text:
THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ITS TO LATE TOO REGULATE ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE – SO WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE?
Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com, 2021. The year for change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., COVID-19, Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Digital Friendship., Disconnection., Emotions., Face Recognition., Facebook, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, Inequality, Lock Down., Modern day life., Modern day Slavery, POST COVID-19., Quantum computers., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Social Media Regulation., Technology, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD. , TRACKING TECHNOLOGY., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., VALUES, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ITS TO LATE TOO REGULATE ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE – SO WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE?
Algorithms trade., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism and Greed, Globalization, Government, Inequility, Post-Covid-19, Technology, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.
( A Thirty-minute read) Do you have a right to believe what you want? Yes, of course, but we now live in an Algorithmic driven world that is blurring the boundaries and amplifying the social tensions that are festering under the surface. The problem is that we are allowing the building of technologies, that are making consequential decisions about people's lives. AI is shaping people's lives on a daily basis, but it's an open question whether AI will become a trusted advisor or even a corrupting force.
It's not COVID-19 that will kill us all its Profit-seeking algorithms.
However, here in this post, my main concern is whether the AI techniques will develop into quantum algorithms that will be totally out of control. If artificial general intelligence is on the not too distant horizon, surely we should be ensuring that it is not owned by anyone corporation and that at its core it respects our core values. To achieve this we cannot surely let wealth be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, or to be let to the marketplace, or any world organization that is not totally transparent and self-financing. We therefore as a matter of grave urgency need a new world organization that vets all technology, and algorithms. (See previous posts) As long as the ALGORITHMS don't go to war with each other and cause something even more difficult to diagnose than a crash on the stock markets they are safe is as naive as saying " It's going to be Great." AlGORITHMS are increasingly in charge of a world that is precious to us all. Basically, we're entering the era of machines controlling everything. If we want to create new different societies with human dignity for all we need to do something about it. The difficulty of predicting the future is not just a cliche, it's a basic fact of our existence. Part of the hypothesis of Singularity is that this difficulty is just going to get worse and worse. Yes, creating AGI ( Artificial General Intelligence) is a big and difficult goal, but according to known science, it is almost surely an achievable one. However, there are sound though not absolutely confident arguments that it may well be achievable within our lifetimes. If artificial general intelligence is on the not too distant horizon, surely we should be ensuring that it is not owned by anyone corporation and that at its core it respects our core values. If we think in months we focus on immediate problems such as the present-day wars, the Covid crisis, the Donald Trumps, the economy, if we think in decades, climate, growing inequality, the loss of jobs to automation are all presenting dangers. But if we look at life in total, science is converging on data processing and AI that is developing itself with algorithms. When intelligence is approached in an incremental manner, with strict reliance on interfacing to the real world through perception and action, reliance on representation disappears. It won't be long before we will not be unable to distinguish the real world from the virtual world. Since there is only one real world and there can be infinite virtual worlds the probability that you will inhabit this sole world is zero. So it won't matter whether computers will be conscious or not. Is starting to feel like it's every man for himself, Is possible that right now, a global crisis is upon us, Without even knowing… And the virus may not be the biggest threat, but the crisis that follows, Everyday goods that keep us alive will be gone, I'm talking, food, freshwater, medicine, clothes, fuel… Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness and soon rather than later it will be consigned to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Smartphones, and the like to make decisions that are not possible to reverse. You might think that the above is stupid but it won't be long before we will be witnessing the most unequal societies in history. —————————— We humans will soon be living with robots that process data without any subjective experiences or consciousness or moral opprobrium. As we watch robots, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence machines, and the like slowly (and sometimes rapidly) permeate our world, it's not hard to imagine them going from permeating to taking over. Algorithms are increasingly determining our collective future. It will only matter what they think about you. We are already halfway towards a world where algorithms run everything. This is why many of the issues raised in this post will require close monitoring, to ensure that the oversight of machine learning-driven algorithms continues to strike an appropriate and safe balance between recognizing the benefits (for healthcare and other public services, for example, and for innovation in the private sector) and the risks (for privacy and consent, data security and any unacceptable impacts on individuals). —————————— WHAT CAN GOVERNMENTS DO? Please regulate AI, this is too dangerous. Given the international nature of digital innovation, governments, should establish audits of algorithms, introducing certification of algorithms, and charging ethics boards with oversight of algorithmic decisions. Why? They are bringing big changes in their wake. From better medical diagnoses to driverless cars, and within central governments where there are opportunities to make public services more effective and achieve long-term cost savings. However, the Government should produce, publish, and maintain a list of where algorithms with significant impacts are being used within the Central Government, along with projects underway or planned for public service algorithms, to aid not just private sector involvement but also transparency. Governments should not just simply accept what the developers of algorithms offer in return for data access. To this end, Governments should be at the forefront of the creation of a "statutory building code", which describes mandatory safety and quality requirements for digital platforms. Social networks should be required by law to release details of their algorithms and core functions to trusted researchers, in order for the technology to be vetted. This Law should enable the enforcement of,
forcing social networks to disclose in the news feed why content has been recommended to a user.
limiting the use of micro-targeting advertising messages.
making it illegal to exclude people from content on the basis of race or religion, such as hiding a spare room advert from people of color.
banning the use of so-called dark patterns – user interfaces designed to confuse or frustrate the user, such as making it hard to delete your account.
labeling the accounts of state-controlled news organizations.
limiting how many times messages can be forwarded to large groups, as Facebook does on WhatsApp.
If we took the premise that people should have a lawful right to be manipulated and deceived, we wouldn't have rules on fraud or undue influence. ———————————– To days Algorithms and where we are. As data accumulates, even more so now with Covid- 19 track and trace, and now working from home we have more centralized data depositories and large centralized AI models that work off centralized or decentralized data. How does the concentration of power affect this balance that impinges on individual liberty? Our democratic institutions and public discourse are underpinned by an assumption that we can at least agree on things that are true. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube create algorithms that promote and highlight information. That is an active engineering decision. Regardless of whether Facebook, Twitter profits from hate or not, it is a harmful by-product of the current design and there are social harms that come from this business model. Platforms that monetize user engagement have a duty to their users to make at least a minimum effort to prevent clearly identified harms. We have to focus on the responsibility of platforms. Because people are being manipulated with objectively false information, there has to be some kind of accountability for platforms. Currently, these platforms are not neutral environments they have no common understanding that there are certain things that are manifestly true with algorithms making decisions about what people see or do not see. In most Western democracies, you do have the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not an entitlement to reach. You are free to say what you want, within the confines of hate speech, libel law, and so on. But you are not entitled to have your voice artificially amplified by technology. The way Facebook and other platforms approach this problem is: We'll wait and see and figure out a problem when it emerges. Every other industry has to have minimum safety standards and consider the risks that could be posed to people, through risk mitigation and prevention. There are right now some objectively disprovable things spreading quite rapidly on Facebook. For example, that Covid does not exist and that the vaccine is actually to control the minds of people. These are all things that are manifestly untrue, and you can prove that. However, algorithms are much more prevalent than that- the Apple Face ID algorithm decides whether you are who you say you are. Algorithms limit people's worldview, which can allow large population groups to be easily controlled. Social Media algorithms tuned to your desires and want's ensures that everything on your feed will be of interest to you without you knowing what data these algorithms use and what they aim for. Conclusion. We are already living with large AI platforms that are monopolizing the fruits of globalization with billions being left behind. With us accepting this as if natural.
It will be too late when we are asking ourselves. What's more valuable – intelligence or consciousness? Then ask yourselves what happens to society, politics, and daily life when non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms know us better than we know ourselves?
Whatever view one takes on artificial intelligence ethics. You can rest assured that we will see far more nut cases blowing themselves up, far more wars over finite resources, with vast movements of people.
