Wednesday 22nd August 2018

The former director of ANZ Bank and chairman of Woolworths John Dahlsen has intervened in the banking turmoil in Australia to denounce the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and call for structural separation of the banks “following the principle of the US Glass-Steagall Act”.

Mr Dahlsen expressed his views in a column in the 21 August Australian Financial Review, “APRA’s incestuous rule comes at too high a price”, which is an edited version of an article he has written for the IPA Review, the publication of free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, of which he was formerly on the board.

“APRA is among the least accountable federal agencies”, the former chair of the ANZ Bank board’s audit and risk committee wrote of the bank supervisor.

“There is an incestuous relationship between APRA and the banks. There is no separation of influence and nearly all senior staff are ex-bankers, so you are unlikely to get any independent and innovative thought.”

Mr Dahlsen is a longstanding critic of APRA’s risk models and risk-weighting of lending, which has incentivised the banks to concentrate their lending on mortgages at the expense of the rest of the economy. Mortgages account for more than 60 per cent of the lending of each of Australia’s Big Four banks—a far greater concentration on mortgages than any other banks in the world—which has inflated a world record housing bubble that will inevitably crash the banks and the economy when it bursts.

“APRA’s use of the secrecy provisions in its governing legislation prevents an informed market, and it uses this massive information imbalance to maintain the fictions that risk is a science, that everything is quantifiable and that all material required by APRA is intelligently reviewed”, he explained.

“It is simply not possible for APRA to intelligently review the vast amount of data it demands from the banks. The risk-based models used by banks and regulators must be externally reviewed as a matter of urgency.” (Emphasis added.)

Structural separation

After calling for a revised mandate for APRA to reform its function and effectiveness, Mr Dahlsen turned to a more fundamental and far-reaching reform—structural separation.

He wrote: “Problems in banking will not be solved until the structure is changed, which means more than merely reshuffling responsibilities around the existing club of regulatory institutions.”

The experienced banker is convinced that a Glass-Steagall separation would be beneficial to shareholders, and therefore advocates for banks to do it voluntarily. He acknowledged, however, the political momentum in Australia for legislation to forcibly break up the banks, which some banks would require. “With barriers removed it is possible that banks and the investment market will move to unlock shareholder value in structural separation, following the principle of the US Glass-Steagall Act, which kept commercial and retail banking separate”, he wrote.

“Voluntary demergers would threaten the gravy train of ’coupon clipping’ for fee extraction, but enforced separation in Australia seems inevitable, and the mere threat of it could prompt demergers.

“The alternative of further complex regulation is frightening. Complex regulation (such as Dodd-Frank) never works because of the extreme difficulty of interpretation and enforcement. Simple regulation is simply better.”

(Dodd-Frank is the 848-page US banking legislation that Barack Obama enacted in 2010 after the global financial crisis, instead of restoring the simple Glass-Steagall separation, a 37-page law, which had protected Americans from systemic banking crises for almost 70 years, but which his Wall Street sponsors such as Goldman Sachs desperately opposed.)

John Dahlsen has added his voice to the chorus of calls for a full structural separation of Australia’s banks. The Citizens Electoral Council has led a campaign for Glass-Steagall in Australia since 2009. The late former prime minister Malcolm Fraser called for Glass-Steagall in a submission to the 2014 Financial System Inquiry. Leading National Party politicians Senator John Williams, and the Member for New England Barnaby Joyce, responded to the April hearings of the banking royal commission by calling for the banks to be broken up. On 25 June 2018 the Member for Kennedy Bob Katter moved, and the Member for Denison Andrew Wilkie seconded, the introduction into Parliament of the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018, which is based on the US Glass-Steagall Act. The Greens have long said they opposed the vertical integration that the royal commission has shown enables the banks to fleece and gouge their customers, and on 9 August they detailed a policy for a full, Glass-Steagall-style structural separation of the banks. The former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Allan Fels endorsed the Greens’ policy, emphasising the importance of ending both vertical integration and so-called horizontal integration which enables the government’s guarantee of deposits to flow through to risky investment banking and trading activities.

