• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Category Archives: The world to day.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS THE WORLD LIKE THIS?

19 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in The Future, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Distribution of wealth, Inequility, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

What lies ahead rests on entire speculation or instinct because we live in a world of great threats that we cannot foresee that is turning everyone to his own way.  

Things never stayed still.

Humans are not limited anymore that much to their instincts, they are able to go beyond using their will power and imagination. However we will always be limited by the technology of our time.

This is a disturbing fact which is not fully understood.

But Something else is going Wrong On The Way To The Future,

AND ITS A dilemma ; Latin for a mess.

So in this post ( Which I am sure will require further investigation) I will try avoiding the obvious biological reasons and historical truths in approaching the explanation.

I will present it more like a painting where you chose the wash to paint the picture on.

These days you can get any opinion you want. The problem is you can

also get any fact you want… In general, we have little confidence in

numbers or statistics. Except in the world of science, where they mean

something precise, they are mostly lies and misunderstandings that you

believe because Goggle says it.

Of course, it’s never that simple.

It should be obvious that we are all far better off today than we were a half-century ago. That this should have been the easiest period in human history in which to make progress and peace.

Never before had there been so many inventors and entrepreneurs. Never before had they so much accumulated science and capital to work with. Never before had there been so many people making things… and so many consumers with money in their pockets to buy them.

And never before were there so many earnest lawmakers, PhD economists, curious researchers, diligent policymakers, and nonprofit-employed do-gooders – millions of people all doing their level best to make us happier, healthier, and richer!

As recent events in Paris highlight, something seems to have gone BADLY wrong on the way to the future… we are still nearer to the animal behavior than to advanced capabilities.

Global peace built on a foundation of nation-states is an oxymoron.

So lets start the painting with the wash of Money and Inequality.

If something grows too big, then it destroys itself from the inside.

To lay claim of bringing tectonic changes to capitalism remains a far cry!

Humans are still in development of their individual personalities.

The truth can be difficult to stomach. Most governments loathe the truth.

Government wants the benefits of what people create, but it doesn’t want anyone to get rich from the creating. Yet economies all over the world are in trouble. Government leaders and economists galore talk about monetary policy as if it could rev up economies that are staggering under excessive taxation, suffocating regulation and massive government spending.

Governments have virtually no concept of taxes being a barrier or hindrance to commercial activity; they simply see them as a way of controlling an economy’s total purchasing power, or “aggregate demand.”

Not to benefit ALL the people.

They pretend that we owe them a portion of our money (our labour, our time) and collect it through taxes and interest on loans and fees. They don’t own the money they only own the currency. They are not unaware of this fact they are simply trying to hide it so that they can justify their claim against our labour which is the only thing of real value in the economy.

When in fact “Economic actors” are the drivers. ( See previous posts-Sovereign  Wealth Funds/ High Frequency Trading/ Foreign Exchange transactions.)

Government can either impede their activities or create an environment in which they can rise and flourish. The only single economy is the global economy which is now under attack from Trade Deals.

Free markets are inherently unstable, and capitalists are their own worst enemies. They both see the economy as a machine that should run smoothly. So-called business cycles — booms and busts — irreverent of the consequences to us that make the economy.

Austerity is for losers. There’s always money to wage war and build weapons, indeed, to continue developing weapons, generation after generation after generation. National interests are business interests.

When it comes down to it the economy is a reflection of how people spend their time. Some of their time is dedicated to labouring (creating products and services) while other time is dedicated to eating and sleeping and leisure activities (consuming those products and services).

Money is a value store for the time spent labouring. Currency is how we exchange that value. Money measures wealth; it is not wealth itself. Money reflects what we do in the marketplace.

The problem with our modern economy is that most people (bankers, etc) lead us to believe that currency and money are the same time and they use the terms interchangeably. The banks own the currency but they do not own the money (value store for labour).

Too many countries today formulate policies under a similar assumption.

Economists, bankers and political leaders don’t understand the most basic of subject: ” Money”

When it comes to monetary policy, they have it backwards.

The argument is over eradication of mass poverty. Many are bias to the fact that capitalism has done a great job in lifting billions out of the penniless syndrome. This may be totally or partially true or completely wrong.

Highest GDP and poverty-free are two developments that most like to cheer.

Countries treat their economy as if it is an isolated entity from the prosperity of their people, putting the economy first and not the happiness of the population as a whole.

Just look at the results of Quantitative Easing. (PRIVATELY OWNED Bank’s, with a chairman’s that are appointed and not voted on by, we the people.) They are now printing currency without  any legal permission to do so.

When the government does this, it’s called quantitative easing”  Although its name sounds official it is NOT part of the government! It is a PRIVATELY OWNED BANK, with a chairman that is appointed and not voted on by, we the people.

Government, not the marketplace, is the real driver of commerce. Money does not controls the economy.

Money as we all know some say is the root of all evil. It certainly has driven such an appetite for profit that is has put our planet into a death spiral of confusion WITH THE HOPE OF technological escape.

The United Nations is that it’s a unity of entities defined by their hatred of one another and committed to the perpetuation of “the scourge of war.

From the very beginning, the principle of nationalism and the United Nations was almost indissolubly linked, both in theory and practice, with the idea of war.

Five centuries of European colonialism and global culture-trashing, and the remaking of the world in the economic interests of competing empires, cannot be undone by a single institution and a cluster of lofty ideals.

Our ‘way of life’, our behavior, our goals and values are making us blind, are confusing us and are driving us more and more into disease and destruction.

Now that we have the wash let’s dip our brush into the color of Religions. The role of religion and religious organizations. 

Since the awakening of religion, wars have been fought in the name of different gods and goddesses. When conflicts are couched in religious terms, they become transformed in value conflicts.

By value conflicts I mean they have a tendency to become mutually conclusive or zero-sum issues. They entail strong judgments of what is right and wrong, and parties believe that there cannot be a common ground to resolve their differences except by force or separation.

Obviously religious and spiritual rules made up by humans doesn’t protect humanity from being distinguished.  Its more or lees an accident of birth which religion you use. It could be treated it as a marginal variable which would be a mistake so we will apply it to the canvas randomly a dash here and there.  Because unless we are born with a piercing eyesight, what lies ahead rests on entire speculation or instinct not religion.