We have to remember that self-regulation is not the same as having no regulation. Of course, the loudest arguments for and against something often have one thing in common. They are often made by people with no desire to compromise or understand the other side. I think self-regulation, in and of itself contemplates people in power, deciding how they will act. We have to accept from history that we cannot possibly predict all adverse consequences of technology and that's because it is not just technology that has adverse consequences, but the context in which is applied, It is impossible to regulate AI while thinking about all of its potential adverse consequences. The seeds for harm at the design stage, or at the development stage, or at the deployment stage. We don't have to wait for the technology to become an application before we think of regulating it effectively. There is a need to strengthen specific provisions to safeguard individual liberty and community rights when it comes to inferred data. There is a need to balance the trade-offs between the utility of AI and protecting privacy and data. Self-regulation within the AI industry may not be enough since it may not solve the massive differential between the people developing the technology and the people affected by it. Machine learning is the next step that they are aiming for, with the algorithms deciding the input and output completely. Inherent political and economic power hierarchies between the state and citizens and within the private sector need to be addressed because the promise of globalization is a lie when it comes to AI and prosperity for all. Algorithms are being used in an ever-growing number of areas, in ever-increasing ways, however, like humans, they can produce bias in their results, even if unintentional. We are all becoming redundant with biotechnology becoming only available to the riches of us. I don't think that AI per se can be regulated because today it is AI, tomorrow it will be Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality, and the day after tomorrow it may be something that we can't even think of right now. So it is important to have checks and balances in the use and access to AI that go beyond just technological means. Why? Because they are also moving into areas where the benefits to those applying them may not be matched by the benefits to those subject to their 'decisions'—in some aspects of the criminal justice system, for example. However, technology companies are not all the same, and nor is technology the only part of the media ecosystem. It is essential to ensure a whole society response to tackle these important issues. You could require algorithms to have a trigger TO SHUT OF – to stop misinformation or terrorist groups using social media as a recruiting platform. BUT who defines what counts as misinformation? It is no longer possible for humans to fact-check so the only course of action is a world Independent Universal Algorithm that is designed to establish fairness. While "fairness" is much vaguer than "life or death," I believe it can – and should – be built into all AI using their algorithm. Therefore every Social network should display a correction to every single person who was exposed to misinformation if independent fact-checkers identify a story as false. (Google's search algorithm is more closely guarded than classified secret documents with Google Algorithm's that now owns most of the largest data sets in the world stored in its cloud.) ——————– We now have algorithms fighting with each other for supremacy on the market, prey on other algorithms in order to blunder the world exchanges for profit to such an extent that they now effectively in control of capitalism. Take for instance, when someone says algorithmic trading, it covers a vast subject not just buying and selling large volumes of shares automatically at very high speeds by unsupervised learning algorithms. There are four major types of trading algorithms. There are:
Execution algorithms
Behavior exploitative algorithms
Scalping algorithms
Predictive algorithms
Transparency must be a key underpinning for algorithm accountability. Why? Because it will make it easier for the decisions produced by algorithms to be explained. (The 'right to explanation' is a key part of achieving accountability and tackling the ethical implications around AI.) We are only on the outskirts of mind science that presently knows little about how the mind works never mind consciousness. We have no idea how a collection of electric brain signals creates subjective experiences however we are conscious of our dreams. 99% of our bodily activities take place without any conscious feelings. As neuroscientists acquired more and more data about the workings of the brain, cognitive sciences, and their stated purpose is to combine the data from numerous disciplines so as better to understand such diverse phenomena as perception, language, reasoning, and consciousness. Even so, the subjective essence of "what it means" to be conscious remains an issue that is very difficult to address scientifically. To really understand what is meant by the cognitive neurosciences, one must recall that until the late 1960s, the various fields of brain research were still tightly compartmentalized. Brain scientists specialized in fields such as neuroanatomy, neurohistology, neuroembryology, or neurochemistry. Nobody was yet working with the full range of investigative methods available, but eventually, the very complexity of the subject at hand-made that a necessity. The first problem that arises when examining consciousness is that a conscious experience is truly accessible only to the person who is experiencing it. Despite the vast knowledge we have gained in the field of mathematics and computer science, none of the data processing systems we have created needs subjective experiences in order to function. None feel pain, pleasure, anger, or love. These emotions are vanishing into algorithms that are or will have an effect on how we see the world but also how we live in it. If not address now all moral and political values will disappear, turning consciousness into a kind of mental pollution. After all, computers have no minds. Take images on Instagram they can affect mental health and body image. You might say so what that has always been the case. And you would be right up to now but because of Covid-19 government has given themselves wide-ranging powers to collect and analyze data, without adequate safeguards. If we are not careful they will have no notion of self, existing only in the present unaware of the past or future, and therefore will be unable to consciously plan for future eventualities. Unconscious algorithms in our brains rather than conscious images in a mind. If you are using a smartphone, it indirectly means that you are enjoying the AI knowingly or unknowingly. It cannot be modified unknowingly or can't get disfigured or breakdown in a hostile environment. We should not be regulating technology but Artificial Intelligence. It is so complicated in behavior we need to be regulated it at the data level. In lots of regulated domains, there is this notion of post-market surveillance, which is where the developer bears the responsibility of how the technology developed by them is going to be used. As William Shakespeare wrote in – As you Like it. " All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players, they have their exits and entrances. " Sadly with AI, Machine Learning Algorithms no one knows or for that matter will ever know when they enter or exit. Probably like AI learning is actually an ongoing process that takes place throughout all of life. It's the process of moving information from out there — to here. Unfortunately with the brain, has its own set of rules by which it learns best, unlike AI, the information doesn't always stick. Together, we have a lot to learn. Humanity is in contact with humanity. All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the cloud bin.
social media oligarchy where the richest participants are allowed to spread dangerous .
THE BEADY EYE SAY'S GOVERNMENTS ARE FAILING US.
Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Capitalism, Climate Change., European Union., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY'S GOVERNMENTS ARE FAILING US.
Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Earth, Global warming, Government, Inequility, The Future of Mankind, United Nations
Because they no longer guarantee life and the pursuit of happiness.
I am not talking about you can't please all the people all of the time.
I am talking about when they come together in the United Nations an out of date organisation with no secure means of funding other than begging. Only when signatory nations are prepared to follow suit with firm domestic policies is a UN aspiration somewhat effective. This never happens on global issues as they are afraid of paying the political price.
On something as fundamental as changing the source of energy which is going to cost trillions. Only governments coming together will there be any effect. They are supposed to be a trustee of the natural resources that citizens depend on for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In modern society, of course, much of the complexity in our lives is placed there by governments, supposedly acting to "help" us avoid failure or to "protect" us from failure.
Instead they are eroding our liberties by collecting reams of information from your digital footprint. Our societies where you're free to be whatever you want, feels less and less so each year.
They are selling climate dispensations, flogging off natural resources and revenue earning industries to sovereign wealth funds for short gain profits.
Some failures were obviously. They are failing to adequately address global warming. It seems to me that Politicians seem to think that the Marketplace will take care of it.
More visible recently were the bailing out of high-profile banking institutions which are still considered by the government to be too big to fail without threatening the long-term well-being of consumers and the broader economy.
They have created confusing missions that are not be communicated and embraced, and are were easily undermined by rank corruption and unethical conduct, or are beyond careful monitoring through performance measurement and management. They don't 'know' enough to enable them to make effective decisions about the best way to allocate scarce resources with the top appointees unqualified to lead.
The days are gone when many economists believe in the efficient market hypothesis, which assumes that the market will always contain more information than any individual or government.
The implication is that market prices and market movements should be free from interference because markets cannot be improved upon by individuals or governments. However we all know that the invisible hand of the market place will not bring about the changes necessary.
Which brings us back to the United nations. An organisation so infiltrated by lobbying groups that it is danger onto itself.
The world is in a mess due to greed, and democracy as we know it is under attack from unbridled consumerism and Social Media. We have to accept the reality that markets are not motivated by the priority of care. Nor is it the United nations.
Why don't we the voters demand better representation?
We must demand that the United Nations pass binding people resolution placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions , on all Foreign exchange transaction over $20,000 on all other form of Capitalist Activities that function for profit for profit's sake.( see previous posts)
This is the only way we can take care of our world make Greed pay for it.
THE BEADY EYE SAY'S OUR FUTURE IS NOT INEVITABLE. PART FOUR WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE IN THE WORLD: POLITICS.
Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Politics., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The new year 2016., Unanswered Questions.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY'S OUR FUTURE IS NOT INEVITABLE. PART FOUR WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE IN THE WORLD: POLITICS.
Community cohesion, Government, Inequility, politics, Technology, The Future of Mankind
Mankind must learn how to appropriately respond to the crises and opportunities that await us, and grow cognizant of the fact that large-scale violence can be so dangerous to humanity so that we become "aware of the need for a radical change in attitude.
