Evolución económica y política USAna

[Republik]

Blame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Our Society Frays
By Peter Turchin




Complex human societies, including our own, are fragile. They are held together by an invisible web of mutual trust and social cooperation. This web can fray easily, resulting in a wave of political instability, internal conflict and, sometimes, outright social collapse.

Analysis of past societies shows that these destabilizing historical trends develop slowly, last many decades, and are slow to subside. The Roman Empire, Imperial China and medieval and early-modern England and France suffered such cycles, to cite a few examples. In the U.S., the last long period of instability began in the 1850s and lasted through the Gilded Age and the “violent 1910s.”

We now see the same forces in the contemporary U.S. Of about 30 detailed indicators I developed for tracing these historical cycles (reflecting popular well-being, inequality, social cooperation and its inverse, polarization and conflict), almost all have been moving in the wrong direction in the last three decades.

The roots of the current American predicament go back to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping pace with their productivity. The two curves diverged: Productivity continued to rise, as wages stagnated. The “great divergence” between the fortunes of the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent is much discussed, yet its implications for long-term political disorder are underappreciated. Battles such as the recent government shutdown are only one manifestation of what is likely to be a decade-long period.

Wealth Disrupts

How does growing economic inequality lead to political instability? Partly this correlation reflects a direct, causal connection. High inequality is corrosive of social cooperation and willingness to compromise, and waning cooperation means more discord and political infighting. Perhaps more important, economic inequality is also a symptom of deeper social changes, which have gone largely unnoticed.

Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The “1 percent” becomes “2 percent.” Or even more. There are many more millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires today compared with 30 years ago, as a proportion of the population.

Let’s take households worth $10 million or more (in 1995 dollars). According to the research by economist Edward Wolff, from 1983 to 2010 the number of American households worth at least $10 million grew to 350,000 from 66,000.

Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. They support candidates who share their views and values; they sometimes run for office themselves. Yet the supply of political offices has stayed flat (there are still 100 senators and 435 representatives -- the same numbers as in 1970). In technical terms, such a situation is known as “elite overproduction.”

A related sign is the overproduction of law degrees. From the mid-1970s to 2011, according to the American Bar Association, the number of lawyers tripled to 1.2 million from 400,000. Meanwhile, the population grew by only 45 percent. Economic Modeling Specialists Intl. recently estimated that twice as many law graduates pass the bar exam as there are job openings for them. In other words, every year U.S. law schools churn out about 25,000 “surplus” lawyers, many of whom are in debt. A large number of them go to law school with an ambition to enter politics someday.

Don’t hate them for it -- they are at the mercy of the same large, impersonal social forces as the rest of us. The number of newly minted MBAs has expanded even faster than law degrees.

Lawyer Glut

So why is it important that we have a multitude of desperate law school graduates and many more politically ambitious rich than 30 years ago?

Past waves of political instability, such as the civil wars of the late Roman Republic, the French Wars of Religion and the American Civil War, had many interlinking causes and circumstances unique to their age. But a common thread in the eras we studied was elite overproduction. The other two important elements were stagnating and declining living standards of the general population and increasing indebtedness of the state.

Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions. Consider the Antebellum U.S.

From 1830 to 1860 the number of New Yorkers and Bostonians with fortunes of at least $100,000 (they would be multimillionaires today) increased fivefold. Many of these new rich (or their sons) had political ambitions. But the government, especially the presidency, Senate and Supreme Court, was dominated by the Southern elites. As many Northerners became frustrated and embittered, the Southerners also felt the pressure and became increasingly defensive.

Slavery had been a divisive force since the inception of the Republic. For 70 years, the elites always managed to find a compromise. During the 1850s, however, intra-elite cooperation unraveled. On several occasions Congress was on the brink of a general shootout. (As one senator noted about his “armed and dangerous” colleagues, “The only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers.”)

Although slavery was the overriding issue dividing the elites, they also differed over tariffs and cultural attitudes toward immigration. In the decade before the Civil War these centrifugal forces tore apart the two-party system. The Democratic Party split into its Northern and Southern factions, while the Whigs simply disintegrated.

