I didn't say I liked the IMF or World Bank. At all. They're a band aid to make the western neo-liberal economies look as if they care, and a sharp stick to prod developing nations in the "right" direction, ie here's some money, now open your markets to these nice corporations, they'll look after your best interests. And don't you worry your pretty heads about these natural mineral, agricultural and fuel resources, we'll pay you with this nice little bag of money, take away those muddy old diamonds, ores and coffee beans and do the nasty old business of transforming their value through a little bit of processing ourselves.
Sheesh, sorry. Must've got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Time for bed.
Oh good grief. On one hand you've got Lord (hereditary - all he had to do to get called "Lord" was to survive child-birth) Monckton spouting his swivel-eyed Hitler lunacies and on the other the Guardian pointing out that there are suggestions that responsibility for climate control should be moved from the UN to that hot-bed of Marxist-Leninism The World Bank.
The figure of 2% is, I understand, to be the higher estimated cost to global turnover (ie all of us) of beating climate change, which, compared to the projected costs of carrying on regardless sounds quite reasonable.
The Tobin tax - the tax that may be levied on internatonal financial transactions, not industrial or trade, is the earth shatteringly punitative rate of 0.05%. The fact that such a low rate could generate such huge incomes also highlights the insane amounts of electronic cash being shovelled around the system by the banks for very little social benefit yet generating colossal amounts of comission - you can bet your arse that each time a dealer passes on the dough a shitload more than 0.05% sticks on his fingers. Use this to fund research and development into carbon reducing technologies and you're nuturing and expanding a huge new industry, saving the planet and getting the pinstriped wankers on Wall Street and in the City of London to a) atone for getting us into this horrible financial mess after having money shovelled down their throats for the last thirty years and b) start paying their way in society from now on.
*edit* Well, at least that made me feel better.
These people are criminal.
I'd simply suggest that you and others investigate the World Bank and IMF.
If after you have done that and still put your blessing on them, I'd be surprised.
Funny that HJ, Callum and I all have the same view on Christopher Monckton although we all come from different political standpoints. Some things are just universal.
The problem is that anything quoting him puts up an immediate "that idiot" flag in my mind that kind of loses the rest of the information.
edit- for those of you who think that I have the same political views as HJ- he didn't speak to me for a fornight in May after the last local elections and for the European parliament- again- totally different voting.
Additional skepticism arose last week when it was revealed by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton warned that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an "unimaginable scale," and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
The London Guardian states things a bit more strongly, reporting;
"The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank."
So it now appears that this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, as originally sold , but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
This has all the appearances of being the funding mechanism of a World Government run by Banks - not elected and not accountable to anyone.
Perhaps none of us should be surprised. Bankers do claim they are doing "god's work", don't they?
Oh good grief. On one hand you've got Lord (hereditary - all he had to do to get called "Lord" was to survive child-birth) Monckton spouting his swivel-eyed Hitler lunacies and on the other the Guardian pointing out that there are suggestions that responsibility for climate control should be moved from the UN to that hot-bed of Marxist-Leninism The World Bank.
The figure of 2% is, I understand, to be the higher estimated cost to global turnover (ie all of us) of beating climate change, which, compared to the projected costs of carrying on regardless sounds quite reasonable.
The Tobin tax - the tax that may be levied on internatonal financial transactions, not industrial or trade, is the earth shatteringly punitative rate of 0.05%. The fact that such a low rate could generate such huge incomes also highlights the insane amounts of electronic cash being shovelled around the system by the banks for very little social benefit yet generating colossal amounts of comission - you can bet your arse that each time a dealer passes on the dough a shitload more than 0.05% sticks on his fingers. Use this to fund research and development into carbon reducing technologies and you're nuturing and expanding a huge new industry, saving the planet and getting the pinstriped wankers on Wall Street and in the City of London to a) atone for getting us into this horrible financial mess after having money shovelled down their throats for the last thirty years and b) start paying their way in society from now on.
Additional skepticism arose last week when it was revealed by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton warned that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an "unimaginable scale," and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
The London Guardian states things a bit more strongly, reporting;
"The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank."
So it now appears that this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, as originally sold , but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
This has all the appearances of being the funding mechanism of a World Government run by Banks - not elected and not accountable to anyone.
Perhaps none of us should be surprised. Bankers do claim they are doing "god's work", don't they?
It's always about controlling the people and the money. Sad.
Well I understood (and maybe I am wrong) that Copenhagen is a political summit to succeed Kyoto and sort out the actions to respond to the scientific data agreed by various intergovernmental bodies and it isn't the place for further scientific debate ie it is a political forum, not a scientific one.
Good to continue to research and to keep an open mind but this is the action point not the "let's think a bit further point". If further information comes to light showing that the agreed strategy is wrong then we'll have to reassess but for now we go on the best info available.
Whether we are in time or politically capable of making a difference is another matter..
