Tags
Capitalism, Climate Change, Corporate $tate, Corporate Rule, Corporate State, Corporatocracy, Culture of Poverty Theory, Discrimination, Financial Elite, Genetic Superiority Myth, Gross Inequality, Inverted Totalitarianism, Maldistribution of Wealth, Mass Media Propaganda, Meritocracy, Poverty, Social Injustice, The Elite 1%, The Myth of the American Dream, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, Wall Street Fraud
While the false debate continues in mostly right-wing circles that today’s Capitalism is some aberrant form of “true” Capitalism, the end game and final victory of Capital continues to play out with multinational corporations becoming the ‘winner take all’ in their complete takeover of the world’s economies and governments. As discussed before, the TTIP and TPP are the latest maneuvers in this corporate grab for power, wealth, and resources. Any last vestiges of environmental protection, worker rights, and sovereignty will be shredded. No illusions of democracy should be maintained in a world of corporate feudalism where gross social inequality will have become irreversible and the will of common people smothered by the abuses of great wealth:
“[The TTIP] proposes to establish a Regulatory Co-operation Council combining US and EU regulatory agencies with the purpose of working towards deeper ‘regulatory co-operation and increased compatibility for future and existing regulatory measures’. For example, health and safety regulations and food standards between the US and the EU will be made ‘compatible’, or more simply put, downgraded or removed.
The TTIP and TPP are intended to include investor-state dispute settlement clauses. When a corporation considers its expected future profits are being harmed by a government it can lodge a case before these tribunals consisting of three lawyers who represent corporate interests. These lawyers have no conflict of interest restrictions on their operations. There are no limits on the awards that can be claimed against governments and very limited rights of appeal for governments. Even if a government wins a case it must pay the tribunal’s costs and legal fees – averaging $9m a case. UNCTAD reports a tenfold increase in such cases since 2000. Any health or environmental policy that conflicted with corporate interests would be subjected to these extra-judicial tribunals. Tribunals are currently organised under World Bank and United Nations rules. The compensation is taken from the taxpayers.
Of the world’s ten biggest law firms, ranked by revenue, four are British and six are US. A golden age for corporate lawyers beckons! ConDem Coalition government Minister without Portfolio Ken Clarke explained, ‘Investor protection is a standard part of free-trade agreements – it was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least.’
Legalised plunder
The following are just a few of the cases that corporations have brought to the investor-state dispute settlement tribunals: …” – link
The PR machine continues to churn out lies even under the glaring reality of today’s obscene wealth disparity. One particular study, entitled Your Fate? Thank Your Ancestors, was discussed in the New York Times recently, proclaiming that an individual’s path to success or failure in any society is foreordained in their genetic make-up and family lineage. Of course genes do play a part in the intelligence, talents, and behavior of every individual, but this particular meme is based on the myth that people in present day capitalist economies live and operate within “modern meritocracy societies” wherein everyone has the freedom and opportunity to develop and utilize the full potential of their talents. As one commenter at the New York Times rightly stated:
“This [study] appears to be one of a growing number arguing for the inherent superiority of some people over others while strenuously avoiding terms like superiority. The claim that some are born to lead and rule and others to be ruled over is as old as human civilization.”
Such propaganda serves the purpose of those at the top of the capitalist social hierarchy, allowing them to justify capitalism’s grotesque social inequality while at the same time preaching to the masses that their poor standing in society is a result of their genetic heritage and not the result of a structurally unjust and undemocratic system. In other words, those at the top deserve to be there and so do those at the bottom.
Many people remain under the spell of the American Dream which promises they can rise to the top of this corrupt system or at least receive the trickle down benefits it claims to offer, but the stark reality of shrinking wages and pensions, persistent unemployment, and rising costs of bare necessities prove otherwise. It’s known as “the meritocracy myth” and one book with that title, written by two professors, explains that a person’s social status is based more on factors such as class structure, politics, and race rather than on individual merit and initiative. Their major arguments are summarized below:
“Factors associated with Individual “Merit”
1.) Money makes money.
