Archive for the ‘Istorie’ Category

Primul meu articol pentru Splice Today

Noiembrie 11, 2017

The Gypsies in the Pointy Towers (Tiganii din Turnulete)

Anunțuri

Crestinismul, un fenomen sincretic si fals

Decembrie 26, 2015

De ce Pastele mutabil nu este un eveniment istoric?

 

Adevaratul Pilat vs descrierea Crestina fictiva a acestuia

 

Epistole, dar niciun Iisus

 

Cea mai mare minciuna, a IV-a Evanghelie

 

Autorii Evangheliilor, naratori omniscienti sau autori de fictiune?

 

Betleem si Nazaret, fabulatii si revizii

 

Nazaret, un oras imaginar

 

Biserica, un sindicat al crimei

A murit Tony Benn

Martie 14, 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-dies-aged-88-labour-politiican

La varsta de 88 de ani s-a stins din viata. Tony Benn a fost un adevarat om de stat al Regatului Unit, un adevarat om de stanga; o voce impotriva razboiului si a nedreptatii.

Intr-un spirit mai vesel, aveti aici un interviu cu Tony Benn realizat de actorul Sacha Baron Cohen (aka. Ali G)

Iar aici, Tony Benn da de pamant cu intreaga ipocrizie a Vestului.

Cateva mituri economice

Ianuarie 23, 2014

1-Americanii tiparesc bani cu carul prin politica lor de Usurare Cantitativa (Quantitative Easing)

Este un domn la Digi24 care vesnic o tine cu, „Americanii continua sa tipareasca banii. FED-ul tipareste in continuare.” Pe scurt, mama, mama, sa vezi ca inflatia e dupa colt. Right off the bat, pure bullshit! Domnu’ habar n-are ce vorbeste. In primul rand, QE nu este tiparire de bani. Si chiar de-ar fi, tot n-ar fi inflationara. Operatiunea este urmatoarea, banca centrala cumpara securitati financiare de la bancile private (derivate, bonduri, ipoteci) si in schimb, banca centrala crediteaza rezervele acestor banci. Rezervele NU sunt imprumutate mai departe si NU pot fi utilizate. Si nici NU pot intra „miraculos” in economie.

In esenta, Quantitative Easing este o procedura de swap (the schimb) intre banca centrala si bancile private. Ideea din spatele acestei politici monetare este aceea de a duce in jos dobanzile pe termen lung. Un astfel de obiectiv nu poate fi atins prin simpla stabilire a dobanzii de referinta la 0% (procedura ZIRP). De aceea se apeleaza la QE.

QE nu schimba activele financiare nete din sectorul privat. Bondurile sunt schimbate pentru rezerve. Desi marirea rezervelor n-are niciun efect, bondurile scoase din sistem pot avea un impact asupra economiei. Pe masura ce banca centrala cumpara securitati cu maturitate lunga detinute de sectorul privat, cererea pentru ele creste. Asta reduce dobanzile pe termen lung din piata. Ca atare, costul investitiilor ar trebui sa scada, iar asta ar trebui sa duca la mai multe investitii si implicit cerere agregata. Dar pe cealalta parte, dobanzile mai mici reduc venitul celor ce economisesc, iar acestia in schimb isi pot reduce consumul (si implicit cererea agregata) in consecinta. Nu este clar cum se balanseaza aceste efecte opuse intre ele. Dar facand apel la istorie, Japonia a persistat 10 ani cu politici de QE in efortul de a relansa consumul si tot a avut deflatie.

2-Bancile fac imprumuturi din rezerve

Not true! A durat aproape 4 decenii, insa presa si economistii (de masa, de duzina, mainstream, corporate etc) au inceput sa inteleaga acest lucru. Daca ati vazut Zeitgeist si credeti ca ati aflat adevarul despre tot ce e sub soare, think again. Bancile nu fac imprumuturi din rezerve. Imprumuturile creeaza depozite. Imprumutul dat clientului apare pe partea dreapta a bilantului bancii, (partea cu activele); iar depozitul apare pe partea stanga a bilantului (partea cu obligatiunile bancii). Left=liabilities Right=assets. Bancile sunt constranse in a da credite doar de capitalul propriu si de abilitatea lor de a vinde credite (cererea de noi imprumuturi). Crearea unui nou imprumut in sectorul privat este o operatiune endogena. O tranzactie orizontala ce NU duce la formarea de active nete noi in sistem. Toate tranzactiile (orizontale) inauntrul sectorului privat se echilibreaza la 0 net. Bancile nu sunt constranse de rezerve in abilitatea lor de a da/vinde imprumuturi. Banca isi largeste bilantul prin imprumuturi. Imprumuturile creeaza depozite, ce sunt apoi (post factum) garantate de rezerve. Procesul de creditare, ce creeaza noi obligatiuni bancare, nu are legatura cu pozitia de rezerve a bancii in cauza.

3-Tiparirea de bani duce la hiperinflatie

Un studiu atent al cazurilor istorice de hiperinflatie prezinta urmatoarele cauze: Colapsul productiei. Coruptie excesiva si institutionalizata. Instabilitate politica. Razboi sau infrangere. Caderea/incetarea unui curs de schimb fix cu o moneda puternica. (Vezi cazul Argentinei, un raport 1-1 intre dolar si peso? Te rog.) In concluzie, supra-productia de bani este intotdeauna rezultatul si NU cauza unei crize de hiperinflatie.

4-Hiperinflatia din Republica Weimar l-a adus pe Hitler la putere

Hiperinflatia de la inceputul anilor ’20 a lovit brutal societatea germana. Insa ea nu l-a adus pe Hitler in guvern. Pe masura ce Germania se infrunta cu hiperinflatia, scorul electoral al nazistilor era sub 4% (vezi alegerile din 1928). In 1930, hiperinflatia fusese redresata. Cand ministrul de finante Kurt von Brouningk a impus masuri dure de austeritate la inceputul anilor ’30, somajul a crescut vertiginos; si a adus nazistilor primul succes electoral (18,3% in septembrie 1930). Doi ani mai tarziu, sub jugul si mai dur al austeritatii lui Brouningk, somajul si saracia l-au impins pe Hitler la 37,2% in alegerile din 1932.

5-Cu cat mai mare e surplusul comercial, cu atat mai bine

Daca o tara mentine in mod sistematic surplusuri comerciale, prin definitie, va introduce profituri continue din strainatate. Ce se poate face cu aceste noi fonduri? Pot fi directionate spre consumul domestic. Astfel, relatia dintre importuri si exporturi se va rasturna. Daca aceste fonduri sunt investite, acest lucru probabil va duce la cresterea competitivitatii exporturilor tarii respective – importurile de capital din strainatate vor continua (Orice net exportator de bunuri/resurse este un net importator de cerere agregata).

Pe masura ce dobanzile din tara tind sa scada (odata ce masa monetara creste datorita intrarii de nou capital strain), aceste fonduri vor incepe sa migreze in afara – cautand redevente mai mari (dobanzi, preturi de teren, preturi imobiliare) in tarile cu deficite comerciale. Astfel, tara cu surplus limiteaza consumul intern (pentru a mentine surplusuri comerciale); imprumuta tarile ce au un net deficit comercial fata de aceasta. Si investeste sume tot mai mari in active din strainatate, ingrijorata de a mentine in picioare balonul din tarile straine (balon pe care-l sustine exportand bunuri/resurse catre aceste tari). In consecinta, un surplus comercial larg si permanent comprima standardul domestic de trai sub nivelul ce justifica productivitatea muncii a cetatenilor. In timp ce profiturile acumulate de catre tara risca a fi pierdute peste granita.

6-Statul nu poate sa ruleze deficite fiscale fara sa emita datorii publice

Fals! Pana si Paul Krugman a explicat acest lucru. Un fapt argumentat de MMT-eri (adeptii Teoriei Monetare Moderne) de multa vreme. Krugman concluzioneaza ca nu este nicio diferenta semnificativa intre deficitul fiscal „finantat” cu bonduri si cel „finantat” direct cu bani.

Primul bilant se refera la cazul in care guvernul isi ruleaza deficitul fiscal prin vanzarea de bonduri de trezorerie si QE. Guvernul cheltuieste 100 de dolari si taxeaza inapoi 90, rezultatul fiind un deficit de 10 dolari. Conturile T reprezinta vanzarea de bonduri de trezorerie, cheltuieli prin deficit, operatiune QE, dobanda la rezerve (IOR, interest on reserves), iar profiturile FED-ului fiind returnate Trezoreriei (ca rezultat al platilor IOR trimise bancilor).

Observati cum bilantul sectorului non-guvernamental (10+IOR) reflecta perfect (cu semn schimbat) bilantul sectorului guvernamental (-(10+IOR)). Contabilitatea cu 2 intrari (double-entry bookkeeping), not that hard, guys and gals.

In al doilea bilant avem exemplul aceluias deficit fiscal, dar rulat printr-o metoda diferita. In al doilea bilant asumam ca banca centrala (Fed-ul) aprovizioneaza Trezoreria cu un overdraft (lucru ce nu este permis de catre legea Federal Reserve Act, ce obliga Fed-ul sa cumpere datoriile nete ale Trezoreriei pe piata libera (open market). Evident, aceasta regula este una de autoconstrangere, si a fost ridicata in trecut.

Asa cum a spus si Krugman, rezultatul din ultimile doua randuri este exact la fel ca cel din primul caz. Exceptie facand faptul ca in cazul 2, Fed-ul a aprovizionat Trezoreria cu un overdraft. Iar in cazul 1, Fed-ul a cumparat un bond de trezorerie prin piata libera de la un dealer. Inca o data, efectul macroeconomic net este acelasi pentru ambele cazuri. Trezoreria cu un overdraft vs Fed-ul detinand datoriile cu termen scurt ale Trezoreriei – banca centrala va returna orice dobanda va castiga asupra bondului de trezorerie ori asupra overdraftului facut Trezoreriei impreuna cu restul de profituri.

Spre deosebire de „porumbeii de deficit” (deficit doves) ca Paul Krugman, „bufnitele de deficit” (deficit owls) ca adeptii Teoriei Monetare Moderne… cei din urma au curajul sa spuna lucrurilor pe nume. Adica? Deoarece NU exista scenariu in lume in care un deficit fiscal rulat cu bonduri sau direct cu bani este mai inflationar ca celalalt – nu exista motiv pentru ca un guvern (cu suveranitate monetara, bineinteles) sa vanda bonduri.

Astfel, asa cum a zis Abba Lerner la vremea lui, scopul vanzarii de bonduri pentru un „currency sovereign” (un stat cu suveranitate monetara; statele membre ale zonei euro nu se califica in aceasta categorie) nu este acela de a „finanta”, ci acela de a lua decizia ca publicul sa pastreze bonduri, in loc de solduri de rezerve castigand dobanda (IOR).

42 reasons to loathe Margaret Thatcher, by a british citizen

Aprilie 9, 2013

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment.
2. She destroyed the country’s manufacturing industry, creating the untenable situation Britain endures today whereby we import everything from either Germany, the USA, or China. Britain went from a world leader in manufacturing to an international joke.
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws.
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren („Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” being a popular slogan at the time).
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that has turned out).
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration.
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership).
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed – the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million, and this still does not take into account those forced on to incapacity benefits.
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands.
10. The poll tax (an unfair tax levied equally on every member of society regardless of income)
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad.
12. She compared her „fight” against the miners to the Falklands War.
13. She privatised state monopolies such as energy and created the corporate greed culture that we’ve been railing against for the last 5 years.
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS.
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits which led directly to the 2008 crash.
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA, prior to this support had been more bilateral and measured.
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control.
18. Section 28, a homophobic clause reading that a local council „shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or „promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as „that grubby little terrorist”.
20. She supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers.
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population.
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany.
23. She invented Quangos (shady government/private bodies with powers to influence policy but very little supervision)
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%, an evil flat tax on all.
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile’s General Pinochet.
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike.
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%.
31. BSE (deregulation of what could be fed to farm animals).
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession.
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process, exacerbating the feeling of unrest amongst the Catholic population.
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa during apartied.
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin, corruption after corruption.
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher.
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain – £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros – £1 billion.
38. Poverty doubled whilst she opposed a minimum wage.
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders. British energy bills fund cheap energy for the rest of the continent.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education.
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions.
42. 21.9% inflation.

She inspired many other governments to instigate similar reforms as part of the massive lurch to the right in the last 30 years.
The list of reasons why this woman deserves to rot in hell for all eternity is endless.

Post made by Lord Weasel on the Ars-Regendi forums: http://forum.ars-regendi.com/thatcher-has-kicked-the-bucket-t-22853.html

Dezinvatati-va de miturile economice neoclasiciste si neoliberale

Februarie 4, 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT

 

Religion, the greatest affront to God

Ianuarie 2, 2013

The most disrespectful thing against GOD is religion. Religion has imposed on the Supreme Ultimate, on the prime mover, on the clock maker, on the principle which subsumes the universe, the ideas that god has a favorite corner of the universe, a favorite planet, a favorite people, a favorite religion, a favorite sex, a favorite sexuality, a favorite familial system, a favorite political-economic system, a favorite country, a chosen one or prophet, a favorite calendar, a favorite hat, a favorite day, a favorite „vicar on earth”, a favorite army, a favorite constitution, favorite leaders, parties, factions, and policies – that god has nothing better to do than catalog, prioritize, and discriminate between selfish human prayers. Religion is a sin against god and all creation.

That being said, it’s time to tackle atheism. Agnostics are not even worth mentioning, neither are the pantheists, who believe that the creator and the created is one and the same thing. By that reasoning, nature is god, and we are god. Last time I checked, the carpenter was not the same thing as a carpet. Nature derives from god, but it’s not god. God is the first spark, the first cause. In lack of this you only have circular logic. Leibniz’s clock maker example is the best. If an observer would shrink himself to go inside a clock to see how it works, all he’ll witness is the wheels working in perfect synchronization. The observer witnesses correlation not causality. The true cause lies in the one who made the clock, and winded it, in order to set its wheels in motion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If I have all the pieces of a table, and pile them up together, I’ll still have all the elements of the table, but I won’t have the table. What’s missing? The principle of organization. Atheism also has exaggerated claims of absolute truth, albeit they’re not as exaggerated as religious ones. I’ll just sum it up like this: even radical empiricism accepts the possibility of the existence of transempiric beings. But given their superior nature, such things are not worth the pursuit. That’s the view of radical empiricism. So if you’re an atheist and you’re being posed the question, „Is it possible for god to exist?” don’t say NO, and don’t try to beat around the bush. Say that transempirical entities may exist, and if they do, they’re certainly not the almighty, wroth, bigoted, patriarchal, human incarnated, or buddha characters of religions. But if they are, would you seriously pray to them and worship them? Would you pray to a human being who’s managed to go beyond his finite and weak form, and achieved an other plane of existence? I, for one, wouldn’t. I’d rather invoke the words of dead men and or principles which define my character and beliefs. To quote Dante Alighieri, „Consider your origins, you were not meant to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” Virtue and knowledge cannot work as separate notions. Having virtuous people, who lack knowledge, who are ignorant, make for perfect slaves/obedient workers. However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward. So a virtuous and ignorant people will sooner or later descend into barbarism. Knowledge without virtue is as perilous. Why? Because such individuals are solely clever devils.  They’ll use knowledge only to further their own ambitions, their greed. They won’t care about the consequences of their actions. They’ll use all the means to steal, guard, protect knowledge, and attack all others who want to possess it as well. Progress and peace can only be achieved through the observing and practicing of virtue and knowledge. The only likeness between the human being and the nonreligious concept of god, is the human being’s willful creative reason. Just as the biosphere is organized by a higher principle, and has a fundamentally distinct quality compared to the abiotic sphere, so does the noosphere (the sphere of human ideas/thoughts) over the biosphere. Living matter is distinct but not separate from inanimate matter. Ideas are distinct from matter, but not separate. To quote Gottfried Leibniz, „Everything that is in the mind came first through the senses, except for the mind itself.”

Therefore, whilst we are part of creation, we’re also a willful creative force inside that creation.

Note: I can’t stand those who don’t believe, seeing themselves superior to those who do believe. And I can’t stand those who believe, seeing themselves as superior to those who don’t believe.  Thus, religion (aka institutionalized faith) is the greatest affront to the Supreme Ultimate.

Dr. Shlomo Sand, despre mitul exilului, despre mitul „etnicilor” evrei si nationalismul religios (zionism)

Decembrie 19, 2012

Shlomo Sand este profesor la Universitatea Tel Aviv si este autorul cartii, „Inventarea Poporului Evreu” – un studiu historiografic, care a generat controverse. De ce? Pentru simplu’ fapt ca pune niste intrebari incomode, al caror raspunsuri nu se regasesc in minciunile/legendele religioase ale bibliei, si ale miscarii politicoreligioase, numita zionism. Nu exista un „jewish people”, asa cum nu exista un „christian people”, sau „islamic people”, sau „zoroastrian people”, sau „buddhist people”, sau „atheist people” – si cand folosesc cuvantul people „ma refer la popor/popoare”. In schimb exista indivizi, crestini, evrei, budisti, ateisti etc. A folosi texte religioase ca pretext de a crea un stat religios, pentru a fura pamantul nativilor din Palestina (evrei, arabi, crestini) este doar un alt mijloc prin care imperialismul si colonialismul vestic a dat si continua sa dea peste cap tarile din Orient Mijlociu. A folosi argumentul conform caruia – Dumnezeu (in infinitatea lui perfectiune si suprematie) a decis sa-si aleaga un popor (asa zisul popor ales) si sa le dea ordine sa dea afara alte triburi de pe anumite pamanturi, ca respectivul popor ales sa traiasca acolo in locul lor – ales de Dumnezeu pentru ei – este total patetic. E ca si cand Egiptul ar spune ca mare parte din Orientul Mijlociu are trebui sa-i revina, pentru ca vointa zeilor le-a permis faurirea si extinderea Imperiului Egiptean de acum mii de ani. E ca si cand Romania ar emite pretentia ca anumite pamanturi din Turcia moderna ar trebui sa-i revina, deoarece romanii se trag din traci/Tracia. Nu se va ajunge niciodata la un acord/”two state solution” – deoarece radicalistii de dreapta din Israel nu vor sa respecte ONU si nici Comunitatea Internationala. Ei vor doar negocieri bilaterale cu autoritatea palestiniana, nu vor intermediari sau arbitri. Ca sa vedem iarasi ca viata prin definitie este ironica, zionismul are nevoie de radicalismul/fundamentalismul islamic pentru a suprevietui si pentru a pastra statu cvoul Apartheid impotriva palestinienilor, si pentru a extinde colonizarea in malul de vest.

Shlomo Sand has contested the claim that his book has been contradicted by recent genetic research published in Nature journal and the American Journal of Human Genetics. In a new afterword for the paperback edition of The Invention of the Jewish People, Sand writes:

„This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of „Judaization of the country” in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew.”

Alex Jones, interviu cu Noam Chomsky

Noiembrie 5, 2012

Va rog sa faceti abstractie de bullshiturile lui Jones, si sa-l ascultati pe Chomsky. Alex Jones e simpatic, dar atunci cand vorbeste despre „fapte” si „statistici” mananca foarte mult cacat. Notati observatia foarte importanta a lui Chomsky vis-a-vis de mitul de „republica vs democratie”, dand acel citat din Madison. „… They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Aici, Madison vorbeste despre datoria statului, anume aceea de a proteja averea tarii (plutocratii) de majoritate (vot popular, vointa maselor, autodeterminarea comunitatilor, si implicit pluralism politic). Parintii fondatori, desi laudati de comunisti precum, Lenin, n-au facut nimic altceva decat un document plin de dublu standarde. Au spus ca toti oamenii sunt creati egali, cu exceptia femeilor, negrilor, si a indienilor. Tot ei au spus ca doar clasa lor este eligibila sa voteze. Si sa nu uitam ca acesti oameni au fost niste sclavagisti. Mentionez faptul ca, personal, nu sunt in favoarea purtarii de arme letale (pistoale), insa sunt in favoarea purtarii de cutite ascunse, in special pentru femei. Este mult mai usor si eficient de folosit un cutit, in mainile unei femei care e agresata de un violator. Adaug faptul ca sunt impotriva vanatului, sau considerarea lui ca fiind un sport. Atat timp cat poti sa-ti cumperi carne de la supermarket sau de la ferma, n-ai ce cauta in padure sa omori animale pentru blana, carne, sau fildes. Exceptie fac triburile din lumea a III-a, a caror existenta depinde de aceasta – cea mai veche meserie din lume- (care nu-i prostitutia, cum in mod fals se tot spune peste tot). In concluzie, ascultati raspunsurile lui Chomsky, si dati peste rahaturile alea de reclame.

Tariq Ali: The Rotten Heart of Europe

Noiembrie 5, 2012