Humans have mostly lost this religious instinct and they are ‘eating’ each other as much as they can and are allowed by others.

There is one part of the population of the world who are overweight and sick because of too much food and an other part who are starving to death. It’s no wonder we have terrorists in all forms.

On one side we have freedom and possibility to make decisions, on the other side they are losing the protection which was given through the instinct that life is sanctimonious.

Religion gives dignity to death.

The West is characterized by a desecularisation of politics and a depolitisation of religion. In the Communist bloc, religion was officially stigmatized as the opium of the people and repressed.

One could start by investigating systematically which positive or negative roles religion plays now.

It should, however, be remembered that it was not religion that has made the twentieth the most bloody century. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot and their apprentices in Rwanda maimed and murdered millions of people on an unprecedented scale, in the name of a policy which rejected religious.

It is therefore important to develop a more profound understanding of the basic assumption underlying the different religions and the ways in which people adhering to them see their interests.

It would also be very useful to identify elements of communality between the major religions.

They all could hold a world meeting and at least agreed to differ without the need to inflict Crucifixion on the unborn. The major challenge of religious organizations remains to end existing and prevent new religious conflicts.

Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most importantly, religion. There are no ‘ pure ‘ religious conflicts. People can be empowered by providing them with theological support against injustice. More than two-thirds of the world population belongs to a religion.

Religious organizations have the capacity to mobilize people and to cultivate attitudes of forgiveness, conciliation. They can do a great deal to prevent dehumanization. They have the capacity to motivate and mobilize people for a more peaceful world. Religions and religious organisations have an untapped and under-used integrative power potential.

To assess this potential and to understand which factors enhance or inhibit joint peace ventures between the Christian religions, but also between the prophetic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), the Indian religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) and the Chinese wisdom religions, is an urgent research challenge.

Unfortunately attention is now paid to the militant forms of religious fundamentalism as a threat to peace.

Afficher l'image d'origine

How can we find a way out of the mess?

It is only us, the people, who can change the course of action.

The world cannot survive without a new global ethic, and religions play a major role, as parties in violent conflicts, as passive bystanders and as active peace-makers and peace-builders.

Hans Küngs’ thesis that there cannot be world peace without a religious peace is right.

Our Canvas is now ready for some additional work so if you have any suggestions my paint brush is ready.

The truth in this when you believe “the media”, the unsavory courtisane of “the politics”, is playing to create division, anger and hate. It is their game and they make money from this.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Here below is a woman that talks sense as to what we are in such a mess.

http://go.ted.com/CjFv

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : Most violence remains unfathomable.

17 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Freedom, Paris terrorist attack., The world to day., War, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Paris., War

In light of the recent events in Paris this post is sure to touch on some

very raw nerves but if we are to honor those who lost their lives

we  must come to some understanding of the horrification or

glorification of killing other than the frenzy of fear now being created

by the media. 

Television is an energy drain and a large source of fear and negativity for many. Watching violence, diminishes the harshness and reality of these acts, by gradually numbing us. Along with Social media it is one of the fastest ways to disconnect yourself from the world.

Most people just want to live their lives in peace.

however this is completely undermined by modern day, which would make you think that most people are violent and destructive.

Violence on television is however part of our societal experience.

The number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000. The number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000

 Most of us will never engage in an act of extreme brutality.

We will never shoot, stab, or beat someone to death. We will never rape another human being or set them on fire. We will never strap a bomb to our chests and detonate ourselves in a crowded café.

And so, when faced with these seemingly senseless acts, we find ourselves at a loss.

At the same time for most of us in the world we have become so use to killing it means little or nothing to us unless it directly affects us.

If you stop and ask yourself why are we so prone to kill this is a subject that has been intensely debated for centuries, probably because it says so much about who we are and whether we can justify war and other collective violence.

If we really want to solve the problem of violence, there is nothing for it but to risk a kind of understanding that threatens our own values, our own way of life. We have to gaze into an abyss.

People are violent because they feel they must be; because they feel that their violence is obligatory.

Usually when someone is murdered, people expect the murderer to feel culpable. This though, is not the case in war. When in war, a soldier is taught that the enemy deserves to die, for no other reason than that they are the nation’s enemy.  They know that they are harming fully human beings. Nonetheless, they believe they should.

Has warfare been handed down to us through millions of years of evolution?

Is it part of who we are as a species?

Is warfare is rooted in evolution?

At the heart of these question is whether humans have a natural capacity to kill other humans. Some social scientists have concluded that evolution has in fact left us with this unfortunate ability.

Luckily there is within most men an intense resistance to killing their fellow-man.

Violence does not stem from a psychopathic lack of morality. Quite the reverse: it comes from the exercise of perceived moral rights and obligations.

Many people assume that soldiers in a firefight instinctively respond to enemy fire by shooting back, and that soldiers in a kill-or-be-killed situation will choose to kill. But informal interviews conducted with thousands of American combat soldiers during World War II by army historian S.L.A. Marshall revealed that as many as 75% of soldiers never fired their weapons during combat.

Very few people would seek out an opportunity to kill others.

At the same time, you may find it hard to believe that it is sometimes impossible for soldiers to kill others even when their own lives are at risk.

Throughout history and around the world people have come up with ways to overcome an aversion to killing, such as dehumanizing the victim, placing distance between the killer and the victim, and using drugs or loud music to induce a trance-like state in a killer. This trait would have been amplified and passed down through the generations until it was eventually inherited by modern humans, who presumably took this predisposition and ran with it, inventing more and more efficient ways to kill each other.

Aftermath of World War II, the U.S. military embarked on a campaign to more effectively prepare soldiers for combat by employing realistic training exercises. New recruits began to practice shooting at pop-up, human-shaped targets rather than the traditional, stationary bull’s-eyes. More and more elaborate and realistic combat simulation exercises and ’war games’ were implemented.

The point of this new training was to make killing an automatic response under combat conditions. And it worked. Combatants in institutional wars do not fight primarily because they are aggressive.  Humans excel at overcoming our biological limitations using technological innovation.

All terrorism and war co-evolved, promoting conflict between groups and greater harmony within them.

There is no morality in war.

