gradually increases as the proportion of oxygen decreases. The altitude of the highest boundary of carbon dioxide increases.

The density of carbon dioxide changes dramatically at temperatures below -78.51 degC when the gas changes phase from gas to solid (deposition). The variation of the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude and increasing height above sea level firstly experiences cooling up to the Tropopause (about 10km altitude) down to almost -60 degC. The Tropopause marks the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere. It then remains constant for the next 10km before it gradually warms again to zero degC. Over the next 40km the temperature drops to a minimum of -90 degC. For the gas to solidify, the height would be in excess of 80km. However, the atmospheric pressure at such altitude would be almost zero and would mitigate against a solid form even if CO2 were to be found at such extreme height.

Schematic representation

• As height increases, the linear increase in volume of any atmosphere will decline. The circumference of the layer around the planet Earth will become larger, much like the rings of an onion the nearer the outside surface. Volume is a 3D quantity and the generation of CO2 by destruction of Earth-based sources (timber, coal, oil) by an exponentially growing population on Earth (the ridiculous tax revenue base), the trend conspires to fill the increasingly large volume. In effect, as the volume increases, the potential to create more CO2 expands.

Ironically, in the colder seasons when more carbon dioxide-generating fossil fuels are consumed, it is also the period when less carbon dioxide is removed: plants go dormant (photosynthesis). The winter months is the period of greatest seasonal CO2 production since the two effects conspire to make this happen. Any climate change/global warming issues will also be exaggerated in the winter.

Coal (primarily carbon) replaced trees (to some extent) as a fuel source and was itself superseded by oil (primarily carbon) products. It was fortuitous that the new alternatives released trees as the main fuel source although these products were themselves derived from the trees that they replaced. This was at a time before the science was speculated.

Northern Rock - The Depression

Northern Rock (October 2007)
Norther Rock - Update (November 2007)
Northern Rock - Another Update (March 2009)
Northern Rock - Lending Policy

The latest Northern Rock revelations are devastating for the government. They illustrate the absolute incompetence (at best) in the entire affair. At worst it could theoretically have all been engineered. Rather like Brown's government that oversees itself spending itself out of recession. The country is in a dreadful condition in just about every conceivable way and Brown's answer is the deluded upbeat message: it's all OK. Nothing to worry about. If Brown wanted to torpedo UQ (aka UK) Ltd he's done a fine job. A competent (!) wrecking crew.

• What the thinking could be regarding the Olympics 2012 is quite unimaginable

Olympic Fund: Raided
Olympic Lottery
Olympic Scheme
Olympic Torch

Do not forget Adam Applegarth who walks from all this. These were the days before the infamous Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin came to more general public notoriety.

Share Depression

Depending on viewpoint, one of the benefits of the 'economic recession' is that share prices have tumbled by up to 90% in many cases. The transfer of cheap stock has followed as a consequence to unknown investors. It's almost as if the entire scenario has been engineered to ultimately redistribute the wealth 'when' everything picks up.

   The Tesco catch-phrase: "Every little bit helps."

Turn that around from the probably intended connotation as far as the consumer is concerned and it becomes how every little bit helps Tesco and its shareholders. The consumer is just the vehicle to increase profits.

That may be regarded as

cynical

but is a plausible interpretation

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Devil's Advocate

The UQ (aka UK) Ltd government appears to be playing the game of Good Cop/Bad Cop:

• Good Cop (government)
• Bad Cop (Sir Liam Donaldson - government)

Clearly, the premise is that if there is something the government wants, it will officially oppose the desire. Governments wants more tax (they all do) this through alcohol sales (added duty), but could not formally condone any move that would provide it. A minimum price (50p) for a single unit of alcohol. With the binge drinking culture, it would be political suicide to actively support such a move.

So, condemn it (Good Cop)

Even inept government has its limits of ineptitude. One outcome is certain: consumers will be much more conscious (until influenced by the alcohol) of the number of units they are consuming. Each one will cost 50p.