Sources of revenue that are unrelated to jobs, such as income from capital gains, dividends, interest payments, government subsidies as well as appreciating assets of wealth such as businesses, real estate, and stocks are predominantly owned by a small fraction of society’s upper echelon. This maldistribution of wealth illustrates that America is not a “middle class society”, but one of the haves and have-nots where wealth is concentrated at the very top of the system.
“…the shape of the distribution of merit resembles a “bell curve” with small numbers of incompetent people at the lower end, most people of average abilities in the middle and small numbers of talented people at the upper end. The highly skewed distribution of economic outcomes, however, appears quite in excess of any reasonable distribution of merit. Something that is distributed “normally” cannot be the direct and proportional cause of something with such skewed distributions…”
2.) “Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth.”
“Most experts point out, for instance, that ‘intelligence,’ as measured by IQ tests, is partially a reflection of inherent intellectual capacity and partially a reflection of environmental influences. It is the combination of capacity and experience that determines ‘intelligence.’ Even allowing for this ‘environmental’ caveat, IQ scores only account for about 10% of the variance in income differences among individuals (Fisher et al. 1996). Since wealth is less tied to achievement than income, the amount of influence of intelligence on wealth is much less. Other purportedly innate ‘talents’ cannot be separated from experience, since any ‘talent’ must be displayed to be recognized and labeled as such (Chambliss 1989). There is no way to determine for certain, for instance, how many potential world-class violinists there are in the general population but who have never once picked up a violin. Such ‘talents’ do not spontaneously erupt but must be identified and cultivated.”
3.) Hard work does not necessarily equate to economic success.
“Applying talents is also necessary. Working hard is often seen in this context as part of the merit formula. Heads nod in acknowledgment whenever hard work is mentioned in conjunction with economic success. Rarely is this assumption questioned. But what exactly do we mean by hard work? Does it mean the number of hours expended in the effort to achieve a goal? Does it mean the amount of energy or sheer physical exertion expended in the completion of tasks? Neither of these measures of “hard” work is directly associated with economic success. In fact, those who work the most hours and expend the most effort (at least physically) are often the most poorly paid in society. By contrast, the really big money in America comes not from working at all but from owning, which requires no expenditure of effort, either physical or mental. In short, working hard is not in and of itself directly related to the amount of income and wealth that individuals have.”
4.) Mental Attitude
“According to the culture of poverty argument, people are poor because of deviant or pathological values that are then passed on from one generation to the next, creating a “vicious cycle of poverty.” According to this perspective, poor people are viewed as anti-work, anti-family, anti-school, and anti-success. Recent evidence reported in this journal (Wynn, 2003) and elsewhere (Barnes, Gould ;1999, Wilson, 1996), however, indicates that poor people appear to value work, family, school, and achievement as much as other Americans. Instead of having “deviant” or “pathological” values, the evidence suggests that poor people adjust their ambitions and outlooks according to realistic assessments of their more limited life chances.
An example of such an adjustment is the supposed “present-orientation” of the poor. According to the culture of poverty theory, poor people are “present-oriented” and are unable to “defer gratification.” Present orientation may encourage young adults to drop out of school to take low wage jobs instead staying in school to increase future earning potential. However, the present orientation of the poor can be an “effect” of poverty rather than a “cause.” That is, if you are desperately poor, you may be forced to be present oriented. If you do not know where your next meal is coming from, you essentially have no choice but to be focused on immediate needs first and foremost. By contrast, the rich and middle class can “afford” to be more future oriented since their immediate needs are secure. Similarly, the poor may report more modest ambitions than the affluent, not because they are unmotivated, but because of a realistic assessment of limited life chances. In this sense, observed differences in outlooks between the poor and the more affluent are more likely a reflection of fundamentally different life circumstances than fundamentally different attitudes or values.”