The original founders of the religions were the human incarnations of the same God like Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.

Every religion says that their God only created this entire earth or this entire humanity. Unfortunately, there is only one earth and this proves that there is only one God mentioned by all the religions.

Along came those religions about 4000 years ago and endless war! in the name of religion (so they can not be religions or spiritual they can not be So new armies formed called Religion?.

Since God is one and the same, there cannot be contradicting concepts between the religions. But we find some contradictions and people are divided based on these contradictions. This division is leading to quarrels and finally killing each other. These contradictions cannot be from God because there is only one God as said above.

The Q`ran says that you should protect even the follower of other religion and convey the message of Allah to him. It is left to him to follow or not.

The same God exists in different forms in different religions.

Unfortunately we are the only living species that can reason and as a result, we realized that the only way to have things your way is by domination therefore, we divide and conquer. And as we become more powerful, we distort things. We twist the truth to fit our ulterior motive. And to convince the mass to adopt your belief in the name of God.

Unfortunately, it does not follow that every problem comes with its own prepackaged solution.

War is vague and illogical because it forces humans into extreme situations that have no obvious solutions. In a war, you kill someone and even if you win, you lose. The parts that are left out are the tragedies, and the permanent scars the war left.

And yet despite this apparent aversion to killing, we still manage to kill each other with alarming frequency.

Fortuitously this aversion to killing exists, and it reassures us that warfare is not an inescapable part of human life, and gives us hope that one day we might stop fighting wars.

Killing isn’t something that comes naturally to people.

Funny that people decry killing when it is because of their own demands that make it happen.

How can this be?“

Is that we’re simply too smart for our own good with propaganda to brainwash the masses into accepting this bloodshed day after day.

I’m interested how this applies to terrorists.

So would it be social engineering like “dehumanizing America, Israel, the West” or the cult of violence in many of those societies, plus enticements of financial rewards for the family of the suicide bombers in question that would help over come terrorists from their natural inclination not to kill. Most terrorists are paid mercenaries.

It isn’t easy to change a culture of violence.

You have to give people the structural, economic, technological and political means to regulate their relationships peacefully.

Legal sanctions are insufficient on their own.

Critically, the message has to come from respected people within the killer’s own community. Their own ideas about right and wrong matter most;

The ideas of those they care about and respect matter more.

Only when violence in any relationship is seen as a violation of every relationship will war diminish. Once everyone, everywhere, truly believes that violence is wrong, it will end.

The danger for Europe as a result of the horrific loss of life in Paris is not declaring war on terrorism but shutting down its borders.  Open Borders is a declaration of intent that countries share goods and wealth and if they don’t they should. If all countries helped each other I think there would be no need for war.

This would separate out those who wish for war due to some perversion. If dangerous people can be motivated by genuine moral beliefs, we face a troubling dimension to morality.

If Paris is to teach us anything it is that there is a cost to modern-day warfare, that people will kill each other quite deliberately not just with particularly technologically advanced, like drones.

Our ancestors would have carried out deadly attacks only when they severely outnumbered their victims and not with low-cost attacks on unsuspecting neighbors.

When you declare war like Mr Holland and before him Mr Bush with Mr Blair you create fear which leads to killing and loss of the very liberties that so many died for.

France’s military efforts against ISIS have developed gradually over the course of the last 15 months. France began airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq in September of 2014 so Mr Hollands declaration of war is somewhat retrospective.

Prior to the American invasion in 2003, which France pointedly refused to join.  Hollande insisted that France’s involvement would be strictly limited. “We will only intervene in Iraq,” he said.

Now he declaring a war ( rightly so) that France can not win it on its own. Nor will NATO who will have to get its arch-enemy Mr Putin on its side.

Unlike the wars created by 9/11 this time the drum beat is not a war against civilization as you could not describe ISIS as Civilized.

These days we have portable power.

This is a war to protect the West concept of Liberty which we will win by turning every Smart Phone into the eyes and ears of Freedom.

My message to ISIS is.

You may not tell us to kill.  The society that you insist on – Killing is living. This is not a society anyone other than a barbarian would want to live in.

This lesson has being with us from the creation of man. The danger is that we forget it.

Whatever drove the Paris attackers to commit their horrific acts is certainly more complex and varied than the French government’s conduct in the world. It is no secret that the world’s attention can only be split so many ways.

The lessons of Paris today provide our best chance to get to the bottom of the ‘peace versus justice’ debate, expose its fallacies, and move beyond it.

MAY ALL WHO LOST THEIR LIVES RIP.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Below is a x terrorist worth listing to.

And here below is the sort of thing that stats a war,

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S RECENT EVENTS IN PARIS SHOWS ITS TIME TO FOCUS ON THE BIG PICTURE.

14 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Climate Change., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Paris terrorist attack., Politics., The world to day., War, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S RECENT EVENTS IN PARIS SHOWS ITS TIME TO FOCUS ON THE BIG PICTURE.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Globalization, Inequility, Terrorism., The Future of Mankind

We must focused on the “big picture” exploring all avenues for influencing humans everywhere.

How societies have developed through all of human history – from Neanderthals to i Phones.

At the rate things are going, the Earth in the coming decades could cease to be a “safe operating space” for human beings.

The question is why a pretty small group of nations around the shores of the North Atlantic had come to dominate the planet in the last 200 years in a way that the world’s never really seen before is now rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Since no CLARITY is being provided by any of our World Organisations or Political leaders regarding a solution I will offer in this post the reasons why this is true and a solution that is achievable in our life time.

We have four primary issues that must be addressed for us to live in harmony with nature: Overpopulation, Over consumption, dependence on fossil fuels and our harmful and wasteful typical western consumerism.

We have already crossed four “planetary boundaries.”

They are the extinction rate; deforestation; the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and the flow of nitrogen and phosphorous (used on land as fertilizer) into the ocean.

The urgency now is driven by the fact that we simply don’t have the necessary time to address the first three. They will take many decades (if not centuries) to resolve and we may be down to just a few years as the experts agree that we’re rapidly approaching or passing certain tipping points, beyond which there is no possibility of avoiding the worst effects of crossing all these planetary boundaries.

In the end of all of this mess amounts to simple massive transfers of wealth from the middle classes and the poor to the rich.