Civil War

Slavery was an absolute evil and was going to be abolished, sooner or later. But its abolition didn’t need to result in hundreds of thousands of Civil War deaths. (About the same time, Russia banned serfdom without a civil war. The Russian Revolution came 50 years later -- when Russia was hit by its own elite overproduction.)

This U.S. historical cycle didn’t end with the cataclysm of the Civil War. Huge fortunes were made during the Gilded Age and economic inequality reached a peak, unrivaled even today. The number of lawyers tripled from 1870 to 1910. And the U.S. saw another wave of political violence, spiking in 1919–21.

This was the worst period of political instability in U.S. history, barring the Civil War. Class warfare took the form of violent labor strikes. At one point 10,000 miners armed with rifles were battling against thousands of company troops and sheriff deputies. There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists. Race issues intertwined with class, leading to the Red Summer of 1919, with 26 major riots and more than 1,000 casualties. It was much, much worse than the 1960s and early 1970s, a period many of us remember well because we lived through it (see chart).



The spike in violence then was relatively mild, perhaps because it fell in an era known as the Great Compression. Economic inequality had started to decline after 1930. The difference between the incomes of the rich and poor was compressed. Elite overproduction was reversed: The number of millionaires (in 1900 dollars, $1 million equals almost $30 million today) declined in absolute terms (while population continued to grow).

The Great Compression unraveled in the late 1970s, when workers’ wages stagnated. We are living in a new cycle of growing inequality, elite overproduction, ideological polarization and political fragmentation.

Today we are seeing not just a bitter struggle between the Democrats and Republicans; the Republican Party itself is fragmenting. Now, as during the 1850s, many of the political elites disdain compromise and are instead inclined to fight to the bitter end. Thankfully our senators haven’t armed themselves with revolvers and Bowie knives.

Preventing Catastrophe

We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s. And because complex societies are much more fragile than we assume, there is a chance of a catastrophic failure of some kind, with a default on U.S. government bonds being among the less frightening possibilities.

Of course, catastrophe isn’t preordained. History shows a real indeterminacy about the routes societies follow out of instability waves. Some end with social revolutions, in which the rich and powerful are overthrown. This is what happened to the Southern elites -- decimated in the Civil War, beggared when their main assets, slaves, were freed, and excluded from national power in Washington. In other cases, recurrent civil wars result in a permanent fragmentation of the state and society.

In some cases, however, societies come through relatively unscathed, by adopting a series of judicious reforms, initiated by elites who understand that we are all in this boat together. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Several legislative initiatives, which created the framework for cooperative relations among labor, employers and the government, were introduced during the Progressive Era and cemented in the New Deal.

By introducing the Great Compression, these policies benefited society as a whole. They enabled it to overcome the challenges of the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War, and to achieve the postwar prosperity. Whether we can follow such a trajectory again is largely up to our political and economic leaders. It will depend on all of us, rich and poor alike, recognizing the real dangers and acting to address them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html

Tiene su trampa atribuir al "boom" sin más el crecimiento de la inequidad, por no hablar de correlar la "overeducation" con el ascenso social precisamente cuando cada vez es más visible que se está reduciendo esa correlación. Y más aún cuando las profesiones que hacen "boom" casualmente son las ligadas a sectores totalmente corporativizados (intente uno ejercer la medicina en los EEUU, es un proceso brutal diseñado para desincentivar al 90%; pero incluso salir del país a comprar tratamientos más baratos está penalizado por los seguros y, si creciera la tendencia, seguramente sería prohibido por la fuerza) y entrelazados con la casta del país.

Si eliminamos los picos debidos a la suma de deriva y "efecto-estrella" en cinco grupos profesionales: médicos (en USA los enfermeros ni huelen lo que ha crecido el chiringuito sanitario), abogados, financieros, "tittytainers" y CEOs y próximos,  tenemos que en realidad el "boom" ha inflado más bien poco en términos reales al resto del país.

[Currobena]

Sobre el creciente poder de la burocracia en los Estados Unidos y cómo crear una sociedad vigilada.