Liberal-National Coalition politicians especially should take note of Mr Dahlsen’s views, which contradict their government’s reasons for opposing Glass-Steagall. The Treasury has claimed that “Australia’s banks already exhibit a high degree of structural separation”, while the Member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, a former policy director at the IPA, repeats to constituents that he won’t support the Separation of Banks bill because “Mr Katter’s legislation is designed for American conditions, not Australian conditions.”

Now an experienced Australian banker, who shares the Coalition’s and Tim Wilson’s preference for free market policies, has identified a structural separation of the banks based on the Glass-Steagall Act as precisely what is needed to solve the undeniable problems in Australia’s banking system.

Will the government pay attention? Will they respond to the truth being exposed at the royal commission, and the wise advice of John Dahlsen, or will they, as they did for years leading up to the royal commission, continue to protect the conflicts of interest, dangerous speculation, and outright criminality in Australia’s banks?

Join the campaign to pass banking separation!

Forward this release to your local MP and as many Senators as you can. (You can find the Senators from your state by clicking on this link, and clicking on your state under the heading State/Territory on the right-hand side.)

Include a message, or call their offices, asking for confirmation that they received the email, and for a written response.

Share this message widely on email and social media.

This is my experience in life.
As soon as someone says, “Trust me.” I don’t.
He is not trusting me to look for myself.
Why should I trust him to look and conclude for me?

Good for a laugh!

This is unconstitutional. Magna Carta specifically prohibited this form of governmental tyranny and it is the base of our legal system.

Malcolm Turnbull is proposing laws which would allow the government to take assets where the owner hasn’t been charged with a criminal offence, let alone convicted of one. This is unconstitutional. Magna Carta specifically prohibited this form of governmental tyranny and it is the base of our legal system.

This morning I received a forwarded email from Greenpeace and one directly from SumOfUs re palm oil and orangutangs. The image and linked petition is from SumOfUs and here is the email from GreenPeace:

My name is Emma Thompson. You may know me from films like Love Actually or Sense and Sensibility...or, you may not have the foggiest idea who I am. But today I’m writing to you as a Greenpeace supporter, like you.

Over the years I have been truly moved by everything we have achieved to protect the world’s rainforests and infuriated by companies that have chosen not to play their part. They promised that by 2020 rainforests would not be destroyed to grow acre upon acre of palm oil plantations. Palm oil that is in over half the products on our supermarket shelves.

That means we have 500 days to get companies to stick to that promise.

Which is why I have narrated a short, powerful animation following the journey of a little girl and her orangutan friend, Rang-tan. I hope this film makes more people realise the weight of this moment and the opportunity we have to pull back the curtain on unsustainable palm oil for the sake of Indonesia’s rainforests and the orangutans that live there.

Rang-tan is a short video we need people to see so that they know what the palm oil industry is doing to our rainforests and the orangutans living there. Please, sign the petition and watch the video.

Rang-tan shines a light on the impact the palm oil industry is having on the rainforests of Indonesia when they are cleared to grow palm oil that is used as an ingredient in our chocolates, soaps and snacks.

This year we can spread this story far and wide. The more people that see Rang-tan the more pressure we can put on brands and companies in the next 500 days.

Can you share Rang-tan, so that more people see what the palm oil industry is doing to our rainforests and the orangutans that live there?

Watch and share Rang-Tan here

We have fought banks funding deforestation and won. We have told brands to drop companies who destroy forests to make paper - they have. And we have taken giant leaps to clean up an industry that is driving orangutans to extinction.

Let’s get people talking and build on the monumental achievements we have had in the last decade. This is our moment to tell the world that now is the time to stand up for our forests and all the Rang-tans that rely on them for their survival.

Thank you,

Dame Emma Thompson

Fast, effective action saves lives.
Be alert.
Respond promptly.
Be effective.

The date was August 7, 1982. The Red Sox were playing an afternoon game at Boston's Fenway Park. Suddenly a screaming foul ball whizzed past the first base dugout and Red Sox left fielder Jim Rice heard the unmistakable sound of ball striking flesh. Looking around the corner of the dugout into the stands Rice saw 4 year old Jonathan Keane bleeding profusely from his head.

