Economic growth is the goal of governments world wide. European countries led
the way in the past only to be passed by the United States in the past century.
Japan pursued this goal successfully until reality caught up with them. They ran
short of natural wealth as they used up most of their limited supply. Other
Asian countries have done their utmost to emulate the Western countries with
China and India now the most prominent.
They measure the value of their economies by the GDP, the amount of goods and
services produced. There are two capital components in this production, social
and natural. The social capital has been built up by experience and education.
It has produced the know how that has contributed appreciably to the
construction, operation and maintenance of the systems of civilization. This
social capital can continue to grow, especially in the developing communities,
while there is sufficient natural capital available.
This natural capital, however, is irreversibly used up in the running of the
systems of civilization. It is being divested without its depletion being taken
into account. Continuing economic growth is an impossible goal for society at
large. The elite will continue to use their leverage of money to hasten the
aging of civilization while the masses wonder what went wrong.



Denis Frith

Melbourne

Australia

denisaf2000@...

 

http://candobetter.wikispaces.com/Denis+Frith

 

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/oz-inform/

 

http://groups.google.com.au/group/senescence-of-civilization/

 

What went wrong? The
misdirection of civilization

The Fossil
Genie is loose! What will we do?

The Money
Virus is rampant! How do we treat it?

Gaia is
concerned. Tityas has gone off the rails. What can be done?

 

 

 

 







      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
 
 
After over 30 years, the Voyager spacecraft are still making
discoveries in their outward journies, this time studying interstellar dust and
magnetic fields not expected at the bounds of the heliosphere.
....Not terribly energy related, but a discoveries of the
unexpected are always exciting.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Denis Frith wrote:
> An Excel spreadsheet and associated charts for examining climate change is
attached.
>

     Nope, not attached.

     I'd like to see the evidence for the correlation of CO2
concentration and climate change.

     Michael
~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Because an rather bad experience with attachments here at EnergyResources some
time ago, they are not allowed.

You can use the "Files" section, however

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

Alexander wrote:
> ~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
> Is this renewable energy really a good as it is presented in the following?
>
> ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
>
>

     Yes. The combination of conservation and renewables easily meets all
home energy needs, and more.

     In my home, my wife and I use 75 to 80 KWH of electricity per month
and 9 therms of gas. The electricity is easily supplied by a very modest
three panel pv system that generates more energy than we use. The rest
benefits our neighbors.

     I have experimented with solar cooking and find it interesting and
useful, unfortunately not adaptable to cooking supper, our only cooked
meal. We substitute conservation for solar in this regard, using no
electric appliances in food preparation, and only lightly cooking the
vegetarian fare we consume. In the winter, we cook on the wood stove,
fueled with cast-off wood gathered on our daily walks to and from work.

     Conservation and solar does not mean doing without. We enjoy a
varied diet, eating what the season provides, local vegetables and
pasta, and a bottle of fine local wine. We're not poor, we just don't
spend money!

     Michael

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Is this renewable energy really a good as it is presented in the following?

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

Across the globe, the need of the hour is to use renewable energy. Renewable
energy is energy from natural resources, such as sunlight, rain, wind, tides,
and geothermal heat. Energy sources are draining at an exciting rate, which
makes it command to use the energy that is prevalent and free like solar and
wind. Not only are these two resources in plenty, but they also keep our
environment pollution-free.

The option of solar or wind energy is yours. If you live where there is strong
sunlight, you can choose for the solar panel to accumulate the direct sunlight
and convert this into power. If your region has tough winds blowing throughout
the year, you could implement benefit of the wind turbine to generate wind
power.

Many people suppose that it is costly to go green, but this is not true.
Investing in a solar power system will give you returns in a short time, after
which you will be getting free service, thus eliminating your power bill. Today,
there are a number of guides available that make it very easy to make your own
solar panels or wind turbine systems. They come along with video descriptions.
The materials used for this is from the junk parts that are available at any
local retail shop.

A solar home electricity system turns solar energy into electrical energy for
the home. The solar electricity stored in the solar cells light up your house at
night too. Once you set up the solar home lighting system in your house you
needn't care about the electricity bill anymore. The solar heating system in
your home assists to cut down your electricity bill and also economize on fuel.
These heating systems are installed in a way that is pleasing to the eye and
does not detract from the beauty of your home.

There are different solar power alternatives available for home use. A solar
cooker does not use any fuel for cooking and it can boil, bake and roast too.
You can cut down resolutely on the bills and save power. By using renewable
energy in your home, you are not only saving on your electricity bill but also
being environmentally amicable. You are doing your bit to lessen the demand for
fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas. The less these fossil fuels burn
the lower the emanation of carbon dioxide, which is a major contributor to
global warming, and other harmful waste.

Green energy that is clean energy should be our aim. But the first step towards
it is to belittle the energy needs by taking actions like insulating/weather
stripping your home and purchasing high efficiency attachments. Using renewable
energy for your home will also make you feel that you are doing your share to
economize power for generations to come.

Source:
http://www.thegreeno.com/green-articles/green-technology-articles/generating-fre\
e-electricity.html

Free Electric Car Until December 31, 2009 - Federal Tax Credit

If you paid at least $6400 in Federal Taxes, you may qualify for a free
electric car thru a Federal Tax Credit.(Please contact your CPA to
verify this claim)

Free Electric Car <http://electricandhybridcars.com/>

Cheers,
Dow


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

An Excel spreadsheet and associated charts for examining climate change is
attached. It provides insight into the impact of fossil fuel emissions on global
warming. It takes into account the influence of the oceans and land usage on the
atmospheric level of carbon dioxide. Cell comments indicate the sources of the
data used and reasons for my estimates. I expect that it will be a useful tool
for illustrating the nature of this process. It should help to resolve some of
the uncertainty that has arisen due to the widely ranging views of various
sources. This spreadsheet is a simplistic representation of the physics
involved. It is not a climate model but does link data in a logical and
transparent manner. The credibility of the examination can be improved by the
participation of other people. Contributions of other sources of relevant data,
questions and comments, online or offline, are welcome. They will help to made
this spreadsheet a useful tool in
  consideration of this important issue.

Denis Frith




      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Climate change, renewable energy policy and going off the grid are the topics of
the day

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/CleanTech_Org/

The chaotic goings on in Copenhagen have simply provided another example of the
perverse games that human society plays as its systems continue to devastate the
life support systems of civilization. The 'developed'  countries have achieved
that status largely because they have many well-educated people able to use
money to produce systems that have consumed irreplaceable natural resources and
produced irredeemable wastes. The 'developing' countries are trying to emulate
this process as the  global stock of natural capital becomes scarce. The 
'un-developed' countries can do no more than suffer the consequences of this
rampant rate of misuse of the natural bounty grows.
Money, know how and technology all contribute to what is now becoming the
painful senescence of civilization. The fundamental
  problem, however, is lack of understanding of the  reality that natural forces
invariably determine what happens in material operations. Humans believe their
kin have been clever in building up the material wealth of civilization. They do
not understand that the price is the devastation of the natural wealth. They now
have to gain understanding of the stark reality of what civilization has done
wrong. This would help them to rise to the challenge of coping with the
senescence of their civilization.

Denis Frith




      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This story was sent to you by devise9876@... with these comments:

Finding enough land for solar siting has always been recognized as a problem.
That issue is now surfacing as time has come to commit to solar in reality.

From MarketWatch, online at:



SEN. FEINSTEIN MOVES TO CREATE MOJAVE TRAILS MONUMENT




By Steve Gelsi

12:03 PM ET Dec 22, 2009




NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Large alternative energy projects planned for the
Mojave
Desert are running into conflicts with efforts to protect pristine lands in
California.

The solar plants and wind farms  planned for the vast region near the border of
California and Nevada are designed to generate electricity without carbon
dioxide
emissions.

But their visual impact and infrastructure requirements are in conflict with a
move
in the U.S. Senate to set aside huge chunks of land from development.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., on Monday launched an effort to create the
941,000-acre Mojave Trails National Monument and other protected wilderness,
sealing
them off from major green power development.

The move would place plans for 13 solar facilities and wind farms in permanent
limbo, even as utilities attempt to meet California's renewable portfolio
standards
requiring electricity from green sources.

Anticipating the move, Tessera Solar has already canceled its 2006 plan to
develop a
5,000-acre site in the Mojave, a company spokeswoman told The Wall Street
Journal.

BrightSource Energy also decided to cancel plans to build a thermal solar
project in
the Broadwell Dry Lake area, which fall within the proposed monument boundaries.
It's
still proceeding with others outside the immediate monument area.

Feinstein's measure drew criticism from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as a
partner with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a venture capital firm that invested
in
BrightSource Solar.

"This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein
shouldn't
be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific
environmental review," Kennedy told The New York Times.

Kennedy has famously opposed an offshore wind farm development in Nantucket
Sound
that would be visible from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass.

Feinstein's measure does include measures to streamline the process to permit
large-scale wind and solar develop on "suitable public and private lands" in the
California desert.

Feinstein was a key backer of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which
turned Death Valley and Joshua Tree wilderness areas into national parks.

In launching her latest legislative push, Feinstein said the government needs to
make good on a promise to the Catellus Development Corp., which raised $45
million to
buy  land for the Mojave Trails National Monument.

"The Catellus lands were purchased... and donated to the federal government for
the
purpose of conservation, and that commitment must be upheld. Period," Mrs.
Feinstein
said in a statement.


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

Did you like this article your friend sent?  If so we have thousands more.

Become a MarketWatch member and access any story we've ever written as well as
the
following benefits:

- Portfolio Tracker

- Easily track your investments

- E-Newsletters - Get the latest financial news delivered to your inbox

- Free offers from select partners

- Breaking News Bulletins

- Price/Volume Alerts

- And More!

Join Now! Click here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/login/registration.asp?dist=nwtfriend

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


Questions? Please contact us at:

http://www.marketwatch.com/support/feedback.asp?siteid=mktw

You were sent this article because your friend requested that it be sent to you.

MarketWatch, the MarketWatch logo, and BigCharts are registered trademarks of
MarketWatch, Inc.

Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
(updated
6/26/07).


To read MarketWatch's Terms of Service, click here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/support/disclaimer.asp?siteid=mktw

To read MarketWatch's Privacy Policy, click here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/support/privacy.asp?siteid=mktw


MarketWatch - Attn: Customer Service, 201 California St., San Francisco, CA
94111

Erik
It is fascinating that there are two types of risk that society faces. The money
game is much better known and attracts many more players than the risk
associated with putting into place systems, such as cars, that use up natural
material capital, like the fossil fuels. The first type can lead to localized
and short term gains and losses that can elevate or devastate people,
communities and even countries. In the case of the second one, the risk was not
perceived by the leaders or the general populace. It was a bad bet because the
odds were biased by corrupt accounting. The ecological cost of using up
irreplaceable natural resources and producing irrevocable wastes have not been
included in the assessment. So society and the environment has now lost that
bet. The legacy is a
  civilization with too many people and too big a set of cities that are
irrevocably dependent on using declining natural capital, particularly oil. This
society cannot even call on the means to mitigate climate change or explosive
population growth. Natural forces will continue to control what happens.

Denis Frith



--- On Fri,
  18/12/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Risk
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Friday, 18 December, 2009, 11:57 AM







Ā 









       In 2004-7, the no document home loan exploded across the EU and

particullarly the US.  What became known as the "subprime loan" but

was actually a large group of loan practices, doled out loans to buy

houses and anything else, without any interest in ability to repay.

It was the gloden age of denial, denial that this might end badly.

Warnings were being screamed by some, but denied by our

conservative media. We cared not about risk. We were not interested

in risk. And we still care not about loan risk. We knew that this

could end badly but did nothing to deal with that risk. Well...



...Now we face debate on two more risks...both centered around

fossil fuels...their scarcity and their environmental potential problems.

There are those that know things will happen and there are those

that are certain that there are no risks.  The "no risk" group is

ironically the same as the "no risks" group for the subprime loans



....The answer of risk as always lies somewhere in between for

both fossil fuel issues. Do we do nothing about increasing atmospheric

concentrations of a broad group of potentially climate altering gasses?

Some say yes, they say "no risk" as they always do.  Others take

the opposite extreme promising 100% risk.



...Many things are understood and many aren't well understood.

So, not being able to view the future from our present viewpoint,

do we do nothing and conduct the ultimate global atmoshperic

experiment as we alter our atmospheric chemistry? Do we do

shut down everything and strive for the "pristine" "stable"

atmospheric chemistry, or do we find some middle ground to

deal with the risk of a badly destabilized climate, a concept

we do not have the wherewithal to quantify? If we cannot

quantify the future in detail, does that mean we should do

nothing if we perceive a potential problem?