Because whatever you’re fighting for: Racism, Poverty, Feminism, Gay Rights, or any type of Equality. It won’t matter in the least, because if we don’t all work together to save the environment, we will be equally extinct.

It has brought us to a situation of the greatest schism between rich and poor in history. The utter breakdown of democratic government in favour of the new technological driven Feudalism.

As our social development continues to accelerate, we continue to change the meaning of the word poor.

We are not apart from nature, we are a part of nature.

I’m sorry that we paid so much attention to ISIS, and very little how fast the ice is melting in the arctic.

It is imperative now than ever that France in honor its recent unnecessary lost of innocent lives insures that the Climate Change Conference is not effected.

Unfortunately we must tried to see beyond the horrific events in Paris – into the misery beyond.

If we cannot see something, it is difficult to know how we can possibly begin to devise ways to avoid it.

It is time to attend to this generation’s apocalypse, and to do so we must recover both the fear and the hope of early ’80s politics.

There has to be another way, and this time it must include all of humanity, and all of our planet.

So far, few works have managed to put the unthinkable in front of our eyes –

The Internet, is the public face of globalization.  Corruption is not only thriving online, but winning. The digital revolution has degenerated into an underworld of organized crime, dirty tactics, black ops and terrorism.

There is no such thing as “national cyberspace.” International cooperation will be needed, but be warned that the Internet will not go away in any place it touches.

“Lets just say that today’s Internet is a dirty mess waiting to be cleaned up.”

I am sure that there is no need to give a history lesson but here is one that tells the truth and which I admire.

Written by Roberto Savio.

It out lines why we are in the current mess and if you want to understand why it is so it is compulsory reading.

Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of the Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency and publisher of Other News, offers ten explanations of how the current mess in which the world finds itself came about.

1)  ” The world, as it now exists, was largely shaped by the colonial powers, which divided the world among themselves, carving out states without any consideration for existing ethnic, religious or cultural realities. This was especially true of Africa and the Arab world, where the concept of state was imposed on systems of tribes and clans.

2)  After the end of the colonial era, it was inevitable that to keep these artificial countries alive, and avoid their disintegration, strong men would be needed to cover the void left by the colonial powers. The rules of democracy were used only to reach power, with very few exceptions. The Arab Spring did indeed get rid of dictators and autocrats, just to replace them with chaos and warring factions (as in Libya) or with a new autocrat, as in Egypt.

The case of Yugoslavia is instructive. After the Second World War, Marshal Tito dismantled the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and created the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But we all know that Yugoslavia did not survive the death of its strongman.

The lesson is that without creating a really participatory and unifying process of citizens, with a strong civil society, local identities will always play the most decisive role. So it will take some before many of the new countries will be considered real countries devoid of internal conflicts.

3)  Since the Second World War, the meddling of the colonial and super powers in the process of consolidation of new countries has been a very good example of man-made disaster.

Take the case of Iraq. When the United States took over administration of the country in 2003 after its invasion, General Jay Garner was appointed and lasted just a month, because he was considered too open to local views.

Garner was replaced by a diplomat, Jan Bremmer, who took up his post after a two-hour briefing by the then Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice. Bremmer immediately proceeded to dissolve the army (creating 250,000 unemployed) and firing anyone in the administration who was a member of the Ba’ath party, the party of Saddam Hussein. This destabilised the country, and today’s mess is a direct result of this decision.

The current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whom Washington is trying to remove as the cause of polarisation between Shiites and Sunnis, was the preferred American candidate. So was the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who is now virulently anti-American. This is a tradition that goes back to the first U.S. intervention in Vietnam, where Washington put in place Ngo Dihn Dien, who turned against its views, until he was assassinated.

There is no space here to give example of similar mistakes (albeit less important) by other Western powers. The point is that all leaders installed from outside do not last long and bring instability.

4)  We are all witnessing religious fighting and Islam extremism as a growing and disturbing threat. Few make any effort to understand why thousands of young people are willing to blow themselves up. There is a striking correlation between lack of development/employment and religious unrest. In the Muslim countries of Asia (Arab Muslims account for less than 20 percent of the world’s Muslim populations), extremism hardly exists.

And few realise that the fight between Shiites and Sunnis is funded by countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran.

Those religions have been living side by side for centuries, and now they are fighting a proxy war, for example in Syria. Saudi Arabia has been funding Salafists (the puritan form of Islam) everywhere, and it has provided nearly two billion dollars to the new Egyptian autocrat, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, because he is fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, which predicates the end of kings and sheiks and power for the people. Iraq is also becoming a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, defender of the Sunnis, and Iran, defender of the Shiites.

So, when looking at these wars of religion, always look at who is behind them. Religions usually become belligerent only if they are used. Just look at European history, where wars of religion were invented by kings and fought by people. Of course, once the genie is out of the bottle, it will take a long time to put it back. So this issue will be with us for quite some time.

5)  The end of the Cold War unfroze the world, which had been kept in stability by the balance between the two superpowers.

Attempts to create regional or international alliances to bring stability have always been stymied by national interests. The best example is Europe. While everybody was talking about Crimea, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin (who had been made paranoiac about Western encirclement, from the George Bush Jr. administration onwards) and how to bring him to listen to the United States and Europe, European companies continued trade in spite of a much talked about embargo. And now, Austria has quietly signed an agreement with Russia to join the South Stream, a pipeline that will bring Russian gas to Europe – so much for the unity of a Europe which has been clamouring about the need to reduce its energy dependence on Russia.

A multipolar world is in the making, but it has to be seen how stable it will be.

In Asia, China and Japan are increasing their military investments, as are surrounding countries. And while local conflicts, like Syria, Iraq and Sudan, are not going to escalate into a larger conflict, this would certainly be the case in Asia.

6)  In a world more and more divided by a resurgence of national interests, the very idea of shared governance is losing its strength, and not only in Europe.

The United Nations has lost its significance as the arena in which to reach consensus and legitimacy. The two engines of globalisation – trade and finance – are not part of the United Nations, which is stuck with the themes of development, peace, human rights, environment, education and so on. While these issues are crucial for a viable world, they are not seen as such by those in power. Conclusion: the United Nations is sliding into irrelevance.