Government: we want your money so to avoid the problem just give it to us. Your donation for nothing in return. Alcohol could be made illegal, but that would start a real uprising. The cash cow is so lucrative it must not be harmed and with essentially the entire nation hooked on drink to some extent (low, moderate, heavy) is just too much for any army of police.

Displease the people by all means, but make them pay for the privilege of feeling DISPLEASE

Sir Liam Donaldson (Bad Cop) 

• proposes the action and is seen as the (establishment figure) bad guy

The introduction of a minimum price for an alcohol unit would penalise and punish those who use alcohol in a 'sensible' way, by not over-indulging. Again, not a politically good move, but still highly desirable. Upsetting the people doesn't matter. Collecting the maximum from them does matter.The country does have a serious drink problem and the obvious answer is to tax it. The justifiction is to crush the problem whereas more honestly it is to exploit it. The actual result will be no change in the numbers using alcohol, although ideally it would be to increase the userbase. Crime will almost certainly increase requiring more police and people-protection. Robbery will ensure that the supply is maintained and/or theft will become the method to obtain funds to acquire it. Obviously, more police and people monitoring (surveillance of all kinds) will be necessary. Just another method to give the people what they deserve. The law-abiding and sensible user simply pays more to acquire the alcohol legally. Brown heading the government does not officially approve of such penalty. Irrelevant. The non law-abiding user just steals it or 'mugs' somebody for some money or burgles houses, steals cars and radios. The usual suspects. Very relevant to increase the necessary protection, monitoring and surveillance.

Create the problem and provide the solution

The government gets kudos for promoting common sense and Donaldson gets the tar and feathers. So far, so good. But how does it work that the goal is reached to achieve a minimum price for a unit of alcohol? Donaldson will have to be officially rebuked for making such an outrageous suggestion, but condemnation will not be possible since many positive points are made. The only issue is the minimum cost per unit and raising prices to stop the increased use. This is the critical feature and the key to it all working.

Reverse psychology

• The average adult in the UK consumes the equivalent of 120 bottles of wine a year and warned: "The country has a drink problem."
• Passive smoking damages others, passive drinking inflicts untold damage on children whose mothers drink while pregnant (emotive argument), or whose parents drink too much, as well as the 7,000 victims of drink drivers and 39,000 alcohol-related sexual assaults per year.
• A minimum price per unit of alcohol at 50p.
• Tightening licensing laws so local authorities consider the deaths and ill-health due to alcohol in the area before granting new licenses for pubs or clubs.
• Donaldson vowed to continue to push for the measure, saying it was backed by evidence and had the support of the medical community and alluded to the fact that he had been calling for a ban on smoking in public places for many years before it was finally accepted by ministers. Irrelevant.
• "We are heading for a meltdown as far as the individual health consequences of drinking are concerned and then you have the passive consequences of drinking on top of that".
• Sir Liam Donaldson added that he knew the idea of a minimum price per unit was controversial and would 'upset some people and ruffle some feathers', but he hoped decisions would not be taken without proper debate.
• "Where is plan B?" Why should a plan B or Plan C or... be needed? Irrelevant.
• Toleration of a drink problem this country has?
• The proposal is under consideration in Scotland. Irrelevant.
• The Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report, the 50th report produced since a chief medical officer was first appointed, cites research that a 50 pence per unit minimum price would mean:

• a bottle of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50
• whisky for not less than £14
• a six pack of lager not less than £6
• a two-litre bottle of cider not less than £5.50

• Moderate drinkers would end up paying around only £1 more a month where as a heavy drinker would spend £13 or £14 more a month.

• This quantifies the government interpretation of the heavy drinker as consuming between and 14 times as much alcohol as the moderate drinker. Obviously, by this logic the occasional drinker has virtually nothing.

• Heavy drinker is probably an alcoholic or drink dependent and so will 'find' the extra money at the denial of essentials to the family. It happens.

