As part of their opposition to the recently passed Data Protection Bill Organise Network suggested that campaigners state, quote; "In (their), own words, why should the DWP never scrutinise the bank accounts of benefit claimants?”. My response was as follows, quote;“For one thing any transactions regarding; political affiliations,
memberships of organisations, campaigns and/or trade unions should
become open to scrutiny only after due process in specific cases and
that only in extremis, knowledge of other financial activity such as
investments or shares (esp. in community groups etc.), should also only
be available to scrutiny in such circumstances.” Go to: https://the.organise.network/surveys/dwp-scrutinising-bank-accounts-review-follow-up
Nb. If you wish to comment please first sign the petition against the bill, quote; "Disabled people claiming PIP and other disability-related benefits buy
the things they need to make life more tolerable and to help them to
overcome barriers and difficulties, like mobility aids and care. These
things could be classed as "luxury" purchases by others, but they are
necessary for disabled people.The dignity and right to privacy of
benefits claimants must be preserved." Go to: https://organise.network/actions/petition-prevent-the-dwp-from-scrutinisi-gtXE9yQv?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share&utm_campaign=1imYUb6kUvts
Quote; "George Orwell’s iconic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four,
published in 1949, warns of a dystopian world where The Party or the
government undermines people’s rights, independence and autonomy through
fear and propaganda. Constant surveillance is a key weapon for
disciplining people and shaping their minds.**
That world has arrived in the UK, the self-proclaimed mother of
parliaments. The new tyranny isn’t ushered in by some communist,
socialist or military regime but by a right-wing elected government.
The latest weapon is the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill which puts the bank accounts of 22.4m people under constant surveillance. In true Orwellian doublespeak, the government claims that the Bill allows “the country to realise new post-Brexit freedoms” and links surveillance to people’s fears about frauds.
The Bill uses developments in electronic transactions and artificial
intelligence to place the poor, disabled, sick, old and pregnant women
under surveillance. It gives Ministers and government agencies powers to
direct businesses, particularly banks, and financial institutions, to
mass monitor individuals receiving welfare payments, even when there is
no suspicion or any sign of fraudulent activity. No court order is
needed and affected individuals will not be informed. The Bill enables
Ministers to make any further regulations without a vote in parliament.
Currently, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can request
details of bank accounts and transactions on a case-by-case basis on
suspicion of fraudulent activity.
The government says
the Bill “would allow regular checks to be carried out on the bank
accounts held by benefit claimants to spot increases in their savings
which push them over the benefit eligibility threshold, or when people
send more time overseas than the benefit rules allow for. This will help
identify fraud [and] take action more quickly.”
A pernicious aspect of the Bill (clause 8) is that makes it very
difficult for people to find out the information held about them by
government agencies. Requests can more easily be dismissed as vexatious
or excessive.
On 29 November 2023, the Bill was passed by the House of Commons by 269 to 31 votes. A Labour Party spokesperson said “We support the Bill” and the party abstained on the vote. It will now come to the Lords.
The new surveillance powers are to be applied to around 22.4m people claiming a variety of benefits. The UK has some 12.6 million recipients of the state pension, and many retirees claim means-tested benefits because the state pension is too low to live on. So retirees too are included in the 22.4m people subject to surveillance.
How prevalent is benefit fraud? The government estimates that for the year 2023 the benefit fraud was £6.4bn (2.7% of total). The government claims that mass surveillance would reduce fraud by £600 million over the next five years though this somehow became £500m during the debate in the Commons, i.e. £100m-£120m a year. During 2023-24, the government is expected to spend some £1,189bn.
So, how significant is a potential saving of £100m-£120m in that
context? Or is the Bill just distracting attention away from other
objectives by demonising the less well-off?
The focus on bank accounts suggests that the government is looking
for unusual patterns. So, if you give a lump sum to a loved one for
Christmas, birthday, holiday or home repairs, and it passes through a
bank, the government could seize upon that as evidence of excess
resources and reduce or stop benefits. Suppose a poor person pawns some
household items for a few pounds and that temporarily boosts bank
balance. Would that person be penalised?
Any government serious and even-handed about tackling fraud would
arguably extend surveillance to arenas other than just benefits, but it
does not. Billions of pounds have been lost due to government related frauds
in pandemic management, Covid loans and contracts for cronies, but none
of the individuals involved are under financial surveillance.