Every bill that has taken rights away is introduced by someone leaving or can be blackmailed. Charlie Rangel got caught not paying taxes. He is the one that introduces draconian tax measure. Charlie doesn’t even live in the district he represents – he lives not in NY, but NJ. Then there is Lindsey Graham who advocated taking the right to trial away, due process of law, and to allow the government to indefinitely imprison anyone it “suspects” without any right to anything.
This is what they were doing to me until the US Supreme Court ordered the government to respond how I could be held indefinitely with no trial or right to a lawyer. When I was getting into the Supreme Court, they got 3 postponements and then had to release me for fear if the Supreme Court ruled against them, they would lose that power. Then the bill to do what they did to me was introduced and is now LAW – thank you Lindsey. (Watch Him on YouTube). I am often introduced Behind the Curtain as the reason they needed that law. The rumor about Lindsey on the Hill is he is gay, flies to Paris even once a month, and he was blackmailed to introduce that bill. Every person who has introduced these draconian bills is vulnerable. You do not need to look at private groups. Pay attention to Behind the Curtain in Washington. That is the real issue – the Bureaucracy – not even the elected pretend representatives.

Con la ayuda de la corrupción política y la inacción social...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/the-real-conspiracy-2/

[Currobena]

El separatismo avanza inexorable, financiado por la casta...

BREAK UP: Will California splinter into 6 states? Voters, Congress could soon decideSees opportunity on ballot to be ‘awesome’ By Valerie Richardson
The Washington Times
 Monday, January 6, 2014

• 

There's nothing like a guy with a few million bucks to lend instant credibility to a previously penny-ante movement to split up the state of California.Venture capitalist Tim Draper of Silicon Valley has filed paperwork for a November ballot measure that would divide California into six states, calling the Golden State as presently constituted "too big and bloated."
"Six Californias is an opportunity, an opportunity for Californians to get a fresh start, an opportunity for Californians to build new platforms for growth and prosperity," Mr. Draper said at a Dec. 23 live-streamed press conference. "An opportunity to be awesome."
Mr. Draper's involvement was an unexpected Christmas present for Mark Baird and Liz Bowen, who live near the Oregon border and help lead a group that has been working to split off California's northernmost counties into a 51st state called Jefferson.
Mr. Draper's proposed six states are called, from north to south: Jefferson, North California, Silicon Valley, Central California, West California, and South California. His money will be needed: Proponents need to collect 1 million signatures just to get the idea on the ballot this fall.
"I think it's wonderful and excellent that someone of means has taken in an interest in our lack of representation," Mr. Baird said.
The Jefferson state movement isn't the only secession undertaking in California — similar discussions have cropped up in the Central Valley and Southern California — but Mr. Draper's decision to join the grass roots is a potential game-changer.
A third-generation Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Mr. Draper, 55, grew up in California and founded the firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. He also is known as an education maverick: He launched the Draper University of Heroes in San Mateo, a private boarding school program designed to help students ages 18 to 26 become entrepreneurs.
Mr. Draper said California has gone from being a national leader in education and infrastructure to a dysfunctional and unwieldy collective that has become "untenable and ungovernable."
"There have been many good people governing our state for many years and they work very hard for Californians, but the results are horrendous," he said. "We are the state that charges the most for the worst service. We are simply too big and bloated. This is not the fault of anyone. This has just happened. The status quo is not going to work for us."
Ponying up
Mr. Draper has shown that he is willing to put his money where his mouth is: He sank $20 million into Proposition 38, a 2000 initiative to create a state-funded private-school voucher system. That measure lost by 71 percent to 29 percent.
Asked how much he plans to spend on the initiative, Mr. Draper said "as little as possible, but I will make sure it gets on the ballot so that Californians have a chance to make this a reality."
Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said California's sheer size — the state ranks first in population with 38 million and third in area behind Alaska and Texas — lends credibility to the ungovernable argument.
"There's more than a germ of truth to that," said Mr. Pitney. "Just look at the size of our state Senate districts — any one of them has more people than the entire population of South Dakota. So there are real questions about the relationship of the people to their government."
That's the impetus behind the Jefferson state movement. Boards of supervisors in two California counties that abut Oregon — Modoc and Siskiyou — have approved measures in support of the Jefferson state declaration, and Tahoma County has agreed to place the question on the ballot. Alturas, the seat of Modoc County, is 306 miles by car — nearly five hours — from the state capital in Sacramento.
Mr. Baird said the problem is that state officials are out of touch with the needs of people outside the urban centers. Laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment may sound good in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but they have resulted in an economic death spiral for the resource-dependent northern rural counties, he said.
"This movement is just about people whose lives don't work because they don't have representation," said Mr. Baird. "They wonder why we're called the 'welfare counties.' It's because our economy is being strangled by government regulation."
Interest in creating states has been on the rise, mainly in rural counties unhappy with legislative directives from far-off urban capitals. Similar 51st-state movements were launched last year in rural Colorado and Maryland.
Congressional hurdle
If the six-state initiative passes in California, residents would have three years to discuss whether the proposed borders make sense for them. The initiative's language gives the governor until Jan. 1, 2018, to send the request to Congress.
Obtaining congressional approval wouldn't be easy, given that each new state would receive two senators, and "increasing the chance of more Republican senators is not something [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid is going to like," Mr. Pitney said.
"Also, supporters of secession would have to deal with uncertainties, like how would you set up the new governments, and who would pay for it," said Mr. Pitney. "Economic arguments tend to be the death of secession movements. You lose the economies of scale."
Despite the enthusiasm of some in California's less-populous precincts, the idea has not taken hold more generally in the state. A Field Poll released Dec. 11 found that just a quarter of state residents supported the idea of a breakup, compared with 59 percent who wanted to keep the state intact.
Pollsters Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field wrote that opposition "is bipartisan, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and non-partisans opposed. While there is slightly greater support for the proposals among voters in inland counties and parts of Northern California outside the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley, even in these areas more disapprove than approve of the idea."
Even so, Mr. Draper said, the costs of dividing the state are nothing compared with the economic hardship in California's future in the absence of drastic action. The state is wrestling with a $400 billion debt, although the fiscal outlook has improved under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat.
"I know change is hard for people," said Mr. Draper. "But the California slide is accelerating, and it will only get worse. We'll have economic bursts that make us feel like things are fine again, but each downturn will be worse than the last if we don't change our system."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/investor-gives-life-to-effort-to-split-california-/print/