• Donaldson argued that the measure would help pubs because it would stop supermarkets selling cut price alcohol which encourages young people to 'pre-load' or drink at home before going out.

• How about government getting tough and preventing supermarkets from doing this. Tightening up the licensing laws. The tax revenue is reduced anyway so the commercial reason has nothing to do with (weak) government.

• The measure would see 3,393 fewer deaths, 97,900 fewer hospital admissions, 45,800 fewer crimes, 296,900 fewer sick days, 12,400 fewer people unemployed and benefit society by £1bn a year.

Not verifiable

• This simply demonstrates the damage done to society by alcohol and raising or lowering prices is totally irrelevant.

• However the drinks industry dismissed the idea:

• Mark Pragnell, managing director of the centre for economics and business research which was commissioned by SABMiller plc (shareholder), one of the world's leading brewers, to investigate the plan said:

• "A key problem with minimum pricing is that heavier drinkers – those that the policy is supposed to be targeting – are least responsive to price changes. This means that minimum pricing is an incredibly blunt instrument which imposes significant costs across large sections of society, whilst having very limited benefits in terms of curbing the excesses of the minority."

• It cannot be a surprise that a company that relies on shareholder investment would oppose increasing the cost of their product to the consumer. The government would get any benefit not the company. They are just the agent off which the parasite feeds.

• Gordon Brown rejected the minimum price per unit idea with an argument that included the fact that this would see the end to cans of lager and cider sold at less than the cost of a bottle of water. Brown apparently doesn't want the majority of moderate drinkers to pay more. This is a specious argument as drinking water can be drawn from a tap and the problem can be attacked by government action to reduce blatant profiteering. This won't happen as it defuels Brown's precept: the high cost of water drives up the need to charge more for lager and lager should be more expensive than water.The report also called for a ban on using certain antibiotics in animals because irresponsible use was driving antibiotic resistant disease like MRSA.

Completely irrelevant and specious. Red herring

• Wider use of simulations is needed that should be used for continual medical training the report said and men with prostate cancer should receive more counselling to help them decide if they want radical treatment or not as the cancer may never cause them significant problems. Side effects of surgery and radiotherapy can be devastating.

Specious connection

So, make out that Donaldson is the Bad Cop for stating the positives and the government the Good Cop for supporting not imposing a minimum price. A surprising government policy in conflict with itself. It a shining light in the darkness that alerts to a problem. The spin is obvious: Bad Cop Donaldson is right and even though minimum prices are opposed, it would be a good thing to favour alcohol (tax) increases much to the benefit of society. By pushing up prices.

The cost for all the benefits is the minimum
price/unit (50p) and will appear a real bargain

Alcohol is a simple chemical and very, very cheap to synthesise. Tight control by government on the sale to the public (Inland Revenue and Customs) means the public can have no idea of the quality of the 'alcohol' or even how it reaches the sellers. It's the proverbial gift horse donor to the Treasury coffers and is why it is so desirable. The users have to be 'persuaded' that a price increase to a minimum unit price is a good idea.

It's just a revenue earner and a poison. Both as a drug and the damage done to society.

Spun all the way around

Government is the Good Cop for opposing the views of...

...the government: Bad Cop (Donaldson)

• The logic used in this argument is a paradox: it's very illogical though realistic and plausible

Anti-alcohol campaign
Just Shooting The Breeze

Restructuring Nearing Completion

25.11.2010 - No. Not yet. On it goes...

Getting (much) worse for most (a vast majority), but never better for some (very tiny minority)

ANIMAL FARM - A Fairy Story

Quantitative Easing

The overhaul and restructuring of the financial system is probably nearly complete, certainly well underway. And few have noticed the bloodless coup. That is what it has been. The casualties are many, but absolutely not the financial system itself. That is protected under all circumstances except maybe by the collision with a massive asteroid the size of the Eccles Building (Federal Reserve). The financial system is idolised and worshiped as a god, yet will cause the destruction of life on Earth. Not the planet as that will always find a way to survive when human interference has disappeared.

The Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building houses the main offices of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C. The building was designed by Paul Phillippe Cret and finished in 1937. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicated the building on October 20, 1937. The building was named after Marriner S. Eccles, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve by an act of the United States Congress on October 15, 1982

The global system is so intermeshed in its own complexity, it would be impossible to untangle the inter-relationships. The entire single global financial system has in recent months seen a complete overhaul. Attempts have been made to disguise the restructuring, but it has failed miserably. The economies around the planet are now better streamlined and the virtual vaults are swelled with a lot of vapour:

Control

The groups responsible are possibly identifiable, but otherwise buried and hidden in obscurity. Around the planet millions have been thrown out of work and millions more handcuffed more tightly to the system. The greed-mongers imagine themselves to be immune since they have so much wealth. Ironically, this provides the strongest handcuff. Fear of losing everything and then having nothing like everyone else strikes home fear of unbearable force.

Population Growth

The billionaire in the desert without basic water is an interesting image to picture. Juxtaposed against the poor man and his lowly bottle of simple water who stands proud as King amongst all the Knaves that are to be destroyed. One-by-one until they're all gone. Opulence in a sand-hole is a depressing scenario, especially if you are the one that finds itself in the hole with the sand tumbling in.

The system crumbles and collapses inwards and downwards through the vortex and on towards Hell and real meltdown. Hot enough to melt and vaporise bone.

Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

Occam's Razor or Ockham's Razor

This could be regarded as a more sophisticated argument to KISS

• Keep It Short And Simple
• Keep It Simple And Straightforward
• Keep It Simple Stupid

The goal of the principle is to avoid unnecessary complexity.

If you can't explain it simply,

then you don't understand it enough

Albert Einstein

Deforestation

Rape Of The Earth
Tropical Deforestation

CO2 levels and deforestation have gone (deliberately?) unreported for some while. This is the true reason for the increase of atmospheric CO2. The source of CO2 is alleged to be fossil fuels. Certainly, levels are increased, but the destruction of the 'lungs of the Earth' prevents conversion of CO2 back into O2. All humans and other creatures respire: consume O2 and exhale CO2 to be converted back into O2. Remove vegetation and the levels of O2 must decrease. The proportion of CO2 in the breathable atmosphere will increase. The interpretation is that burning fossil fuels is considered the ONLY cause for the rise in CO2 levels.

Destruction of trees and vegetation is a

major cause of atmospheric 'pollution'

Burning organic material consumes oxygen and creates carbon dioxide. The ability to create oxygen is continuously curtailed. All humankind's ills are placed firmly at mankind's door. This is essentially true, but the remedy for reversal is removed purely for financial gain. Greed is very myopic. Actually, totally blind and criminally stupid.

There has been little drive to push the message of fuel restriction to heavy users, usually the wealthy and it seems that everyone else must conserve through penalty so the rich can waste the resource. To get richer on their journey to Hell. Because they can afford to. Lots of money will be needed to enter Hell. Another form of the redistribution of wealth (resources) is 'carbon trading'. This is the apparent attempt to deal with the amount of atmospheric CO2 pollution by moving it on elsewhere. It's just a cynical, stupid and (arguably) criminal, but nonetheless a very crude dodge around the entire subject, yet still in the short term 'moving' shed loads of money on the back of the issue. Parasitic. Dumping waste on somebody else so more waste (wealth) can be created. The illusion is something happening, but the reality is that everything continues to burn in Hell. The Earth will survive, though the Human Race will become extinct through the greed of a great many. The stupid ones. Much other life is also doomed, though much will survive. This could be on the epitaph of the Human Race:

The great many billions perished
through the greed of others 

The Human Race will be missed by nothing. If the development of Human Life were discovered to be an alien experiment, then it surely failed.