So the question is: Are humans fundamentally too flawed to be trusted with their own paradise? Should we scrap Politics as we know it? Is it the politician's very humanity that we distrust?
Politicians aren't popular in WORLD.Politics is rated as the least trustworthy profession and we all know Why.
Elected to represent the people they represent Inequality.
Politics in the Future: Will it be worse or better with the technologies of the Internet.
Let's say you can no longer make it in society without using technology you don't understand to buy things at a store, to talk to other people, to conduct business.
People are increasingly dependent, but they don't have any idea how these things actually work." In other words, people may fear technology, but does that fear even matter?
There's no mass movement to completely scrap technological innovation.
But there is a movement operating at the other end of the spectrum composed of people who embrace even greater hybridity between humans and technology as something not just inevitable, but desirable.
They would love to see like Wall Street a truly altruistic entity running our governments.
Right now, all politicians, are motivated by self-interest. This is just how humans are.
So wouldn't it be nice to have something like a super-intelligent AI running things and it be entirely after our best interest?"
Emerging Technologies, a human enhancement and techno progressive non-profit, the AI politician mostly hinges on the negative personality traits of "meat-bag" politicians, specifically: vanity, rage/revenge, and sex addiction.
Basically, the idea would be that an AI politician would have an ego ("if it has a drive for self-improvement … it will have an ego"), but would be programed to turn off negative impulses that would get in the way of implementing policy or following the law. It would be paideia in binary code.
The rule of reason over desires.
One can look to modern elected American officials—pick almost any name, Donald Trump —and lament their lack of self-knowledge, anemic rhetoric, paucity of wisdom, and wonder what they might have been had they been exposed to paideia.
So what would be wrong with a political system run by "altruistic" machine overlords.
Algorithms so completely permeate our day-to-day lives that it can be difficult for people to recognize when and how technology is helping them.
Consumer devices like phones and laptops are obvious, but there are less visible things like the network of satellites used for GPS, distribution software used by power companies, and high-end medical equipment.
On the other hand, abuses of cutting-edge technology have been prominent in the last decade: National Security Agency data collection, cyber warfare, hacks of financial information.
Christopher Bader, a co-author of the fear study and a professor in sociology at Chapman University, recently articulated our fear of technology: "People tend to express the highest level of fear for things they're dependent on but that they don't have any control over, and that's almost a perfect definition of technology."
But should we really outsource morality to machines?
Unfettered by personality, machines would be rulers without greed, fear, hate, or love, going about the drudgery of administering to human clients free of the disastrous trappings of the ego.
Back to Reality.
The Politics of the future will be connected to technological and data advances, campaigns will increasingly be personalized to the individual.
From the television to the smart phone to the doorstep, campaigns will target you.
Perhaps eventually as you walk through a store or through a subway station. Not you as a member of a voter cohort. But you, the individual.
Campaigns cannot have a million different messages, however; these personalized messages still must be connected to an overall message architecture.
The ability to deliver the right message to the right voter and measure its effectiveness will continue to take more of the guesswork out of politics.
We are entering the age of the billionaire political arms race. Like missiles soaring over the Earth in space, these big spenders will fire back and forth at one another, attempting to control more of our politics.
In some races, the candidates will be mere bystanders to the super PAC main event. But this inevitably will lead to positions being taken, votes being cast, and legislation being sponsored to please political benefactors—or to court them.
This super PAC era is in its infancy.
Strong candidates with a compelling message and the right timing will still matter more than anything else. But the campaigns around them will continue to change rapidly.
As we get deeper into the 21st century, new factors will impact, if not help shape, our politics, including: more concrete changes brought on by global warming, more sophisticated and frequent cyber warfare and cyber attacks, technology companies that claim to know more about you than you do (and the attendant privacy issues), baby boomers moving fully into retirement, increasing urbanization, and the rise and fall of competitor nations.
Data and its smart use will only improve campaigns' understanding of the electorate.
Campaigns will increasingly be fought out on mobile devices as much as television and computers.
The there is the coming use of holograms. Politicians will use them throughout the country to extend his or hers reach. With advancements in artificial intelligence, you could soon have holograms of government candidates at your door, interacting with you and asking and answering questions.
Will it change anything? No other than "transhumans" will emerge from the ashes of mid-21st century planetary warfare is a bit hard to swallow.
Every time you press the like button you are voting. So go on press the button as you have no opinion worth while expressing. What you vote for is not what you get.
If we want Politics to represent us all decisions that affect us must be vote on by the people for the people. Lets have a Government Political Voting App. Then we will have true representation.
IS DEMOCRACIES OUTDATED AND DYSFUNCTIONAL ?
Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on IS DEMOCRACIES OUTDATED AND DYSFUNCTIONAL ?
Democracy, FOUNDATIONS /FORUM THINK TANKS, Globalization, Government
As far as I know I have written on this subject before.
Although Democracy may be a universal aspiration it is a culturally rooted practice.
Perhaps it time to recognize that its aspirations (especially presented by American Democracy which is for sale by lobbyists and donors) is not an expression of free speech and is causing extremism.
Here is short overview at where we at.
The Euro was introduced by technocrats in 1999 only two countries held referendums Sweden and Denmark both rejected it.
Italy and Greece have replaced democratically elected leaders with technocrats.
The European Parliament is both ignored and despised. It is a breeding ground for extreme parties such as Marine Le Pen's National Front in France, Golden Dawn in Greece ( A Nazi Party) U KIP in England, a Raciest party hiding behind the very word Democracy. There are plenty of other examples.
Democracy is clearly suffering from serious structural problems which can be seen in its institutions that are meant to provide models for new democracies.
It has been infiltrated by big business money with voters becoming if not all ready disenfranchised.
Globalisation is and has changed national politics.
More and more power is surrendered to trade and financial flows resulting is Manifesto promises not been kept. Not surprising.
Single countries can not deal with Climate Change never mind micro powers within their boundaries which are disrupting traditional politics. (NGO'S , brake away's such as Catalans, Scots, city mayors etc.)
The Internet is making it easier to organise and agitate while people are vetoing on reality TV. With a click of a mouse you can support a petition.
Elections are no longer the biggest challenge to Democracy the deficits are.
France and Italy have not balanced their budgets for more than thirty years.
England and America can only watch as their debt clock tick fast and faster fostering unsustainable. While Sovereign Wealth funds compete for limited resources world-wide.
In the mean time Western population are getting older and more expensive creating a future between inherited entitlements and future investment.
World wide membership of political parties is falling. (1% now compared to 20% in 1950 in England.) More than half of the votes in Europe have no trust in their Governments. 62% of English votes consider there politicians to be liars. A quarter of the votes in Italy recently voted for a party founded by a comedian. In Iceland they voted in the Best Party to run the Reykjavik's city council a party that openly proclaimed itself to be corrupt.
Across the water President Obama can even pass a budget, paralysed by 9/11, rogue regimes and Jihadists he has no choice but to swallow the ISSI Pill and look on while Mr Putin calls the Worlds bluff.
Not good reading any of it.
So the questions is what can be done. Here a few suggestions.
Change the vote system to reflect the people and not Majoritarianism.
Put limits on the power of Governments, by written constitutions that reflect the rights and protects individual rights.
Stop Corruption by Lobbyists.
Up date our world Organisations.
Name all donors to Political parties.
Stop handing or selling off resources to profit.
Introduce Fiscal legal rules to balance the budget.
Introduce e Democracy to create direct democracy where the Government is obliged to consider any citizens initiative that attracts 50,000 signatures.
Cap Greed ( See previous Posts)
Democracy has always been a powerful but it has always been imperfect due to human creativity and perversity. It will remain so till we remind our leaders that they only borrow power.
With the state of the world and where it is going we are already in need of bright ideas.
Sovereign Wealth Funds. Alarm.
30 Sunday Nov 2014
≈ Comments Off on Sovereign Wealth Funds. Alarm.
Business and Economy, Capitalism, Extreme poverty, Globalization, Government, Greed, Inequility, ongoing Privatization of the world, Privatization of the World., sovereign wealth funds (SWF), The European Union
<img alt="" src="http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/79/29/e0/1728.jpg"/>
This photo of 1728 is courtesy of TripAdvisor
Its back to my hobby-horse the ongoing Privatization of the World.
It is of course is happening in a clever way, with very careful paperwork, so we have the option of pretending that it's not actually happening, right up until the bitter end.
I often wonder is it just me. You barley hear a mummer about it from any other quarter. Other than Ireland where the population has woken up to the Privatization of water.
Perhaps it's that no one gives a tosser.
That our Governments are systematically divesting themselves of bits and pieces of their own sovereignty, by transfer of assets and service functions from public to private hands.
It's taking place all over the world without really anyone noticing it happening — often not even the people are asked to vote formerly on the issue.
It is my contention that it is the quality of the state rather than the fact that assets are owned by the state that matters more. In developing countries with extensive market and information failures the state should play an important role in promoting equitable development over the long run not sell of their assets to the highest buyers.
At the political level privatization has been challenged by workers affected by attendant retrenchments and the restructuring of internal and external labor markets consequent upon privatization that has resulted in increased worker vulnerability, and by consumers who have often been negatively affected by increased prices based on cost recovery pricing regimes instituted as a consequence of privatization, or by reduction in service provision arising from "efficiency enhancing" measures as a consequence of privatization.