[Republik]

Es la idea de Sudáfrica con los "bantustanes", expulsamos a los "poco productivos" a la periferia y con un tipo del 15% en el IRPF alcanza para tener polis vestidos de Armani (y con armas de repetición) patrullando en BMWs y basureros como los de aquel capítulo de los Simpson.

[Republik]

Abundando en el tema de "evento Carrington" que unos post más atrás mencionaba, resulta que hay una serie sobre el tema, y uno de los efectos del crack energético es la partición de los EEUU en varias jurisdicciones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series)

Da un poco de miedo aunque me temo que es exagerado un colapso eléctrico total de origen solar, si acaso afectaría al área expuesta y no de modo tan catastrófico. Había otra serie curiosa ("Jericho")  sobre una guerra nuclear con posterior partición  del país que se quedó sin acabar. Parece que los miedos/previsiones en alguna medida van por ahí.

[dmar]

Abundando en el tema de "evento Carrington" que unos post más atrás mencionaba, resulta que hay una serie sobre el tema, y uno de los efectos del crack energético es la partición de los EEUU en varias jurisdicciones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series)

Da un poco de miedo aunque me temo que es exagerado un colapso eléctrico total de origen solar, si acaso afectaría al área expuesta y no de modo tan catastrófico. Había otra serie curiosa ("Jericho")  sobre una guerra nuclear con posterior partición  del país que se quedó sin acabar. Parece que los miedos/previsiones en alguna medida van por ahí.

Uf, JJ Abrams empieza a tener incontinencia mental en lo que a ideas para series se refiere. 

[Starkiller]

Abundando en el tema de "evento Carrington" que unos post más atrás mencionaba, resulta que hay una serie sobre el tema, y uno de los efectos del crack energético es la partición de los EEUU en varias jurisdicciones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series)

Da un poco de miedo aunque me temo que es exagerado un colapso eléctrico total de origen solar, si acaso afectaría al área expuesta y no de modo tan catastrófico. Había otra serie curiosa ("Jericho")  sobre una guerra nuclear con posterior partición  del país que se quedó sin acabar. Parece que los miedos/previsiones en alguna medida van por ahí.

Hombre! La peor serie de la temporada, con arcabuces y ballestas al reves.