...What are the risks? Do we follow the model set by the

subprime loan era or do we try to intervene before things

collapse and we look back with hindsight and wish we had?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]























      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Make your New Year Resolution be to improve your chances at a Green Career/Job.
Find the Online Green Certification, program or degree that is right for you.
Visit our growing list of Green Online education ( some are free!)
opportunities.
To make a transistion to a green career you need to take the first step.
Visit us today at www.MyGreenEducation.com

Today's EV &  Hybrid News: A new EV test fleet from Volvo

Oklahoma Residents Can Buy an Electric Car for Less than $900
A new EV test fleet from Volvo Cars
Electric car manufacturer Zap picking up speed
Tesla Motors Into South Florida
Toyota Prius Plug-Ins Hit the Streets
Chevy Volt Exec on EEStor: Claims Are "Way Out There," But Worth
Watching
and More

Click Here for all this stories and a video of the Electric Volvo C30
<http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/electriccarnews.html>

Cheers,
Susie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A start is to make sure that would-be refugees who float in toward Australia are
never allowed onto the mainland.
V.

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of smn
Sent: Tue 12/8/2009 8:08 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: [energyresources] Oz: Government coordinated invasion; overpopulated
Oz; Kelvin Thomson; candobetter needs new v-server; propaganda watch; political
corruption; New national park; wildlife persecuted- Candobetter





News at http://candobetter.org/ <http://candobetter.org/>  - /A website for
reform in
democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy
policy/ - Please send your articles and comments to make our news.
Please forward to increase readership.

Australia's governments are coordinating an unarmed invasion
without your permission <http://candobetter.org/node/1696
<http://candobetter.org/node/1696> >

Posted December 9th, 2009 by Sheila Newman <http://candobetter.org/user/2
<http://candobetter.org/user/2> >

For 2008-09 natural increase was 157,000, and net overseas migration
283,300. This constitutes an invasion, especially viewed in its
cumulative effect. It is the result of government advertising and other
policies. We were not asked. No matter how you measure it, net migration
has never been so high. According to the ABS, Australia now outstrips
Canada in having the developed world's highest immigration and
population-growth rates. Ever wonder how Mexico, the Philippines, and
Africa became third world overpopulated countries? Just watch what is
happening to Australia and ask yourself, if you aren't trying to stop
this, why not?

candobetter.org needs an additional v-server and has been offline
or slow due to technical v-server problems
<http://candobetter.org/node/1689 <http://candobetter.org/node/1689> >

Posted December 9th, 2009 by Sheila Newman <http://candobetter.org/user/2
<http://candobetter.org/user/2> >

We are sorry to that candobetter.org has been off-line from time to time
recently and has experienced massive slow-downs. It was out of the
owner's control. We need another v-server in order to insure against
this kind of incident. It will cost a few thousand per annum to rent and
I am taking this opportunity to prepare our readers and writers to
consider supporting candobetter.org's owner and originator, James
Sinnamon, in renting a new, supplementary v-server or buying a new
machine. James bears all candobetter's production costs alone, without
profit. He does this because he realises how important for our society
and democracy it is to have a free alternative press. Candobetter.org is
published via internet technology which is not aligned with microsoft or
any commercial internet provider. The owner constructs the site in
linux. These qualities are precautions against arbitrary removal of
access, hacking and censorship, which are ever-present threats.

Demand developers be banned from donating to political parties -
template <http://candobetter.org/node/1697 <http://candobetter.org/node/1697> >

Posted December 9th, 2009 by Sheila Newman <http://candobetter.org/user/2
<http://candobetter.org/user/2> >

Please sign and email the document inside, which calls for Victorian
political parties to stop accepting donations from developers. Then send
back to Planning Backlash, which will forward them to the Government and
the media. Many have just typed their Group name at the and some have
added their name as well. Whatever you do is fine. "John-Paul Langbroek
and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor
Governments reform" <http://candobetter.org/node/1669
<http://candobetter.org/node/1669> >

Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate
native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos
<http://candobetter.org/node/1695 <http://candobetter.org/node/1695> >

Posted December 9th, 2009 by Vivienne Ortega
<http://candobetter.org/user/78 <http://candobetter.org/user/78> >

Landholders in Victoria are being given permits to kill tens of
thousands of protected kangaroos every year, even in good seasons and in
areas not affected by drought. This is despite research showing that
kangaroos do not compete with stock for pasture. Kangaroos are also
being shot without proper assessment of population numbers, locally or
regionally, putting them at risk of local and regional extinction. This
is despite the some one million native animals killed on Black Saturday.
(photo source: www.business.vic.gov.au)

NSW Premier Rees approves Red Gum 42,000 ha National Park
<http://candobetter.org/node/1694 <http://candobetter.org/node/1694> >

Posted December 8th, 2009 by Tigerquoll <http://candobetter.org/user/122
<http://candobetter.org/user/122> >

<http://candobetter.org/files/Anne_Maree_Barmah_Lakes_Red_Gum2_thumb.jpg
<http://candobetter.org/files/Anne_Maree_Barmah_Lakes_Red_Gum2_thumb.jpg> >
To his credit, NSW Premier, Nathan Rees in the days preceding the 4th
December 2009 /(his ousting as Premier)/ announced the creation of a
massive new red gum national park along the Murray River near Deniliquin
to protect much of the state's remaining river red gum forests from logging.

Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal
its privatisation colours <http://candobetter.org/node/1692
<http://candobetter.org/node/1692> >

Posted December 8th, 2009 by James Sinnamon <http://candobetter.org/user/3
<http://candobetter.org/user/3> >

Many Queenslanders, appalled at their state Government's blatant
disregard for their wishes /not/ to sell AU$15billion of worth of
publicly owned assets, actually look to Rupert Murdoch's /Courier-Mail/
newspaper to stand up to what has to be amongst the most inept and
despotic of state governments in Australia's history. However, the
dishonest spin encompassed in the title of the story "Asset Sale Anger
on the wane"_*1 <http://candobetter.org/node/1692#main-fn1
<http://candobetter.org/node/1692#main-fn1> >* , together
with the sub-heading "Christmas boost for Bligh", reveals that
newspaper's true colours on that issue.

You-tube film: Kelvin Thomson - Population Reform- Political
Challenges <http://candobetter.org/node/1693 <http://candobetter.org/node/1693>
>

Posted December 7th, 2009 by Sheila Newman <http://candobetter.org/user/2
<http://candobetter.org/user/2> >

This is a really great speech, empowering and intelligent. If anyone can
save Australia's democracy, environment and quality of life, it may be
Kelvin Thomson, who speaks clearly over the constant dull roar of the
growth merchants. Jill Quirk, President of the Victorian Branch of
Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) is to be congratulated on
attracting much interest in this meeting. Speech on You-tube.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxWA0otqWSY
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxWA0otqWSY> >

Premier Bligh pretends Queenslanders cannot cap population growth
although 60% want to <http://candobetter.org/node/1691
<http://candobetter.org/node/1691> >

Posted December 7th, 2009 by Sheila Newman <http://candobetter.org/user/2
<http://candobetter.org/user/2> >

A Galaxy poll suggests "60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government
to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth
explosion." (December 07, 2009). Although Anna Bligh's government
actively advertises for overseas and interstate immigrants, the Premier
is quoted saying , '"she was yet to see "any sensible or legal way" to
cap the population.' Population sociologist, Sheila Newman, responds:
"Premier Bligh could start by ceasing to advertise for more interstate
and international immigrants. Her statements implying that population
caps are not possible are ridiculous, misleading and irresponsible. All
societies have numerous democratic ways of controlling population,
unless they are politically prevented from doing so by undemocratic
governments like Anna Bligh's."

*What you can do:* If you are a Queensland resident and Australian
citizen, please *sign the petition* here
<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetN\
um=1360&lIndex=-1
<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetN\
um=1360&lIndex=-1> >.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks to BIll Ryerson for forwarding the press release below.  Phil Cafaro
makes the points that I have been making for a very long time: Our own poor
suffer first and worst from mass immigration.

WIth newer data, perhaps Cafaro can get media and political attention.
V.
......................................

Thanks to Leah Durant and Phil Cafaro for this press release.  You can download
Phil's paper, The Economic Impacts of Mass Immigration, from
http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2009/11/29/the-economic-impacts-\
of-mass-immigration-into-the-united-states-and-the-proper-progressive-response/
<https://email.mc.vanderbilt.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.progressiv\
esforimmigrationreform.org/2009/11/29/the-economic-impacts-of-mass-immigration-i\
nto-the-united-states-and-the-proper-progressive-response/>



Liberals Examine Immigration Reform



WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Progressives for Immigration
Reform has released a new policy brief: "The Economic Impacts of Mass
Immigration into the United States and the Proper Progressive Response."  The
publication was authored by Philip Cafaro, an Associate Professor of Philosophy
at Colorado State University with a long history of progressive political
activism.  This study examines the impact that uncontrolled immigration has on
America's poor and argues that Democrats need to address their plight rather
than swelling their ranks by importing less-skilled, low-wage foreign labor. The
article reveals that current immigration policies widen income inequalities and
concentrate immigration's harms upon those Americans least able to afford them.



Among the article's key findings:



  *   Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with less-skilled,
less-educated workers, driving down wages for working-class Americans.

  *   Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages in
some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower than in 1980.

  *   Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of immigration are
poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older immigrants. There is no evidence of
a labor shortage at the lower end of the labor market.

  *   Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.



"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from
unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should
strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens,
rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro.  "Although the United States
is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor,
basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before
increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."



This publication can be accessed at: 
http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2009/11/29/the-economic-impacts-\
of-mass-immigration-into-the-united-states-and-the-proper-progressive-response/
<https://email.mc.vanderbilt.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.progressiv\
esforimmigrationreform.org/2009/11/29/the-economic-impacts-of-mass-immigration-i\
nto-the-united-states-and-the-proper-progressive-response/>

Hard copies are available upon request.



CONTACT: Kathlene Carney for Progressives for Immigration Reform,
+1-707-377-4141, kathlene@... <mailto:kathlene@...>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Big pharma and big insurance in league with Democrats' healthcare reform.  Help!

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of hugh spencer
Sent: Sun 12/20/2009 12:48 PM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Cc: roeoz@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [energyresources] Bill Moyers - the looting of America..




Hi all..

And if this is the situation with regards to healthcare reform in the USA -
God help us all if we expect the USA to deal rationally with the issues of
Global Warming and peak oil.. (especially after the Copenhagen debacle)

H

"And we'll all go together when we go
Consumed by an incandescent glow..." (Tom Lehrer)

only - it won't be 'uraneous' (or, maybe it will...)

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/watch.html
<http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/watch.html>

December 18, 2009

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.

Something's not right here. One year after the great collapse of our
financial system, Wall Street is back on top while our politicians dither.
As for health care reform, you're about to be forced to buy insurance from
companies whose stock is soaring, and that's just dandy with the White
House.

Truth is, our capitol's being looted, republicans are acting like the town
rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress
are in cahoots with the gang that's pulling the heist. This is not
capitalism at work. It's capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying
politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.

Here to talk about all this are two journalists who don't pull their
punches. Robert Kuttner is an economist who helped create and now co-edits
the progressive magazine THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, and the author of the book
OBAMA'S CHALLENGE, among others.

Also with me is Matt Taibbi, who covers politics for ROLLING STONE magazine
where he is a contributing editor. He's made a name for himself writing in
a no-holds-barred, often profane, but always informative and stimulating
style that gets under the skin of the powerful. His most recent article is
"Obama's Big Sellout," about the President's team of economic advisers and
their Wall Street connections. It's been burning up the blogosphere.
Welcome to both of you.

BILL MOYERS: Let's start with some news. Some of the big insurance
companies, Well Point, Cigna, United Health, all surged to a 52 week high
in their share prices this week when it was clear there'd be no public
option in the health care bill going through Congress right now. What does
that tell you, Matt?

MATT TAIBBI: Well, I think what most people should take away from this is
that the massive subsidies for health insurance companies have been
preserved while it's also expanded their customer base because there's an
individual mandate in the bill that's going to provide all these companies
with the, you know, 25 or 30 million new people who are going to be paying
for health insurance. So, it's, obviously, a huge boon to that industry.
And I think Wall Street correctly read what the health care effort is all
about.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, was Bill
Clinton's Political Director. And Rahm Emanuel's take away from Bill
Clinton's failure to get health insurance passed was 'don't get on the
wrong side of the insurance companies.' So their strategy was cut a deal
with the insurance companies, the drug industry going in. And the deal was,
we're not going to attack your customer base, we're going to subsidize a
new customer base. And that script was pre-cooked so it's not surprising
that this is what comes out the other side.