Realizing in a split second that it would take several minutes for park EMT's to get to the scene, the future Hall of Famer sprang into action. Rice leaped over the railing into the stands, cradled the young fan into his arms and carried the boy into the dugout where he received immediate attention from the team's medical staff. Within just a few minutes Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where doctors credited Rice with saving the boys life. Jim Rice played the rest of the game in a blood stained uniform, a true badge of courage. (Written by D.J. McCoy)

Postscript: Jonathan is 41 years old now and has no memory of the incident. His only reminder is a small scar above his right eye.

Some great shots here!

Facebook is using a NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is also funded by the US government and foreign governments, to help it determine which posts are authentic and which are fake. The Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased judge, however. It is extremely hawkish and has even encouraged US military strikes against Russian assets! Why is a US government-funded entity involved in limiting speech? More in today’s Liberty Report:

You are an immortal, indestructible spiritual being. You have the potential to know everything - past, present and future. But those scared of spirits will try to explain it away as best they can, despite the evidence in front of their noses. Here is another relating of what one girl experienced.

A YOUNG girl who technically died believes she became part of the fabric of the universe itself and the past, presence and the future all played out at the same time.

When the woman called Mache was just five years old she came down with a fever which hit more than 40 degrees celsius.

The young girl began having seizures as her illness got worse and her mother took her to the hospital. She was on the brink of death.

Mache, who is now in her 40s, said that as her illness got worse, she began to feel more tired, yet more at peace as if the pain were easing.

At one point as the life was seeping out of her, Mache told the medical professionals who were in the room with her mother that “I was feeling much better”.

However, at this point, Mache said she began to transcend space and time as if she was part of the universe.

She writes for the Near Death Experience Research Foundation: “The sounds in the room started to get a hollow echo to them. I wanted to close my eyes, so I did.

“I felt so proud. I opened my eyes to look, and when I did I was looking at myself.

“I wasn’t upset or scared. But, I was a little confused. I knew I didn’t have a body. I felt like I was part of everything and everyone. I just floated up and could see other rooms.

“I later detailed conversations that there is no way I could have known. I lifted out of the hospital and continued ascending. I began browsing through time. I saw events from my short life.

“I later detailed things that occurred before I could even talk. These were events I should not be able to remember but I do and in great detail. As I kept ascending, I felt at peace.

“There were no questions or unknowns. Time wrapped in on itself. There was no past, present, or future as we see it here. Everything happened now and all at one time.

“I felt united or one with the world.”

She added she knew “everything about the universe”.

She said: “I understood time and I understood our connections to one another. I know I had no more questions.”

Suddenly, Mache “began drifting towards a beautiful light and I wanted to touch it”.

However, she felt a “pop” and was pulled back down through the hospital: “I descended almost instantly”.

It was then that she awoke back in the hospital bed where the doctors who had revived her told her she had technically died.

In Brief

The Facts: Geoengineering (weather modification) is hitting the mainstream hard as a potential response to climate change. Congressional hearings and more are all taking place, but there is evidence to suggest that spraying has already been happening.

Reflect On: All of the evidence showing it’s been happening for a long time. Are they really spraying to combat climate change, or could there be some other reason these programs are taking place? The article goes into more detail.

Geoengineering is becoming a common term within the mainstream. We’ve covered the topic many times over the past 10 years. The last article we wrote on the topic was about a Harvard Professor explaining how spraying heavy metals in the sky could possibly kill or contribute to the deaths of tens of thousands of people every single year. Prior to that, we wrote about an experiment at MIT where they were going to spray toxic particles into the sky to reflect the sunlight away from Earth, and before that, we covered the then CIA director’s comments regarding his support for Geoengineering. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Discussions about it have been ongoing for a very long time, and there are dozens of examples to choose from when conveying this information to the public.

A Few Examples

Here’s a video of popular physicist Michio Kaku speaking on weather modification.

A United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November of 1978 states:

In addition to specific research programs sponsored by Federal agencies, there are other functions related to weather modification which are performed in several places in the executive branch. Various federal advisory panels and committees and their staffs – established to conduct in-depth studies and prepare comprehensive reports, to provide advice or recommendations, or to coordinate Federal weather modification programs – have been housed and supported within executive departments, agencies, or offices.