7)  At the same time, values and ideas which were considered universal, such as cooperation, mutual aid, international social justice and peace as an encompassing paradigm are also becoming irrelevant.

French President Francois Hollande meets U.S. President Barack Obama, not to discuss how to stop the genocide in Sudan, or the kidnapping of children in Nigeria, but to ask him to intervene with his Minister of Justice to reduce a giant fine on a French bank, the BNP-Parisbas, for fraudulent activities. The outstanding problem of climate control was largely absent in the last  G7 meeting, not to talk of nuclear disarmament … and yet these are the two main threats to the planet!

8)  After colonialism and totalitarian regimes, the key phrase after the Second World War was “implementation of democracy”. But after the end of the Cold War, democracy was taken for granted. In fact, in the last twenty years, the formula of representative democracy has been losing its glamour. Pragmatism has led to the loss of long-term vision, and politics have become more and more mere administration.

Citizens feel less and less related to parties, which have basically become self-centred and self-reliant.  International affairs are not considered tools of power by parties, and decisions are taken without participation. This leads to choices which often do not represent the feelings and priorities of citizens.

The way in which the bailout of Cyprus from its financial crisis a few years ago was treated in the European Commission was widely recognised as a blatant example of lack of transparency. Few people certainly make more mistakes than many …

9)  A very important element of the mess has been the growth of what its proponents, especially in the financial world, call the “new economy” – an economy that contemplates permanent unemployment, lack of social investments, reduced taxation for large capital, the marginalisation of trade unions, and a reduction of the role of the State as the regulator and guarantor of social justice.

Inequalities are reaching unprecedented levels. The world’s 85 richest individuals possess the same wealth as 2.5 billion people.

10)  All this brings its corollary. It is not by chance that all mainstream media worldwide have the same reading of the world.

Information today has basically eliminated analysis and process, to concentrate on events. Their ability to follow the world mess is minimal, and they just repeat what those in power say. It is very instructive to see media which are very analytical about national affairs and very superficial about international issues. The media depend largely on three international news agencies, which represent the Western world and its interests. Have you read anywhere about the gas agreement between Austria and Russia?

So, a final point: never be satisfied with what you read in the newspapers, always try to get additional and opposite viewpoints through the net. This will help you to look at the world with your eyes, and not with the eyes of somebody else who is probably part of the system which has created this mess. Do not go with the tide … search for the other face of the moon. And if they tell you that they know, well, just look at the results. So, be yourself and, if you make a mistake, at least it will be your mistake. “

I thank him and I could not agree more with his advise in his summing up. He states what I have being advocating in post after post.

Many factors influenced the civil war in Syria, including long-standing political, religious, and ideological disputes; economic dislocations from both global and regional factors; and the consequences of water shortages influenced by drought, ineffective watershed management, and the growing influence of climate variability and change.

Here is my solution. 

Greed is the real terrorist operating under the banner of Profit for Profit sake.

Make Profit for Profit Sake Pay;

By placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all new drilling and mining Licences.

A commission rate ranging from 0.005 to 0.25 percent would generate between $15 and $300 billion per year, of which a substantial amount could be allocated to promote international peace and development and resolving Climate Change.

This would create a perpetual Funded Fund to contributed to rectifying the very thing that caused the problems in the first place.   Greed. 

And as we look forward into a world increasingly dominated by technology, what will geography mean in the 21st century?
Dead Iraq children

A new report claiming the numbers killed by ‘the war on terror’ globally may be as high as 2 million has been met with almost total silence.

What will all the deaths achieve? Every death is a tragedy.

This is a good starting point for a wider debate about the justifications and rationalisations for the great swathe of global violence unleashed in response to the 9/11 attacks.

The under reporting by the media of this human toll attributable to ongoing Western interventions, whether deliberate, or through self-censorship, has been key to removing the “fingerprints” of responsibility.’

The new age of humanitarian war which suggests that war is not as bad as it used to be, or at least that it’s not so bad that the costs outweigh the gains. Is totally naive.

High-tech precision weapons, precision targeting enabled by lawyers, new ethical norms, population-centric counterinsurgency – all this has made it possible to vaporise the bad guys is not true as we all saw up close yesterday in Paris.

Mr Hollands declaration of war is understandable, as was Americas after 9/11. But it should not be the first choice rather than a last resort.

The first choice should be to convince their populations that war will not only be cost-free for them, but that its effects on the countries on the receiving end of it will also be minimal and ultimately beneficial.

This is what we have been told ever since the US invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War and throughout the last fourteen years of the ‘war on terror,’ whenever the US and its allies are considering who next to bomb or hit with a drone.

War used to be a way to learn Geography – Fool me once.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : WE HAVE NEVER HAD FREEDOM AND WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS AN ILLUSION.

07 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Freedom, Humanity., Life., Social Media., The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Democracy, Freedom, Freedom of expression, SMART PHONE WORLD, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

 

These days our Freedoms (which so many died for) are being eroded to the point where there is no such thing as Freedom in our Lifetime.In this post I am going to try to express what exactly personal Freedom is these days.

Afficher l'image d'origine

I am not going to exam the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which has over 30 Articles, or what is left of free speech, or the Black freedom struggle, or woman’s struggle for freedom.  Or the idea of free speech which is a view of freedom that is inseparable from the
political arena, flawed in theory and politicised in practice.

⌈ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.⌉

All of which are impossible to implement, and has never been implemented anywhere historically – not even today, in liberal societies.

The freedoms that we once had are now dissolving because of the Internet, and the need for blanket surveillance due to fear mongering politics over terrorists plots ever since 9/11.

Our every move is tracked, we are under surveillance around the clock, our buying habits are logged, our preferences are hacked, and most of us don’t raise an eyebrow.

It is a mistake to think of a search engine as an oracle for anonymous queries they can set off a chain reaction that can have troubling consequences both online and offline. All this is because being online increasingly means being put into categories based on a socioeconomic portrait of you that’s built over time by advertisers and search engines collecting your data—a portrait that data brokers buy and sell, but that you cannot control or even see.

Our background and our relationships are becoming inescapable features of our human existence.

So what is freedom.