BILL MOYERS: So are you saying that this, what some call a sweetheart deal
between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, done many months
ago before this fight really began, was because the drug company money in
the Democratic Party?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's two things. Part of it was we need to do
whatever it takes to get a bill. Never mind whether it's a really good
bill, let's get a bill passed so we can claim that we solved health
insurance. Secondly, let's get the drug industry and the insurance industry
either supporting us or not actively opposing us. So that there was some
skirmishing around the details, but the deal going in was that the
administration, drug companies, insurance companies are on the same team.
Now, that's one way to get legislation, it's not a way to transform the
health system. Once the White House made this deal with the insurance
companies, the public option was never going to be anything more than a fig
leaf. And over the summer and the fall, it got whittled down, whittled
down, whittled down to almost nothing and now it's really nothing.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, and this was Howard Dean's point this week was that this
individual mandate that's going to force people to become customers of
private health insurance companies, the Democrats are going to end up
owning that policy and it's going to be extremely unpopular and it's going
to be theirs for a generation. It's going to be an albatross around the
neck of this party.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Think about it, the difference between social insurance and
an individual mandate is this. Social insurance everybody pays for it
through their taxes, so you don't think of Social Security as a compulsory
individual mandate. You think of it as a benefit, as a protection that your
government provides. But an individual mandate is an order to you to go out
and buy some product from some private profit-making company, that in the
case of a lot of moderate income people, you can't afford to buy. And the
shell game here is that the affordable policies are either very high
deductibles and co-pays, so you can afford the monthly premiums but then
when you get sick, you have to pay a small fortune out of pocket before the
coverage kicks in. Or if the coverage is decent, the premiums are
unaffordable. And so here's the government doing the bidding of the private
industry coercing people to buy profit-making products that maybe they
can't afford and they call it health reform.

BILL MOYERS: So explain this to the visitor from Mars. I mean, just this
week, the Washington Post and ABC News had a poll showing that the American
public supports the Medicare buy-in that-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: By a margin of some 30 points-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And yet, it went down like a lead balloon.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Look, there are two ways, if you're the President of the
United States sizing up a situation like this that you can try and create
reform. One is to say, well, the interest groups are so powerful that the
only thing I can do is I can work with them and move the ball a few yards,
get some incremental reform, hope it turns into something better. The other
way you can do it is to try to rally the people against the special
interests and play on the fact that the insurance industry, the drug
industry, are not going to win any popularity contests with the American
people. And you, as the president, be the champion of the people against
the special interests. That's the course that Obama's chosen not to pursue.

MATT TAIBBI: And I think, you know, a lot of what the Democrats are doing,
they don't make sense if you look at it from an objective point of view,
but if you look at it as a business strategy- if you look at the Democratic
Party as a business, and their job is basically to raise campaign funds and
to stay in power, what they do makes a lot of sense. They have a consistent
strategy which involves negotiating a fine line between sentiment on the
left and the interests of the industries that they're out there to protect.
And they've always, kind of, taken that fork in the road and gone right
down the middle of the line. And they're doing that with this health care
bill and that's- it's consistent.

BILL MOYERS: If you were Republican, wouldn't you feel right now that it's
going your way? I mean, the Democrats control the White House, they control
Congress and the only thing they've been able to make happen this year is
escalate the war in Afghanistan.

MATT TAIBBI: The Democrats are in exactly the same position that the
Republicans were in once the Iraq War turned bad. All the Republicans have
to do now is sit back and watch the Democrats make a disaster out of this
health care effort. And they're going to gain political capital whether
they're in the right or not. And I think it's a very- it's a terrible thing
for the party.

BILL MOYERS: Some of your progressive readers and colleagues are going to
take issue with you, of course, because there are progressive figures like
John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, Kevin Drum, and others
who say, look, this bill has its real problems. It's got some real toxic
qualities to it. But it's not as bad as Kuttner and Taibbi think. This is
the Senate bill, it covers 30 million-plus more people, has subsidies for
low-income families, spreads the risk, lowers some premium costs, creates
some exchanges where people can shop for better coverage and prices. You
know, don't be too hard on it.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, my co-editor, Paul Starr in the editorial in the
current issue of "The Prospect" takes exactly that position. Don't be too
hard on Obama, he inherited a really difficult situation and we're making
incremental progress. If we could've done better we would've. Paul and I
disagree about that. I mean, I think one of the challenges of a president
is to transform the reality rather than just work within its parameters. I
think the other problem, frankly, is that those of us who consider
ourselves progressives invested so much in this remarkable figure, Barack
Obama. And we read our own hopes into him. We saw him as a potentially
great president. We saw this as a potentially transformative moment, I
certainly did, where he could've chosen to be the kind of president
Roosevelt was. And it turns out that's not who is characteralogically and
that's not how he chose to play the moment.

BILL MOYERS: Yes or no. If you were a senator, would you vote for this
Senate health care bill?

MATT TAIBBI: No.

BILL MOYERS: Bob?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why? You just said it's designed to enhance the fortunes of
the industry.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I
don't think it's a it's a good bill. But I think if it goes down, just
because of the optics of the situation and the way the Republicans have
framed this as a make or break moment for President Obama, it will make it
easier for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 2010. It will
make Obama even more gun-shy about promoting reform. It will create even
more political paralysis. It will embolden the republicans to block what
this President is trying to do, some of which is good, at every turn. So I
would hold my nose and vote for it.

MATT TAIBBI: My feeling on it is just looking more concretely at the health
care problem, this is a bill that to me doesn't address the two biggest
problems with the health care crisis. One is the inefficiency and the
bureaucracy and the paperwork which it doesn't address at all. It doesn't
standardize anything. The other is price, which has now fallen by the
wayside because there's no going to be no public option that's going to
drive down prices. So, if a health care bill that doesn't address those two
problems, to me, is- and additionally is a big give-away to the insurance
companies because it provides, you know- it creates this new customer base,
it's something I personally couldn't vote for.

BILL MOYERS: Aren't you saying that in order to save the Democratic
President and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012 you have to have a
really rotten health insurance bill?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, when you come down to one pivotal moment where a bill
is before Congress and the administration has staked the entire presidency
on this bill and you're a progressive Democrat are you going to vote for it
or not? Let me put it this way, if I were literally in the position that
Joe Lieberman is in and it was up to me to determine whether this bill live
or die, I would hold my nose and vote for it even though I have been a
fierce critic of the path this administration has taken.

BILL MOYERS: But doesn't that further the dysfunction and corruption of the
system that you write so often about? I mean, you said a few weeks ago that
our failed health care system won't get fixed because it exists entirely
within the confines of yet another failed system, the political entity
known as the United States of America. You said we have a government that
is not equipped to fix actual crisis. So if Bob votes for a bill that in
his heart and in his mind he does not believe really helps the situation,
isn't he furthering a government that can't solve the actual crisis?

MATT TAIBBI: I think so. I understand his point of view. But I my feeling
is that if you vote for this bill and it passes, that's your one shot at
fixing a catastrophic and completely dysfunctional health care system for
the next generation maybe. And I think it's much better for the Democrats
to lose on this issue and then have to regroup maybe eight years later, or
six years later, and try again and do a better job the next time than to
have it go through.

ROBERT KUTTNER: We're going to have to do that anyway. In other words,
these fights never end. We're going to have to go back and make a fight
another day. And hopefully, that won't be 20 years from now. Hopefully, it
will be six years from now. I think if this bill goes down it's going to be
even harder to get the kind of legislation we want because the Republicans
are really going to be on the march. So, the Democrats are really between a
rock and a hard place here, because if it loses, there's one set of ways
the Republicans gain. If it wins, there could be another set of ways that
the Republicans gain. And this is all because of the deal that our friend,
Rahm Emanuel struck back in the spring of passing a bill that's a
pro-industry bill that doesn't really get at the structural problems.

MATT TAIBBI: But that's the whole point. If the Democrats had used as a
political strategy, we're just going to do what the vast majority of our
constituents want and pass a bill that was real, that had real teeth to it,
that provided real benefits and actually fixed the problems then, you know,
the political benefits that the Republicans could've had after the passage
of the bill would've been very limited it seems to me. They could've only
gone that one direction and criticized that you know, as a, you know, a
socialist give-away. They couldn't have criticized it as an industry
give-away and ineffective.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Look, this is not Monday morning quarterbacking.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, I was making the same criticisms that you were at
the time. But now we're down to a moment of final passage. And maybe my
views are very ambivalent. But I would still vote for it because I think
the defeat would be absolutely crushing in terms of the way the press
played it, in terms of the way it would give encouragement to the far right
in this country that we can block this guy if we just fight hard enough, if
we just demagogue it.

MATT TAIBBI: But couldn't that defeat turn into- that crushing defeat,
couldn't that be good for the Democrats? Couldn't it teach them a lesson
that, you know, maybe they have to pursue a different course in the future?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, you're younger than I am.

BILL MOYERS: Matt, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a very progressive
member of Congress who's been at this table wanted a public option. He says
this health care bill appears to be the legislation that the president
wanted in the first place.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, I mean, I think that makes sense. Yeah, it's quite
obvious that at the outset of this process, the White House didn't want,
for instance, single payer even on the table, you know, when Max Baucus had
his initial discussions in committee on this bill, he invited something
like 43 people to give their ideas about, you know, how the bill might look
in the future. And he didn't invite a single person from- who was an
advocate of single payer health care. So that was never on the table. And
it's quite clear that the public option was looked at more as a political
obstacle for the White House as opposed to something that they really
wanted. They kind of used it as something to scare the Republicans and the
moderates with. And that's really all it ended up turning out to be.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, if he had wanted a public option, if he'd wanted a
Medicare buy-in, he could have tried to persuade the public and the
Congress.

ROBERT KUTTNER: That's what's so galling. Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Galling?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, if you if you roll back the tape he could've played
it so differently and he could've gotten a better bill. But we are where we
are.

MATT TAIBBI: I mean, that's what George Bush did when he wanted to get
something unpopular passed or something that was iffy. I mean, he just
took, you know, if there were any recalcitrant members, he just took him in
the back room and beat him with a rubber hose until they changed their
minds. I mean, he could've taken Joe Lieberman back there and said, look,
if Connecticut ever wants a dime of highway money again, you're going to
have to play ball on this thing. That's what the president does. I mean,
the president has an enormous amount of power. The leaders, the majority
leaders have an enormous amount of power. And if they want to pass
something, they can do it. And especially when there's a tremendous public
mandate to get something like this passed. I just- the idea that they
couldn't do this was- is a fallacy.

BILL MOYERS: But members of Congress, they take the same contributions from
the same insurance and real estate and drug industry. You look at the list
of contributions to members of Congress- they are as saddled by obligations
as the President, right?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, some are and some aren't. I mean, the House, at
least, just passed a bill that's over $100 billion to extend unemployment,
extend insurance benefits in the interim prevent lay-offs at the level of
state and local government. Now, you have a group of Democrats, and this is
the real pity of it. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the
average person. You have the so-called New Democrats who are really the
party of Wall Street. And then you have the Blue Dogs who are fiscal
conservatives. And if you look at what happened in Barney Frank's committee
to the financial reform bill, he's a pretty good liberal, he ended up
looking like a complete stooge for industry because in order to get a bill
out of his own committee, he had to appease the 15 New Democrats,
so-called, who were put on that committee mostly by Rahm Emanuel when he
was the-

MATT TAIBBI: Sort of as a means to raise money.

ROBERT KUTTNER: As a means to raise money. So Melissa Bean, who's a
two-term Democratic Congressman ends up being the power broker because she
controls 15 votes on Barney Frank's committee of what she's going to allow
out of committee and what she isn't.

BILL MOYERS: Why does she control 15 votes?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Because there are 15 New Dems, and this is the centrist
caucus that particularly specializes in taking money from the financial
industry.

BILL MOYERS: You call them centrist, don't you mean corporate Democrats? I
mean-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Corporate, yes, sorry. That's too kind. They're corporate
Democrats who were put on that committee because Rahm Emanuel felt that
there's no better place than the House Financial Services Committee if you
want to shake down Wall Street, to put it bluntly.

MATT TAIBBI: There's a great example of Melissa Bean's power was when the
banks wanted to pass an amendment into the bill that would have prevented
the states from making their own tougher financial regulatory rules. And
Bean put through this amendment that basically said that the federal
government would have purview over all these laws. And it passed. And this
was the kind of thing that the banks wanted. They just go to Melissa Bean,
she puts that amendment in there and it and it gets through.

BILL MOYERS: If you were Barack Obama in a city that's overrun by money,
how would you try to fix it?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I would go over the heads of the special interests to the
people. I think there's a lot of sullen apprehension, frustration out in
the country. And I think the people are hungry for leadership. He's not
doing that sufficiently.

