Arthur Noll writing in 2002 asks: As someone with no power except my voice, I am
aware that our human society must change and change radically if we are
to survive. It is from this perspective that I ask, what can be done?

There are things we could do, no matter who we are, to get changes rolling. I’ve posted a set of principles for society, and a plan for getting there.

I’ve not heard any serious opposition. So, do people want to live
like this? I have to doubt it. There is no opposition, there is also
little support.

Why is that? If people wanted to be logical, and they had continuing
questions about these principles, or any others, those questions could
be answered. Don’t trust me? Bring in others. Ask “why”? Are we
interdependent? You can answer that, yes or no.

Are there problems with monetary measure, with markets? I’ve given
answers to that, you can check them out. I say that markets are
oversimplified, they don’t take sustainability into consideration, and
often put the wrong people in charge. Monetary minting and accounting
is a large energy drain by itself, compared to other systems. So I say,
that society should not use money and markets, should make conscious
decisions about energy efficiency, and sustainability, for all of
society, not leave these things, of energy efficiency and
sustainability, for individual judgement, as happens with money and
markets. Is that a yes or no?

I say that we use things sustainably, and that means as an example,
that to cut one 50 year old tree a year, you must have enough trees
growing to replace it, a minimum of 50 trees of all ages, and more than
that, because other factors besides people kill trees. I say that these
sorts of calculations can be done, for every resource we use, and
should be done. Yes or no?

And finally, people are interdependent as far as reproduction, too,
and reproduction should not be left up to individuals or couples, since
the whole group is affected. And human reproduction should be in
balance with use of resources. Yes or no?

All of these things are objective, simple, yes or no matters.

And yet people seem to not want to answer them. Instead of dealing
with them, they turn away, try to change the subject, or just go
silent. They say, I can’t do anything. But in fact, if a bunch of us
took these principles to someone with scientific status, and said,
here, what is wrong with these, it would put a lot of pressure on that
person, to also give yes or no answers.

That is something that could be done. And if that person said yes,
these are right, it could become more widely debated. And perhaps this
person would say “no”, and give reasons. Then we could think again,
having learned something. But do people want an answer? I think not.
People seem to just want to thrash around in circles, wring their hands
about problems, and act as if that were something significant. But what
it really looks like, is hypocrisy. We can get answers if we really
want them. I don’t think people really want answers. (10/23/08)
more…

Ellen Brown, JD writes: The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the
last year.  In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed
advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear
Stearns for pennies on the dollar.  The deal was particularly
controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board
of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.
In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more
unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. 
The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion
loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in
the mega-insurer.  The Associated Press called it a “government
takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization.  Unlike the U.S.
Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency.  Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. … So let’s review:

1.  The Fed is privately owned. Its
shareholders are private banks.  In fact, 100% of its shareholders are
private banks.  None of its stock is owned by the government.

2.  The
fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically
means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional
approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”

Here
is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury
issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them
off.  When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money),
it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars
acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a
computer screen.  These maneuvers are called “open market operations”
because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond
dealers.  The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking
establishment uses to back its loans.  In another bit of sleight of
hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent
many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating
interest for the banks with each loan.  It was this money-creating
process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and
Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total
money-making machine.”  He wrote:

3.  The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The
interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes
pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its
banker shareholders.  A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit
in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that
manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a
guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In
addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest
from the taxpayers on their “reserves.”  The basic reserve requirement
set by the Federal Reserve is 10%.  The website of the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent
throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned
into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes
$100,000 in loans.  Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the
total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at
$7,049 billion.  Ten percent of that is $700 billion.  That means we
the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700
billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to
accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks
earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the
banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private
central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the
taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as
private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that
threaten to collapse the U.S. economy.  Among other special benefits,
banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can
borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%.  They can then turn
around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning
an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position
as favored banks.  A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is
also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of
other stocks. (10/23/08)
more…