5.) Moral character and integrity
“Although ‘honesty may be the best policy’ in terms of how one should conduct oneself in relations with others, there is little evidence that the economically successful are more honest than the less successful. The recent spate of alleged corporate ethics scandals at such corporations as Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Duke Energy, Global Crossing, Xerox as well as recent allegations of misconduct in the vast mutual funds industry reveal how corporate executives often enrich themselves through less than honest means. White-collar crime in the form of insider trading, embezzlement, tax fraud, insurance fraud and the like is hardly evidence of honesty and virtue in practice. And neither is the extensive and sometimes highly lucrative so-called ‘irregular’ or ‘under the table’ economy—much of it related to vice in the form of drug trafficking, gambling, pornography, loan sharking, or smuggling. Clearly, wealth alone is not a reflection of moral superiority. To get ahead in America, it no doubt helps to be bright, shrewd, to work hard, and to have the right combination of attitudes that maximize success within given fields of endeavor. Playing by the rules, however, probably works to suppress prospects for economic success since those who play by the rules are more restricted in their opportunities to attain wealth and income than those who choose to ignore the rules.”
Nonmerit Barriers to Mobility
1.) The effects of initial class placement at birth on future life chances.
“…those born into great wealth start far ahead of those born to poor parents, who have a huge deficit to overcome if they are to catch up. Indeed, of all the factors that we might consider, where we start out in life has the greatest effect on where we end up. In the race to get ahead, the effects of inheritance come first and merit second, not the other way around.
Inheritance provides numerous cumulative nonmerit advantages that are available in varying degrees to all those born into at least some relative advantage, excluding only those at the very bottom of the system. Included among these nonmerit advantages are high standards of living from birth, inter vivos gifts (gifts between the living) such as infusions of cash and property bestowed by parents on their children at critical junctures in the life course (going to college, getting married, buying a home, having children, starting a business, etc.), insulation from downward mobility (family safety nets which prevent children from skidding in times of personal crises, setbacks, or as the result of personal failures), access to educational opportunities as well as other opportunities to acquire personal merit or to have merit identified and cultivated, better health care and consequently longer and healthier lives (which increases earning power and the ability to accumulate assets during the life course).
Another advantage of inheritance is access to high-powered forms of social and cultural capital. Social capital is one’s ‘social resources’ and refers to essentially to the value of whom you know. Cultural capital is one’s cultural resources and refers essentially to the social value of what you know. Everyone has friends, but those born into privilege have friends in high places with resources and power. Everyone possesses culture—bodies of knowledge and information needed to navigate through social space. Full acceptance into the highest social circles, however, requires knowledge of the ways of life of a particular group…”
2.) Bad Luck
“Bad luck can take many forms but two very common forms of bad luck are to be laid off from a job that you are good at or to spend many years preparing for a job for which demand either never materializes or declines. In looking at jobs and job opportunities, Americans tend to focus on the ‘supply’ side of markets for labor; that is, the pool of available people in the labor force. Much less attention is paid to the ‘demand’ side, or the number and types of jobs available. In the race to get ahead, it is possible and all too common for meritorious individuals to be ‘all dressed up with no place to go.’ For the past twenty years, the ‘growth’ jobs in America have disproportionately been in the low wage service sector of the economy. At the same time, more Americans are getting more education, especially higher education. Simply put, these trends are running in opposite directions: the economy is not producing as many high-powered jobs as the society is producing highly qualified people to fill them (Collins 1979, Livingstone 1998).
In addition to the number and types of jobs available, the locations of jobs both geographically and within different sectors of the economy also represent non-merit factors in the prospects for employment. For instance, a janitor who works for a large corporation New York City may get paid much more for doing essentially the same job as a janitor who works for a small family business in a small town in Mississippi. These effects are independent of the demands of the jobs or the qualifications or merit of the individuals holding them. Differences in benefits and wages between such jobs are often substantial and may mean the difference between a secure existence and poverty… rates of poverty in the United States continue to vary by region and locations within regions suggesting that geography is still a major factor in the distribution of economic opportunity.”