The Bill only targets the less well-off. There is no equivalent
surveillance of legislators who accept payments to advance the interests
of their corporate paymasters. Earlier this year, in a sting operation
former chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, and former health secretary, Matt
Hancock, agreed to work for £10,000 a day to further the interests of a company, but there is no surveillance of the bank accounts for former ministers.
There is no surveillance of the bank accounts of bankers engaging in illicit financial flows. The defence industry
has a long history of engaging in bribery and corruption to secure
contracts, but its bank accounts are not subject to surveillance. Energy companies also do the same, but neither theirs nor their directors’ bank accounts are subject to surveillance.
Since 2010, HMRC has failed to collect between £450bn and £1,500bn of taxes
due to evasion, avoidance and errors. Most avoidance schemes are
designed and marketed by bankers, accountants and lawyers, but the Bill
does not put their bank accounts under surveillance. Major accounting
firms are central to concocting abusive avoidance schemes, but despite strong court judgments, no major accounting firm has been investigate, fined or prosecuted. Research shows that people are 23 times more likely to be prosecuted for benefit offences that tax offences." Go to: https://leftfootforward.org/2023/12/prem-sikka-how-the-data-protection-and-digital-information-bill-is-the-governments-latest-erosion-of-hard-won-rights/ for full article.
The bill received its second reading on Tuesday 19th December 2023, quote; "
Members Speaking
Viscount Camrose (Conservative), Minister for AI and Intellectual Property, opened the debate and responded on behalf of the government.
Members contributing to the discussion included:
- Lord Allan of Hallam (Liberal Democrat), former director of policy for Europe at Facebook
- Baroness Kidron (Crossbench), Data Protection Foundation board member, campaigner for online safety and film director
- Lord Sikka (Labour), Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex
Despite the presence of five Queen's Councillors and twelve former judges* in the House of Lords both this and the also recently passed Public Order Bill (quote; "
What do these new laws mean?
In short, this Public Order legislation will see yet more restrictions people’s rights by:
- Setting a very low threshold to define disruptive protesting
- Giving police significant new powers to prevent protests occurring outside of major transport networks, oil and gas and energy supplies
- Making “locking on” a new criminal offence
- Extending the use of stop and search powers – including suspicion-less stop and search – to protests
Some concerns were raised about the Data Protection Bill, in an apparently rather half-hearted way, during its process through the House of Commons, quote; "Labour argued at report stage that the bill should be re-committed to a
public bill committee to allow further scrutiny, but this motion was
defeated. Labour welcomed a government amendment at report stage
removing the secretary of state’s power to veto codes of conduct drawn
up by the information commissioner. MPs raised concerns about new
provisions added at report stage to enable the government to require
banks and financial institutions to provide data about accounts linked
to benefit claimants, which the government argues is necessary to tackle
benefit fraud. MPs questioned why state pension claimants were
included. They also raised concerns about the Department for Work and
Pensions (DWP) having powers to look at people’s bank accounts without
grounds for suspicion. The provisions were added to the bill after a
division." Go to: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2023-0050/ Italics mine.
*Nb. Quote; "Highly qualified, full-time judges, the Law Lords carried out the judicial work of the House of Lords until 30 July 2009.
The final appeal hearings and judgements of the House of Lords
took place on 30 July 2009. The judicial role of the House of Lords as
the highest appeal court in the UK has ended.
From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction
on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal
cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Justices of the Supreme Court
The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) were the first
justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and were disqualified from
sitting or voting in the House of Lords. When they retired from the
Supreme Court they could return to the House of Lords as full members
but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in
the House of Lords." Go to: https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/law-lords/
Why, we ask, were such crucial provisions only introduced to the bill during report stage (after a division), and why in God's name did his majesty's opposition allow it to pass unchallenged (even saying "we support the bill")?
The Death of British Liberalism
Quote; "David Cameron perpetrated on the British people one of the nastiest and
cheapest bits of political slight-of-hand we've seen in these fair
Islands for a while, something he could not have attempted without the
support of? The Liberals, who (conveniently stuffing 200 years of
"Liberalism" down the plug-hole), abandoned their principles to shake
the hand of every neo-con nonentity/their
"respect" for our electoral and political system even extending to The
House of Lords/where they are being encouraged and enabled (and funded too -not officially of-course-?), to remove any lingering vestiges of
democratic process from the patient. Funnily enough ("if my dear
you have a native's taste for such humour"), the one person who does
actually comprehend what's been going on is our monarch, however, which one of you would or does expect their nonagenarian grandmother to do the washing-up during the festive season? The buck does indeed stop at the house but; ..