BIG TIME

There seems to be an unannounced moratorium on tree-saving and a new biofuel using tree bark, twigs and leaves and not new trees has been suggested (Biofuel Scam). This is less expensive in terms of food competition, but still fails to address the issue of CO2 production. One obvious problem is that once the true waste has been removed and destroyed, trees will be harvested not for their wood pulp, but bark. The tree will be destroyed, but justifying with a good intention. Nothing of the kind. At best it's clutching at straws in desperation rather that facing the only possible solution. Stop using conventional fuels. Nuclear energy is a non-starter. The Moon creates the tides and this will happen essentially forever. The forces involved do not stop or disappear. The real problem here is nobody has worked out how to exploit the Moon to make money and has clearly looked to the comfort zone of the tried and tested, but wholly unsustainable, methods. Some look ahead, but the 'average' consumer is not really interested. That's the truly pathetic part and belongs exclusively to the moron.

Northern Rock - Another Update

Has Northern Rock reverted to its old practices? Lending has begun in earnest and it has apparently paid off exactly 2/3rd of its bailout borrowings. Apparently 'found' some £18bn.

• Is this virtual money as before?
• The theoretical interest projected to be returned 'in the future'?
• From a £1.4bn loss in 2008 to repaying £18bn by early 2009?

The original government loan was £26.9bn and has been allegedly reduced to £8.9bn

£18bn/£26.9bn = 66.9%

Like most Northern Rock business, it just doesn't (appear to) add up: -£1.4bn -> +£18bn

Will this be hailed as evidence of success in dealing with the 'financial crisis'? The projected future interest return (virtual money) on loans is the payback. Totally virtual money. Where would £18bn be found unless it's vapour? It doesn't exist and never did. The government is happy, but as the debt-based financial system has always worked, promises (to pay the bearer) are the business of the day. Northern Rock Lending Policy

Apollo, SDI (Star Wars), Twin Towers, Financial Meltdown...

• 1969 - Apollo
• 1983 - SDI (Star Wars)
• 2001 - Twin Towers (New York)
• 2009 - Financial meltdown
• 201? - Starter for 10: the global £$trns
• 202? - Manned expedition to Mars
  

all make for a very

LARGE

Slush Fund

It's not worth anything, but it 'buys' a lot of favour
by being paid out in kind by the bearer of the fund

• In each case in America, $bns are pushed onto the taxpayer from an engineered situation. Apollo delivered nothing, just lie after lie. Reagan's SDI program fizzled out as Soviet Union/US relations eased.

Does anyone still (did they ever) imagine
that Reagan devised the whole concept?

• The military would, of course, have just fallen into the idea. Terrorism was devised and then manipulated. But who by?

• Twin Towers and Controlled Demolition

• Where did the RBS £28bn go? Nothing is lost, just redirected. Winners And Losers. So where is it all? If the search began then the danger is that the alleged 'money' could actually be located. That will never do. But it's really all just smoke and mirrors. Cloud vapour in the mist. The true extent of financial losses must have been engineered.

• To evaluate the loss at £28bn is to rub the taxpayer's collective nose into the stinking heap. To let the taxpayer see the size of the yoke as it is placed over the shoulders of the load bearer. Nobody has suggested looking for this virtual money since it doesn't actually exist, but the illusion might be revealed for what it is. All the global losses being declared is the chosen method of burying the fiction. To make the illusion disappear so the trick will never be uncovered and so can be used again.

• Dropping at the rate of approximately £925 every second for 300 days, would put £28bn into the financial black hole where virtual money that never existed formally disappears. It beggars belief that £28bn (allegedly) could have been 'lost'. It never existed, but the taxpayer will underwrite the fairy tale anyway. It's a 'sting' of truly gigantic proportions.

Fred "The Shred" Goodwin

Toxic Debt
Fred Goodwin

When military personnel do their job they risk losing their life. A symbolic bonus is awarded in the form of a medal and this both recognises and honours genuinely real achievements far in excess of 'just doing their job'. It's very high risk work. The penalty when things go wrong can be loss of life. Place that against the bonus for failure of a banker or other non-creative financial employee who turns up for work, but does nothing important. Grotesque payments for what? Moving money around making a few winners and in that tacky process creating a great many more losers.