A 1996 report conducted by top military personnel in the U.S, titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025,” reveals the supposed urgency to implement these programs:

In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.

There is enormous evidence to suggest that these programs have already been operational for years:

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” – World Meteorological Association (source)

The question is, have they really been spraying to combat global warming? And if so, why didn’t they just tell us?

International Community Speaks Out

The international community has spoken out against weather modification. Several global politicians, like Hugo Chavez, have also accused the United States of using weather manipulation for warfare purposes, specifically referencing the Haiti Earthquake.

HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud said geoengineering is the west’s “weapon of mass destruction.”

So, as you can see, this has been an issue for a while. Unfortunately, it’s doesn’t really become an ’issue’ until it’s presented within the mainstream. Now, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Prominence-interpretation theory helps determine what shapes users’ perceptions of a web site’s credibility.

What started as a drama about a Russian police plot to steal a billion dollars from a US financier and to murder his faithful tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, has become a real life investigation of contradicting versions of the crime. The Magnitsky Case is central for the policy of blacklisting bad guys from Putin’s Russia (“Magnitsky List”), which was then adopted by the West in retaliation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Shockingly for the film’s director, dissident and Putin basher Andrei Nekrasov, the official Western story turns out to have serious flaws.

A 2 hour 32 min version of THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES had its world premiere at an invitation-only screening at Filmens Hus in Oslo, Norway, on June 25th, 2016. Since then, the film has been shown (and awarded) at several international film festivals. Personal copies have also been sent to hundreds of journalists, politicians and others who have expressed interest in the film, given the film’s high-profile political content.

However, more than two years after its world premiere, the film has not yet been released to the general public. It has not been broadcast on TV, nor been screened at cinemas, released on DVD or made available online. Many dissatisfied members of the audience have asked Piraya Film why they cannot see the film.

The answer is that an attack campaign was launched by the British financier Bill Browder (who appears in the film) against the film and the filmmakers while the film was still under production. This campaign was backed by, among others, individuals in the US State Department, CIA, various think tanks and human rights organizations, and included smear tactics in the press and in various other settings. The campaign succeeded in blocking planned screenings at the European Parliament and at a Norwegian film festival. The film was partly financed by several TV stations, and normal procedure for a documentary would be that these TV stations broadcast the film first. However, the involved TV stations were subject to both political and legal pressure, and have, until this date, not published the film.

Ever since I was a child, I’ve always had a fear of someone under my bed at night. So, I went to a shrink and told him: “I’ve got problems. Every time I go to bed I think there’s somebody under it. I’m scared. I think I’m going crazy.”

Ever since I was a child, I’ve always had a fear of someone under my bed at night. So, I went to a shrink and told him: “I’ve got problems. Every time I go to bed I think there’s somebody under it. I’m scared. I think I’m going crazy.”

“Just put yourself in my hands for one year,” said the shrink. “Come talk to me three times a week and we should be able to get rid of those fears.”

“How much do you charge?”

“$80 dollars per visit,” replied the doctor.

“I’ll sleep on it,” I said.

Six months later the doctor met me on the street and said, “Why didn’t you come to see me about those fears you were having?”

“Well, at $80 bucks a visit, three times a week for a year, is $12,480.00. A bartender cured me for $10.00. I was so happy to have saved all that money that I went and bought me a new pickup truck.”

With a bit of an attitude he said, “Is that so? And how, may I ask, did a bartender cure you?”

“He told me to cut the legs off the bed. Ain’t nobody under there now.”/p>

If you’re using Google’s Chrome browser or Mozilla’s Firefox browser, you’re being indoctrinated with censorship at the browser level.

Yes, even Mozilla has gone “full evil” and will soon be blocking independent media websites.

I hosted the fourth hour of the Alex Jones Show yesterday, detailing alternative technology solutions that help free you from censorship and tyranny.

Alternatives to YouTube:

Bitchute.com
D.Tube
REAL.video
ugetube.com
GAB.ai

Alternatives to browsers:

(BEWARE: The Opera browser is owned by communist China)

Brave.com
duckduckgo.com
Vivaldi.com

Alternatives to Facebook:

GAB.ai
Minds.com
trooth.globalfreedommovement.org
WorldTruth.mx

Alternative to Google News:

Censored.news

Paul Craig Roberts

Ecological economists, such as Herman E. Daly, stress that as the external costs of pollution and resource exhaustion are not included in Gross Domestic Product, we do not know whether an increase in GDP is a gain or a loss.