No one knows precisely how much money is held by SWFs but it is estimated that they currently own $3.5 trillion in assets, and within one decade they could balloon to $10–15 trillion. (equivalent to America's gross domestic product, an amount larger than the current global stock of foreign reserves of the USA which is about $5 trillion.)
Imagine the biggest and most aggressive hedge fund on Wall Street, then imagine that same fund is fifty or sixty times bigger and outside the reach of any other major regulatory authority, and you've got a pretty good idea of what an SWF is.
The rise of sovereign wealth funds (SWF) as new power brokers in the world economy can no longer be looked at as a singular phenomenon but rather as part of what can be defined a new economic world order.
This new order has been enabled by several mega trends which operate in a self-reinforcing manner, among them the meteoric rise of developing Asia, accelerated globalization, the rapid flow of information and the sharp increase in the price of oil by a delta of over $100 per barrel in just six years which is enabling Russia and OPEC members to accumulate unprecedented wealth and elevate themselves to the position of supreme economic powers.
It will not be long before transactions involving investment by sovereign wealth funds, as with other types of foreign investment, may raise legitimate national security concerns.
Concerns are growing that the purpose of the investments might be to secure control of strategically important industries for political rather than financial gain.
They on the other hand see themselves as passive, long-term investors, driven solely by the need to make a good return on their country's surplus cash.
There is a degree of looking through the wrong end of the telescope to all this.
Sovereign wealth funds have with total assets estimated at $5.4tn as of October 2013. The funds have gained more than $750bn in additional assets since 2012 of which only $60 billion has gone to recent bank bailouts.
They are rapidly becoming owners of big chunks of American,the UK and Europe infrastructures.
Unlike the central banks of most Western countries, whose main function is to accumulate reserves in an attempt to stabilize the domestic currency, most SWFs have a mission to invest aggressively and generate huge long-term returns.
The origin of these SWFs is not even relevant, necessarily.
What is relevant is that these funds are foreign.
They are state-owned investment pools that thanks to a remarkable series of events in the middle part of the last decade they are buying up your governments services such as water treatment, parking meters, toll highways, rail links, ports, public infrastructure projects, commercial real estate all delivering a lot of cash into the coffers of sovereign wealth funds like the Qatar Investment Authority, the Libyan Investment Authority, Saudi Arabia's SAMA Foreign Holdings, and the UAE's Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.
Some recent activity:
(The first was the announcement that the Qatari royal family is planning a large investment in the controversial £50billion HS2 rail link, focused on a major new station and housing scheme in central Birmingham.
Qatar Investment Authority, one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds, is soon to table a new bid to take over Songbird Estates which owns the iconic Canary Wharf tower in east London, one of the best-known modern symbols of British capitalism.
Libya's sovereign wealth fund is suing French bank Societe Generale in a British court for $1.5 billion for allegedly channeling bribes to allies of the son of slain dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday the country's sovereign wealth fund could reach $55 billion by March next year if oil prices kept high.
Iran earned $100 billion in oil revenue in 2011. Iran is both the world leader in Shariah Compliant Finance and the world's most active state sponsor of Jihadist terrorism.
Deutsche Bahn Seeks Sovereign Funds for the state-owned railway, is seeking to sell shares to sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia during the initial public offering. )
What is more to the point, is we're being colonized/Privatized.
Industry today may not be regarded as such an industry tomorrow, and vice versa. Just look at the explosion of energy prices — thanks to a bubble that Western banks and perhaps some foreign SWFs had a big hand in creating.
Out side any regulation these funds are free to plunder the earth in the form of Hedge Funds( (which they have a bunch) with out anyone knowing who the funds investors are.
The point here is if these funds.
Are not regulated by the relevant international bodies determining which kinds of information about their balance sheets, management structures, investment objectives, portfolio breakdowns, and so forth should be supplied by sovereign wealth funds. The European Union could then put curbs on funds failing to comply with the standards for the publication of such information.
One way or the other they should be Capped ( See previous posts)
Whatever Happened to Afghanistan?
≈ Comments Off on Whatever Happened to Afghanistan?
Afghanistan, Democracy, Government, Nato
Remember Afghanistan? Anybody?
As America winds up its 13-year war in Afghanistan, where do things stand?
Is it going to end up like Vietnam, won the battles, but lost the war.
That's the take-away of the last ten years for me.
The public now have a perception that the war is over, because of the lack of media coverage which fuels the public's perception, it's becoming a check-back-in-and-see story.
Not too long ago the word "Afghanistan" was mentioned in the media almost every day, coverage now is that it barely make a blip on the media's radar unless something big happens, a horrific event. The weight of media coverage has been drawn elsewhere.
This war was and is an abomination.
In addition to the thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.
Afghanistan is already a distant memory for the news. It is fast becoming the all-but-forgotten war an afterthought, like Somalia, Panama, Colombia, Rwanda, Iraq after the first gulf war–countries that quickly faded from the news or hardly made the headlines in the first place.
In late February that Afghan President Hamid Karzai (at least we all remember him) came to Washington to deliver the message "Don't forget Afghanistan."
Afghanistan now has democracy, and the results are not altogether encouraging; nor are they likely to lead to cohesion and peace and prosperity. Many Afghans see their current government, hastily formed under US influence, as a continuation of the power and impunity of warlords rather than a reflection of true democratic participation.
Deaths among Afghan National Security Forces almost doubled from 2012 to 2013, according to RT.com. The Defense Department announced in November that the death rate among Afghans rose to above 100 per week during the peak of the summer fighting season for the first time ever. Last week, al Qaeda claimed control of Fallujah, the town in western Anbar province where scores of Americans lost their lives in house-to-house fighting in 2004.
So why are we losing interest.
Is it because the war has never being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been morally justified.
Or is that our perception of the Afghan government is still corrupt and unjust has impeded long-awaited peace and well-being in Afghanistan.
Or perhaps we are being keep in the dark on purpose so as not to hand a psychological victory for an Islamist movement who will claim they defeated the U.S. like the Soviet empire.
Or it is more likely that our vital interests in Afghanistan are limited and military victory is not the key to achieving them.
The big questions remain over how much the U.S. will continue to be involved there to provide support to Afghan forces, and how stable Afghanistan is. Will it again become a threatening hive of terrorist activity? Will the years of fighting there be considered to have been worth the cost, in both human lives and the billions of dollars spent?
What is the use of waging a lengthy counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan which may well do more to aid Taliban recruiting than to dismantle the group, help spread conflict further into Pakistan, unify radical groups that might otherwise be quarreling among themselves.
When the US leave, whenever that might be, what happens if the Taliban regains control? U.S. presence hasn't intimidated the Taliban, and when American troops leave, whether it's 2014 or 2024, Afghan forces will inherit a huge task in trying to stabilize the country and keep the Taliban from gaining ground. Continued U.S. military presence hasn't worked so far, it might not work in the future. And since it's highly unlikely that American troops will remain in Afghanistan forever.
Where do we stand?
People are still dying in Afghanistan. The fighting is not over and it won't be over once U.S. troops leave. Afghan forces will still be up against the Taliban, but they would be in a much more advantageous position if the U.S. worked to set up institutions through which the country is able to sustain itself, not just in the immediate aftermath of troop withdrawal, but well into the future.
It's obvious to anyone that the effects of war are devastating.
If I were a betting man there is a collision coming, one-third of those Afghan Security Forces trained at fabulous expense to protect them will fight for the government (whoever that may be), one-third will fight for the opposition, and one-third will simply desert and go home. That sounds almost like the plan.
But this time there will be little or no Media coverage as the war has already displaced Afghans from their homes and from their country for over three decades creating over 5.7 million refugees.
So don't be amazed when the US lead war has no lasting influence other than long-term ramifications for possible terrorist attacks against the U.S/UK and the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and rage, destabilizing the whole region of years to come – ISIS.
The West is a paper tiger like bin Laden said and it's only a matter of time.
Afghanistan will not be unable to recover from 20-plus years of conflict. In order to do that they have to believe in something first and be willing to assert that.
Governments cannot really do this; only people can. This is what happens when cultures come together, like in Andalusia. It's messy and chaotic and sometimes violent. … There is a ton of risk involved, but the payoff is huge. This is when cultures come together and new ones are created. This is the risk that Hellenization embraces—that people can engage on this level without reflexive recourse to violence. This is the how cultures engage.
"Meanwhile, in other news,"
We have not apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Are we now just beginning to reap the dark side of the Industrial Revolution
≈ Comments Off on Are we now just beginning to reap the dark side of the Industrial Revolution
Business and Economy, Climate change, Distribution of wealth, Environment, Globalization, Government, Greed, High - Frequency Trading, Industrial Revolution, Inequility, Sovereign wealth fund, Technology age
The Historiography of the first World War bear witness to destruction and death made possible by the Industrial revolution.
The present day turmoil that we see in the world has its roots created by man during this period.
So has the Industrial Revolution improved life or not? Is the world a better place? A safer place? Do most people have more material wealth than they did two centuries ago? Are we healthier? Are we happier? Is the world more socially and economically just? Is the world headed in the right direction?