In the modern sense freedom is achieved by one’s individual nature, or inner voice.  A sovereign self – a monological consciousness that fundamentally excludes the other.

However one can still be imprisoned by an oppressive internal forced liberation from an interior force.

So how can one reconcile two seemingly opposed senses of freedom?

One sense views freedom as bound and situated, while the other sense views freedom as liberation from such bonds.

What is required is a notion of self hood that recognizes and embraces both senses of freedom –  to see the self not as an isolated and detached entity from the social world, but one that is deeply enculturated and dialogical while simultaneously liberated.

These are the limits, the boundaries, of what allow us to be free and for things to be meaningful.

So instead of viewing boundaries as something that disables our freedom, we should recognize that boundaries are what might actually enable our freedom.

The received ideas of our present-day institutions are composed of the religious, philosophical, economic, and political status quo.

The goal for each of us is to break free of these ideologies and re describe our world as a whole. This sense of freedom, which I referred to earlier as freedom-within-boundaries, is what ultimately makes possible a freedom-from-oppression.

If men wish to be free, it is precisely sovereignty they must renounce.

As Charles Taylor puts it, this sovereign and self-determining freedom characteristic of the modern individual “demands that I break the hold of all such external impositions, and decide for myself alone.

In this view, individuals could exercise their gifts and powers only by
participating in the common life.

That is to say, our freedom is contingent upon the greater public world.

Modern thought (especially evident in the political philosophy of Rousseau) externalized the source of oppression onto authoritative forces such as society, church, law, and government.

This is no longer true due to the indebtedness of the world.

At the expense of eliminating fundamental characteristics that make us human we are now confronting a world with unlimited new possibilities but having no meaningful boundaries.

Modern Social media come to see others as a part of – Us/Selfies.

Unfortunately this unchecked freedom is leading us to a void in which nothing would be worth doing, nothing would deserve to count for anything.

Life is dialogical by its very nature.

To live means to engage in dialogue, to question, to listen, to answer, to agree, to return to your own position, enriched. We need to identify with others in order to open ourselves up to new ways of being without forgetting where we come from to achieve any freedom.

In the past our background was essential to our identity. These days one’s uniqueness is maintained through continuous exposure to novelty  in a consumer culture that thrives on the latest fad.

Is it this quantity of novelties that appears to take precedent over quality of relationships. So where do we turn for redescription of Freedom, to open us up to new and fresh ways of being human?

That can enable us to break free from our own pasts and increase our level of sensitivity and sympathy to those without freedom?

Is it severance from the status quo.

I fear that if you were to ignore you background, and try to break from your own past, “You would be crippled as a person, because you would be repudiating an essential part out of which you evaluate and determine the meanings of things. Our background, often times inarticulate and unformulated, carries the values and traditions that constitute who we are. This background is no longer not just our personal past and memories, but it may also be the lineage, tradition, and culture from which we have emerged.

Instead of dropping our historicity, we should be interested in owning up to the background and tradition that gives significance to our identity.

Meaningful freedom can only be achieved through enculturation.

Therefore, our freedom is bound in a sense, or situated in the environment that has shaped us, because that is likely to be the most meaningful environment to us.

Perhaps it is only in a bounded space that we can move about freely.

Fusion of horizons’ between ourselves and others..we must always have a horizon in order to be able to transpose ourselves into a situation.

Background is what initially provides persons with the possibility for understanding anything at all. Our background, or tacit knowledge of the world, is the horizon out of which things have meaning for us. It gives us our “referential context of significance.” A liberating freedom, which occurs when our world is enlarged not downloaded on to a data base.

Our identity is formed by the web of relationships that surround us.  Therefore, it is precisely ourselves, which implies our background, that we must bring into the other’s situation.

The fundamental significance of language and conversation, and its ability to bring us closer to understanding one another is now rapidly diluted by technology.

We are not born precocial and fully hard-wired creatures.

Instead, we are born as incomplete beings, needing enculturation and society for healthy maturation.

Our biological need for one another requires certain physiological signals, that are not possible on the Web. Through facial expressions, infants learn to not only replicate another’s face, but to empathically feel what the face exhibits.

Biologists consider this skill of emotional matching to have been “crucial for escape from predation, foraging, hunting, and mass migrations” before spoken language entered our evolutionary history.

In spite of the modern liberating sense of freedom which may encourage isolation and detachment, we should also note that it can promote a healthy release from oppressive external forces. These forces can manifest in a variety of forms, everything from an abusive relationship to a manipulative religious group.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Emphasis on a socially dependent self can lead to passivity in daily life or submission to totalitarian regimes.

By being sympathetic we are capable of being liberated from ourselves.

On the other hand egocentrism shouldn’t be overcome at the expense of forgetting ourselves. So freedom is one that respects the boundaries of selfhood, instead of annihilating it.

Although we may be transported into the sandals of the Buddha, we still need to come back to our point of departure in order to be enriched.

Because in recognizing the necessity of one’s interpersonal relationships, social and moral commitments, culture, tradition, memories, and of course, biology as constitutive of one’s experience of liberation.

Freedom doesn’t necessarily mean fleeing to a new land. It can also mean discovering the oceanic depth of a single, bounded situation. And this entails having new eyes. Remember, “Life is immense!”

We are free to become authentic only after we accept our boundary, which is our finitude.

Death is the ultimate boundary of human existence, it is only by facing up to this limit that we are capable of becoming truly authentic Free.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
by narrow domestic walls;
Where the words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening
thought and action–
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,
let my country awake.

99.gif (1038 bytes)

–Guru Rabindranath Tagore
National Poet, Freedom Fighter

Modern day freedom-is freedom within boundaries.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT FOOD WASTE IN THE WORLD.

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Humanity., Life., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Extreme poverty, Food waste in the World, Globalization, Inequility, The Future of Mankind

Our routine practices, unfortunately, make it difficult for us to conceptualize the magnitude of global food waste.

Everyday we hear appeals and yet there are one billion starving people in the world.

40% of all the food produced in the United States is never eaten.

In Europe, we throw away 100 million tonnes of food every year.

These are shamefully shocking facts  in their own right. In a world full of hunger, volatile food prices , and social unrest, these statistics are more than just shocking when half the world’s population goes to sleep each night malnourished they are obscene.