MATT TAIBBI: It's absolutely a political winner for the president to hit
Wall Street very hard and do all the things that he's supposed to be doing
right now. You know, that all the things that FDR did. If he did those
things, if he remade Wall Street in the way that it needs to be remade, he
would do nothing but gain popularity. And I think that's the strategy he
should have pursued.

BILL MOYERS: But what if by nature, that's not what he wants to do? What
if, by nature, he prefers to head the establishment, than to change it?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Then he runs the risk of being a failed president. And I do
have the audacity to hope that he's a smart enough, principled enough guy,
that some time in his second year in office, he's going to realize that
he's at a crossroads.

MATT TAIBBI: This isn't a purely political problem. This isn't just a
question of how does Barack Obama get reelected. This is a serious problem.
He has to put aside maybe his inclinations to think about what he can do to
actually fix the country. And it's, you know, desperately in need of
fixing. And so, if he's not that guy, he has to become that guy.

BILL MOYERS: You say it's a serious problem. But isn't from your own
experiences, your long experience, your recent experience, isn't this the
fundamental question issue of why it's not working, that there's too much
money canceling out other imperatives, other needs, other possibilities?

MATT TAIBBI: This is the fundamental question. Is there a way that we can
have a politician get elected without the sponsorship of special interests?
Can we get somebody in the White House who's independent of the special
interests that are in the way of real reform? And that's the problem. We
haven't been able to have that happen. And we need to find a way to have
that happen.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. And I think it's not accidental that the last three
Democratic presidents have been at best, corporate Democrats. And one hoped
because of the depth of the crisis and the disgrace of deregulation and
ideology, and the practical failure of the Bush presidency, this was a
moment for a clean break. The fact that even at such a moment, even with an
outsider president campaigning on change we can believe in, that Barack
Obama turned out to be who he has been so far, is just so revealing in
terms of the structural undertow that big money represents in this country.
The question is: Is he capable of making a change -- he's only been in
office less than a year -- in time to redeem the moment, redeem his own
promise?

BILL MOYERS: When you talk about corporate Democrats, exactly what do you mean?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean Democrats who are reluctant to cross swords with the
corporate elite that has so much power in this country, whether it's the
Wall Street elite or whether it's the health-industrial complex.

MATT TAIBBI: And I think, you know, back in the in the mid-'80s, after
Walter Mondale lost, I think the Democrats made a conscious decision that
they were no longer going to rely entirely on interest groups and unions to
fund their campaigns, that they were going to try to close that funding gap
with the Republicans. And they made a lot of concessions to the financial
services industry to big corporations. And that's who they are now. I mean--

ROBERT KUTTNER: That's a little too harsh. Just the pity of it is there are
probably 40 Democrats in the Senate who are not corporate Democrats. And
there are probably 200 Democrats in the House who are not corporate
Democrats. If we could push a little harder, we can take back our political
system and have a democratically elected set of officials who are the kind
of counterweight to big money that we need in order to get reform.

BILL MOYERS: So Democrats have their own obstructionists?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah. You have Republican wall-to-wall obstructionism,
which is partisan. And with a few exceptions, Republicans are totally in
bed with big business. And you have just enough Democrats who are in bed
with big business that it makes it much harder for progressive Democrats to
follow the agenda that the country needs.

ROBERT KUTTNER: It just takes a lot of guts. It takes a lot of nerve. It
takes a willingness to be somewhat radical.

BILL MOYERS: What you mean, radical?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, confronting the elite that really has a hammerlock
on politics in this country and articulating the needs of ordinary people.
Now, in Washington, that's considered radical.

BILL MOYERS: I was thinking about both of you Sunday night when President
Obama was on 60 MINUTES and he said...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat
cat bankers on Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: Then on Monday afternoon, he had this photo opportunity in
which he scolded the bankers and then they took it politely and graciously,
which they could've done because the Hill at that very moment was swarming
with banking lobbyists making sure that what the President wants doesn't
happen. I mean, what did you think as you watched him on 60 MINUTES or
watched that press conference?

MATT TAIBBI: It seemed to me that it was a response to a lot of negative
criticism that he's been getting in the media lately, that they are
probably looking at the President's poll numbers from the last couple of
weeks that have been remarkably low. And a lot of that has to do with some
perceptions about his ties to Wall Street. And I think they felt a need to
come out and make a strong statement against Wall Street, whether they're
actually do anything is, sort of, a different question. But I think that
was my impression.

ROBERT KUTTNER: I was appalled. I was just appalled because think of the
timing. On Thursday and Friday of last week, the same week when the
president finally gives this tough talk on "60 Minutes," a very feeble bill
is working its way through the House of Representatives and crucial
decisions are being made. And where is the President? I mean, there was an
amendment to put some teeth back in the provision on credit default swaps
and other kinds of derivatives. And that went down by a handful of votes.
And to the extent that the Treasury and the White House was working that
bill, at all, they were working the wrong side. There was a there was a
provision to exempt foreign exchange derivatives from the teeth in the
bill. That--

MATT TAIBBI: Foreign exchange derivatives are what caused the Long Term
Capital Management crisis--

ROBERT KUTTNER: Sure.

MATT TAIBBI: A tremendous problem.

BILL MOYERS: Ten or 12 years ago, right?

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah. And, Treasury was lobbying in favor of that. There
was a provision in the bill to exempt small corporations, not so small, I
believe at $75 million and under, from a lot of the provisions of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring honest accounting. Rahm Emanuel personally was
lobbying in favor of that.

BILL MOYERS: So you had the Treasury and the White House chief of staff
arguing on behalf of the banking industry?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. Right. And so here's the president two days later
giving a tough speech. Why wasn't he working the phones to toughen up that
bill and, you know, walk the talk?

BILL MOYERS: Get on the phone with the Chairman of the Committee and say,
if you want that dam in your district, I want your vote on this.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And that's what you mean?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: You might praise them in public, but you threaten them in
private, right?

MATT TAIBBI: Exactly, yeah. They have--

BILL MOYERS: Nobody's afraid of Obama, you know. You go to Washington as
you do, report from Washington. Nobody's afraid of him.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: This style is rather diffident. His style is rather
hands-off. He's very principled. But, if you're going to be a politician,
you have to get in there and mix it up. And to the extent that his
surrogates are mixing it up, when it comes to reforming Wall Street,
they're mixing it up on the wrong side.

BILL MOYERS: Well, explain this to me. What is your own take on why he
chose Geithner and Summers and people from Goldman Sachs and Wall Street to
come and be his financial advisors, instead of choosing Stiglitz--

MATT TAIBBI: Volker--

BILL MOYERS: Some of his advisors from the progressive wing of the
Democratic system?

MATT TAIBBI: Most people that I've talked to have taken one of two
positions on this. One is that Obama was naļve, that he doesn't know a
whole about the financial services industry, and he felt the need to rely
upon people who'd been there before, people who've had these jobs before,
and you know, who have this expertise. And there's another school of
thought that look, he took more money from Wall Street than any other
presidential candidate in history. Goldman Sachs was his number one private
campaign contributor. And if you just look at the evidence, it's just
really business as usual. This is what the Democratic Party has done since
the mid-'80s. They've relied heavily on the financial services industry to
fund their campaigns. And it's the quid pro quo. They gave a lot of money
to help these guys run, and in return, they get the big jobs, you know, in
the White House.

BILL MOYERS: But here's how they repay him. This is on "The Huffington
Post:" "Bank lobbyists launch call to action to crush financial reform. The
American Bankers Association issued a call to action on Wednesday urging
its lobbyist and member banks to make an all-out effort to crush regulatory
reform in the Senate." This is how they reward his own tolerance towards
them, right?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. And you've got to play hardball against these guys
now. I do not want to leave this show with your viewers thinking this has
been just a council of despair. So will you allow me to play Pollyanna for
30 seconds? Because I think this guy is nothing if not a work in progress.
He's nothing if not a learner. And I think there is a chance. I don't think
I would bet my life on it but I think there's a possibility that by the
fall of 2010, looking down the barrel of a real election blowout, you could
see him change course, if only for reasons of expediency, but hopefully for
reasons of principle as well, if he feels that the public doesn't have
confidence that he is delivering the kind of recovery that the public
needs. This is a guy who is a very smart, complicated man. And I think
don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin. I don't want to
totally give up.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah. I mean, obviously, it's too early to completely abandon
hope that he's going to turn things around. But I think that's a belief
that's not really based on evidence. If you look at the evidence of how
he's behaved so far, and who he's got, you know, working in the White
House, and who he's getting his money from, and how the party has behaved
over the last couple of decades. You're really basically relying upon the
impression that he gives as a kind, decent, warm-hearted intellectual guy.
That's what the basis of that faith that there's going to be this
turnaround. It's really not anything that's actually concretely happened
that would give you reason to think that.

ROBERT KUTTNER: The other thing that's missing, if you compare him with
Roosevelt or LBJ or Lincoln, the other thing that's missing is a social
movement. In all of these great periods of transformation, you had social
movements doing a complicated dance with the president, where sometimes
they were working with him, sometimes they were beating up on him. That
certainly describes the civil rights movement and Lyndon Johnson. It
describes the abolitionists and Lincoln. It describes the labor movement
and Roosevelt. Where's the movement?

BILL MOYERS: Coming down to the office this morning, the cab driver turned
and said, "You see the newspaper this morning?" And he turns and hands me
the NEW YORK POST. "It's Wall Good: Wall Street Earnings Soar to $49
Billion in the First Three Quarters of the Year ... Profitability has
soared because revenues rose ... Wall Street bonuses for employees in the
city may be as much as 40 percent higher than in 2008." What would you say
to the President about this? Does he know?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think, to some extent, the White House lives in an echo
chamber. They do these public events that are intended to demonstrate that
the president's listening, that he's feeling our pain. Congress gets a very
bad rap. But I was invited to speak to the House Democrat caucus a couple a
weeks ago. And they are furious. They can't publicly embarrass their
president, but they go home on weekends and they talk to their folks and
they hear the individual stories of suffering. And they feel that certainly
the Treasury, to some extent the White House, just doesn't get it and the
Republicans are going to end up with a narrative and the Tea Party folks,
it's the far right that is on the march when ordinary people need a
champion.

BILL MOYERS: So, what are people to do?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think there are there are things that are not too complex
for people to understand. If the value of your home is going down the drain
because the government's not doing anything about an epidemic of
foreclosures, that's the kind of thing that people can talk about across a
kitchen table. They do talk about it across the kitchen table. And you need
more leadership like a Marcy Kaptur or a Maria Cantwell, elected officials
who get it, who have not been bought and paid for by Wall Street stirring
up people and turning this into a movement.

MATT TAIBBI: And that's really where Barack Obama's failings are the
biggest. This is exactly where we need a president with the communication
skills that he has. I mean, he's probably the one person who could help all
of America make sense of all this stuff. And he's not doing it. I mean,
he's doing these photo ops, you know, earlier in the week, with a couple of
bankers. It's a kabuki dance to show that he's against Wall Street. But
he's not explaining to people how all this stuff works. And that's the
problem.

BILL MOYERS: Are you a cynic after all your reporting this year?

MATT TAIBBI: No, not at all. I mean, I think on the contrary. I think
cynicism is accepting all this as, you know, politics, as the way it is. I
think we have to not accept what's going on. And that's not being cynical.
That's being helpful.

BILL MOYERS: But is it naļve to think that in a country of so many clashing
interests, we might get better results from the political system than we're
getting right now?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think there are periods of American history when the
political system rises to the occasion. It certainly did with the civil
rights movement. It certainly did in the 1930s. But there's no guarantee
that it's going to come out the way it needs their come out. So I wouldn't
give up on the political system. I mean, you have to keep fighting and
working to rebuild democracy. Democracy is the only possible counterweight
to concentrated financial power. And ideally, that takes a great president
rendezvousing with a social movement. One way or another, there is going to
be a social movement. Because so many people are hurting, and so many
people are feeling correctly that Wall Street is getting too much and Main
Street is getting too little. And if it's not a progressive social movement
that articulates the frustration and the reform program, you know that the
right wing is going to do it. And that, I think, is what ought to be
scaring us silly.

MATT TAIBBI: We are starting to see signs of a little bit of a grassroots
movement. I mean, the stuff, you know, people who are refusing to leave
their homes after they've been foreclosed upon. There are little pockets of
movements you know, groups that are organizing against foreclosures all
across the country. And this is one small slice of the economic picture
that where it's quite clear what's going on, and people can really
understand the relationship that they have with the financial services
industry. And I think if, you know, there it's possible to imagine a
movement coalescing around something like that.

BILL MOYERS: Matt Taibbi, Robert Kuttner, thank you for being with me on
the Journal.