It's not possible to answer all these questions without an in-depth examination of the Industrial Revolution and its effects. There is no definitive answer, other than in short, we cannot hope to understand the modern world without understanding the Industrial Revolution as it resulted in the most profound, far-reaching changes in the history of humanity.
Perhaps it is adequate to say that its influence continues to sweep through our lives today. Just look at the last 250 years of industrialization.
It has altered our lives more than any event or development in the past 12,000 years: in where we live, how we work, what we wear, what we eat, what we do for fun, how we are educated, how long we live and how many children we have.
It greatest failure is that it has not spread wealth evenly across the globe, and the consequences have often been unjust.
For example, to-day in developing countries, where 85% of people in the world live, 16,000 children die each day from hunger-related causes—that's one child every five seconds.
It did provided the countries that first adopted it with the technological and economic advantages necessary to eventually rule most of the world. In short, the Industrial Revolution is the "game changer" of modern world history. More than anything else, it's what makes the modern world, well, "modern."
But how has it come about that 10% of the world's wealthiest people controlled 85% of the world's wealth? Mostly because they were born into wealth that was made during the Industrial revolution.
So what exactly is the Industrial Revolution?
An Industrial Revolution at its core occurs when a society shifts from using tools to make products to using new sources of energy, such as coal, to power machines in factories, oil, electricity. nuclear power.
It began at the end of the 18th century, but it has yet to end.
It has transformed into much more complex global phenomena recently. Multi-national corporations design, build, and assemble products using resources and labor from around the world.
Proponents of the benefits of industrialization point to amazing inventions, technological advances, and increased global wealth. Global GDP per capita—the most common measurement of national wealth—has increased 800% over the past 200 years.
I would say to them that it also developed into a global economic system that seems exploitative and unsustainable, fueling unbridled capitalism that has led to exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable on a global scale.
Giving Birth to multinational corporations that owe their loyalty not to any nation but to the profit motive.
So what happens in a country when free-market capitalism has no constraints.
The record of the last five thousand years of history clearly suggests that every single preceding civilization has perished, no matter where or how long it has been able to flourish, as a result of its sustained assault on the environment, usually ending in soil loss, flooding, and starvation, and a successive distension of all social strata, usually ending in rebellion, warfare, and dissolution.
They all seem unable to appreciate scale or limits, and in their growth and turgidity were unable maintain balance within or without.
Our Industrial civilization is no different only in that it is now much larger and more powerful than any known before, by geometric differences in all dimensions, and its collapse will be far more extensive and thorough going, far more calamitous.
We are now in the technology age and you might say that The Industrial age is water under the bridge.
No matter how you look at it we are staring down the barrel of a gun with many different bullets. Climate change, Killer virus, World conflicts due to unadulterated Greed/ Rampant Inequality, Technology deserts and disfunctional non resourced World Organisations.
While demand for depleting resources are skyrocketing ,water, clear air and energy. By any biological gauge we moving beyond sustainability.
So is it time to abandon the concept of sustainability? altogether, or can we find an accurate way to measure it. If so, how can we achieve it? And if not, how can we best prepare for the coming ecological decline?
The most important resources that drive current industrialization are finite. If billions of people replicate the same level of consumption, they will hasten? ecological and economical disaster.
So who or what will keep us from creating pollution or exploiting weak, desperate countries?
Who will stop global resource depletion?
Is there any point to the Technology Revolution, other than brain work instead of muscle work, if history is only going to repeating itself.
Now you don't have to be a raw prawn to know that most of our all-powerful politicians and world organisations live in what I call a reactivate state.
By the time they have called a conference and blabbered on for days it's too late. Now many times have you witnessed the pathetic sight of the UN and its world Organisations pleading for funds, equipment. Just look at the current Ebola outbreak. Growing the economy at all costs and keeping Wall Street happy seems to be their solution to all or woes.
Here are a few things that could be done.
Restore meaning to sustainability as more than just a marketing tool.
Share knowledge, share capital, and investments around the world.
Remove the Veto in the United nations and give all nations an equal standing.
Remove Carbon Credits. Set trading admission penalties for pollution.
And Make Greed contribute by,
Place a world Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over £20,000, and Foreign Wealth Funds Acquisitions. This would create a perpetual fund removing the need to beg for funds every time there is a disaster. The funds could replace the World bank, the IMF, Save the Children, fund Conservation, and make enormous inroads into Inequality the scourge of our Technology Age.
For me there has be a greater willingness by our politicians to question conventional measures of economic growth in favor of more sustainable models with a greater emphasis on well-being.
Before you bombard me with all the good things the have come out of the Industrial Revolution I refer you to the title of this post.
Yes we would not have the Internet, Landed on the moon, developed drugs, and invented this and that, but there is no point in relying on all the answers coming from Google than experiencing it in reality.
IF WE DON'T WANT THE LEGACY of the Industrial Revolution to be a divided world due to Inequality we must conquer Greed by harnessing it to contribute to all or there will be nothing left to be greedy about.
HERE IS ONE OF THE GREATEST QUESTIONS OF OUR TIME.
≈ Comments Off on HERE IS ONE OF THE GREATEST QUESTIONS OF OUR TIME.
Big Data, Business and Economy, Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, FOUNDATIONS /FORUM THINK TANKS, Globalization, Government
Some time ago I posted:
Big Data is leading us to Cultural De-Acceleration.
We are becoming increasingly "digitized."
When you ask somebody from the industry, "What is Big Data?" they will usually reply that this describes the challenge that companies that collect and analyse the high volumes of Internet data face. This "big data" technically refers to the specialized tools required to store and analyse.
However, this response says very little about the significance of today's digital revolution.
When the Sloan Digital Sky Survey started in 2000, its telescope collected more data in its first week than has been amasses in the entire history of astronomy.
Wall-Mart in the USA handles more than 1 million customers transactions every hour, feeding its databases with 2.5 petabytes- the equivalent of 167 times the books in the America's Library of Congress.
Facebook has over 40 million photos and God only knows what Google is up to.
The point is that the world now contains an unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is growing bigger and more rapidly.
In recent years Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and there like have spent $15 billion buying up software companies specializing in data management and analytics.
Data has become the new raw material of big business.
The trail of clicks is valuable and can be sold and you would indeed be an idiot to think that it is having no effect on your life.
The way that information is managed touches all areas of life.
What is true now is that more of our lives and activities are being stored digitally.
Like any technology, knowledge can be used for social good or to make things worse for people. Digital monopolies will wield considerable power.
There is likely to be a power imbalance if this kind of new capability of "knowing" is not well-handled by society.
There is no reason to think that the changes we are witnessing today will be any less disruptive than the Industrial Revolution.
We're going to end up reinventing what it means to have a human society.
Who you actually are is now determined by where you spend time and which things you buy.
Big data is increasingly about real behavior and by analyzing this sort of data, scientists can tell an enormous amount about you. They can tell whether you are the sort of person who will pay back loans. They can tell you if you're likely to get diabetes.
I am not a Edward Snowden.
If we handled Big data correctly it will bring massive benefits to us all – to our cities, to our environment, to our health, to almost everything.
Yet we also need a system that is flexible and adaptable enough to allow for bright ideas and social, business, and research entrepreneurship to build a better future, i.e. without getting tangled up in unthinkingly risk-averse bureaucracy and red tape. Without the rich getting richer and the poor living in a desert of ignorance.
We want to ensure that there is a high trust system for data sharing, not one that mitigates many of the risks.
We need to think of solutions that are sound and strong, but not brittle.
What kinds of principles and solutions are they?
There are many problems to be resolved.
Who owns, controls, or has decision rights about data? Is it the collector of the data? Certainly they may have a financial interest.
The person who the data is about?
They certainly have an interest.
In order to reap the benefits of the data revolution, it is clear that existing databases will be re-used and new databases will be created.
But then, who owns the resulting data? The re-user?
Will they be owned by the entity disclosing or collecting the data, or will they be open by default?
What about collective ownership of data, such as IWI data?
How are intellectual property rights arrived at from the data managed?
Who has decision rights over data? The collector? Provider (if different)? The person or entity that the data is about? If there is a data commons, who makes decisions.
Who is the data custodian and what are their obligations?
Who will look after the (newly created) databases?
For instance, who is responsible for the processing and storage of the data?
Where and how will data be stored, and for how long?
Who will provide safeguards for data quality and data accuracy?
Who is accountable when data gets stolen?
Who will have the authority to decide on those data access rights?
What happens to data if the custodian gets liquidated or sold off (to another
business overseas)?
Can the liquidator on-sell the data to pay off creditors?
How do we protect the digital rights?.
We are living in a pluralistic society with differences in cultural backgrounds and value perspectives,which are spread all over the world and exposed to different cultures. These cultural differences influence our privacy perceptions and the types of data we are willing to share.
How could we maintain our cultural diversity and be an inclusive society in which the digital rights of ever one are protected?
What will be the social contract for a data-driven future?
The value of data no longer resides solely in its primary purpose. Value also resides in the re-use of data.
What do you give consent to when we cannot even imagine what possible future value that data may have?
Most data re-uses haven't been imagined when the data is first shared, which raises the question of how individuals can give informed consent to an unknown.