They are environmentally, morally and economically outrageous.

Add to this that fact that obesity is rapidly growing in the western world, particularly among children, while 6 million children in the developing world die annually from undernourishment and it is a damning indictment of capitalism – the dominant ideology and economic system that has governed much of the world for the last two centuries.

The rampage of globalisation has given monopoly buying power to a few massive western multinational enterprises, who trample all over the globe sourcing farm supplies from the lowest bidders of impoverished nations.

Prices of farm produce are squeezed to such an extent that it’s more profitable to leave ‘inadequate’ quality crops in the ground to rot or to throw away than to pay the price for its air transport, storage and quality packaging to bring to western supermarkets with discerning consumers.

Today, we produce about four billion metric tonnes of food per annum. Yet due to poor practices in harvesting, storage and transportation, as well as market and consumer wastage, it is estimated that 30–50% (or 1.2–2 billion tonnes) of all food produced never reaches a human stomach.

Furthermore, this figure does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land, energy, fertilisers and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste. This level of wastage is a tragedy that cannot continue if we are to succeed in the challenge of sustainably meeting our future food demands.

But the  problem is bigger than we think.Afficher l'image d'origine

Here are some hard facts to swallow.

Wasting food means losing not only life-supporting nutrition but also precious resources, including land, water and energy. As a global society therefore, tackling food waste will help contribute towards addressing a number of key resource issues:

About one-third of all food produced worldwide, worth around US$1 trillion, gets lost or wasted in food production and consumption systems.

Every year, consumers in industrialized countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (222 million vs. 230 million tons)

1.4 billion hectares of land – 28 percent of the world’s agricultural area – is used annually to produce food that is lost or wasted.

The direct economic consequences of food wastage (excluding fish and seafood) run to the tune of $750 billion annually.

The amount of food lost and wasted every year is equal to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crops (2.3 billion tons in 2009/10)

In the USA, organic waste is the second highest component of landfills, which are the largest source of methane emissions.

In the USA, 30-40% of the food supply is wasted, equaling more than 20 pounds of food per person per month.

The Food wastage’s carbon footprint is estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent of GHG released into the atmosphere per year.

Much of it ends up in landfills, and represents a large part of municipal solid waste.

The water used to irrigate wasted crops would be enough for the daily needs of nine million people.

Wasted production contributes 10% to the greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries.

One hectare of land can, for example, produce rice or potatoes for 19–22 people per annum. The same area will produce enough lamb or beef for only one or two people.

The total volume of water used each year to produce food that is lost or wasted (250km3) is equivalent to the annual flow of Russia’s Volga River, or three times the volume of Lake Geneva.

Over the past century, fresh water abstraction for human use has increased at more than double the rate of population growth. Currently about 3.8 trillion m3 of water is used by humans per annum. About 70% of this is consumed by the global agriculture sector,

Indeed, depending on how food is produced and the validity of forecasts for demographic trends, the demand for water in food production could reach 10–13 trillion m3 annually by mid-century. This is 2.5 to 3.5 times greater than the total human use of fresh water today.

Considerable tensions are likely to emerge, as the need for food competes with demands for ecosystem preservation and biomass production as a renewable energy source.

Agriculture is responsible for a majority of threats to at-risk plant and animal species.

A low percentage of all food wastage is composted:

What can be done about it?

Part of the problem is poor shopping habits, but the confusion many consumers have with “use by” and “best before” food labels is also a factor. “Use by” refers to food that becomes unsafe to eat after the date, while “best before” is less stringent and refers more to deteriorating quality.

Consumer households need to be informed and change the behavior which causes the current high levels of food waste. Instead of buying packets of vegetables buy loose veg.

Boycott Supermarkets that don’t accept imperfections and nicks. There’s nothing wrong with a deformed Veg. It’s fine to eat.

Support redistribution urban food programmes.

UK supermarket chain Waitrose is attacking food waste in all parts of its business. The upmarket grocery chain cuts prices in order to sell goods that are close to their “sell by” date, donates leftovers to charity and sends other food waste to bio-plants for electricity generation.

The idea is for Waitrose to earn “zero landfill” status.

Home composting can potentially divert up to 150 kg of food waste per household per year from local collection authorities.

Buy local produced food items not those produced, transformed and consumed in very different parts of the world.

Considering that food security is a major concern in large parts of the developing world. Conflicts around the world mean there is “donor fatigue.

Food crises don’t just affect the countries where people go hungry. It’s a global challenge. Recent data shows the number of hungry in the world has fallen but still stands at 842 million people.

World Food Programme WFP operations in and around Syria are costing around $31 million a week.

Hidden Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction.

Hidden hunger weakens the immune system, stunts physical and intellectual growth, and can lead to death. It wreaks economic havoc as well, locking countries into cycles of poor nutrition, lost productivity, poverty, and reduced economic growth.

Investing in nutrition is one of the smartest development investments we can make.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origine

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE VALUE OF GOLD.

27 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in The world to day., Wealth.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE VALUE OF GOLD.

Tags

Business and Economy, Capitalism and Greed, Central Banks, Distribution of wealth, Gold., The Future of Mankind

Just what is the value of Gold.?

Humans have been decorating themselves with gold since at least 4000 B.C.

According to a 2011 paper in the Journal Nature: meteor bombardment nearly 4 billion years ago brought 20 billion tons of a gold-and-precious-metal-rich space rock to Earth.

Tracing gold’s origin back even further takes us into deep space.

A 2013 study in The Astrophysical Journal Letters found that all of the gold in the universe was likely birthed during the collisions of dead stars known as neutron stars.

Where ever it came from here are some hard facts.

Gold, the 79th element on the Periodic Table of the Elements, one of the more recognizable of the bunch.

Two-thirds of the world’s gold use to be mined in South Africa. It is now ranked sixth amongst gold producing countries.

Seventy-eight percent of the world’s yearly supply of gold is used in jewelry. The rest goes to electronics and dental and medical uses.