3.) Education
“…those with more education, on average, have higher income and wealth. Education is thus often seen as the primary means of upward social mobility. In this context, education is widely perceived as a gatekeeper institution which sifts and sorts individuals according to individual merit. Grades, credits, diplomas, degrees, and certificates are clearly “earned,” not purchased or appropriated. But, as much research has demonstrated, educational opportunity is not equally distributed in the population (Bowles and Gintis 1976, 2002, Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997, Kozol, 1991, Sacks, 2003, Ballantine 2001). Upper class children tend to get upper class educations (e.g. at elite private prep schools and ivy league colleges), middle class children tend to get middle class educations (e.g. at public schools and public universities), and working class people tend to get working class educations (e.g. public schools and technical or community colleges), and poor people tend to get poor educations (e.g. inner city schools that have high drop out rates and usually no higher education). Educational attainment clearly depends on family economic standing and is not simply a major independent cause of it. The quality of schools and the quality of educational opportunity vary according to where one lives, and where one lives depend on familial economic resources and race. Most public schools, for instance, are supported by local property taxes. The tax base is higher in wealthy communities and proportionally lower in poorer areas. These discrepancies give rise to the perpetual parental scramble to locate in communities and neighborhoods that have reputations for “good schools,” since parents want to provide every possible advantage to their children that they can afford. To the extent that parents are actually successful in passing on such advantages, educational attainment is primarily a reflection of family income. In sum, it is important to recognize that individual achievement occurs within a context of unequal educational opportunity.”
4.) Loss of Self-Employment Opportunities and the Offshoring of Jobs
“…self-employment is popularly perceived as a major route to upward mobility. Opportunities to get ahead on the basis of being self-employed or striking out on one’s own to start a new business, however, have sharply declined. In colonial times, about three-fourths of the non-slave American population was self- employed most as small family farmers. Today, only seven percent of the labor force is self-employed (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). The “family farm,” in particular, is on the brink of statistical extinction. As self-employment has declined, the size and dominance of corporations has increased. This leaves many fewer opportunities for “self-made” individuals to enter existing markets or to establish new ones. America has witnessed the sharp decline of “mom and pop” stores, restaurants, and retail shops and the concomitant rise of Wal-Marts, Holiday Inns, and McDonalds. As more Americans work for someone else in increasingly bureaucratized settings, the prospects of rapid “rags to riches” mobility decline.
In addition to the decline of self-employment, manufacturing has also experienced drastic workforce reduction as production facilities have increasingly moved to foreign countries in efforts to reduce costs of production. This is a significant trend since the United States became a world power based on its industrial strength, which supported a large and relatively prosperous working and middle class. Some service jobs, such as customer service and computer programming, are also being moved to foreign countries in increasing numbers. All of these trends are occurring quite independent of the merit of individuals but nevertheless profoundly impact the opportunities of individuals to get ahead…”
5.) Discrimination
“Discrimination not only suppresses merit; it is the antithesis of merit. Race and sex discrimination have been the most pervasive forms of discrimination in America, [but others include] sexual orientation, religion, age, physical disability (unrelated to job performance), physical appearance…”
In addition to the worsening inequality endemic to the system, the social fabric of society will be torn apart by a world now in the throes of multiple ecological crises. The availability and affordability of food and water will be magnified by anthropogenic climate change as the agricultural regions of an overpopulated world are ravaged by drought, flood, and fire. Infrastructure will begin to fail more frequently as extreme weather begins to rack up damage. The aloof elite, who ensconce themselves behind gated walls and the luxury that their wealth buys, will fan the flames of resentment and civil unrest in a desperate population scrambling just for the necessities of life. The cultural myths of capitalism are fraying and the collapse of industrial civilization, unable to change its omnicidal course for sundry reasons, is seemingly written in stone.
Love this artwork. Put a Stephanie McMillan quote to it I thought you’d appreciate and posted it on Generation Alpha. See:
LikeLike
Scallops. http://www.pqbnews.com/news/247092381.html?mobile=true
LikeLike
Jesus. This stuff can’t really be happening, but it is. And as a society we’re sleepwalking right into it while being just faintly aware of what we’re doing.
Thanks for the link, Paul.
LikeLike
Gail Zawacki thinks that this may be a watershed because it is the first time that adult mollusks have succumbed. And agreed re the unsettling somnambulance of our fellow men…
LikeLike
LikeLike
Also, Dying Under the Spell of the Chinese Dream
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/china-toxic-air-pollution-nuclear-winter-scientists
China’s toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists
Air pollution now impeding photosynthesis and potentially wreaking havoc on country’s food supply, experts warn
Chinese scientists have warned that the country’s toxic air pollution is now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in plants – and potentially wreaking havoc on the country’s food supply.