External costs are huge and growing larger. Historically, manufacturing and industrial corporations, corporate farming, city sewer systems, and other culprits have passed the costs of their activities onto the environment and third parties. Recently, there has been a spate of reports with many centering on Monsanto’s Roundup, whose principle ingredient, glyphosate, is believed to be a carcinogen.

A public health organization, the Environmental Working Group, recently reported that its tests found glyphosate in all but 2 of 45 children’s breakfast foods including granola, oats and snack bars made by Quaker, Kellogg and General Mills. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/weedkiller-cereal-monsanto-roundup-childrens-food

In Brazil tests have discovered that 83% of mothers’ breast milk contains glyphosate. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Brazil-Poisonous-Agrotoxin-Found-Over-80-of-Breast-Milk-Samples-in-Urucui-20180809-0008.html

The Munich Environmental Institute reported that 14 of the most widely selling German beers contain glyphosate. https://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/25/german-beer-industry-in-shock-over-probable-carcinogen-glyphosate-contamination/#.W3XKtC-ZOGQ

Glyphosate has been found in Mexican farmers’ urine and in Mexican ground water. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5486281/

Scientific American has reported that even Roundup’s “inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

A German toxicologist has accused the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and the European Food Safety Authority of scientific fraud for accepting a Monsanto-led glyphosate Task Force conclusion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17307-german-toxicologist-accuses-eu-authorities-of-scientific-fraud-over-glyphosate-link-with-cancer

Controversy about these findings comes from the fact that industry-funded scientists report no link between glyphosate and cancer, whereas independent scientists do. This is hardly surprising as an industry-funded scientist has no independence and is unlikely to conclude the opposite of what he is hired to conclude.

There is also controversy about what level of contamination is necessary for products adulterated with glyphosate to be classified as dangerous. It does seem to be the case that the concentrations rise with use and time. Sooner or later the concentration becomes sufficient to do the damage.

For this article, the point is that if glyphosate is carcinogenic, the cost of the lost lives and medical expenses are not borne by Monsanto/Bayer. If these costs were not external to Monsanto, that is, if the corporation had to bear these costs, the cost of the product would not be economical to use. Its advantages would be out-weighed by the costs.

It is very difficult to find the truth, because politicians and regulatory authorities are susceptible to bribes and to doing favors for their business friends. In Brazil, lawmakers are actually trying to deregulate pesticide use and to ban the sale of organic food in supermarkets. https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18409-brazilian-lawmakers-seek-to-deregulate-pesticide-use-ban-sale-of-organic-food-in-supermarkets

In the case of glyphosate, the tide might be turning against Monsanto/Bayer. The California Supreme Court upheld the state’s authority to add the herbicide glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18411-monsanto-loses-another-court-case-over-glyphosate-weedkiller

Last week in San Francisco jurors awarded a former school groundkeeper $289 million in damages for cancer caused by Roundup. Little doubt that Monsanto will appeal and the case will be tied up in court until the groundkeeper is dead. But it is a precedent and indicates that jurors are beginning to distrust hired science. There are approximately 1,000 similar cases pending. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html

What is important to keep in mind is that if Roundup is a carcinogen, it is just one product of one company. This provides an idea of how extensive external costs can be. Indeed, glyphosate’s deletarious effects go far beyond those covered in this article. https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/expert-gmos-to-blame-for-problems-in-plants-animals.39442/ GMO feeds are also taking a toll on livestock. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Mike-McNeil-Whats-Killing-the-Cows-Day8-24July2018-55mins.mp3

Now consider the adverse effects on air, water, and land resources of chemical agriculture. Florida is suffering algae blooms from chemical fertilizer runoff from farmland, and the sugar industry has done a good job of destroying Lake Okeechobee. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article216329745.html

Fertilizer runoffs cause blue-green algae blooms that kill marine life and are hazzardous to humans. Currently the water in Florida’s St. Lucie River is 10 times too toxic to touch. https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-08-10-florida-algae-bloom-st-lucie-microcystin

