alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I came across this PDF article which i thought was quite educational if a bit long on the role of the Fed Reserve as a faciltator for the economy, the role of money as a store of value (productivity…or as we would say …labour). Restores a bit of perspective to use against the anti-Fed conspiracists. file:///C:/Users/AP-Lenovo/Downloads/SSRN-id1905625.pdfIt describes the role of banking in terms of inside Money, outside Money and "moneyness" and describes the creation of credit in a way i have read before…putting the cart before the horse process (my words).. but in their own words-
Quote:In the loan creation process, banks will make loans first (resulting in new deposits) and will find necessary reserves after the fact (either in the overnight market or via the Fed). Understanding the business of banking is rather simple. It’s best to think of banks as running a payments system that helps us all to transact within the economy. In addition to helping manage this payments system they issue money in the form of loans. Banks earn a profit in the means of transacting business when their assets are less expensive than their liabilities. In other words, banks need to source their ability to run this payments system smoothly, but will seek to do so in a manner that doesn’t reduce their profitability. Banks don’t use their deposits or reserves to create loans, however. Banks make loans and find reserves after the fact if needed. But since banking is a spread business (having assets that are less expensive than liabilities) the banks will always seek the cheapest source of funds for managing their payment system. That just so happens to generally be bank deposits. This gives the appearance that banks “fund” their loan book by obtaining deposits, but this is not necessarily the case. It is better to think of banking as a spread business where the bank simply acquires the cheapest liabilities to sustain its payment system and maximize profits.Quote:To illustrate this point let’s briefly review the change in balance sheet composition between banks and households before and after a loan is made. Since banks are not constrained by their reserves the banks do not need to have X amount of reserves on hand to create new loans. But banks must have ample capital in order to be able to operate and meet regulatory requirements. Reserves make up one component of the bank balance sheet so it’s better to think of banks as being capital constrained and not reserve constrained. In this example banks begin with $120 in assets and liabilities comprised of currency, reserves, equity and deposits. Of this, households hold $80 in deposits which are assets for the households and liabilities for the banking system. That is, the bank owes you your deposit on demand. Our banking system has reserves already, but this is not necessary for the bank to issue a loan. It must simply remain solvent within its regulatory requirements. But if our households want to take out a new loan to purchase a new home for $50 the bank simply credits the household’s account. When the new loan is made household deposits increase to $130. Household loans increase by $50. Bank assets increase by $50 (the loan) and bank liabilities increase by $50 (the deposit). If the bank needs reserves to help settle payments or meet reserve requirements it can always borrow from another bank in the interbank market or if it must, it can borrow from the Federal Reserve Discount Window.I'm probably wrong but it seems a bit like what i think Steve Keen says…make the loan first and then find the cash…otherwise…or else…CRASHAnyways the article then concludes with a whole lot of algebra equations and i said before economics simply becomes a blur to me at that stage.
Reprieve website has a good source of the humbug uttered over the years by the UK government over their supposed ignorance of rendition.http://www.reprieve.org.uk/publiceducation/2012_05_22_uk_rendition_torture_complicity/
"Can an industrial robot succeed both at removing the breast fillet from a chicken and at the same time get more out of the raw materials?"…..Since fish and poultry processors also happen to be better paid in Scandinavian countries than they are in the US and China, highly efficient machines are even more attractive to companies there than easily fatigued humans. …"Our aim is to automate absolutely everything we can think of on the food production line"http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/robotics/newsid=38385.phphttp://munchies.vice.com/articles/this-is-the-robotic-chicken-butcher-of-our-nightmares
"brought attention to the fact that many of the world’s beaches are disappearing owing to the need for sand for construction."I recall this was a serious problem in Kerala India, rivers and lagoons being dredged by fly-by-night operators which created flood and erosion risks. http://coastalcare.org/2013/10/ban-fails-to-prevent-illegal-sand-mining-kerala-state-india/
We hear a lot about the Magna Carta and the rights it supposedly left for posterity but much less known and always conveniently forgotten is the Charter of the Forest. Something to remember for next year when we get to another anniversary of 1215 which will be given the capitalist spin. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-carta-de-foresta.html This might help
Quote:The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in its In Article 25 clearly states that;(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.It is ignoredUN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in its Article 24 stated;1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution…It is ignoredUN general assembly declared that access to clean water and sanitation is a human right.