(click to show/hide)

No es un evento solar, parece ser que son nanobots, o eso me han contado. Que basura infecta de serie.

[Currobena]

Trapicheos electorales en guerra y su influencia en la actualidad.

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
HF
REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.
The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed.  Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

Nuestros políticos copiaron las formas en nuestro sistema electoral. 
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/

[polov]

Esto sería una buena patada en los C*jones

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-13/russia-holds-de-dollarization-meeting-china-iran-willing-drop-usd-bilateral-trade


Russia Holds "De-Dollarization Meeting": China, Iran Willing To Drop USD From Bilateral Trade

That Russia has been pushing for trade arrangements that minimize the participation (and influence) of the US dollar ever since the onset of the Ukraine crisis (and before) is no secret: this has been covered extensively on these pages before (see Gazprom Prepares "Symbolic" Bond Issue In Chinese Yuan; Petrodollar Alert: Putin Prepares To Announce "Holy Grail" Gas Deal With China; Russia And China About To Sign "Holy Grail" Gas Deal; 40 Central Banks Are Betting This Will Be The Next Reserve Currency; From the Petrodollar to the Gas-o-yuan and so on).

But until now much of this was in the realm of hearsay and general wishful thinking. After all, surely it is "ridiculous" that a country can seriously contemplate to exist outside the ideological and religious confines of the Petrodollar... because if one can do it, all can do it, and next thing you know the US has hyperinflation, social collapse, civil war and all those other features prominently featured in other socialist banana republics like Venezuela which alas do not have a global reserve currency to kick around.

Or so the Keynesian economists, aka tenured priests of said Petrodollar religion, would demand that the world believe.

However, as much as it may trouble the statists to read, Russia is actively pushing on with plans to put the US dollar in the rearview mirror and replace it with a dollar-free system. Or, as it is called in Russia, a "de-dollarized" world.

Voice of Russia reports citing Russian press sources that the country's Ministry of Finance is ready to greenlight a plan to radically increase the role of the Russian ruble in export operations while reducing the share of dollar-denominated transactions. Governmental sources believe that the Russian banking sector is "ready to handle the increased number of ruble-denominated transactions".

According to the Prime news agency, on April 24th the government organized a special meeting dedicated to finding a solution for getting rid of the US dollar in Russian export operations. Top level experts from the energy sector, banks and governmental agencies were summoned and a number of measures were proposed as a response for American sanctions against Russia.

Well, if the west wanted Russia's response to ever escalating sanctions against the country, it is about to get it.

gracias por sus posts

[Currobena]

Allí los ayuntamientos también fríen a multas a la gente, manipulando los semáforos, por ejemplo.

Back in 2011, the city council in San Bernardino California voted 5-0 to kill their red-light camera system. Since the cameras were installed in 2005, the program had brought them little but headaches. In 2008, the city was caught shortening the timing of yellow lights in order to write up more citations. I personally know a man who was a municipal judge who quit a town in New Jersey because the politicians told him they wanted him to charge maximum fines to everyone even if they had no money to pay then and there.
The California appellate court ruled that the city’s contract with the red-light camera service American Traffic Solutions (ATS) was in violation of state law. Indeed, the ATS is a company that preys upon the average person to enrich themselves – a rather disgusting company. The cameras created such a local uproar for San Bernardino that in the end the city paid ATS $110,000 to get out of a contract that would have kept the cameras in place until 2014. These companies get a piece of the action like fund managers. It is in their financial interest to write as many tickets they can even if totally dishonest.
This is all about revenue – not safety. Cities are reducing the time for a yellow-light to raise more revenue. Others are so aggressive, you get a ticket if you stopped just 6 inches beyond the white line in New Jersey. Proof this is all about revenue, you do not get points on your license for a red-light camera ticket – just the fine. In Washington, D.C., red-light cameras raised $15.6 million in their first 30 months of operation. Chicago makes more than $60 million annually from this new type of oppression. New Jersey has cameras that ticket you for a turn on a red light for they post small signs for exceptions and ticket people all the time.
This is huge business. It’s such big business that in 2001, Lockheed Martin sold their red-light camera division to another company, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), for $800 million. ACS  is based in Dallas and is ranked at number 341 on the 2010 Fortune 500 list.
This is part of the cycle. Cities hunt people for anything they can fine. This is government at work. Extorting the public to live lavishly on what they can confiscate. This is the source of the civil unrest in the years ahead. The City of London England is plagued by the same trend. There they go out of their way to hide the cameras to increase revenue.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/14/is-nyc-just-insane-no-greedy/