MATT TAIBBI: Thank you.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Thanks, Bill.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

V
These moneyed people control the decisions made but they cannot control what
subsequently happens. Natural forces are really in control, no matter how much
our society is in denial of that fact.
Climate change is one emerging sign of what happens when the systems humans have
installed degrade their life support system, the environment. Peak oil, peak
water, peak food, peak population are others that even the rich will have to
face up to. Their growth fetish will give way to desperate measures to prolong
their power.Ā  COP15 was an example.Ā  The power play for oil is another.
The present situation is akin to what was happening on Easter Island when some
of the few remaining trees were being cut down to make more idols rather than
dug outs necessary for fishing.

Denis


--- On Sun, 20/12/09, Abernethy, Virginia Deane
<virginia.abernethy@...> wrote:

From: Abernethy, Virginia Deane <virginia.abernethy@...>
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, 20 December, 2009, 1:39 PM







Ā 









       Correct, Dennis.  But those who use, promote, create and keep us indebted
to intangible money happen to control the United States and also Australia.



That said, have a Merry Christmas.

Virginia



____________ _________ _________ __



From: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com on behalf of Denis Frith

Sent: Sat 12/19/2009 4:03 PM

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)



V

You are talking about an intangible money. That can grow ad nauseum.
Unfortunately, people and their systems have to use tangible natural capital,
including those that provide energy, in order to survive. Those that ignore that
reality do not contribute to a rational discussion of what should be done moving
forward.



Denis Frith



--- On Sat, 19/12/09, Abernethy, Virginia Deane <virginia.abernethy@ Vanderbilt.
Edu <mailto:virginia. abernethy% 40Vanderbilt. Edu> > wrote:



From: Abernethy, Virginia Deane <virginia.abernethy@ Vanderbilt. Edu
<mailto:virginia. abernethy% 40Vanderbilt. Edu> >

Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:energyresou rces%40yahoogrou
ps.com>

Received: Saturday, 19 December, 2009, 12:03 PM



So long as a country uses "debt money" like bank notes issued by the Federal
Reserve, that nation is committed to growth. Interest due on debt can only be
repaid if the economy grows.



Abolish the Federal Reserve, return to real money, and the drive for economic
growth will subside.



V.



~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~



How?



~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



____________ _________ _________ __



From: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com on behalf of Richard Pelto



Sent: Fri 12/18/2009 10:38 AM



To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com



Subject: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)



Denis wrote: "The current misunderstanding is characterized by the statement
below:



<The money/power interests, especially in the U.S., are the products of an
economic system that is dependent on maximizing an assumed unlimited growth, and
assumed unlimited access to resources.>



The 'unlimited access to resources' does not spell out the fact that the
resources are declining due to consumption.



##Denis: My statement that you quote makes clear that this U.S. "system"
operates under this assumption. That is not a "misunderstanding. " They do what
they do deliberately because money/power is more important than accepting idea
that resources are limited, and that ecological degradation imperils
sustainability. And "consumption" is a byproduct of what they deliberately do.
It results from having that money.



Richard



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.
yahoo.com/ session-times/ <http://au.movies. yahoo.com/ session-times/>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]























      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.spaceweather.com
 
The solar minimum appears to be ending.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all..

And if this is the situation with regards to healthcare reform in the USA -
God help us all if we expect the USA to deal rationally with the issues of
Global Warming and peak oil.. (especially after the Copenhagen debacle)

H

"And we'll all go together when we go
Consumed by an incandescent glow..."  (Tom Lehrer)

only - it won't be 'uraneous' (or, maybe it will...)







http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/watch.html

December 18, 2009


BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.

Something's not right here. One year after the great collapse of our
financial system, Wall Street is back on top while our politicians dither.
As for health care reform, you're about to be forced to buy insurance from
companies whose stock is soaring, and that's just dandy with the White
House.

Truth is, our capitol's being looted, republicans are acting like the town
rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress
are in cahoots with the gang that's pulling the heist. This is not
capitalism at work. It's capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying
politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.

Here to talk about all this are two journalists who don't pull their
punches. Robert Kuttner is an economist who helped create and now co-edits
the progressive magazine THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, and the author of the book
OBAMA'S CHALLENGE, among others.

Also with me is Matt Taibbi, who covers politics for ROLLING STONE magazine
where he is a contributing editor. He's made a name for himself writing in
a no-holds-barred, often profane, but always informative and stimulating
style that gets under the skin of the powerful. His most recent article is
"Obama's Big Sellout," about the President's team of economic advisers and
their Wall Street connections. It's been burning up the blogosphere.
Welcome to both of you.

BILL MOYERS: Let's start with some news. Some of the big insurance
companies, Well Point, Cigna, United Health, all surged to a 52 week high
in their share prices this week when it was clear there'd be no public
option in the health care bill going through Congress right now. What does
that tell you, Matt?

MATT TAIBBI: Well, I think what most people should take away from this is
that the massive subsidies for health insurance companies have been
preserved while it's also expanded their customer base because there's an
individual mandate in the bill that's going to provide all these companies
with the, you know, 25 or 30 million new people who are going to be paying
for health insurance. So, it's, obviously, a huge boon to that industry.
And I think Wall Street correctly read what the health care effort is all
about.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, was Bill
Clinton's Political Director. And Rahm Emanuel's take away from Bill
Clinton's failure to get health insurance passed was 'don't get on the
wrong side of the insurance companies.' So their strategy was cut a deal
with the insurance companies, the drug industry going in. And the deal was,
we're not going to attack your customer base, we're going to subsidize a
new customer base. And that script was pre-cooked so it's not surprising
that this is what comes out the other side.

BILL MOYERS: So are you saying that this, what some call a sweetheart deal
between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, done many months
ago before this fight really began, was because the drug company money in
the Democratic Party?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's two things. Part of it was we need to do
whatever it takes to get a bill. Never mind whether it's a really good
bill, let's get a bill passed so we can claim that we solved health
insurance. Secondly, let's get the drug industry and the insurance industry
either supporting us or not actively opposing us. So that there was some
skirmishing around the details, but the deal going in was that the
administration, drug companies, insurance companies are on the same team.
Now, that's one way to get legislation, it's not a way to transform the
health system. Once the White House made this deal with the insurance
companies, the public option was never going to be anything more than a fig
leaf. And over the summer and the fall, it got whittled down, whittled
down, whittled down to almost nothing and now it's really nothing.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, and this was Howard Dean's point this week was that this
individual mandate that's going to force people to become customers of
private health insurance companies, the Democrats are going to end up
owning that policy and it's going to be extremely unpopular and it's going
to be theirs for a generation. It's going to be an albatross around the
neck of this party.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Think about it, the difference between social insurance and
an individual mandate is this. Social insurance everybody pays for it
through their taxes, so you don't think of Social Security as a compulsory
individual mandate. You think of it as a benefit, as a protection that your
government provides. But an individual mandate is an order to you to go out
and buy some product from some private profit-making company, that in the
case of a lot of moderate income people, you can't afford to buy. And the
shell game here is that the affordable policies are either very high
deductibles and co-pays, so you can afford the monthly premiums but then
when you get sick, you have to pay a small fortune out of pocket before the
coverage kicks in. Or if the coverage is decent, the premiums are
unaffordable. And so here's the government doing the bidding of the private
industry coercing people to buy profit-making products that maybe they
can't afford and they call it health reform.

BILL MOYERS: So explain this to the visitor from Mars. I mean, just this
week, the Washington Post and ABC News had a poll showing that the American
public supports the Medicare buy-in that-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: By a margin of some 30 points-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And yet, it went down like a lead balloon.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Look, there are two ways, if you're the President of the
United States sizing up a situation like this that you can try and create
reform. One is to say, well, the interest groups are so powerful that the
only thing I can do is I can work with them and move the ball a few yards,
get some incremental reform, hope it turns into something better. The other
way you can do it is to try to rally the people against the special
interests and play on the fact that the insurance industry, the drug
industry, are not going to win any popularity contests with the American
people. And you, as the president, be the champion of the people against
the special interests. That's the course that Obama's chosen not to pursue.

MATT TAIBBI: And I think, you know, a lot of what the Democrats are doing,
they don't make sense if you look at it from an objective point of view,
but if you look at it as a business strategy- if you look at the Democratic
Party as a business, and their job is basically to raise campaign funds and
to stay in power, what they do makes a lot of sense. They have a consistent
strategy which involves negotiating a fine line between sentiment on the
left and the interests of the industries that they're out there to protect.
And they've always, kind of, taken that fork in the road and gone right
down the middle of the line. And they're doing that with this health care
bill and that's- it's consistent.

BILL MOYERS: If you were Republican, wouldn't you feel right now that it's
going your way? I mean, the Democrats control the White House, they control
Congress and the only thing they've been able to make happen this year is
escalate the war in Afghanistan.

MATT TAIBBI: The Democrats are in exactly the same position that the
Republicans were in once the Iraq War turned bad. All the Republicans have
to do now is sit back and watch the Democrats make a disaster out of this
health care effort. And they're going to gain political capital whether
they're in the right or not. And I think it's a very- it's a terrible thing
for the party.

BILL MOYERS: Some of your progressive readers and colleagues are going to
take issue with you, of course, because there are progressive figures like
John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, Kevin Drum, and others
who say, look, this bill has its real problems. It's got some real toxic
qualities to it. But it's not as bad as Kuttner and Taibbi think. This is
the Senate bill, it covers 30 million-plus more people, has subsidies for
low-income families, spreads the risk, lowers some premium costs, creates
some exchanges where people can shop for better coverage and prices. You
know, don't be too hard on it.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, my co-editor, Paul Starr in the editorial in the
current issue of "The Prospect" takes exactly that position. Don't be too
hard on Obama, he inherited a really difficult situation and we're making
incremental progress. If we could've done better we would've. Paul and I
disagree about that. I mean, I think one of the challenges of a president
is to transform the reality rather than just work within its parameters. I
think the other problem, frankly, is that those of us who consider
ourselves progressives invested so much in this remarkable figure, Barack
Obama. And we read our own hopes into him. We saw him as a potentially
great president. We saw this as a potentially transformative moment, I
certainly did, where he could've chosen to be the kind of president
Roosevelt was. And it turns out that's not who is characteralogically and
that's not how he chose to play the moment.

BILL MOYERS: Yes or no. If you were a senator, would you vote for this
Senate health care bill?

MATT TAIBBI: No.

BILL MOYERS: Bob?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why? You just said it's designed to enhance the fortunes of
the industry.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I
don't think it's a it's a good bill. But I think if it goes down, just
because of the optics of the situation and the way the Republicans have
framed this as a make or break moment for President Obama, it will make it
easier for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 2010. It will
make Obama even more gun-shy about promoting reform. It will create even
more political paralysis. It will embolden the republicans to block what
this President is trying to do, some of which is good, at every turn. So I
would hold my nose and vote for it.

MATT TAIBBI: My feeling on it is just looking more concretely at the health
care problem, this is a bill that to me doesn't address the two biggest
problems with the health care crisis. One is the inefficiency and the
bureaucracy and the paperwork which it doesn't address at all. It doesn't
standardize anything. The other is price, which has now fallen by the
wayside because there's no going to be no public option that's going to
drive down prices. So, if a health care bill that doesn't address those two
problems, to me, is- and additionally is a big give-away to the insurance
companies because it provides, you know- it creates this new customer base,
it's something I personally couldn't vote for.

BILL MOYERS: Aren't you saying that in order to save the Democratic
President and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012 you have to have a
really rotten health insurance bill?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, when you come down to one pivotal moment where a bill
is before Congress and the administration has staked the entire presidency
on this bill and you're a progressive Democrat are you going to vote for it
or not? Let me put it this way, if I were literally in the position that
Joe Lieberman is in and it was up to me to determine whether this bill live
or die, I would hold my nose and vote for it even though I have been a
fierce critic of the path this administration has taken.

BILL MOYERS: But doesn't that further the dysfunction and corruption of the
system that you write so often about? I mean, you said a few weeks ago that
our failed health care system won't get fixed because it exists entirely
within the confines of yet another failed system, the political entity
known as the United States of America. You said we have a government that
is not equipped to fix actual crisis. So if Bob votes for a bill that in
his heart and in his mind he does not believe really helps the situation,
isn't he furthering a government that can't solve the actual crisis?

MATT TAIBBI: I think so. I understand his point of view. But I my feeling
is that if you vote for this bill and it passes, that's your one shot at
fixing a catastrophic and completely dysfunctional health care system for
the next generation maybe. And I think it's much better for the Democrats
to lose on this issue and then have to regroup maybe eight years later, or
six years later, and try again and do a better job the next time than to
have it go through.