"Who's the little see-you-next-tuesday just out of shot with his hand in the air?"" Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2016/12/a-place-to-talk.html Now the only "liberals" left are "neo" themselves.
Credit where credit is due though for the British people did severely punish the Liberal party for its perfidy at the poles, however, the damage had already been done and the upper house properly greased to allow more illiberal and draconian legislation to be enacted. This suggests that both chambers are now passed their sell-by-date and that their reform is overdue.
The legal profession in this country has a responsibility to protect the public against the machinations of dictators of every hue more especially so, of course, as we do not have a written constitution and yet in recent decades their ability to do so appears to have been increasingly compromised.
It must be impressed upon the Leader of the Labour Party that the illegality and unconstitutional (even by our standards), nature of such recently enacted legislation cannot be countenanced and that should such iniquities be allowed to continue to be inflicted on the British people Britain will have finally and perhaps irrevocably achieved the status of a failed state.
Post Office Scandal
Qui Bono?
Quote; "The Post Office won’t receive benefit payments anymore so millions
are having to move accounts. Cashplus charge a fortune for transfers and
transactions, VISA at the Co-Op also requires 3DSecure. None of the
three are signed up to any kind of switching service so there is no
benefit to changing acc. (as I am doing to the Co-Op), it’s outrageous,
we are being targeted by the big financial players!
Nb. The Job Centre called me in to verify my identity when I changed
my recipient bank for U.C benefits. I may be forced to see them again
when I change from Cashplus to the Co-Op (Cashplus is now unworkable as a
day-to-day because of the expense of transferring money, transactions
and accessing cash -not issues when my Post Office Savings Acc. was my
benefit recipient-). Outrageous!!!" ... "(I had one of the old Post
Office benefit recipient acc.s, myself, and many others, simply switched
to a savings acc. when those acc.s were closed). This suggests the
machinations of private interests ... "No benefit for the benefit recipients only
those with pre-existing capital are rewarded, what a disgusting attack
on the vulnerable, it’s a mugging on the public purse."...
"Nb. This also means I am having to transfer all my direct debits
“manually” (as it were), because none of the three institutions (Post
Office, Cashplus and Co-Op Bank), are signed up to the switching
service, thus we do all the spade work too (but you mustn’t call it
that)!
Furthermore think of the number of people with disabilities affected by this who are literally being pushed around in order to confirm their identities (whilst the faceless money-movers retain their anonymity)!
Many have difficulty managing their money, I myself use an advocacy
service because I have a stress-related mental health condition! Clearly
the issue of the negative effect on the physical and/or mental health
of those affected was not taken into consideration by any of the
politicians, regulators or financial institutions concerned when the
decision was being made to allow the, increasingly privatised (see post
below), Post Office to behave this way.
Also, with reference to the “Royal Mail”, as was, does it not seem
strange that Charles Windsor did not show any interest in protecting the
institution thus preserving it for the people? Makes me wonder just who
was (and still is), holding which knife to the throats of our dear
monarchy."..."the Co-Op bank I’m switching to has a branch in the city several long
miles away…West End Village (half a mile or so away), has a
Post Office but no other financial institutions of any kind…such must be the case all over the country (where there still are post offices),
…what a terrible indictment of our financial structure! It is precisely
those people most vulnerable and most susceptible to the machinations
of big capital who are being discriminated against and disenfranchised.
In case you are wondering why I am using these three institutions Co-Op
Bank, Cashplus and Post Office Savings it is because I haven’t trusted
the High St. Banks (although on the high st. the Co-Op is, notionally at
least, “ethical” in its conduct), since the credit crunch…What sane
person would?..I don’t want the money-movers' grubby hands on my finances
(I also have a savings account with Wessex Community Bank, a
“not-for-profit” community bank, that currently receives payment from my
Cashplus acc. but whose payments I must move to the Co-Op myself). Does
it also not seem rather more than serendipitous that it is customers
utilising such institutions who are being penalised? We need oversight
on this, we are being shafted."...