[Currobena]

Numerous False Terrorist Charges & Torture to Extract Confessions  Posted on June 9, 2014  by  Martin Armstrong       
Judge Rakoff is a lone warrior – perhaps the only man standing in the New York court system. There are other judges who are not entirely corrupt, but fear ruling against government. Judge Rakoff also handled the case of the purported terrorist who confessed according to prosecutors  Mr. Abdallah Higazy, an Egyptian graduate student, was alleged by the government to have guided the planes into the towers on 911 using a special airline radio..Higazy had recently received a scholarship to study in the United States, but became a suspect in the 911 terror investigation when an employee of the Millennium Hilton Hotel in lower Manhattan, in which Higazy was staying at the time of the World Trade Center attack, claimed to have found an aviation radio inside Higazy’s room safe. Higazy denied any knowledge of the radio. He was arrested and thrown in prison and then tortured.

The government tortured Higazy and compelled him to confess to owning the radio. Higazy was then charged with lying to the FBI and was thrown into solitary confinement where many have committed suicide. The government told Judge Rakoff that Higazy had confessed so once again there would be no need for a public trial.
Then our of nowhere, the radio’s real owner, an American pilot, came forward to claim it. Obviously, Higazy confessed to a crime he did not commit that is standard practice in New York.  Having been completely exonerated, Judge Rakoff ordered Higazy to be released from custody and all charges against him were dropped. The hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy’s room then admitted he fabricated the story, but was not charged.
One must question the government’s involvement in that one as well. Higazy explained that he had falsely confessed because the polygraph operator had threatened his family. They ALWAYS threaten you family – that is how they keep their 99% conviction rate. Women are threatened with taken their children and putting them up for adoption.
Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate how the FBI came to extract a false confession from Mr. Higazy. The government’s first response was to tell Judge Rakoff to take a hike. They bluntly told him he had no authority to order the government to investigate how it extracted an obvious false confession from an innocent kid.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/09/numerous-false-terrorist-charges-torture-to-extract-confessions/

[breades]

Interesante, aunque nada nuevo.

La democracia no existe

Es uno de esos temas a los que vuelvo de manera recurrente, y en esta ocasión por una razón puramente académica: la democracia no existe, y dos profesores norteamericanos, Martin Gilens y Benjamin Page, se han preocupado de demostrarlo. En un estudio longitudinal, “Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens“, que recopila respuestas a encuestas públicas entre los años 1981 y 2002, correlacionadas con los más de dos mil cambios legislativos que sus respuestas conllevaban y el resultado final de los mismos (si dichos cambios fueron adoptados o no), los autores comprueban claramente que las élites económicas y los grupos organizados de interés tienen un impacto sustancial en la política norteamericana, mientras que las iniciativas populares y el ciudadano medio carece completamente de influencia.

Para una versión corta, puedes leerte, este artículo en Talking Points Memo, o esta  fantástica entrevista con uno de los autores en el mismo medio. El estudio está convirtiéndose en una auténtica sensación viral en los Estados Unidos a ciertos niveles.

El resultado de la investigación, en línea con el libro publicado por uno de los autores, “Affluence and influence: economic inequality and political power in America“, es coherente con trabajos anteriores, y de manera particularmente llamativa con la espectacular presentación de Lawrence Lessig en TED, “We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim“, enormemente recomendable, que ha sido vista ya más de un millón de veces y que ha inspirado también libros como “Lesterland: the corruption of Congress and how to end it“, o la reciente iniciativa de recaudar fondos para una Super PAC (PAC, o Political Action Committee, son organizaciones que reúnen fondos para influenciar decisiones políticas) tratando de “terminar con todas las Super PACs”. Si no viste en su momento la presentación de Lessig, es un buen momento para verla:

La evidencia académica del estudio de Gilens y Page viene a demostrar lo que cualquier ciudadano medio lleva años sospechando: que el resultado de las elecciones es lo de menos, que lo que votes da exactamente lo mismo, y que la democracia es en realidad, desde hace muchos años, una forma de asegurar que siempre gobiernen y tomen decisiones los mismos. Algo sobre lo que he escrito en infinidad de ocasiones, que he podido presenciar directamente en las ocasiones en las que he llegado a tener cierta proximidad a los centros de decisión política en mi país (y sin duda una de las evidencias que me hicieron salir huyendo de esos entornos), y que viene a ponerse de manifiesto mucho más a partir del momento en que la sociedad consigue medios para organizarse en un entorno hiperconectado.

La democracia no existe. Como mucho, se otorga a los ciudadanos la posibilidad de elegir a unos teóricos representantes, en el mejor de los casos elegidos por ellos mismos pero habitualmente ni siquiera eso, que son los que responden a los deseos de una minoría dominante. En la práctica, la mayor parte de los países con unos supuestos altos estándares de calidad democrática son eso: partitocracias o representantes corruptos que ratifican los dictados de una oligarquía.

La tecnología ofrece muchos mejores medios que las corruptas democracias actuales para organizarse como sociedad. Pero la tecnología, obviamente, no es suficiente para conseguir nada. Antes hay que superar muchas otras cosas: la resistencia al cambio, el miedo a un sistema diferente, o la evidencia de que, por mucho que pretendan algunos, los ciudadanos son los mejores guardianes de sus propios intereses, y todas esas ideas sobre que “toman decisiones solamente unos pocos porque son los que están preparados para tomarlas” son lo que son: pura basura, y a la vez germen y evidencia de un elevadísimo nivel de corrupción.

Lo realmente importante de la evolución tecnológica es que terminará siendo capaz de promover la disrupción en la “industria” que nos afecta a todos: la política.

http://www.enriquedans.com/2014/08/la-democracia-no-existe.html

[Frommer]

Es que la separación estricta de poderes (institucional) del sistema usano, que es muy apetecible y que yo prefiero, también tiene inconvenientes. No todo son ventajas. La gobernabilidad puede plantear dificultades. El sistema político mexicano grosso modo es una copia perfecta del usano y a ellos no les ha funcionado igual de bien. Los usa pueden perfectamente bajar la calidad de facto de su sistema sin cambiar una coma, y ya les está pasando. Si la Corporate America aprieta las tuercas al sistema y se dan mayorías diferentes en Legislativo y Ejecutivo podemos asistir a petardazos tercermundistas todavía mayores de los que ya se dan.

Además las tensiones de los principios rectores de su sistema político (insisto para mi el más preferible a la vista de los existentes) con las exigencias de su actividad imperial son fortísimas por contradictorias y si les añadimos empobrecimiento social no tardarán en dar lugar a eventos de calidad hasta ahora ajenos a los usa.

Lo racial como se manifiesta en Fergusson, Missouri será una de las primeras costuras en abrirse, como es evidente...

Discrepo en cuanto a lo de la "democracia telemática" al menos hasta que el mundo no se haya orwellizado mucho más... Pero eso es otro debate.

[Currobena]

No viajéis a los EEUU con efectivo, por si acaso.

The Canadian government has had to warn its citizens not to carry cash to the USA because the USA does not presume innocence but guilt when it comes to money. Over $2.5 billion has been confiscated from Canadians traveling to the USA funding the police who grab it.
If you are bringing cash to the land of the free, you will find that saying really means they are FREE to seize all your money under the pretense you are engaged in drugs with no evidence or other charges. It costs more money in legal fees to try to get it back so it is a boom business for unethical lawyers to such an extent than only one in sixth people ever try to get their money back and the cops just pocket it. That’s right. Money confiscated is usually allowed to be kept by the department who confiscated it. This is strangely working its way into funding police and pensions. This is identical to the very issue that resulted in the final collapse of Rome when the armies began to sack cities to pay for their pensions. We are at that level now with respect to seizing whatever they want knowing you will have to spend more in legal fees to assert your rights that do not really exist.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/24/canada-warns-its-citizens-not-to-take-cash-to-usa/

[Karunel]

Es un grado de decadencia realmente difícil de imaginar hace pocos años.