ROBERT KUTTNER: We're going to have to do that anyway. In other words,
these fights never end. We're going to have to go back and make a fight
another day. And hopefully, that won't be 20 years from now. Hopefully, it
will be six years from now. I think if this bill goes down it's going to be
even harder to get the kind of legislation we want because the Republicans
are really going to be on the march. So, the Democrats are really between a
rock and a hard place here, because if it loses, there's one set of ways
the Republicans gain. If it wins, there could be another set of ways that
the Republicans gain. And this is all because of the deal that our friend,
Rahm Emanuel struck back in the spring of passing a bill that's a
pro-industry bill that doesn't really get at the structural problems.

MATT TAIBBI: But that's the whole point. If the Democrats had used as a
political strategy, we're just going to do what the vast majority of our
constituents want and pass a bill that was real, that had real teeth to it,
that provided real benefits and actually fixed the problems then, you know,
the political benefits that the Republicans could've had after the passage
of the bill would've been very limited it seems to me. They could've only
gone that one direction and criticized that you know, as a, you know, a
socialist give-away. They couldn't have criticized it as an industry
give-away and ineffective.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Look, this is not Monday morning quarterbacking.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, I was making the same criticisms that you were at
the time. But now we're down to a moment of final passage. And maybe my
views are very ambivalent. But I would still vote for it because I think
the defeat would be absolutely crushing in terms of the way the press
played it, in terms of the way it would give encouragement to the far right
in this country that we can block this guy if we just fight hard enough, if
we just demagogue it.

MATT TAIBBI: But couldn't that defeat turn into- that crushing defeat,
couldn't that be good for the Democrats? Couldn't it teach them a lesson
that, you know, maybe they have to pursue a different course in the future?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, you're younger than I am.

BILL MOYERS: Matt, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a very progressive
member of Congress who's been at this table wanted a public option. He says
this health care bill appears to be the legislation that the president
wanted in the first place.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, I mean, I think that makes sense. Yeah, it's quite
obvious that at the outset of this process, the White House didn't want,
for instance, single payer even on the table, you know, when Max Baucus had
his initial discussions in committee on this bill, he invited something
like 43 people to give their ideas about, you know, how the bill might look
in the future. And he didn't invite a single person from- who was an
advocate of single payer health care. So that was never on the table. And
it's quite clear that the public option was looked at more as a political
obstacle for the White House as opposed to something that they really
wanted. They kind of used it as something to scare the Republicans and the
moderates with. And that's really all it ended up turning out to be.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, if he had wanted a public option, if he'd wanted a
Medicare buy-in, he could have tried to persuade the public and the
Congress.

ROBERT KUTTNER: That's what's so galling. Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Galling?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, if you if you roll back the tape he could've played
it so differently and he could've gotten a better bill. But we are where we
are.

MATT TAIBBI: I mean, that's what George Bush did when he wanted to get
something unpopular passed or something that was iffy. I mean, he just
took, you know, if there were any recalcitrant members, he just took him in
the back room and beat him with a rubber hose until they changed their
minds. I mean, he could've taken Joe Lieberman back there and said, look,
if Connecticut ever wants a dime of highway money again, you're going to
have to play ball on this thing. That's what the president does. I mean,
the president has an enormous amount of power. The leaders, the majority
leaders have an enormous amount of power. And if they want to pass
something, they can do it. And especially when there's a tremendous public
mandate to get something like this passed. I just- the idea that they
couldn't do this was- is a fallacy.

BILL MOYERS: But members of Congress, they take the same contributions from
the same insurance and real estate and drug industry. You look at the list
of contributions to members of Congress- they are as saddled by obligations
as the President, right?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, some are and some aren't. I mean, the House, at
least, just passed a bill that's over $100 billion to extend unemployment,
extend insurance benefits in the interim prevent lay-offs at the level of
state and local government. Now, you have a group of Democrats, and this is
the real pity of it. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the
average person. You have the so-called New Democrats who are really the
party of Wall Street. And then you have the Blue Dogs who are fiscal
conservatives. And if you look at what happened in Barney Frank's committee
to the financial reform bill, he's a pretty good liberal, he ended up
looking like a complete stooge for industry because in order to get a bill
out of his own committee, he had to appease the 15 New Democrats,
so-called, who were put on that committee mostly by Rahm Emanuel when he
was the-

MATT TAIBBI: Sort of as a means to raise money.

ROBERT KUTTNER: As a means to raise money. So Melissa Bean, who's a
two-term Democratic Congressman ends up being the power broker because she
controls 15 votes on Barney Frank's committee of what she's going to allow
out of committee and what she isn't.

BILL MOYERS: Why does she control 15 votes?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Because there are 15 New Dems, and this is the centrist
caucus that particularly specializes in taking money from the financial
industry.

BILL MOYERS: You call them centrist, don't you mean corporate Democrats? I
mean-

ROBERT KUTTNER: Corporate, yes, sorry. That's too kind. They're corporate
Democrats who were put on that committee because Rahm Emanuel felt that
there's no better place than the House Financial Services Committee if you
want to shake down Wall Street, to put it bluntly.

MATT TAIBBI: There's a great example of Melissa Bean's power was when the
banks wanted to pass an amendment into the bill that would have prevented
the states from making their own tougher financial regulatory rules. And
Bean put through this amendment that basically said that the federal
government would have purview over all these laws. And it passed. And this
was the kind of thing that the banks wanted. They just go to Melissa Bean,
she puts that amendment in there and it and it gets through.

BILL MOYERS: If you were Barack Obama in a city that's overrun by money,
how would you try to fix it?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I would go over the heads of the special interests to the
people. I think there's a lot of sullen apprehension, frustration out in
the country. And I think the people are hungry for leadership. He's not
doing that sufficiently.

MATT TAIBBI: It's absolutely a political winner for the president to hit
Wall Street very hard and do all the things that he's supposed to be doing
right now. You know, that all the things that FDR did. If he did those
things, if he remade Wall Street in the way that it needs to be remade, he
would do nothing but gain popularity. And I think that's the strategy he
should have pursued.

BILL MOYERS: But what if by nature, that's not what he wants to do? What
if, by nature, he prefers to head the establishment, than to change it?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Then he runs the risk of being a failed president. And I do
have the audacity to hope that he's a smart enough, principled enough guy,
that some time in his second year in office, he's going to realize that
he's at a crossroads.

MATT TAIBBI: This isn't a purely political problem. This isn't just a
question of how does Barack Obama get reelected. This is a serious problem.
He has to put aside maybe his inclinations to think about what he can do to
actually fix the country. And it's, you know, desperately in need of
fixing. And so, if he's not that guy, he has to become that guy.

BILL MOYERS: You say it's a serious problem. But isn't from your own
experiences, your long experience, your recent experience, isn't this the
fundamental question issue of why it's not working, that there's too much
money canceling out other imperatives, other needs, other possibilities?

MATT TAIBBI: This is the fundamental question. Is there a way that we can
have a politician get elected without the sponsorship of special interests?
Can we get somebody in the White House who's independent of the special
interests that are in the way of real reform? And that's the problem. We
haven't been able to have that happen. And we need to find a way to have
that happen.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. And I think it's not accidental that the last three
Democratic presidents have been at best, corporate Democrats. And one hoped
because of the depth of the crisis and the disgrace of deregulation and
ideology, and the practical failure of the Bush presidency, this was a
moment for a clean break. The fact that even at such a moment, even with an
outsider president campaigning on change we can believe in, that Barack
Obama turned out to be who he has been so far, is just so revealing in
terms of the structural undertow that big money represents in this country.
The question is: Is he capable of making a change -- he's only been in
office less than a year -- in time to redeem the moment, redeem his own
promise?

BILL MOYERS: When you talk about corporate Democrats, exactly what do you mean?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean Democrats who are reluctant to cross swords with the
corporate elite that has so much power in this country, whether it's the
Wall Street elite or whether it's the health-industrial complex.

MATT TAIBBI: And I think, you know, back in the in the mid-'80s, after
Walter Mondale lost, I think the Democrats made a conscious decision that
they were no longer going to rely entirely on interest groups and unions to
fund their campaigns, that they were going to try to close that funding gap
with the Republicans. And they made a lot of concessions to the financial
services industry to big corporations. And that's who they are now. I mean--

ROBERT KUTTNER: That's a little too harsh. Just the pity of it is there are
probably 40 Democrats in the Senate who are not corporate Democrats. And
there are probably 200 Democrats in the House who are not corporate
Democrats. If we could push a little harder, we can take back our political
system and have a democratically elected set of officials who are the kind
of counterweight to big money that we need in order to get reform.

BILL MOYERS: So Democrats have their own obstructionists?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah. You have Republican wall-to-wall obstructionism,
which is partisan. And with a few exceptions, Republicans are totally in
bed with big business. And you have just enough Democrats who are in bed
with big business that it makes it much harder for progressive Democrats to
follow the agenda that the country needs.

ROBERT KUTTNER: It just takes a lot of guts. It takes a lot of nerve. It
takes a willingness to be somewhat radical.

BILL MOYERS: What you mean, radical?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I mean, confronting the elite that really has a hammerlock
on politics in this country and articulating the needs of ordinary people.
Now, in Washington, that's considered radical.

BILL MOYERS: I was thinking about both of you Sunday night when President
Obama was on 60 MINUTES and he said...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat
cat bankers on Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: Then on Monday afternoon, he had this photo opportunity in
which he scolded the bankers and then they took it politely and graciously,
which they could've done because the Hill at that very moment was swarming
with banking lobbyists making sure that what the President wants doesn't
happen. I mean, what did you think as you watched him on 60 MINUTES or
watched that press conference?

MATT TAIBBI: It seemed to me that it was a response to a lot of negative
criticism that he's been getting in the media lately, that they are
probably looking at the President's poll numbers from the last couple of
weeks that have been remarkably low. And a lot of that has to do with some
perceptions about his ties to Wall Street. And I think they felt a need to
come out and make a strong statement against Wall Street, whether they're
actually do anything is, sort of, a different question. But I think that
was my impression.

ROBERT KUTTNER: I was appalled. I was just appalled because think of the
timing. On Thursday and Friday of last week, the same week when the
president finally gives this tough talk on "60 Minutes," a very feeble bill
is working its way through the House of Representatives and crucial
decisions are being made. And where is the President? I mean, there was an
amendment to put some teeth back in the provision on credit default swaps
and other kinds of derivatives. And that went down by a handful of votes.
And to the extent that the Treasury and the White House was working that
bill, at all, they were working the wrong side. There was a there was a
provision to exempt foreign exchange derivatives from the teeth in the
bill. That--

MATT TAIBBI: Foreign exchange derivatives are what caused the Long Term
Capital Management crisis--

ROBERT KUTTNER: Sure.

MATT TAIBBI: A tremendous problem.

BILL MOYERS: Ten or 12 years ago, right?

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah. And, Treasury was lobbying in favor of that. There
was a provision in the bill to exempt small corporations, not so small, I
believe at $75 million and under, from a lot of the provisions of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring honest accounting. Rahm Emanuel personally was
lobbying in favor of that.

BILL MOYERS: So you had the Treasury and the White House chief of staff
arguing on behalf of the banking industry?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. Right. And so here's the president two days later
giving a tough speech. Why wasn't he working the phones to toughen up that
bill and, you know, walk the talk?

BILL MOYERS: Get on the phone with the Chairman of the Committee and say,
if you want that dam in your district, I want your vote on this.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And that's what you mean?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: You might praise them in public, but you threaten them in
private, right?

MATT TAIBBI: Exactly, yeah. They have--

BILL MOYERS: Nobody's afraid of Obama, you know. You go to Washington as
you do, report from Washington. Nobody's afraid of him.

MATT TAIBBI: Right.

ROBERT KUTTNER: This style is rather diffident. His style is rather
hands-off. He's very principled. But, if you're going to be a politician,
you have to get in there and mix it up. And to the extent that his
surrogates are mixing it up, when it comes to reforming Wall Street,
they're mixing it up on the wrong side.

BILL MOYERS: Well, explain this to me. What is your own take on why he
chose Geithner and Summers and people from Goldman Sachs and Wall Street to
come and be his financial advisors, instead of choosing Stiglitz--

MATT TAIBBI: Volker--

BILL MOYERS: Some of his advisors from the progressive wing of the
Democratic system?

MATT TAIBBI: Most people that I've talked to have taken one of two
positions on this. One is that Obama was naļve, that he doesn't know a
whole about the financial services industry, and he felt the need to rely
upon people who'd been there before, people who've had these jobs before,
and you know, who have this expertise. And there's another school of
thought that look, he took more money from Wall Street than any other
presidential candidate in history. Goldman Sachs was his number one private
campaign contributor. And if you just look at the evidence, it's just
really business as usual. This is what the Democratic Party has done since
the mid-'80s. They've relied heavily on the financial services industry to
fund their campaigns. And it's the quid pro quo. They gave a lot of money
to help these guys run, and in return, they get the big jobs, you know, in
the White House.

BILL MOYERS: But here's how they repay him. This is on "The Huffington
Post:" "Bank lobbyists launch call to action to crush financial reform. The
American Bankers Association issued a call to action on Wednesday urging
its lobbyist and member banks to make an all-out effort to crush regulatory
reform in the Senate." This is how they reward his own tolerance towards
them, right?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. And you've got to play hardball against these guys
now. I do not want to leave this show with your viewers thinking this has
been just a council of despair. So will you allow me to play Pollyanna for
30 seconds? Because I think this guy is nothing if not a work in progress.
He's nothing if not a learner. And I think there is a chance. I don't think
I would bet my life on it but I think there's a possibility that by the
fall of 2010, looking down the barrel of a real election blowout, you could
see him change course, if only for reasons of expediency, but hopefully for
reasons of principle as well, if he feels that the public doesn't have
confidence that he is delivering the kind of recovery that the public
needs. This is a guy who is a very smart, complicated man. And I think
don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin. I don't want to
totally give up.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah. I mean, obviously, it's too early to completely abandon
hope that he's going to turn things around. But I think that's a belief
that's not really based on evidence. If you look at the evidence of how
he's behaved so far, and who he's got, you know, working in the White
House, and who he's getting his money from, and how the party has behaved
over the last couple of decades. You're really basically relying upon the
impression that he gives as a kind, decent, warm-hearted intellectual guy.
That's what the basis of that faith that there's going to be this
turnaround. It's really not anything that's actually concretely happened
that would give you reason to think that.

ROBERT KUTTNER: The other thing that's missing, if you compare him with
Roosevelt or LBJ or Lincoln, the other thing that's missing is a social
movement. In all of these great periods of transformation, you had social
movements doing a complicated dance with the president, where sometimes
they were working with him, sometimes they were beating up on him. That
certainly describes the civil rights movement and Lyndon Johnson. It
describes the abolitionists and Lincoln. It describes the labor movement
and Roosevelt. Where's the movement?

BILL MOYERS: Coming down to the office this morning, the cab driver turned
and said, "You see the newspaper this morning?" And he turns and hands me
the NEW YORK POST. "It's Wall Good: Wall Street Earnings Soar to $49
Billion in the First Three Quarters of the Year ... Profitability has
soared because revenues rose ... Wall Street bonuses for employees in the
city may be as much as 40 percent higher than in 2008." What would you say
to the President about this? Does he know?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think, to some extent, the White House lives in an echo
chamber. They do these public events that are intended to demonstrate that
the president's listening, that he's feeling our pain. Congress gets a very
bad rap. But I was invited to speak to the House Democrat caucus a couple a
weeks ago. And they are furious. They can't publicly embarrass their
president, but they go home on weekends and they talk to their folks and
they hear the individual stories of suffering. And they feel that certainly
the Treasury, to some extent the White House, just doesn't get it and the
Republicans are going to end up with a narrative and the Tea Party folks,
it's the far right that is on the march when ordinary people need a
champion.

BILL MOYERS: So, what are people to do?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think there are there are things that are not too complex
for people to understand. If the value of your home is going down the drain
because the government's not doing anything about an epidemic of
foreclosures, that's the kind of thing that people can talk about across a
kitchen table. They do talk about it across the kitchen table. And you need
more leadership like a Marcy Kaptur or a Maria Cantwell, elected officials
who get it, who have not been bought and paid for by Wall Street stirring
up people and turning this into a movement.

MATT TAIBBI: And that's really where Barack Obama's failings are the
biggest. This is exactly where we need a president with the communication
skills that he has. I mean, he's probably the one person who could help all
of America make sense of all this stuff. And he's not doing it. I mean,
he's doing these photo ops, you know, earlier in the week, with a couple of
bankers. It's a kabuki dance to show that he's against Wall Street. But
he's not explaining to people how all this stuff works. And that's the
problem.

BILL MOYERS: Are you a cynic after all your reporting this year?

MATT TAIBBI: No, not at all. I mean, I think on the contrary. I think
cynicism is accepting all this as, you know, politics, as the way it is. I
think we have to not accept what's going on. And that's not being cynical.
That's being helpful.

BILL MOYERS: But is it naļve to think that in a country of so many clashing
interests, we might get better results from the political system than we're
getting right now?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I think there are periods of American history when the
political system rises to the occasion. It certainly did with the civil
rights movement. It certainly did in the 1930s. But there's no guarantee
that it's going to come out the way it needs their come out. So I wouldn't
give up on the political system. I mean, you have to keep fighting and
working to rebuild democracy. Democracy is the only possible counterweight
to concentrated financial power. And ideally, that takes a great president
rendezvousing with a social movement. One way or another, there is going to
be a social movement. Because so many people are hurting, and so many
people are feeling correctly that Wall Street is getting too much and Main
Street is getting too little. And if it's not a progressive social movement
that articulates the frustration and the reform program, you know that the
right wing is going to do it. And that, I think, is what ought to be
scaring us silly.

MATT TAIBBI: We are starting to see signs of a little bit of a grassroots
movement. I mean, the stuff, you know, people who are refusing to leave
their homes after they've been foreclosed upon. There are little pockets of
movements you know, groups that are organizing against foreclosures all
across the country. And this is one small slice of the economic picture
that where it's quite clear what's going on, and people can really
understand the relationship that they have with the financial services
industry. And I think if, you know, there it's possible to imagine a
movement coalescing around something like that.

BILL MOYERS: Matt Taibbi, Robert Kuttner, thank you for being with me on
the Journal.

MATT TAIBBI: Thank you.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Thanks, Bill.

I know that is the perceived wisdom, but how does it explain say Italy's birth
rate decline? They do not have a lack of resources, and I bet the average male
Italian does not foresee any lack, and they are disobeying
Catholic teaching, but down goes the birth rate. Frank

##Interesting how sometimes it is difficult to even get an accurate picture of
something simple. Most college universities use Italy as an example of a society
that is diminishing in population. But what apparently is not taken into account
is mankind's present inability (and desire) to conduct accurate census counts.
Census bureaus like the U.S. do, once pushed, admit 2 to 5 percent undercounts. 
Virginia has noted that the higher number is closer to reality.
Up to last year, 2008, Italy's population has never deviated from growth. Yes,
diminished growth, but constant growth despite fact that its reported fertility
rate dipped close to 1.2 births per woman close to 50 years ago. And given its
reported immigration rate, that doesn't close the gap between that fertility
rate and the continuing increase reported, especially when that increase can be
assumed to be an undercount. Richard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Eric Pfeiffer  wrote:
>
> Climate gate has already died.  Next political hack job. Fox news
> and the Washington Post, great scientific journals that they are
> will be there to attack change and progress, as always.
> ...But research will move forward. The Christian Right Wing
> has spent centuries fighting it through the Catholic Church, but
> have always given ground in the end.

From the "Telegraph", UK, 20 December

tinyurl.com/ydpouot :

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of
making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the
Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of
the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its
latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once
described by the BBC as "the world's top climate scientist"), as a former
railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate
science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has
established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies
which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the
IPCC's policy recommendations. ....

....

In [2008] he became a director of the International Risk Governance Council in
Geneva, set up by EDF and E.On, two of Europe's largest electricity firms, to
promote `bio-energy'. This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund
Pegasus as a `strategic adviser', and was made chairman of the advisory board to
the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned
that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the
carbon market.

....

Steven Zoraster

Arthur: Excellent response.

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "arthurcnoll" <arthurnoll@...> wrote:

>  Well, that depends on what you consider to be a long time,
> and it also neglects the fact that while the build up to an end
> might indeed take a long time, the actual end can be much,
> much faster.

Which is why I used the example of my Cuban friend.

People will continue being born (likely fewer, but that's not my point) on the
downslope. When they are born and grow up, they will be growing up into a
depleting world, and they will think it is normal and fine.

Example: People born after 1975 have less memory of the Father Works, Mother
Stays At Home Family Structure. I am old enough to remember  when that was the
norm. It was the norm, as we all know, thanks to unprecedented wealth being
pulled out of the earth. To that: my father worked in a factory, making a
mediocre salary, but was able to buy a house, a car, and raise a family on his
wages. It was a HUGE family, and we were always borderline poor, but: we were
able to do it on his salary. Such a situation no longer exists. Dual income
families are the norm, and are required. Such as in my family. I teach
university, and my wife works as a project manager. Has my daughter ever known
differently? No. Does she feel deprived? No. Is she? That's an open question...


> Something that I remember bringing up some time ago here,
> was relative to discussing exponential growth.  The comment
> was that people didn't seem to instinctively understand
> exponential growth.  But my observation was that doomers were
> actually showing an instinctive understanding of negative
> exponential growth.

Doomers *anticipate* exponential negative growth. There's a difference between
understanding and anticipating.

>You could be right to say that things always take a long time,
>if you include the time spent building up to a disaster,  but the
>disaster, the actual end, could be quite abrupt.

Again, "abrupt". WHAT is abrupt? An afternoon? 40 years? answer: BOTH. It
depends on your scaling. Hence, I dismiss notions of "abruptness". To the earth,
1000 years is nearly instantaneous. To humans, more than a year or two is a
pretty long time...


(re: Cuban friend)
> Yes, in that case, and in a lot of cases, things slipped down to a new
relatively stable state.  But to think that this always happens, would not be
true.  Cuba had the resources to reconfigure and survive without a significant
dieoff.
=========================

True, but that's not what I was using that example for. I was simply noting how
people adjust. It's what we do. There was an interesting article in National
Geographic recently about the Hamzda people in east africa. They hunt and
scavenge. they don't work that hard to get food. They smoke an awful lot of pot.
They survive. And they are happy. For us, as Westerners, to be thrown into such
a state would be traumatic and difficult. But there is a looong way between Mr
and Mrs Urban Condo Dweller and the Hamzda.


> I think there is confusion here, you are talking past each other,
> about whether a person is doomed or if a society is doomed.

No, I am critiquing the notion of nihilism itself. Nihilism is a false
consciousness that supports the interests of the ruling class in that it is an
invitation to reject change, as all change is seen as pointless. In this way,
Nihilist theory is simply the cynical edge of Business As Usual.

Previous revolutionary organisations (such as Marxist Leninists) cheerfully
slaughtered old guard nihlilists for being counter revolutionary. The changes we
are facing are even more daunting, so nihilists can expect similar, if not even
more draconian, treatment.

Being very clear on the task ahead is not the same as saying "we're all doomed".


> >
> > The question isn't one of a "solution". It is merely one of mitigation. I
pointed that out earlier, dedicated to you but you weren't listening - paying
attention to something other than the Doomer Echo Chamber in your brain seems
difficult. I say that in sympathy. (Been there, done that, figured out a better
way)

> Interesting suggestions.  My impression of the Post Carbon folks is that they
are similar to people here and in other similar groups- they have their
paradigms of reality and they don't match mine.
===================================

Fine.


> One of those paradigm mismatches shows up quickly with your second suggestion,
to get involved with local agriculture.  I view current conceptions of the
potential of agriculture as one of those things that got us into the current
mess, and as someone famous said, the thinking that gets you into a problem
won't get you out.
===================================

Agriculture is one thing. Petroleum agriculture is another. And permaculture is
yet another.


>Some of us have done that already, and you aren't listening to what we are
telling you about it.  No, you just continue with the tape loop that this is
what people need to do.
====================================

Maslow's pyramid. The basics. That's what people need to do. How they set about
acquiring those basics will determine the structure of their society.

There are also other issues of exogamy and endogamy that also come into play.

He's a bit of a modernist dork, but I would recommend Leslie White's "Evolution
of Culture" from 1958, where he is VERY clear on the relationship between energy
and culture.

(snip critiques of my suggestions)

Some of your points are good - the important point is that they are suggestions
and need to be examined. Doomerism does no such examination - everything is
rejected ex pre hoc. Mitigation is not part of the Doomer vision, as Mitigation
is seen as pointless.

Mitigation WILL happen - the question is how much and when?

And this is where Doomerism takes on a distinctly reactionary political aspect,
where Doomerism (like Xian Apocalypticism) removes the need for building a
better future, thusly permitting BAU and thusly insuring a Doomer outcome - a
self fulfilling prophecy.

>  Yet the things you suggest could easily waste even more natural capital and
make such long fast drops more likely.
=================================

Which is why the *conversation is important*, and why Doomerism is to be
condemned as it is the end of conversation, it is the theory of the Eschaton. As
it is, Ideas come up, they need to be examined. The ones that are better need to
be followed up on or supported. The stupid ones need to be ignored. Doomerism
demands that all ideas of mitigation be ignored as pointless, thusly, stupid
ideas like The Hydrogen Economy and  ethanol from corn are rejected along with
great ideas like solar thermal technology and permaculture.

Mr Robertson chimed in:

> ~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
(snip)
> In other words--and to use a fancy term--we are faced with a substantial
"epistemological" problem, and we can do much to solve it, we just have to start
trying.  And you are right, it was Albert Einstein who said "We cannot solve the
problems of today with the same kinds of thinking that caused them." A really
intelligent person--and we need to--and can--empower more like him today.
> ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

Agreed. However, a Doomerist perspective would reject any ideas from such an
Einstein, as the Doomerist knows where it's all going ex pre hoc,"from before
the thing": To Hell In A Handbasket. Hence: Doomerism is the opposite of what we
need as we go down the other side of the energy curve...

HW

Of course Italy's working population sees a future lack of resources.  Italy has
a huge government deficit as a percent of GDP, which makes it more than possible
that they will be dropped from the European Monetary Union.  Moreover, with all
the possible consumer goods out there, how can almost anyone in a western
developed nation not want more good than they have?  This is perceived as
"scarcity."

Regarding the US, inflation has knocked about 25% off of the real take-home
income of the middle and lower class [80% of the population]. This explains, I
think the low 1.7 births per woman among whites and the 2.1 births per woman
among blacks.

The only group with a high fertility rate [between 3 and 4 births per woman] are
Hispanics.  Most Hispanics in the US are now first or second generation
immigrants. The situation here is much better than they left behind so they give
rather free rein to their large famiily size preferences.  Mexicans remaining in
Mexico have few births than Mexicans in the US.
Virginia

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Frank Holland
Sent: Sat 12/19/2009 9:09 AM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)




On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 18:39 -0600, Abernethy, Virginia Deane wrote:
> Worry about the future availability of resources is the best
> contraceptive.

Virginia,

I know that is the perceived wisdom, but how does it explain say Italy's
birth rate decline? They do not have a lack of resources, and I bet the
average male Italian does not foresee any lack, and they are disobeying
Catholic teaching, but down goes the birth rate.

--
Frank
53.22N 2.07W

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Just a guess, but it may be that many, if not most Italians are already
satisfied with what the have and the ways they live.

Thus, having more kids than a family can support simply means reducing the
obvious pleasure of living you see when travelling around Italy.

My bet is the religions will also get the message and pay heed to it. Recognize
that just about all religions have reached their current state in times of
increasing cultural plenty.

They will also start learning that those times are essentially ended, and new
modes of behavior will become religiously expediant and acceptable.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What's the difference between a denier and a contrarian?

Let me guess:  A contrarian is simply contrary about everything, and his mother
had him pegged early.

A denier is denying something specific:  AGW, the holocaust, and whatever the
next religion is that might raise its head.
V.

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of hugh spencer
Sent: Wed 12/9/2009 2:52 PM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [energyresources] 140 Climate Skeptics




Oh dear...

looking through the list - it contains some well known names of deniers
(Plimer, Spencer, D'Aleo, Bellamy, and others - as well as some
(Australian) local contrarians - Starke, for example (in fact James Cook
Univ (Townsville, Qld) seems to be a bit of a hot-bed of them).

If you look - many are emeritus (retired,but still have an office), others
are just retired. Given the period of vast optimism they grew up in and
practiced their professions - I am not in the least surprised at their
taking a reactionary position - as basically the whole edifice for which
they have been operating in (supporting and believing in) is about to come
crashing down - so denial is a pretty logical,if thoroughly unhelpful,
reaction.

Hugh

On the other hand, you have Dr.Charlie Veron - the very well respected
coral reef biologist - who would be in the same age cohort as these -
absolutely tearing his hair out about the impact global warming/CO2
increases are doing to the reefs of the world .. and he lives in Townsville
too.

>A pseudo-random Google Scholar search on the academic affiliations of
>signers of this letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
>produces interesting results. Just looking up those who claim academic
>jobs shows that those individuals do in fact work for the universities
>they claim to. In the departments they claim to. More than half the
>signers claim current University teaching employment.
>
>Steven Zoraster
>
>http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
<http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Correct, Dennis.  But those who use, promote, create and keep us indebted to
intangible money happen to control the United States and also Australia.

That said, have a Merry Christmas.
Virginia

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Denis Frith
Sent: Sat 12/19/2009 4:03 PM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)




V
You are talking about an intangible money. That can grow ad nauseum.
Unfortunately, people and their systems have to use tangible natural capital,
including those that provide energy, in order to survive. Those that ignore that
reality do not contribute to a rational discussion of what should be done moving
forward.

Denis Frith

--- On Sat, 19/12/09, Abernethy, Virginia Deane
<virginia.abernethy@... <mailto:virginia.abernethy%40Vanderbilt.Edu>
> wrote:

From: Abernethy, Virginia Deane <virginia.abernethy@...
<mailto:virginia.abernethy%40Vanderbilt.Edu> >
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Saturday, 19 December, 2009, 12:03 PM



So long as a country uses "debt money" like bank notes issued by the Federal
Reserve, that nation is committed to growth. Interest due on debt can only be
repaid if the economy grows.

Abolish the Federal Reserve, return to real money, and the drive for economic
growth will subside.

V.

~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

How?



~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

____________ _________ _________ __

From: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com on behalf of Richard Pelto

Sent: Fri 12/18/2009 10:38 AM

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)

Denis wrote: "The current misunderstanding is characterized by the statement
below:

<The money/power interests, especially in the U.S., are the products of an
economic system that is dependent on maximizing an assumed unlimited growth, and
assumed unlimited access to resources.>

The 'unlimited access to resources' does not spell out the fact that the
resources are declining due to consumption.

##Denis: My statement that you quote makes clear that this U.S. "system"
operates under this assumption. That is not a "misunderstanding. " They do what
they do deliberately because money/power is more important than accepting idea
that resources are limited, and that ecological degradation imperils
sustainability. And "consumption" is a byproduct of what they deliberately do.
It results from having that money.

Richard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__________________________________________________________
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
<http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

V
You are talking about an intangible money. That can grow ad nauseum.
Unfortunately, people and their systems have to use tangible natural capital,
including those that provide energy, in order to survive. Those that ignore that
reality do not contribute to a rational discussion of what should be done moving
forward.

Denis Frith


--- On Sat, 19/12/09, Abernethy, Virginia Deane
<virginia.abernethy@...> wrote:

From: Abernethy, Virginia Deane <virginia.abernethy@...>
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Saturday, 19 December, 2009, 12:03 PM







Ā 









       So long as a country uses "debt money" like bank notes issued by the
Federal Reserve, that nation is committed to growth.  Interest due on debt can
only be repaid if the economy grows.



Abolish the Federal Reserve, return to real money, and the drive for economic
growth will subside.

V.



~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~



How?



~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



____________ _________ _________ __



From: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com on behalf of Richard Pelto

Sent: Fri 12/18/2009 10:38 AM

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)



Denis wrote: "The current misunderstanding is characterized by the statement
below:

<The money/power interests, especially in the U.S., are the products of an
economic system that is dependent on maximizing an assumed unlimited growth, and
assumed unlimited access to resources.>

The 'unlimited access to resources' does not spell out the fact that the
resources are declining due to consumption.



##Denis: My statement that you quote makes clear that this U.S. "system"
operates under this assumption. That is not a "misunderstanding. " They do what
they do deliberately because money/power is more important than accepting idea
that resources are limited, and that ecological degradation imperils
sustainability. And "consumption" is a byproduct of what they deliberately do.
It results from having that money.

Richard



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]























      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The media events have been numerous this fall...jumping from
the Health Care battles, then onto Climategate, then onto morality
aka Tiger Woods, and now, back to the Health Care reform
debate, with Copenhagen's drive to cleaner air popping up
every now and then.
...It's not the circus of last fall as the banks were imploding but
not boring either.
...Behind all of this, NOAA continues it's HIPPO flights to collect
data on concentrations of atmoshpheric gasses and distribution,
breaking ground on this data base on a grand scale. Investments
in Wind and Solar continue on an escalating basis as costs fall.
The American public that still owns a house continues to strive
for greater energy efficiency of that house. Clean coal research
and development continues. AEP, a leader in coal use is also
the global leader in cleaning up emissions....not as fast as many
would wish, but faster than others would wish. An energy bill
will emerge from Congress next spring that will push hard for
greater energy efficiency and cleaner air and Americans will be
the better for that.
....Our knowlege of how our climate works will advance one
piece at a time as US and EU science research both on the ground,
under the ocean, and through satellite observations advances.
As I find this I will present it on this site.
...And population growth rates will decline slowly across the globe
as they have for years...not fast enough for some and too fast
for others. But it will continue.
...Global leaders will meet and continue dealing with global issues.
...Nation states will continue to see their powers erode as global
problems mandate global solutions. The global public will demand
it. Global money flow will demand it. Global business will
force the issue..
...And we will be the better for it.
...See you all in 2010 for a very exicting year. Our knowlege base
courtesy of our global researches will explode this year. Exciting.
EP




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 18:39 -0600, Abernethy, Virginia Deane wrote:
> Worry about the future availability of resources is the best
> contraceptive.

Virginia,

I know that is the perceived wisdom, but how does it explain say Italy's
birth rate decline? They do not have a lack of resources, and I bet the
average male Italian does not foresee any lack, and they are disobeying
Catholic teaching, but down goes the birth rate.

--
Frank
53.22N 2.07W

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Just a guess, but it may be that many, if not most Italians are already
satisfied with what the have and the ways they live.

Thus, having more kids than a family can support simply means reducing the
obvious pleasure of living you see when travelling around Italy.

My bet is the religions will also get the message and pay heed to it. Recognize
that just about all religions have reached their current state in times of
increasing cultural plenty.

They will also start learning that those times are essentially ended, and new
modes of behavior will become religiously expediant and acceptable.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

During 2007-9 CNBC paraded an endless series of economists,
investment advisors, and of course govt officials that absolutely
knew that no economic problems were on their way. George Bush,
Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Greenspan, the best of the best
in Ivy League education were adamant that there would be no
recession, no housing price-sales collapse. They went public
repeatedly till late summer of 2008 certain that housing loans were
not defaulting en mass, that the banking system was not  at
risk of collapse, that those millions of fraudulent house loans issued
were not a problem...That nothing need to be done. We were fine.
....To this day, CNBC parades people absolutely saying that all
is fine, the problem is minor and cyclical, a natural event in
economics  and of course, nothing should be done.
...Don't believe that denial of problems, isn't alive and well, just
turn on CNBC and watch for a while. Don't believe that people would
turn their back on wholesale fraud, and imploding housing? Turn on CNBC.
Don't believe that risk is relevant?  You have friends on CNBC.
Of course the politicians that engineered the home loan fraud have
been removed from office by an angry public that live with the
consequences of denial.
...And what of those that created this debacle? Are they assuming
economic responisbility for their actions?  NO.  They spoke their
fraud and walked away. A devastated American public is left to deal
with all of this.
...It could have been prevented by a frank discussion of risk. But that
discussion was never allowed. Do we have responsible leaders that
talk of risk and find the best way to deal with risk, or do we go the
route of the Subprime Loan?
...1000's of college educated economists and bankers can be wrong.
....Risks to life and safety of the American and global public if this
or this takes place need to be foremost as we advance the climate
change story. The Global public is intelligent and can sort this out.
...Saying "there is no risk"  assures the Global public that there is
real risk out there from climate change as with our non-existant recession
and non-existant housing collapse.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So long as a country uses "debt money" like bank notes issued by the Federal
Reserve, that nation is committed to growth.  Interest due on debt can only be
repaid if the economy grows.

Abolish the Federal Reserve, return to real money, and the drive for economic
growth will subside.
V.

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

How?

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Richard Pelto
Sent: Fri 12/18/2009 10:38 AM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [energyresources] Re: The insidious virus - people (was money)




Denis wrote: "The current misunderstanding is characterized by the statement
below:
<The money/power interests, especially in the U.S., are the products of an
economic system that is dependent on maximizing an assumed unlimited growth, and
assumed unlimited access to resources.>
The 'unlimited access to resources' does not spell out the fact that the
resources are declining due to consumption.

##Denis: My statement that you quote makes clear that this U.S. "system"
operates under this assumption. That is not a "misunderstanding." They do what
they do deliberately because money/power is more important than accepting idea
that resources are limited, and that ecological degradation imperils
sustainability. And "consumption" is a byproduct of what they deliberately do.
It results from having that money.
Richard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]