Do individuals need to opt-in to an open-ended, multi-purpose arrangement?
Or are there perhaps other possible arrangements for informed consent we might be able to create?
Do children have digital rights to consent before a certain age?
What about you, and your family's, rights when you die? Do we need digital wills?
Do we need the ability as individuals to opt out in the digital age, similar to how we can decide to opt out of target marketing campaigns of telemarketers?
Do we have a right to revoke our consent with the use of our personal data? How could this be arranged?
Will the digital footprints and breadcrumbs you have left earlier in your digital life, such as the public posting of sensitive pictures, haunt you for the rest of your life or even beyond?
How do we ensure the best outcome in a global environment where digital data crosses borders?
The Internet has, with a few notable exceptions, no borders and the digital world is truly global.
There are major questions, even on a domestic scale about the provenance and ownership of data, but these are amplified when global sharing is considered.
There are times when governments do not want your consent.
This is obvious in cases like policing and protecting children from child abuse.
There is no need to protect the privacy of some individuals.
But there are more challenging cases.
What if we could use personal health data to do research, to save lives?
What about when governments and insurance companies want to use shared data to manage their own interests?
Perhaps there is a life-threatening medical condition that a small number of people have. We want to profile them and compare them to others without the condition. But nobody wanted to opt in to share their data, though the risk to their privacy is small.
When do your interests in privacy outweigh other people's interests or the collective interest? To track pandemic outbreaks. Who would give emergency consent to open all personal data to help stop the spread of this deadly disease?
Big data is big business for the criminal fraternity too who are adapting well to our digital future. Identity theft is increasingly common.
Like most things in this world the management of Big Data it is beyond control.
Along with Science and technology Big Data is out running our Morality.
There are a host of challenges and tensions for any society that wants
to play in this space; the sorts of challenges that we need to consider when people come asking to have and link up your data.
Challenges to safety from theft, bullying, or persecution; challenges to your autonomy and choice; challenges to freedom from interference from well-meaning (or otherwise) businesses and governments.
What can we do about it? You tell Me.
TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING IS TO BE LIBERATED FROM IT.
≈ Comments Off on TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING IS TO BE LIBERATED FROM IT.
Business and Economy, Capitalism, Distribution of wealth, Foreign Exchange Transactions, Globalization, Government, High - Frequency Trading, Inequility, Liberation, New Thinking, Our world problems, Sovereign wealth fund
We have moved from basically a relative empty world to a relative world full of our stuff, full of man-made capital.
Our inability to grasp the new world is creating a vast vapidity and we are going to pay the price sooner than later.
With millions of people going to bed without food the age of decadence is coming to an end to be replaced hopefully by an age where money and wealth has to be shared.
The trickle down system does not work. Why! because by the time the money reaches the poor it is worth nothing.
Our so-called Capitalism of to-day that operates under a neoclassical school of economics rains supreme at the moment. Why! because it is backed by a legal system that legalizes it. However it will eventually fail because Greed is systemic within its core.
This is blatantly evident when we look at our Governments who are beholding onto corporate interests that will never serve the people. It is also evident went we look at our Banking systems, which create money from nothing and then lends it at interest. ( 97% of money is debt.) Debt is a form of slavery.
There can be also little argument that our Governments with the help of Milton Freeman, Ronald Regan, and hand bagging bashing Maggie Thatcher are now just clearing houses for the rich lobbyists that are concerns with the rich.
All three of them helped to created an Economic system that is based on what is not reality.
A dog eat dog society. Where Socially failure consumerism is now only to look good in other people eyes.
Where contrived wars on terror are promoting democracy at the point of a gun to be fought out in foreign countries and then presented to us by corporate owned media so that don't have to experience the resulting destruction and death on our own door steps.
We have to change such veracious structure that has produced Institutions such as Goldman Sachs ( The biggest Bank robbers that pulled off the biggest hoist in the modern world: The big short with total impunity)
The more we grow the more poverty we create.
Our out dated competitive mentality will have devastating consequences. We must move from globalization back to localization. It is our relations with other people is what make us really happy re humanism our lives. As Tyler Durden said " The thinks that you own end up owing you."
Making your own life does not work you must have attachment out side yourself.
Internet enlightenment will play a big role in the future. The large cesspool of porn which debases us all on the internet will have to be removed. It is no wonder that Muslim fraternity consider the west full of unclean gentiles.
Passing the buck has to stop.
To improve things what we are being taught in university we will have to learn how to oppose in a constructive way, not on twitter or face book, or social media but by a collective world voice, that will have to be listen too.
Before the exhaustion of the world resources we would do well to return to Adam Smith economics to avoid morality socialism for the rich which is reflected by Scramble now the blood policy of Sovereign Wealth Funds.
The tax system is duking the world. We need a new form of capitalism where employer owned companies.
We must rise up and change the market.
What is created by human can be changed. Human beings go mad in crows and come to their senses as individuals.
Every drone kill produces five hundred so-called terrorists.
The monetary system to the world will have to be reformed.
Aid never goes to the people it goes to constructions companies and consultants on infrastructure, not the people.
So lets start by introducing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( Over $20,000) on all High frequency stock exchange transactions and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions. Such a Commission would produce a perpetual fund of trillions to redistribute wealth around the world where needed. ( See previous postings)
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE ASKING ?
≈ Comments Off on LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE ASKING ?
Distribution of wealth, Earth, Environment, Extreme poverty, Freedom, G8, Globalization, Government, Greed, Inequility, Sovereign wealth fund, United Nations, World Bank
Where do the problems of modern existence lie?
WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD CAN ANY OF US HONESTLY SAY WE HAVE WON THE BATTLE FOR LIBERTY ?
It seemed to me that these days the enemies of our collective flourishing are more likely to lie in the troubles of unrestrained corporate and individual appetites and the unlimited pressure to generate immediate profit without regard for human and earthly costs.
Another words the fundamental problem facing us all is Inequality of Education, Health, Wealth, combined with unequal control over assets. These include natural resources such as land, water, minerals and other fruits of nature, as well as produced productive and financial assets.
Things have reached such a pass that incremental measures are not likely to be enough: "trans-formative changes" are required, with the ultimate aim of zero discrimination.
So measures to reduce inequality have to be part of a wider economic and social policy framework to control financial activity and direct it towards socially desired goals. ( These include natural resources such as land, water, minerals and other fruits of nature, as well as produced productive and financial assets.)
Even business leaders in Davos recently identified Inequality as one of the biggest threats to the world.
But what have we got? Sovereignty Wealth Funds buying up the lot.
For hundreds of years now, humans have tended to believe that the best sort of government is one which leaves its citizens maximally 'free'.
We've all come to associate good government directly and complicatedly with the promotion of 'freedom': freedom to worship as one pleases, to publish what one wants, to dress as one likes, to love whomever one desires.
In the meantime, those who have opposed 'freedom' have been presented in horrifying terms: They have been the wicked priests, the murderous Communists, demented Nazis, and Terrorists.
The painful fact is that the pursuit of what matters to us in the long-term and collectively may at times be in sharp conflict with our short-term and individual pleasures.
Promoting freedom above all other values may now be turning out to be deeply unhelpful to the long-term and collective interests of a nation and the earth as a whole.
It has grown too easy for corrupt and venal organisations to operate under the banner of 'freedom' in order to get away with activities that covertly run sharply counter to the public good.
Freedom is evidently not a virtue when it involves the freedom of bankers to offload ruinous financial instruments on an uneducated public, just as censorship – that bogeyman of contemporary politics – is evidently far from a vice when it prevents corporations from pushing alcohol on children or denying affordable housing to the poor.
Freedom is not a baseless word, but it is in general simply too vague, ambiguous and emotive a term to guide policy or to be an ideal around which a nation or people can reasonably cohere.
Instead of being in favor of ever falling prices for consumer goods, government should promote the notion of a just price, a floor for prices reflecting the cost of humane and decent employment and production. To get all of us into the habit of paying the just price: a price that would allow high quality goods attuned to genuine needs to be put together by workers employed at an adequate wage.
Government is the institutionalization of our long-term and collective interests. It is not ultimately responsible just for freedom, but its highest calling is to act as the guardian of long-term collective prosperity of all its citizens.
The governments of the future will have to accept that two idiots cannot remove one genius. They will have to measured and in skillful ways constantly step in to say 'no' to certain vested interests, without this in any way meaning that it is systematically anti-capitalist.
So what am I saying here?
Although we bridle at folk memories of police states Governments of the future with greater intelligence and democratic accountability will have to often be interested in restricting freedom.
Freedom = good/restriction = bad, has blinded us to a vital nuance with a grave potential to derail and corrupt public life:
An others words there will have to be a more important and ambitious view of what government is for than merely freedom. We are all threatened by aggressive and uncontrolled commercial interests determined to quash our peace of mind and confuse us about our real needs and we've overlooked that there are better and worse kinds of freedom.
The first step in the right direction is to cap Greed. ( See Previous Postings)