i believe i read somewhere Saudi oil production costs are as low as $10 a barrel and Texas $40 so indeed there is ample scope for the oil industry to undercut competition and they can sustain it for quite a time. Rather than Saudi over-production i have read it is also to do with US. the U.S. is producing more than 3 million barrels a day than it did several years ago. As Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute points out, this is like adding another Kuwait to world oil production. And it is fracking that is doing it http://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/frack-fracking-oil-gas/2014/12/08/id/611839/According to the Institute for Energy Research, "Nearly every barrel of new U.S. oil production can be attributed to the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies."…The Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania alone, he writes, has added another Iran to world natural-gas production.US domestic demand has apparently plateaued so this extra production is going on to the world market. Some say for established frackers should survive…it's those like the UK who want to be new players and enter the fracking industry who won't be able to make a return.http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/as-u-s-gas-consumption-plateaus-fuel-exports-pollute-elsewhere-1.2137411One argument being offered is that previously the worry was an oil shortage so countries were doing there utmost to invest in its production…now that there is a glut, oil has lost its leverage against environmentalists http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-s-fading-clout-will-aid-climate-change-fight-in-lima-don-pittis-1.2856251But i can't see any serious challenge to oil. "the largest companies in the energy industry have concluded that policymakers are unlikely to act quickly enough to strand their current fossil fuel assets or make it unprofitable for them to continue exploring for new reserves. The oil and gas sector, in particular, is gambling on a business-as-usual model that projects out to a roughly $14 trillion investment in new reserves by 2035. This investment would correspond to a staggering amount of wasted capital should policymakers decide that these reserves cannot be burned."http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/226406-winning-the-war-on-fossil-fuelsIt isn't the environmentalists who should panic but the so called "petro-socialists" of Venezuela and some African nations suck as Angola who may have to devalue currency or sell off assets acording to some commentators. The question being asked is why the Saudis haven't themselves cut back production as they have done in the past. Plenty of conspiracy theories…to screw Iran…to fuck up Russia in alliance with the US…Or as you say , to bugger the fracking industry.Another reason the environmentalist won't like it is that a fall in oil price is a boost for general economic growth. Regard coal which has seen its price halved in the past year, Australia as a major exporter better watch out (on a personal level i got extremely pissed of with Aussies boasting of their booming economy and great exchange rate..bit of sweet schadenfreude now :-)But what you highlight is the utopianism of environmentalists who think shaping the market is a solution. Just too many variables.
i take it from the lack of response that others on the thread are similarly in the dark about Pollin and this claim that he is North America's leading Marxist economist.
Most probably read it but this article on Reich from 1973http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-825-may-1973/sexual-politics-wilhelm-reich
A "squeebygeebee", an AF comrade when i was in the IWW always used that term regards SPGBers. He also pointed out to me that from what he seen, and he often wondered why, many ex-SPGBers would re-join in later life. We already see many ex-members on this forum, that remain attached to us politically and perhaps emotionally.
I think you have a point that we should not have them as party policies or part of our principles…We have council communists that advance the argument that these alone are the only form of democracy for both in the process of revolution and then inside socialism itself as its main administrative organ. As you argue on libcom, this is exclusive, excluding a wide variety of alternative and perhaps more appropriate and representative models, stemming from local cultures and local history.I don't think Morris was not arguing we shouldn't discuss and debate and speculate about what sort of society socialism will be and why we should strive towards it. Otherwise he wouldn't have bothered with his novel News From Nowhere, or give so many lectures on work and art in the future in socialism. However, returning to my original post….Why can we not engage the scientific community directly in their exchanges? We all know how they often are too involved in their pet projects to not see the wood for the trees.We had the Production for Use Committee which did offer feasible solutions to various short-comings caused by capitalism. I would have thought addressing a body of scientists, absorbing much of their data, but challenging the possibility of their success within capitalism would be a fruitful strategy in that we take their own findings and press them to take them to their full logical conclusion. Why capitalism will not implement reforms except those that are compatible with it and therefore no threat…and so with the result they will be of minimum effect…Along such lines as that but hopefully expressed more nuancedI simply suggest that scientists need lessons on political economy in addition to their particular area of expertise. The problem i raise, is how do we do that since,imho, they have a disdain for the non-academic qualifications of socialists, despite a history that contradicts this devaluing of our ideas.
This video might be useful to watch for some who wants to understand the environmental problem with animal rearinghttp://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-food-real-simplebut-under.html
Just watched DJP's recommendation of film about Luxemburg and quite enjoyed it, if enjoyment is the right word of the story of a socialist martyr. Anyway it got me thinking of John Bisset's aborted venture Socialist TV and now hoping someone will take hold of the reins of that and develop the idea further and somehow taking into consideration copyright laws (many of the vids have now been deleted), incorporate it more fully into our online propaganda.http://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/DJP's earlier links to Marxist theory vids could be included and a lot more besides. We have the website (JB to provide the password) , we just need it maintained regularly with the deleted videos deleted and new ones added and members concientiously providing the links to vids they come across and informing when they are being taken down. Again, a task that can need not be SPGB but performed by companion party or a lone volunteer. I excuse myself since its only in the last week or so i have got an internet connection that lets me view You Tube and i may lose that in the future.
I agree we should not appear to be advocating an austere, spartan-like society of self-denial, but, again, we shouldn't be promoting the idea of responsibility-free consumerism. But i do not think i share your view that individuals should be free from community decisions in the name of choice and democracy, especially in regards animal welfare. But NIMBYism will be a continued area of disagreement i think in socialism. I can imagine that not even pet-keeping will continue in socialism to the same degree and in the same numbers as now, at the expense of the resources it requires for their upkeep. I am not expecting a draconian socialist system of vegetarianism/veganism to be imposed, but that eventually a socialist society will naturally evolve into one over time as it seeks harmony with the environment. Despite those who say we should not offer blueprints, i see no problem in explaining that, although there may well be exceptions to the general situation. You will have also noticed on the thread i suggested (and ALB sort of agreed) there will be more than bacon and eggs disappearing from the menu and supermarket shelves. Much of that will not be from a democratic process of a worldwide referendum or whatever but certain people simply voting with their feet or by taking actions in their own interests. So for maybe different reasons i also agree with your comparison with the tyranny of the majority… what the majority take for granted and still expect just might not be the case in socialism.
To double check i did a google on the names and you are right but i did come across other nutters during the search http://jahtruth.net/celtisr.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