Please follow the link, I can't stress it enough.
This carbon tax, and make no mistake, this is the crux of the biscuit, is huge, and my feeling is that once enacted, it won't be reversed.
Additional skepticism arose last week when it was revealed by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton warned that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an "unimaginable scale," and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
The London Guardian states things a bit more strongly, reporting;
"The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank."
So it now appears that this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, as originally sold , but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
This has all the appearances of being the funding mechanism of a World Government run by Banks - not elected and not accountable to anyone.
Perhaps none of us should be surprised. Bankers do claim they are doing "god's work", don't they?
Welly- and everyone else who is posting long articles- looking down the page miami is the other person to post an overly long article on this page- a personal plea.
The forum is not usually the place for excessive chunks of text unless it's from the poster themselves. It really distorts the flow of a topic. Post the first para or first few paras and then a link to the rest (with an explanation of where the link goes). If people want to read on they will by clicking through, posting the whole article is unlikely to change views or make anyone a winner in the debate but it does clog up the thread.
Welly- and everyone else who is posting long articles- looking down the page miami is the other person to post an overly long article on this page- a personal plea.
The forum is not usually the place for excessive chunks of text unless it's from the poster themselves. It really distorts the flow of a topic. Post the first para or first few paras and then a link to the rest (with an explanation of where the link goes). If people want to read on they will by clicking through, posting the whole article is unlikely to change views or make anyone a winner in the debate but it does clog up the thread.
Welly- and everyone else who is posting long articles- a personal plea.
The forum is not usually the place for excessive chunks of text unless it's from the poster themselves. It really distorts the flow of a topic. Post the first para or first few paras and then a link to the rest (with an explanation of where the link goes). If people want to read on they will by clicking through, posting the whole article is unlikely to change views or make anyone a winner in the debate but it does clog up the thread.
Welly- and everyone else who is posting long articles- looking down the page miami is the other person to post an overly long article on this page- a personal plea.
The forum is not usually the place for excessive chunks of text unless it's from the poster themselves. It really distorts the flow of a topic. Post the first para or first few paras and then a link to the rest (with an explanation of where the link goes). If people want to read on they will by clicking through, posting the whole article is unlikely to change views or make anyone a winner in the debate but it does clog up the thread.
The consensus isn't in. I heard on satellite that there are several scientists (on the anthropogenic global warming/climate change side) that have expressed interest in speaking up if they can be assured of their positions/safety. I want to hear what everyone has to say.
We'll see what happens.
I believe we should really open this debate up.
Lay all of the best data we can get access to on the public table.
This way we can make an educated, informed decision.
Regards
Well I understood (and maybe I am wrong) that Copenhagen is a political summit to succeed Kyoto and sort out the actions to respond to the scientific data agreed by various intergovernmental bodies and it isn't the place for further scientific debate ie it is a political forum, not a scientific one.
Good to continue to research and to keep an open mind but this is the action point not the "let's think a bit further point". If further information comes to light showing that the agreed strategy is wrong then we'll have to reassess but for now we go on the best info available.
Whether we are in time or politically capable of making a difference is another matter..
She didn't ever misunderstand him; he just used her inability to answer questions in an articulate manner. Being better in debate/interview than a campaigner on the street is a easy win for him.
Why do you think she lost? Because she wasn't well resourced?
I thought she just agreed to go look at more supposedly good information. (I think we all should strive for that)
The consensus isn't in. I heard on satellite that there are several scientists (on the anthropogenic global warming/climate change side) that have expressed interest in speaking up if they can be assured of their positions/safety. I want to hear what everyone has to say.
We'll see what happens.
I believe we should really open this debate up.
Lay all of the best data we can get access to on the public table.
This way we can make an educated, informed decision.
Location: its wet, windy and chilly....take a guess Gender:
Posted:
Dec 15, 2009 - 8:36am
miamizsun wrote:
callum, unfortunately this has become politicized. I'm not a fan of either party here in America (and that would include our central banking, the UN, the World Bank and the IMF).
I thought her understanding of the english language was very good.
What would lead you to believe she misunderstood him?
Regards
She didn't ever misunderstand him; he just used her inability to answer questions in an articulate manner. Being better in debate/interview than a campaigner on the street is a easy win for him.
Well, as far as I can tell he takes someone, interviews them in his language not, theirs and proceeds to patronise them and twist their words to suit his own ends. Definitely then, a politician. edit: also, it should be said that not all Brits sound like they have 300 years of finest English breeding stuck up their asses and the resulting mess is making it hard to speak. And that I'm in a bad mood and Lord Monkton will have to forgive me.
callum, unfortunately this has become politicized. I'm not a fan of either party here in America (and that would include our central banking, the UN, the World Bank and the IMF).
I thought her understanding of the english language was very good.
What would lead you to believe she misunderstood him?
I'm still too scared to respond.
I think you might need your flow looking at.