Beijing and broad swaths of six northern provinces have spent the past week blanketed in a dense pea-soup smog that is not expected to abate until Thursday. Beijing’s concentration of PM 2.5 particles – those small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream – hit 505 micrograms per cubic metre on Tuesday night. The World Health Organisation recommends a safe level of 25.
The worsening air pollution has already exacted a significant economic toll, grounding flights, closing highways and keeping tourists at home. On Monday 11,200 people visited Beijing’s Forbidden City, about a quarter of the site’s average daily draw.
He Dongxian, an associate professor at China Agricultural University’s College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, said new research suggested that if the smog persists, Chinese agriculture will suffer conditions “somewhat similar to a nuclear winter”.
Buildings are seen through thick haze in Guangzhou
Buildings in the central business district in Guangzhou seen through the thick haze. Photograph: Alex Lee/Reuters
She has demonstrated that air pollutants adhere to greenhouse surfaces, cutting the amount of light inside by about 50% and severely impeding photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert light into life-sustaining chemical energy.
She tested the hypothesis by growing one group of chilli and tomato seeds under artificial lab light, and another under a suburban Beijing greenhouse. In the lab, the seeds sprouted in 20 days; in the greenhouse, they took more than two months. “They will be lucky to live at all,” He told the South China Morning Post newspaper.
She warned that if smoggy conditions persist, the country’s agricultural production could be seriously affected. “Now almost every farm is caught in a smog panic,” she said.
A farmer turning soil to plant crops surrounded by pollution
A farmer turns soil to plant crops near a state-owned lead smelter in Tianying that has made much of the land uninhabitable. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters/Corbis
Early this month the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences claimed in a report that Beijing’s pollution made the city almost “uninhabitable for human beings”.
The Chinese government has repeatedly promised to address the problem, but enforcement remains patchy. In October, Beijing introduced a system of emergency measures if pollution levels remained hazardous for three days in a row, including closing schools, shutting some factories, and restricting the use of government cars.
People visit the Olympic Park amid thick haze in Beijing
People visiting the Olympic Park amid the thick haze in Beijing. Photograph: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters
According to China’s state newswire Xinhua, 147 industrial companies in Beijing have cut or suspended production. Yet schools remained open and government cars remained on the road.
One person not put off by the smog was President Xi Jinping, who braved the pollution to make an unannounced visit to a trendy neighbourhood popular with tourists.
Dressed in a black jacket and trousers – and no facemask – Xi made a brief walkabout in Nanluoguxiang district last Thursday morning. The visit prompted approving coverage in Chinese news reports, but also mockery on social media sites. “Xi Jinping visits Beijing’s Nanluoguxiang amid the smog: breathing together, sharing the fate,” said a Xinhua headline.
Photos and shaky video footage apparently of Xi’s visit ricocheted around Chinese social media sites. “Why isn’t he wearing a facemask?” asked one Sina Weibo user. “Isn’t it bad for his health?”
This week Chinese media reported that a man in Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei province near Beijing, had sued the local environmental protection bureau for failing to rein in the smog. Li Guixin filed the lawsuit asking the municipal environment protection bureau “perform its duty to control air pollution according to the law”, the Yanzhao Metropolis Daily reported.
Li is also seeking compensation for the pollution. “Besides the threat to our health, we’ve also suffered economic losses, and these losses should be borne by the government and the environmental departments because the government is the recipient of corporate taxes, it is a beneficiary,” he told the Yanzhao Metropolis Daily.
Li’s lawyer, Wu Yufen, confirmed the lawsuit but refused to comment because of the sensitivity of the case. He said: “This is the first ever case of a citizen suing the government regarding the issue of air pollution. We’re waiting for the judicial authority’s response.”
Severe pollution from chemical plants
Diseased vegetables said to be caused by pollution from a chemical plant. Photograph: How Hwee Young/EPA
Li told the newspaper that he had bought an air purifier, masks and a treadmill, but none had helped him to overcome the pernicious health effects of the smog. He is seeking RMB 10,000 (£1,000) in compensation. “I want show every citizen that we are real victims of this polluted air, which hurts us both from a health perspective and economically,” he said.