"This is a direct attack on community based organisations
and campaigns, quote; “The notions are very different, for a socialist
there is no “communal filter” between the individual and the
institutions of the state but for a communist the state doesn’t exist
without one (the capitalist, of-course, their actions being anathema to
community, doesn’t believe in society at all). This exemplifies the
veracity of the maxim; “the trouble with “-isms” is that they are full
of “-ists”!”"...
"If individuals are not empowered they cannot form effective communities.
The vested interests know this so they are monopolising the financial
services industry by-the-back-door in order to ensure control of (as
Elon Musk might have it); “the memes of production”, after all that
which cannot be said cannot be! It is a very
anti-Schumachian exercise (for it is indeed “anti-social!”)." Go to: https://forum.5filters.info/t/email-to-the-shadow-chancellor-re-postofficesavings-benefits-disability-advocacy-financialmanagement/2978/11
So far no-one (to my knowledge), has spoken up about this to any significance in either house.
The inadequacies of the "Horizon" software responsible for the, so called, Post Office Scandal are not the only software concerns to be exercising our administration, quote; "A major UK government department is relying on ageing technology and
IT infrastructure, thereby reducing the resiliency of vital services and
increasing the risk of cyber-attacks, a new report has found.
Almost a third (30%) of applications used by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are unsupported, meaning
security or software updates are no longer being issued for them, an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO), the UK’s independent public spending watchdog, revealed.
Defra is the government department responsible for numerous critical
environmental services, including disease prevention, flood protection
and air quality. A major cyber incident could have severe societal
consequences.
The NAO’s investigation concluded that while Defra is taking steps to
address urgent service risks and vulnerabilities in its digital
systems, “it does not have a plan for the wider digital transformation
that is needed.”
In addition, the NAO noted that it was not until the government’s
2021 spending review that the department was given the necessary funding
to tackle the problem in a strategic and planned way, with £366m
($445m) provided for IT investment in the period 2022-2025.
Since receiving this funding, Defra has begun making progress on
tackling its most pressing digital legacy challenges. However, “the
additional funds are not enough to reduce risks to an acceptable level,
nor fund a broader digital transformation,” according to the NAO.
The report added that the department and its associated arm’s length
bodies are not expecting to fix its legacy systems until 2030.
The new analysis followed an investigation carried out by the NAO in July 2021, which identified IT legacy systems as one of six key areas of concern across government." go to: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/government-department-unsupported/
BBC Countryfile identified a badly-judged (underfunded), software purchase as being responsible for huge delays in the payment of subsidies from DEFRA to farmers in recent years and I had a poor experience myself when trying to use a government website when the Ministry of Justice simply lost an urgent submission I had made to them (apparently the on-site pro-forma was never received), strange when none of the commercial enterprises I was corresponding with at the time ever lost such a submission.
These inadequacies are simply explained, however, as they represent yet more penny-pinching on behalf of an administration who would rather do anything (including holidaying in the Maldives), than invest in public services (including governmental ones).
Loss of Signal
Our access to financial services is being restricted and we are being directed in other ways too. Having checked with a number of the credit agencies who offer purchase plans for a number of the biggest retailers including Halfords (who use "Klarna" as do Ideal World & many others), Curry's (who use Creative Finance), Argos and a number of smaller specialist retailers I was for the most part (although one online retailer advised me recently that, quote; "Yes you can get V12 without a mobile just enter 07000000000 but you must have a landline" -ridiculous-), told that I could not raise any finance with them because I did not own an sms-text enabled phone. I do, however, own a text enabled phone but it is a landline phone which, apparently, is no good either! Here, again, one must surely enquire "qui-bono" (who benefits)? The only benefit I can see is to the tech companies who make the phones and the service providers of the (now also 5G), WiFi service. Does this not sound rather like the same nonsense that informs crypto-currencies being both a false economy and a self-deception? The current boom in AI stocks seems to suggest that such is the case especially as they come at the same time that real estate values in China are crashing.
Quote; "Data analytics software maker Palantir (PLTR) on Monday issued strong 2024 guidance. Meanwhile, shares in chip maker Nvidia hit an all-time high on Feb. 5 amid a bullish Goldman Sachs report on artificial intelligence.
Nvidia isn't the only AI chip stock that investors are watching. Shares in Arm Holding (ARM) jumped on its earnings report and outlook for ARM stock.
Microsoft is the biggest investor in startup OpenAI, the leader in gen AI training models. Cloud computing giants Amazon.com (AMZN), Microsoft and Google sell AI services to business customers.
META Stock Hits Record High
In the December quarter, Microsoft Azure cloud revenue jumped 28%,
topping estimates by 1%. Microsoft's cloud business now has 53,000 Open
AI customers.
Shares in social media giant Meta Platforms (META) hit an all-time high on its December quarter results and AI outlook.
Meta management forecast accelerating revenue growth for the current
March quarter. "We think it's a matter of at least four powerful product
cycles all clicking — AI-infused product improvements that are
improving engagement/time spent, AI-infused product improvements that
are improving advertiser returns on the platform, Reels monetization
tailwinds and Click-to-Message ads ramping," said Evercore ISI analyst
Mark Mahaney in a report.
On its Q4 earnings call with analysts, Google forecast a big jump in 2024 capital spending amid AI investments.
The Nasdaq composite jumped 43% in 2023, boosted by buzz around AI stocks.
The top artificial intelligence stocks to buy span chipmakers,
software companies, cloud-computing service providers and technology
giants that utilize AI tools in many applications.
Arista Networks (ANET)
is among AI stocks doing well in year two of the gen AI boom. ANET
stock has climbed nearly 16% in 2024. Earnings for ANET stock are due
Feb. 12.
So far, the biggest demand for AI chips has come from cloud computing
giants. Nvidia earnings have boomed amid demand for AI chips built into
computer servers.
But analysts expect a market for "edge AI" — on-device processing of
AI apps to emerge. While "training" AI models is now the biggest market
for chipmakers like Nvidia, the market will shift to "inferencing," or
running AI applications, in the long run.
Qualcomm (QCOM) aims to build Snapdragon AI chips for Android smartphones and the "internet of things."" Go to: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/artificial-intelligence-stocks/
Quote; "China's troubled property market ended last year with the worst declines
in new home prices in nearly nine years, despite government efforts to
prop up the sector that was once a key driver of the world's second
largest economy."..."The sustained downturn in the sector that accounts for around a quarter
of China's economy could drag on the country's broader recovery and heap
pressure on policymakers to roll out fresh support."...""The success of 2024 will largely be driven by how effective officials
are in turning the property market around," Moody's Analytics said in a
note on Wednesday.".."Several Chinese developers, including China Evergrande Group, opens new tab and Country Garden , have defaulted on their offshore debt and entered into restructuring processes." Go to: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-dec-new-home-prices-fall-fastest-pace-since-feb-2015-2024-01-17/
I find it difficult not to reject the characterisation by Swiss (Sigma), Research that, quote; "spillover into a broader financial crisis with global ramifications is unlikely" Unsurprisingly they don't appear to have heard of "quantitative easing" (or even quantum physics #emergence). Go to: https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/Economic-Insights/china-property-market.html
One might observe and not for the first time that neoliberals of every hue (including the reddest), are successfully disappearing up their own a**eholes. Is it any coincidence I wonder, that Britain and China are the must surveilled countries in the world?
Because I don't own a smart phone I cannot even hire a municipally provided scooter!
What of the millions in this country who, like myself, don't want to own a WiFi device? I do own a p.c that is connected via Ethernet to a router that has had the WiFi signal it emanates turned off (online), by the customer. Many older people are alienated by WiFi technology why should they be excluded from services they are otherwise entitled to receive (I have a decent credit score), simply because they do not wish to be assimilated by the Borg?
Furthermore how does this benefit the finance companies in the long term? Surely the more customers who are able to access the service the better it is for business. I would also think that such companies' position is dubious in that their practices would appear to constitute "undue influence", "restraint of trade" and/or "anti-competitive behaviour" (as may the issue with the Post Officetm Savings Accounts I mentioned earlier)*.
*Nb. For such practices to constitute same may engender some updating/rewriting of current UK law.
Entanglement
Quote; "..since the discovery of the Higgs boson,
the collider has not revealed any significant new physics that might
shed light on some of the deepest mysteries of the universe, such as the
nature of dark matter or dark energy, why matter dominates over
antimatter, and whether reality is permeated with hidden extra
dimensions.
Cern drew up plans for the next machine,
the Future Circular Collider (FCC), in 2019. The €20bn (£17bn) machine
would have a 91km circumference and aim to smash subatomic particles
together at a maximum energy of 100 teraelectronvolts (TeV). The Large
Hadron Collider achieves maximum energies of 14TeV.
The
proposal has its critics, however. Sir David King, the UK’s former
government chief scientific adviser, told the BBC that spending billions
on the machine would be “reckless” when the world was facing such grave threats from the climate crisis.*" Go to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/05/cern-atom-smasher-unlock-secrets-universe-large-hadron-collider
*Italics mine, I couldn't agree more, however, I believe that this "recklessness" extends not only to our environmental and economic practices but also to the possibility for the continued evolution of all life in the universe. Think of it this way: "Damn thing never gives me what I want when I want it consequently I will smash it to pieces!" In other words such (so-called) technology represents the tantrums of the immature and many modern (so-called), physicists are simply throwing their toys out of the pram! They seem incapable of admitting that the much vaunted "discovery" of the Higgs bosun has not provided them with the answers they had hoped it would. Surely at a time when economising is our greatest priority this infantile indulgence should not be tolerated, quote; "“unsustainable economy” is an oxymoron” No? I thought about
this…many would argue (and many on the “left” also), that “short-term”
“profit-taking” exploitative economies exist…but do they? Can we truly
call them “economies”? For one thing; “how long is your piece of
string?” We define economies by describing relationships (they are
“relative”), there is a chronological imperative concerned, one cannot
(surely), argue that a 5 year “un-sustainability” is an economy whilst a
3 month one is not!
Economy, of-course, also can be “of effort”, in
other words efficient…there is no “economy of effort” in an
inefficient system, therefore, we can argue that any economy that is not
sustainable does not exist!
If one “economises” one makes one’s actions more efficient…literally one creates an economy.
One can argue that the economy existed for a five year period…but one cannot say it was “un-sustainable” for the same period…period…
…and, therefore, sustainability is a necessary component of economy…
The system is “open ended” (#opensource), it is emergent…
Quote; "Words Based on the Eco- Root Word
Following is a list of words based on the Eco- Root Word:
1. Ecoactivist: One who actively opposes the pollution or destruction by other means, of the environment.
2. Ecobabble: Using the technical language of ecology to make the user seem to be ecologically aware.
3. Ecobiology: The study of the relationships of organisms to their natural environments.
4. Ecobiosis: The conditions pertaining to a mode of life within a specific habitat
5. Ecocatastrophe: Major damage to the environment, especially when caused by human activity
6. Ecocentric: Centering on the environment
7. Bioecological: A reference to the interrelationships between plants and animals and their abiotic enviro ments.
8. Bioecologist: Someone who favors, or specializes, bioecology; such as, an ecologist.
9. Bioecology: The science of organisms as affected by the factors of their environments.
10. Ecocidal: Designed or tending to destroy the environment.
11. Ecocide: Destruction or damage of the environment
12. Ecoclimate: The climate as an ecological factor; the climate of a habitat.
13. Ecocline: Reflecting ecological conditions in general.
14. Econometrician: A student of, or specialist in, econometrics.
15. Econometrics: The branch of economics concerned
with the application of mathematical economics to economic data by the
use of statistical methods.
16. Economics: The study or the social science of the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with
the theory and management of economies or economic systems which
include material goods and financial resources.
17. Economist: Someone who studies, works, or is an expert in the field of economics." https://wordpandit.com/eco-root-word/
Here we can see how closely related the notions of ecology and
economics
really are, this seems to indicate that the Industrial Revolution
(esp.), saw a perversion of the language describing transaction/exchange
in order
to underpin a Socially Darwinistic model of human evolution, allow this
exploitative model to gain ascendancy and fulfil (esp.), capitalism’s
imperial and “manifest destiny”. It
may, therefore, be the case that a misapprehension of the nature of
economic theory has stemmed directly from the exploitation of
non-renewable resources.
Go to: https://forum.5filters.info/t/declining-sperm-counts-natures-answer-to-overpopulation/1227/10
Democracy must be “open source” (Mr.Gates), only then can it be open-ended." Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2021/06/a-dangerous-conflation-socialism.html
In other words if you are burning up resources for no discernable benefit you must be doing something wrong and I for one have yet to hear of any benefit to our quest for sustainability from the research at CERN, quite the reverse in-fact.
 |
Comparison of circumference of current HADRON collider with the proposed "update"
|
Are not all of the above simply examples of the desperation that should be understood as characterising the neoliberal?
c1.JPG)