The ati bug is back.
Steps To Reproduce	Directly joining a server with a mount map.
I think this is different than before because, if I can recall correctly, you had to join a map which would be played fine. And then go to another with a different mount which would result in the bug. Now it's at instantly joining a map. After which you go to oc_lobby and it's all fixed.
Additional Information	I'll try joining more servers when they are playing a map other than a hl2 only map. Like oc_lobby.
First encountered on oc_inlight and second encounter there too.
But at this point I'll even give it out to anyone with an ATI Card since ATI users seem to have become rare.
My friend in Australia has an ATI card in his computer, so maybe we could get him? It would be a suitable replacement for me since my dad won't let me put the ATI cards into my PC again.


I know hockey season is getting close when I have to take into consideration the hockey schedule when planning fishing trips. I am so pumped up for that first series at home, that first look at the line combo's, the smell of the rink and the sounds of hockey.
Season tickets go on sale today! They also tweeted out that an announcement about the team would be made, probably Captains with 4 players shadowed out? Usually it's seniors. Shaver has to be a lock with having an "A" as a Jr.....other Sr's, Cogan, Pankowski, Rolfes, Gardner and Clark. Guessing Shaver or Pankowski get the "C". Wouldn't be shocked to see Roque in the mix, but the Sr. class is very deep.
Clark should be the Captain.
Pankowski and Shaver are captains.
Clark and Rolfes are alternate captains.
How is Pankowski gonna do her 'last person on the ice, tip in (Nurse/Clark/Channel)'s shot' drill if she's over talking to the refs?!
Fascinating that Pankowski's angle on this season is to be more lighthearted while Shaver's is to be more serious.
Baldwin is not listed, best wishes to her on the future.
Still shocked no redshirt for any of the goalies.
Practice may be pretty demoralizing for the shooters with 4 scholarship goalies.
I have removed Baldwin from the spreadsheet. You'd think they would have to redshirt some goalie there... Can't picture 2 of them getting any ice time at all.
Shooters? How about the goalies?
Cece and Blesi couldn't crack the line-up at all, might as well redshirt all 3 and let Soup do all the work again.
Ahh, so you are are saying that the UW shooters may destroy the confidence of the goalies, I can live with that take.
The Saturday Duluth game won't be since men's hockey plays the same day, so it'll be an afternoon game at LaBahn, and volleyball plays Illinois at 7pm that night.
No what I am saying is that they will be bored like they are in games unless they are playing the Gophers of course.
I'm sure MJ & Co will have plenty of mini battle deals going where all 4 goalies will be very engaged, unlike in most games, even against the rodents.
Maddi Wheeler got invited to the Canadian national camp, the youngest player invited. She is in the same recruiting class as Makenna Webster, another young phenom. Those 2 in the same class with Casey O'Brien may be the best recruiting class ever, though there are probably a goalie and 1 or 2 D to add to that class yet, so who knows, but as constructed now that is a vaunting trio. All 3 are Olympic caliber. Is it 2020 yet....I do think this year's team has a chance to be pretty decent too.
A UMD / BC double header 10/13? I think I have a wedding that day...nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Maddi Wheeler got invited to the Canadian national camp, the youngest player invited. She is in the same recruiting class as Makenna Webster, another young phenom. Those 2 in the same class with Casey O'Brien may be the best recruiting class ever, though there are probably a goalie and 1 or 2 D to add to that class yet, so who knows, but as constructed now that is a vaunting trio. All 3 are Olympic caliber.
Best EVAH! I can't bring myself to ignore the facts when hyping like T3 does.
Not only that, each individual that combines to make up the class is the best ever, until you get to subsequent members of that class, each raising the bar another few notches.