'Sir' Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin walks away with a £703,000+ pension - every year until death (and then a reduced pension to any surviving partner?). The RBS losses are reported to be £28bn. Regulation of the banks had been given over to the banks. To regulate themselves. The same principle as MPs being responsible for recommending their own salary rise. Or the police policing themselves. To 'ask' Goodwin to 'give up' some of this pension is clearly a non-starter. The nature of the mind-set of an individual to oversee such 'losses' and feel the payment is justified negates any voluntary action. The scale is quite easy to see once the nature of the beast is understood. Goodwin and his ilk are repellent.

RBS pension: examined by lawyers
Legal probe into Goodwin era at RBS
Row over pension advance - descent deeper into the pit
Good Riddance Day
Goodwin de-knighted

It doesn't need a complex animal to be blinded through greed with it's snout in the trough. The trading post. It has no conscience and possibly buys all its 'friends' since it's not likely to have any real friends. Loyalty doesn't exist. It cannot exist by definition. Compassion? A great deal less than a lump of ice. Not particularly clever and cannot act alone. The fact that £28bn has been lost is defined as the same amount gained. Somewhere. Some black-hole slush fund. Money is never made or lost, unless perhaps more gold is mined. But this will just devalue what is already in circulation.

Keep in mind that a few £bn here and a few more £bn there soon mounts up. The debt very quickly becomes the size of an everest:

£5bn + £5bn + £5bn + £5bn +

£5bn + £5bn + £5bn + ...

-> £trillions

Toxic Debt Information

The system continues to get milked and the farmer is rewarded

The wicked irony? Goodwin's own loot is devalued as a direct result of his own (alleged) machinations. Very simple concept as the taxpayer continues to fill the vacuum with virtual money. The pathetic stance posing with a gun presumably symbolically sticking two fingers (or less) up at those who, quite rightfully, challenge the payment.

"I am a hard man. Don't mess with me.
I am the guy with the gun."

A similar pose appeared a few days later in a different paper. He does, however, have a passion for shooting. Or uses shooting for bonding trips with business associates. Guns seem to be somewhat a Goodwin-trademark. Possibly drives a BIG and powerful car. BIG office and a BIG car might suggest BIG pri** syndrome, and if this is the case would be typical of small-minded people with a deluded and exceptionally large ego. Such naïvety is actually quite breathtaking. To imagine such an empath in charge of RSB is rather difficult. Very difficult, but that such an attitude could lose £28bn is not. Some people just cannot be taken seriously. The claim that RBS allegedly asked for another £325bn in Government loan guarantees to cover its toxic assets makes Goodwin's £13,000 a week appear an incredibly lame diversion to move attention from the 'trivial' onto the enormity of the 'real' disaster: £28bn and climbing.

Hotting Up?

The potential clash here is between parties that have moved on from their earlier lives and into head-on combat. This will get fascinating. If it ever comes to anything. Human Rights, Blairs and Brown. Any scores that need to be settled will work themselves out here.

It's fascinating to ponder (very briefly) on what this man will do for the next 30 or 40 years. From being a somebody (presumably) to being a nobody. This will be fully understood by Goodwin soon enough.

Deserted And Friendless

People like Goodwin should be pitied, but never excused. They know what they do. Ruthless, unconscionable, self-serving. Classic parasite. Taking, however 'immorally justified'. True morality doesn't enter the frame. Apparent greed is quite a different beast. But it must not be overlooked how the payment was (apparently) authorised.

Myners/Goodwin
Minister's RBS handling 'naive'

Redistribution of the fixed global wealth means that ultimately everything moves further towards the 'rich'. The minimum wage enables companies to divide and split loyalties. Drive a wedge into society that excludes the wealthy. Reward the few with disgusting salaries and bonuses and pay the majority disgracefully poor wages to pay for it. Pay the few even more, but pay a greater number far less. Absolutely divisive. The argument that bonuses need to be paid to encourage individuals to remain is a completely ridiculous non-starter. Annual pay increases reward effectiveness. A poor performance results in a poor increase. A poor job done can be aways be rewarded by the sack, not by being given more money for doing the job that is expected, but not delivered.

Allegorically, the growth in the volume of concrete produces enormous quantities of CO2. The volume of water removed from the global total gradually increases the concentration of salt in the oceans. This will ultimately have its effect on the sea-life by destroying it. The impact here is to deplete the food stock of 'the people'. Ironically, as the frozen polar regions allegedly melt, this will dilute the oceans and in some way redress the balance. But the natural cooling effect of the melting ice of the Antarctic will be compromised and when the cyclical cooling restarts, there will be less global sea water with an enriched level of salt. Freezing point will be depressed so less ice will reform.

The growing population is allowed to happen as the growth is perceived to increase the consumer population and so promote financial growth. This is absolute madness. The blind idiot in control. The limit of growth was reached long ago and the results of overpopulation are already being overtly noticed. The population grows, employment declines as production of unwanted consumer products takes a massive downturn, benefits escalate to be paid for by a declining taxpayer population. Financial 'bailouts' continue to incarcerate the people for an ever increasing sentence. It is becoming clearer that unjustified 'wealth' continues to be acquired by the few at the un-Affordable expense of the many.

Eric Daniels (Lloyds TSB)

Gold

Elemental gold does not deteriorate with age. It is not reactive with oxygen so is resistant to the atmosphere. This is the main reason gold is 'valuable' and forms the wealth of any country: the gold reserves. Gordon Brown is infamous for selling UK gold at a low value thereby creating enormous potential wealth for the buyer when gold value inevitably increased. From being very low, the only way is up. If Brown had wanted to further the UK's decline in the Blair years, this was the triumph.

Over time gold (hard currency, literally) has been removed from circulation to be replaced with virtual money. This is only theoretical money and doesn't exist. Economies are based on mist, smoke and mirrors and consequently no-one noticed what was happening. The real wealth is locked away in some impregnable vault and replaced with virtual money. The world just plays a game with monopoly money and doesn't recognise the sting. On it goes and everyone seems to be happy, especially those who imagine that they have wealth. It's one reason to 'buy' up 'valuable' items, but value is so fickle, it's highly unstable.

Like share prices: this can be viewed as a kind of (virtual) money-laundering operation. What would happen if 1000 tonnes of pure gold was discovered tomorrow? The cost to buy as at 28.02.09: above $1000 an ounce (22 carat). But it's worth nothing, unless someone buys it. But with what? With today's higher-valued currency being worth more than it was yesterday. The perceived value changes by the day (though always with an upward and inflationary trend) for a commodity that itself never changes. This defines the nature of 'money'. It's nothing more than a 'promise to pay the bearer'. A credit in kind. Of no value other than a promise. And of what value is that?

Over-Diagnosis, Over-Treatment And Over-Anxiety

Back in November 2006, I discussed briefly the concept of Healthy Patients and the Healthily Ill. Interestingly, a letter appeared in the BMJ (letter: 03.03.09) which touches on a similar issue. By alerting to health issues that may not be an issue, there is a cynical irony in that anxiety levels can be (inadvertently) raised, especially in older people so requiring antidepressants. At best it is a Catch-22 scenario. At worst it is by design. A GP can find any number of potential problems and when the goalposts are constantly moved it becomes difficult for the non-professional (probably the majority of a GP's patients) to filter the real from the distorted. Raising awareness can create a larger number of patients 'in need' of some sort of treatment and some will doubtless benefit from the alert who may be otherwise unaware of ill-health. The subtle distinction between prophylaxis and pro-active or preemptive (seizing of the initiative) treatment is raised.