Li Yan, a climate and energy expert at Greenpeace East Asia, said the case could bring exposure to polluted cities outside of Beijing, putting pressure on provincial officials to prioritise the problem. She said: “People … who live in Beijing are suffering from the polluted air, but we have the attention of both domestic and international media. Shijiazhuang’s environmental problems are far more serious, and this case could bring Shijiazhuang the attention it has deserved for a long time.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Not quite exterminated (yet)……..
The kākāpō (night parrot) is one of New Zealand’s unique ‘treasures’ and with only 124 known surviving birds. It is listed internationally as a critically endangered species.
Large, flightless and nocturnal, the kākāpō is an eccentric parrot which can live for decades. It is not closely related to other parrots and, in fact, has a combination of biological features not shared by any other species. It is the only representative of a unique sub-family, Strigops habroptila, and the softness of its plumage is represented in the second part of that scientific name. With mottled moss-green feathers, camouflage is the bird’s main form of defence.
New Zealand Aluminium Smelter (NZAS) has sponsored the kākāpō recovery programme since 1990. Scientific research and operational support have provided a stronger foundation for the recovery of kākāpō, one of the the world’s rarest parrots.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/kakapo/
LikeLike
…The current levels of share prices are extraordinary considering the UK economy has not yet recovered the ground lost since the 2008 crash; per capita income in the UK today is still lower than it was in 2007. And let us not forget that share prices back in 2007 were themselves definitely in bubble territory of the first order.
The situation is even more worrying in the US. In March 2013, the Standard & Poor 500 stock market index reached the highest ever level, surpassing the 2007 peak (which was higher than the peak during the dotcom boom), despite the fact that the country’s per capita income had not yet recovered to its 2007 level. Since then, the index has risen about 20%, although the US per capita income has not increased even by 2% during the same period. This is definitely the biggest stock market bubble in modern history.
Even more extraordinary than the inflated prices is that, unlike in the two previous share price booms, no one is offering a plausible narrative explaining why the evidently unsustainable levels of share prices are actually justified.
During the dotcom bubble, the predominant view was that the new information technology was about to completely revolutionise our economies for good. Given this, it was argued, stock markets would keep rising (possibly forever) and reach unprecedented levels. The title of the book, Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market, published in the autumn of 1999 when the Dow Jones index was not even 10,000, very well sums up the spirit of the time.
Similarly, in the runup to the 2008 crisis, inflated asset prices were justified in terms of the supposed progresses in financial innovation and in the techniques of economic policy.
It was argued that financial innovation – manifested in the alphabet soup of derivatives and structured financial assets, such as MBS, CDO, and CDS – had vastly improved the ability of financial markets to “price” risk correctly, eliminating the possibility of irrational bubbles. On this belief, at the height of the US housing market bubble in 2005, both Alan Greenspan (the then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) and Ben Bernanke (the then chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President and later Greenspan’s successor) publicly denied the existence of a housing market bubble – perhaps except for some “froth” in a few localities, according to Greenspan.
At the same time, better economic theory – and thus better techniques of economic policy – was argued to have allowed policymakers to iron out those few wrinkles that markets themselves cannot eliminate. Robert Lucas, the leading free-market economist and winner of the 1995 Nobel prize in economics, proudly declared in 2003 that “the problem of depression prevention has been solved”. In 2004, Ben Bernanke (yes, it’s him again) argued that, probably thanks to better theory of monetary policy, the world had entered the era of “great moderation”, in which the volatility of prices and outputs is minimised.
This time around, no one is offering a new narrative justifying the new bubbles because, well, there isn’t any plausible story….
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Report warns of looming water crisis in Arizona
2-23-2014
TUCSON, Ariz. — State water officials are warning that Arizona must start looking into other drinking water sources or face a crisis as soon as 25 years from now.
A report from the Arizona Department of Water Resources predicts water shortfalls of up to 900,000 acre-feet a year by 2050 as the population grows. That’s more than 293 billion gallons.
The agency advises several possible solutions, including building a water desalination plant, the Arizona Daily Star reported.
Such an endeavor could take decades. According to the report, designing and constructing a plant to separate salt from sea water could take as long as 20 years. While it could be expensive, the report notes that desalination costs have dropped because of better technology.
Another idea the report suggests is desalting brackish, salty groundwater. Christopher Scott, a University of Arizona water policy professor, said groundwater has less salt so the process would use less energy.
Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin said he hopes lawmakers will approve legislation to set up a loan program offering $30 million for water infrastructure, with an increase to $100 million over the next few years.
“I would like to see the Legislature start having conversations about desalination now so people can clearly see the costs,” Tobin said.
…
LikeLike
Guy McPherson postulated ‘the southwest would be ‘uninhabitable for humans in 5 years’.
Someone must be very wrong.
LikeLike
Trying to be ahead of the curve I suppose.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The whole article is about inequality. Lots of truth in it. Yet, what exactly “inequality” is?
As far as i can see, most of the time (possibly – all the time?), the article talks about inequality in terms of how dramatically different income of people is (the income gap between “rich” and poor”. I.e., it talks about inequality in terms of how much money people are getting per unit of time.
If the above is true, then i wonder: what’s the hype? I mean, why, exactly, inequality in terms of money income is actually nay important for us here?
Because, you see, getting paid more (or being straight-out rich – with “assests”) – is not an advantage, in my book. In fact, it’s one of worst things which can happen to a person. Despite all the benefits of living life of a rich man (or woman), quite few of which are mentioned in the article. Why? Because there are things which rich people lose, and those things are imho much, much more important. Here are just some few such things:
– Skills. Like the article itself mentions, rich people get more money not by doing physical or intellectual effort – they primarily get more money by simply “owning” things they already have. This means that many (possibly majority of) rich people – are not practicing and improving their skills;
– Independance from the mainstream system. When i think about some rich family living in a “prestigious” suburb somewhere in US, and then think about some extremely poor family of farmers living somewhere in China – i can clearly see that once mainstream (global) industrial civilization collapses, the former will most likely perish, unable to survive under new, much harsher, conditions, – while the latter will quite likely live on, at least for a few years longer (until climate goes totally nuts) – and may be they’ll find some way(s) to live on even afterwards (moving to a high platou like Tibet or something);
– Trust to others. Quite many (possible, most of) rich people – are like spiders in a can. They don’t trust others. Not even their family members. The article says “everybody has friends”, but, for quite many rich people, possibly most of them – it is not the case. Instead of friends, they have “peers”, to quite many of which they maintain seemingly friendly relations – but it’s only an illusion of friendship; betrayal and readiness to be betrayed – very needed exactly because rich people own much. This poisons their lives;
– Sanity. Quite few of rich people are actually sane. Related to the above, but even more to the fact that, just like the article mentions, rich people are sort of “walled” behind their high-security fences, inside their conditioned cars and “fortified” homes. Among all people on the planet, rich people are ones who are indeed the least in touch with physical world as it is. Quite often, they are also well isolated from general public, as well, maintaining ALL of their social interaction within – like the article call it, – “higher” social circles. I’d rather call those “deluded” social circles, if i may… How can most of those folks be actually completely sane, if they live in a completely unnatural environment most of the time (if not all the time)?
– Freedoms. Actual freedoms to talk one’s mind, to go where one wants, to become what one wants to become (professionally and otherwise), and many others. Being born to rich family often (possibly – most of the time) means that the person “has to” comply with lots of additional “rules”. Can’t become a janitor, – unelss doing it “incognito” and only in secret from one’s family (exactly like it is in “Coming to America” movie – Eddie Murphy’s one); can’t talk to bastard grandpa he’s such a bastard – it’d crush one’s future, quite possibly; can’t go to most districts within any large city – rich folks ain’t welcome there to say the least, so it’s simply dangerous; etc.
The list is far from complete, but it’s already more than enough, in my book, to argument my point – which is, again, that being rich in terms of how much money and other “liquidity” one has – is more a curse than a blessing.
I’ve been reading recently (possibly somewhere in this very blog’s comments?) that poor people – are not those who don’t have much money, but those who feel that they do not have enough. Millions of “officially” poor people – are not actually poor, according to this definition. Yes, they don’t have much income – but they manage and they make do, and don’t dream about getting much more. And also, quite many (possibly – majority of!) officially “rich” people – are in fact poor: despite having much already, one strong (often – the primary) desire they have – is to get even more money. Like Gerald Celente says, they are “money junkies”. And in being so, they are actually very poor – on top of losing things above mentioned.
Of course, there are exceptions. There are bright people among rich to realize the bad luck they had to be born (or otherwise “included into”) rich family or social structure. Those are few, and they do the right thing and use their wealth to invest in indeed worthy things – into their own knowledge, body, actually worthy social relations, important technologies which have future in a post-collapse world, etc. But, again, those are few.
So you see, from my point of view, inequality problem – is not the problem of majority of the world’s population; we “officially poor or just mediocre in financial terms people who form the majority of the world population” – we have it way easier than officially-rich folks do. So in fact, inequality problem – is the problem of the officially RICH people. Their wealth, usually, corrupts and cripples them as human beings. And in fact, any person with compassion and good heart – would actually feel sorry about most of those rich folks. I, for one, do. Given a chance, i’d help ’em however i could to get at least some of their good-nature back.
And, of course, i, for one, do not want to get rich, myself. I’d do much to actually avoid it, even. And i know quite many people in the world – possibly, a few billions! – are the same. Simple people despise being rich for a reason, you know?
The real problem of the majority of world population – is not “not enough money income”. The real problem – is indeed dwindling per-capite resources, even most besic resources like water, food, energy. All of which is dwindling for quite a number of years already. Plus all the bad ecology and climate change, and some other huge problems. All those problems exist no matter whether money would, or would not be, a part of the “picture”. Those are the problems most pressing to deal with – not “inequality”. But, this would already be a very different subject, so i complete my comment right here – before i’d go much off-topic.
Take care, and thanks for posting interesting articles.
LikeLike
A few years ago I came across a documentary entitled “Born Rich.” It touches on a number of points raised above. If the film was trying to make the point that those with obscene amounts of money are just like the rest of us it didn’t convince me.
There are many underlying issues that the filmmaker barely scratches the surface about. Yet, considering the film was made by one of the Johnson & Johnson heirs trying to “find” himself and then finding himself excommunicated by his community for daring to hold up a mirror to themselves it’s interesting exposure of that world.
The question to ask is what happens when you have oodles and oodles of cash, and California is no longer growing tomatoes? Which would be more of value: cash or tomatoes?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342143/reviews
LikeLike
As we’re witnessing around the world, societies are devolving into chaos, Nazi-ism and extreme positions while standard (or former) governmental models are crumbling in the wake of climate change, unaffordable food prices, mistreatment of the citizenry and other factors (like tribalism and friction between ethnic groups, among others). Meanwhile the powers that be continue to reap the rewards of capital investments while the common people fight among themselves for the scraps and attempt to wrest power from the toadies who serve the mega-wealthy, who hand over national assets to private concerns (the ones who put them in office through “contributions”).
When a certain threshold is met (a tipping point), the government can no longer legitimately wield power as the “strong arm” that supports it waffles and splits, where many military and police personnel once backing the government now revert to their roots and support the people and families where they originated (and from whose class they came) – strengthening the ‘opposition.’ As economic failure, climate change effects (decimated local crops and degraded infrastructure for example), social psychological stresses and other factors converge we see the collapse of former nation-states into factional power-grabs by festering groups with “ideas” of change (usually not well thought out, and without economic means to work).
Like falling dominos, as the economies implode and the ‘contagion’ spreads to international banking we have the collapse of civilization happening – slowly at first in remote countries, but ramping up as other nations experience the same (or similar combinations of) stressors. Most countries rely on the military and police, but if the currency of that state or nation fails to procure necessities of life – like water, food and electricity (for “developed” nations), these security systems will fail due to withering supply-lines. As the masses find themselves with nothing to lose, their desperation will drive them to revolution, since any change is better than the terminal conditions they’re stuck in.
Places like Syria, the Ukraine, Argentina and Brazil now too – indicate the direction civilization is heading. By summer (in the northern hemisphere) we’ll start seeing unrest in Europe and the U.S. as conditions deteriorate. Stay tuned.
LikeLike
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/25-3
Remember That Nuclear Dump Site That ‘Was Never Supposed to Leak’?
Nation’s only underground nuclear waste storage site, located in New Mexico, believed to be leaking radiation into air
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Gaia will prevail.
LikeLike