text:
Sandown Park railway station is located on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines in Victoria, Australia. It serves the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of Springvale, and it opened in 1889 as Oakleigh Racecourse. It was renamed Sandown Park in 1892.

History

Named after Sandown Park in Surrey, England, the station was built to service the nearby Sandown Racecourse. In addition to the two main lines, there was a signal box and booking office, and two sidings each over 600 metres long on the eastern side of the tracks, for the stabling of special race services. The station had no platform on the Up track, instead having an island platform on the Down track, with the other face serving one of the sidings on the eastern side. By 1937, a crossover at the Down end of the station was removed and, in 1943, the sidings that adjoined the back platform were abolished.

The station was only used for racecourse traffic, and was closed on 16 May 1955. In June 1965, it reopened as an island platform for passengers on race days only. It was opened for general passenger traffic in October of that year. The station once had a second exit and a pedestrian underpass at the Up end of the platform, but that has since been closed and filled in.

Nearby, towards Noble Park, the Corrigan Road level crossing was removed in 2018, as part of the Victorian Government's Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP).

Platforms and services

Sandown Park has one island platform with two faces. It is serviced by Metro Trains' Pakenham and Cranbourne line services.

Platform 1:
  all stations and limited express services to Flinders Street
  all stations and limited express services to Flinders Street

Platform 2:
  all stations and limited express services to Pakenham
  all stations services to Cranbourne

Future services:
In addition to the current services the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail proposes linking the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines to both the Sunbury line and under-construction Melbourne Airport rail link via the Metro Tunnel.
  express services to West Footscray and Sunbury (2025 onwards)
  express services to Melbourne Airport (2029 onwards)

References

External links
 Melway map at street-directory.com.au

Railway stations in Melbourne
Railway stations in Australia opened in 1889
Railway stations in the City of Greater Dandenong

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Inuktitut Keyboard
Qikiqtani Truth Commission Process
Where We Are Today
Community Histories 1950–1975
Thematic Reports and Special Studies 1950-1975
QTC Final Report: Achieving Saimaqatigiingniq
Videos - Saimaqatigiingniq: Peace with Past Opponents
Hearings & Interviews
Hearings & Interviews Process
Statement of Apology
Glossary of Inuktitut Words
Computer Tools for Inuktitut
Project Naming
Elijah Kautuq
QTCR24EN
Video of QTCR24EN
Kautuq
Clyde River (Kangiqtugaapik)
Elijah Kautuq was born in 1953. His testimony includes information about the move of his parents to the community of Clyde River in 1968-1969 . He remembers that his parents were required to move because their children had to attend school. He believes that they were enticed by the offer of $2 rent for a house. However, the rent kept increasing. Growing up in a traditional background Elijah was very much affected by the new lifestyle in town. He believes that the RCMP was probably involved in the relocation of his family.
This website includes historically and culturally sensitive images, sound recordings, words, terms or descriptions, including graphic discussions of the personal traumas suffered by participants. Some people may find such items disturbing and/or such items may even act as a trigger for emotional distress. Therefore please view the contents of this website with caution. Please contact a health care provider in your community if you find that any content on this website triggers emotional distress.
COMMERCIAL USE PROHIBITED
Qikiqtani Inuit Organization (QIA) owns this website and its contents including all intellectual property.
This website and all of its contents may not be used for any commercial purpose without the prior express written consent of QIA, which may be arbitrarily withheld. You may use the website and all of its contents only for your personal, academic, and non-commercial use. Copying and distribution are prohibited without QIA's prior written consent. Access to the QTC database for non-commercial use for research or private study may be obtained in accordance with the Qikiqtani Truth Commission – Records and Access Policy. Contact QTCCoordinator@QIA.ca or apply online for consent.
Videos and other testimony on this website were presented or submitted by participants during the proceedings of the Qikiqtani Truth Commission (QTC). The statements are those of proceeding participants and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of QIA.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of information, some of the content on this site may contain inaccuracies or errors.
Every effort has been made to protect the personal information of participants in the testimonials presented in evidence to QTC. When the witnesses gave their consent to QIA to publish their interviews, that consent included the understanding that the data provided could later be withdrawn at the request of the witness. Any participant who wishes to withdraw may contact QTCCoordinator@QIA.ca
OWNERSHIP AND TERMS OF USE
This website and all contents are owned and operated by Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). Any use of this website is subject to the terms and conditions of use which may be changed or updated by QIA from time to time without prior notice. It is your responsibility to regularly review these terms and conditions of use, and if you do not agree you may not use or access this website.
Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Inukshuk Aksalnik
email: IAksalnik@QIA.ca
email: QTCCoordinator@qia.ca
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl