Recently a glaciologist who’s well known among those who follow climate science and melting glaciers made two videos essentially saying that purchasing bitcoin can save us from climate change.
World War II and all prior wars were fought under hard (commodity) currency regimes. (World Wars I and II were fought under the gold standard. Nixon closed the gold window in '71.)
The Enlightenment dream—that man's "reason" will prevent costly war—drowned in the river Somme, in 1916.
Agree with most of this, Governments collect tax so this secures them. If they didn’t have intermediaries gouging the public issuing currency direct shouldn’t be a problem.
The over complicating of the system, prejudice and bias (some get access others don’t, particularly women….time is money and labour is money again for some, not others)have twisted this simple process entirely out of shape.
A reform should simplify (cash and privacy is important and protective as is faith in the system for social license all of which is gone arguably.
Over thinking and replicating a poor system not simplifying, is a very poor plan.
Good to see people thinking and talking about this fundamental in the suite of problems and perversions.
Thanks for your comment Kath. I agree -- an incredibly complex system to replace what we have now seems like a bad idea... we know that more complex societies are much more fragile and much more energy intensive.
I also completely agree that cash and privacy is critical in the short term. In the long term, I think returning to a barter system is more likely, in liu of another intermediary form of money that doesn't require massive amounts of fossil fuels to mine. All the easy to access metals and minerals are gone, so I don't know what that would be.
Anyway, it's a fascinating topic! Thanks for reading.
Great piece! I learned some things because your language regarding finance was accessible. I recall an avid bitcoin user years ago trying to convince me that it would end wars. I wish I could have just slipped her this article at the time. Would have saved me a lot of energy.
A little tidbit; I learned that Lindsay Graham said on TV tonight: "This war's about money... The richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine... So Donald Trump's going to do a deal to get our money back, to enrich ourselves with rare minerals...".
When Ukraine was first assaulted I had a discussion with a far "left" friend. I showed him a map of the minerals in the country which matched the regions first hit. He refused to so much as acknowledge anything I said instead making Russia out to be a victim of persecution and NATO - NATO "made" Russia attack. I asked; "so just like a woman "makes" a man abuse her, huh?' When I brought up the Holodomor his response was to tell me we should agree to disagree. I then asked; "when did history become a matter of opinion?"
I have been baffled by the lack of talk about the minerals in Ukraine by "progressive" writers and now here we have Graham saying the quiet part out loud and I'm thinking - so the US is going to battle Russia over the "resources" now? Occupy Ukraine? How long has Russia known of the US intentions and is that why they invaded - to get there first? And why did the "progressive" media ignore the existence of minerals instead choosing to blame the existence of NATO as a justification for the war because NATO "makes" Russia feel threatened? Eventually I told my "friend" (for several reasons we no longer are) that by his reasoning I should not have changed the locks on my doors after the abusive ex husband let himself in the middle of the night.
It seems that people on one end of the political spectrum like to say the people on the other side of the stick fail to use critical thinking and are willing to believe and repeat anything their "side" tells them is true. I say it isn't a stick - it is a circle. War has always been about "resources".
I think the U.S. way of doing things is the neoliberal, predatory trade with structural adjustments way. The U.S. would rather avoid war (but is certainly not beyond supplying it to support its own interests!) and so uses its might and weight to force policies favorable to the U.S. to get access to materials (oil, gas, metals, and minerals) in return for protection, investment, etc. That said, the U.S. certainly isn't opposed to finding more brutal ways to get what it wants when it needs to.
I think Putin's first instinct rather than first trying the long and painstaking task of diplomacy and agreements is to just take what he wants right away.
Obviously I'm no expert on these things, but that's my impression as a lay person.
In any case, I agree, underlying *all* conflicts is land, metals, minerals.... "resources". There might be heaps of ideological conflicts and historical grievances piled on top of that, but resources is always the underlying motivation. (At least, in my opinion!)
Easy for someone to say that, when that someone wasn't directly involved in that conflict.
And we do "take their oil".
From the U.S. State Department:
"To increase trade, the United States has designated Iraq as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences program and several U.S. companies are active in Iraq, including in the energy, defense, information technology, automotive, and transportation sectors. Two-way trade in goods in 2021 totaled $4.6 billion, with $0.8 billion in U.S. exports to Iraq and $3.8 billion of Iraqi exports to the United States, almost entirely consisting of crude oil. A Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq came into force in 2013, and a U.S.-Iraq Trade and Investment Council established by the agreement met in 2014 and 2019."
Trump's instincts seem more like Putin's - take what we want rather than diplomacy. Of course in this case, diplomacy followed war, and I'm sure that the U.S. has deals *extremely* favorable for the U.S.
Ukraine is also the grainary of Europe, and without it's production food costs will go up dramatically all over the world. Europe can afford to pay more to import food from America, Australia, Canada, etc., but some other places cannot so civil unrest, followed by dictatorship is looming for them. But a food shortage will benefit American exporters, so America has a motive to keep the fighting going to prevent Ukraine from exporting food.
Intellectual property is the hard currency of the day and a government which supports its education and research supports the continuance of its currency, does bitcoin have the backing of the global scientific community? they can create a bitcoin that uses less energy but the notion that it can be created by anyone for any reason tends toward the notion of counterfeiting. Many thanks.
Thank you! This article answers a lot of questions I never thought to ask. I would never get into bitcoin or any system where my money depended on entries in somebody elses computer. I will stick to cash in my pocket.
Regardless of all the hype about solar, wind, tidal power, etc., the most likely source to add electricity to the grid is nuclear and if all the present constant propaganda against coal and oil is not originating from some PR agency for the nuclear industry it might as well be because the end result will be the same: more nukes will be built because the public will be told they are ''safe, clean, and green' compared to that ''dangerous'' CO2.
Most of the scientific community is hooked on shinny new toys and most scientists are in favor of new nukes and think anyone who is not is an ignorant bumpkin. And, ironically, nukes are causing far more weather chaos than CO2 is. KR85, a radioactive gas produced by recycling reactor fuel rods, is changing the electrostatic balance of the atmosphere and by that, the path of storms that are highly charged systems and whose track depends on their interaction with the field of the earth. That, not a so-called ''greenhouse effect'' from fossil fuels, is the real reason for the current klimasturtz.
And electrical technologies themselves, regardless of how the power is produced, are a constant danger to all forms of life. We live today in an ocean of EM pollution from TV, radio, microwaves, radar, and high-tension power transmission lines, that is killing all life forms on this planet. The use of high-voltage alternating currect is also irritating the atmosphere, causing it to ''buck'' wildly, another effect that is being blamed on the Greenhouse Gases Monster by ignorant scientists.
Hard currency prevents war?
World War II and all prior wars were fought under hard (commodity) currency regimes. (World Wars I and II were fought under the gold standard. Nixon closed the gold window in '71.)
The Enlightenment dream—that man's "reason" will prevent costly war—drowned in the river Somme, in 1916.
Right?!! :-)
Agree with most of this, Governments collect tax so this secures them. If they didn’t have intermediaries gouging the public issuing currency direct shouldn’t be a problem.
The over complicating of the system, prejudice and bias (some get access others don’t, particularly women….time is money and labour is money again for some, not others)have twisted this simple process entirely out of shape.
A reform should simplify (cash and privacy is important and protective as is faith in the system for social license all of which is gone arguably.
Over thinking and replicating a poor system not simplifying, is a very poor plan.
Good to see people thinking and talking about this fundamental in the suite of problems and perversions.
Thanks for your comment Kath. I agree -- an incredibly complex system to replace what we have now seems like a bad idea... we know that more complex societies are much more fragile and much more energy intensive.
I also completely agree that cash and privacy is critical in the short term. In the long term, I think returning to a barter system is more likely, in liu of another intermediary form of money that doesn't require massive amounts of fossil fuels to mine. All the easy to access metals and minerals are gone, so I don't know what that would be.
Anyway, it's a fascinating topic! Thanks for reading.
Great piece! I learned some things because your language regarding finance was accessible. I recall an avid bitcoin user years ago trying to convince me that it would end wars. I wish I could have just slipped her this article at the time. Would have saved me a lot of energy.
Thanks Erica!
A little tidbit; I learned that Lindsay Graham said on TV tonight: "This war's about money... The richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine... So Donald Trump's going to do a deal to get our money back, to enrich ourselves with rare minerals...".
When Ukraine was first assaulted I had a discussion with a far "left" friend. I showed him a map of the minerals in the country which matched the regions first hit. He refused to so much as acknowledge anything I said instead making Russia out to be a victim of persecution and NATO - NATO "made" Russia attack. I asked; "so just like a woman "makes" a man abuse her, huh?' When I brought up the Holodomor his response was to tell me we should agree to disagree. I then asked; "when did history become a matter of opinion?"
I have been baffled by the lack of talk about the minerals in Ukraine by "progressive" writers and now here we have Graham saying the quiet part out loud and I'm thinking - so the US is going to battle Russia over the "resources" now? Occupy Ukraine? How long has Russia known of the US intentions and is that why they invaded - to get there first? And why did the "progressive" media ignore the existence of minerals instead choosing to blame the existence of NATO as a justification for the war because NATO "makes" Russia feel threatened? Eventually I told my "friend" (for several reasons we no longer are) that by his reasoning I should not have changed the locks on my doors after the abusive ex husband let himself in the middle of the night.
It seems that people on one end of the political spectrum like to say the people on the other side of the stick fail to use critical thinking and are willing to believe and repeat anything their "side" tells them is true. I say it isn't a stick - it is a circle. War has always been about "resources".
I appreciate your writing.
Thanks Heidi.
I think the U.S. way of doing things is the neoliberal, predatory trade with structural adjustments way. The U.S. would rather avoid war (but is certainly not beyond supplying it to support its own interests!) and so uses its might and weight to force policies favorable to the U.S. to get access to materials (oil, gas, metals, and minerals) in return for protection, investment, etc. That said, the U.S. certainly isn't opposed to finding more brutal ways to get what it wants when it needs to.
I think Putin's first instinct rather than first trying the long and painstaking task of diplomacy and agreements is to just take what he wants right away.
Obviously I'm no expert on these things, but that's my impression as a lay person.
In any case, I agree, underlying *all* conflicts is land, metals, minerals.... "resources". There might be heaps of ideological conflicts and historical grievances piled on top of that, but resources is always the underlying motivation. (At least, in my opinion!)
I remember when trump said about Iraq - "we should have taken the oil" and I'm thinking - so what what exactly does that mean?
I'm no expert either but I tend to apply Occam's and/or Hanlon's Razor when I don't know for certain.
Easy for someone to say that, when that someone wasn't directly involved in that conflict.
And we do "take their oil".
From the U.S. State Department:
"To increase trade, the United States has designated Iraq as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences program and several U.S. companies are active in Iraq, including in the energy, defense, information technology, automotive, and transportation sectors. Two-way trade in goods in 2021 totaled $4.6 billion, with $0.8 billion in U.S. exports to Iraq and $3.8 billion of Iraqi exports to the United States, almost entirely consisting of crude oil. A Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq came into force in 2013, and a U.S.-Iraq Trade and Investment Council established by the agreement met in 2014 and 2019."
Trump's instincts seem more like Putin's - take what we want rather than diplomacy. Of course in this case, diplomacy followed war, and I'm sure that the U.S. has deals *extremely* favorable for the U.S.
Ukraine is also the grainary of Europe, and without it's production food costs will go up dramatically all over the world. Europe can afford to pay more to import food from America, Australia, Canada, etc., but some other places cannot so civil unrest, followed by dictatorship is looming for them. But a food shortage will benefit American exporters, so America has a motive to keep the fighting going to prevent Ukraine from exporting food.
Intellectual property is the hard currency of the day and a government which supports its education and research supports the continuance of its currency, does bitcoin have the backing of the global scientific community? they can create a bitcoin that uses less energy but the notion that it can be created by anyone for any reason tends toward the notion of counterfeiting. Many thanks.
Thank you! This article answers a lot of questions I never thought to ask. I would never get into bitcoin or any system where my money depended on entries in somebody elses computer. I will stick to cash in my pocket.
Regardless of all the hype about solar, wind, tidal power, etc., the most likely source to add electricity to the grid is nuclear and if all the present constant propaganda against coal and oil is not originating from some PR agency for the nuclear industry it might as well be because the end result will be the same: more nukes will be built because the public will be told they are ''safe, clean, and green' compared to that ''dangerous'' CO2.
Most of the scientific community is hooked on shinny new toys and most scientists are in favor of new nukes and think anyone who is not is an ignorant bumpkin. And, ironically, nukes are causing far more weather chaos than CO2 is. KR85, a radioactive gas produced by recycling reactor fuel rods, is changing the electrostatic balance of the atmosphere and by that, the path of storms that are highly charged systems and whose track depends on their interaction with the field of the earth. That, not a so-called ''greenhouse effect'' from fossil fuels, is the real reason for the current klimasturtz.
And electrical technologies themselves, regardless of how the power is produced, are a constant danger to all forms of life. We live today in an ocean of EM pollution from TV, radio, microwaves, radar, and high-tension power transmission lines, that is killing all life forms on this planet. The use of high-voltage alternating currect is also irritating the atmosphere, causing it to ''buck'' wildly, another effect that is being blamed on the Greenhouse Gases Monster by ignorant scientists.