Red tides can occur naturally, but fertilizer runoffs fuel their growth and their persistance. Moreover, pollution’s contributions to higher temperatures also contribute to red tides, as does draining wetlands for real estate development, which results in water moving quickly without natural filtration. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/13/florida-gulf-coast-red-tide-toxic-algae-bloom-killing-florida-wildlife?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=283418&subid=1480231&CMP=GT_US_collection

http://www.wafb.com/story/38850029/graphic-red-tide-off-fl-gulf-coast-kills-marine-life

As water conditions deteriorated and algae blooms proliferated, Florida’s response was to cutback its water monitoring program: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article215993665.html

When we consider these extensive external costs of corporate farming, clearly the values attributed to sugar and farm products in the Gross Domestic Product are excessive. The prices paid by consumers are much too low and the profits enjoyed by corporate agriculture are far too high, because they do not include the costs of the massive marine deaths, the lost tourist business, and the human illnesses caused by the algae tides that depend on chemical fertilizer runoff.

In this article I have barely scratched the surface of the problem of external costs. Michigan has learned that its tap water is not safe. Chemicals used for decades on military bases and in the manufacture of thousands of consumer items are in the water supply. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/health/tap-water-crisis-toxic-michigan-pfoa-pfas/index.html

As an exercise, pick any business and think about the external costs of that business. Take, for example, the US corporations that offshored Americans’ jobs to Asia. The corporatons’ profits rose, but the federal, state, and local tax bases declined. The payroll tax base for Social Security and Medicaid declined, putting these important foundations of US social and political stability into danger. The tax base for school teachers’ and other government employees’ pensions declined. If the corporations that moved the jobs abroad had to absorb these costs, they would have no profits. In other words, a few people gained by shoving enormous costs on everyone else.

Or consider something simple like a pet store. All the pet store owners and customers who sold and purchased colorful 18 to 24 inch pythons, boa constrictors, and anacondas gave no thought to the massive size these snakes would be, and neither did the regulatory agencies that permitted their import. Faced with a creature capable of devouring the family pet and children and suffocating the life out of large strong adults, the snakes were dumped into the Everglades where they have devastated the natural fauna and now are too numerous to be controlled. The external costs easily exceed many times the total price of all such snakes sold by pet stores.

Ecological economists stress that capitalism works in an “empty economy,” where the pressure of humans on natural resources is slight. But capitalism doesn’t work in a “full economy” where natural resources are on the point of exhaustion. The external costs associated with economic growth as measured by GDP can be more costly than the value of the output.

A strong case can be made that this is the situation we currently face. The disappearance of species, the appearance of toxins in food, beverages, water, mothers’ breast milk, air, land, desperate attempts to secure energy from fracking which destroys groundwater and causes earthquakes, and so forth are signs of a hard-pressed planet. When we get right down to it, all of the profits that capitalism has generated over the centuries are probably due to capitalists not having to cover the full cost of their production. They passed the cost on to the environment and to third parties and pocketed the savings as profit.

Update: Herman Daly notes that last year the British medical journal, Lancet, estimated the annual cost of pollution was about 6% of the global economy whereas the annual global economic growth rate was about 2 percent, with the difference being about a 4% annual decline in wellbeing, not a 2 percent rise. In other words, we could already be in the situation where economic growth is uneconomical. See https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-10-19/study-world-pollution-deadlier-than-wars-disasters-hunger

Until next time,
dream big dreams,
plan out how to achieve them,
be continually executing your plans,
enlist people to your causes,
travel and/or read widely, preferably both,
all the while observing what you observe
rather than thinking what you are told to think,
think well of your fellow man,
take time to help your fellow man,
he sorely needs it and it will help you too,
eat food that is good for your body,
exercise your body,
take time to destress,
and do the important things
that make a difference -
they are rarely the urgent ones!

Most of the content herein has been copied from someone else. Especially the images. My goodness some people are talented at creating aesthetics! The small bits that are of my creation are Copyright 2014-2018 © by Tom Grimshaw - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Back Issues | Feedback | Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Software Development
Festival Management Software
Healthy Snacks
How to Live The Healthiest Life