  • The atomic symbol of gold, Au, comes from the Latin word for gold, aurum.
  • Astronaut helmets come equipped with a visor coated with a thin layer of gold. The gold blocks harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun.
  • The world’s largest gold crystal is the size of a golf ball and comes from Venezuela. The 7.7-ounce (217.78 grams) crystal is worth about $1.5 million.
  • In Tutankhamen’s tomb alone they found that his coffin was made from 1.5 tonnes of gold.
  • Earthquakes can create gold.
  • The first purely gold coins were manufactured in the Asia Minor kingdom of Lydia in 560 B.C.
  • You can eat gold.
  • Gold is an excellent conductor of electricity and is very non-reactive with air, water and most other substances, meaning it won’t corrode or tarnish.
  • Gold nano particles are the only way some drug can work.
  • Gold is in our every day language.
  • If we emptied our bank vaults and jewelry boxes, we’d find no less than 2.5 million tonnes of gold in the world.
  • The US Geological Surveyestimates there are 52,000 tonnes of minable gold still in the ground and more is likely to be discovered.

She’s been as good as gold. He or she is a gold mine of information.

All that glistens is not gold.Bullion dropped last month by the most since September as investors expected the Federal Reserve would soon move to raise interest rates for the first time since 2006. Photographer: Lisi Niesner/Bloomberg

He or she has a heart of gold. Sitting on a goldmine. You’re worth your weight in gold. He or she scored some Columbian Gold. He or She is a “gold digger.” He or he has a heart of gold. Go for the gold. Tickets are like gold dust. Strike gold. 

User-friendly software is worth its weight in gold.

From 3600 BC to the present day, from deep underground to outer space, gold has been a major factor in the world’s development and economy.

When thinking about the historical progress of technology, we consider the development of iron and copper-working as the greatest contributions to our species’ economic and cultural progress – but gold came first.

Its association with the gods, with immortality, and with wealth itself are common to many cultures throughout the world.

But how did gold come to be a commodity, a measurable unit of value?

Gold, measured out, became money. Gold gave rise to the concept of money itself: portable, private, and permanent.

Gold (and silver) in standardized coins came to replace barter arrangements. The concept of money, (i.e., gold and silver in standard weight and fineness coins) allowed the World’s economies to expand and prosper.

A lot of people think about gold as a percentage of a country’s total reserves.

Between January 2000 and March 2009, central banks reduced their reserve holdings of gold by more than 114 million troy ounces.

You might be surprised to learn that the United States has 70 percent of its reserves in gold. Today, the US has about 8,000 tons.

The Bank of England  held 5,485 tonnes of customer gold at the end of February 2014, and 6,240 tonnes of customer gold at the end of February 2013. This meant that between the two-year end dates, end of February 2013 to end of February 2014, the amount of gold in custody at the Bank of England fell by 755 tonnes.

Now only 500,000 bars in the entire London vaults system,500,000 bars = 6,250 tonnes. Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s precious gold bullion at the bottom of the market just before the price of gold started a decade of almost uninterrupted growth.

It was invested in foreign currency interest-bearing assets, 40% in dollars, 40% in euros and 20% in yen.

Meanwhile, China only has about 1 percent of its reserves in gold.

The reason is that a country’s reserves are a mixture of gold and hard currencies, and the currencies can be in bonds or other assets.

The United States doesn’t need other currencies. They print dollars, so why would we hold euros and yen? The U.S. doesn’t need them, so it makes sense that the country would have a very large percentage of its reserves in gold.

China, on the other hand, has greater need for other currencies.

In a money economy, however, you can say that the country’s gold holdings are the real money.

The IMF officially demonetized gold in 1975. The U.S. ended the convertibility of gold in 1971. Gold disappeared “officially” in stages in the mid-1970s. But the physical gold never went away.

Russia has one-eighth the gold of the United States.

Once China gets the right amount of gold, then the cap on gold’s price can come off. At that point, it doesn’t matter where gold goes because all the major countries will be in the same boat. As of right now, however, they’re not, so China has though to catch-up.

So one of my questions for central bankers is, if gold is such a ridiculous thing to have, why are we hanging onto it?

Gold serves as political chips on the world’s financial stage. It doesn’t mean that you automatically have a gold standard, but that the gold you have will give you a voice among major national players sitting at the table.

China feels extremely vulnerable to the dollar.  If we devalue the dollar, that’s an enormous loss to them.

China is saying, in effect,  “We’re not comfortable holding all these dollars unless we can have gold. it’s going to be a mad scramble to get gold.

China, along with India, leads the world in gold demand.

1999 – First Central Bank Gold Agreement.

The First Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA) is agreed. 15 European central banks declare that gold will remain an important element of their reserves and collectively cap gold sales at 400 tonnes per year over next five years.

2004 – Launch of SPDR Gold Shares

The market is transformed by an innovative, secure and easy way to access the gold market. Seven years later SPDR exceeds $55bn in assets under management.

New York Gold Spot Price (24hrs)Oct 26, 2015 at 12:35 EST

Gold Price Per Ounce $ 1,168.54 ∧   2.09
Gold Price Per Gram $ 37.57  ∧    0.07
Gold Price Per Kilo $ 37,569.43   ∧ 67.2

The annual worldwide production of gold is something like 50 million troy ounces per year. In other words, all of the gold produced worldwide in one year could just about fit in the average person’s living room!

That means that if you could somehow gather every scrap of gold that man has ever mined into one place, you could only build about one-third of the Washington Monument.

When deciding on a gold jewelry item there are always many different terms that come up.  The most popular are Solid Gold, Gold Filled, and Gold Plated. Solid gold is of course an exquisite piece of jewelry.  Gold filled is the next level and is an amazing, quality alternative to solid gold.  Gold plating is the lower level and these items tend to tarnish and can often times turn the skin green.

Pure gold is so soft, however, that it is rarely ever used to make jewelry. Most jewelry is made from a “gold alloy”.

24K gold is gold in its purest form without any other metal added (though even most 24K gold usually has minute traces of other metals in it. That’s why even fine gold bullion is labeled 99.999% Gold instead of 100% Gold).

Gold can be tested in several different ways. Acid Testing and X-Ray Fluorescence. They both have advantages and disadvantages.

Gold is an elemental metal. This means that pure gold is made up of nothing but gold atoms.

There’s just one problem with humanity’s continued love affair with gold: Getting it out of the ground. About 83 percent of the 2,700 tons of gold mined each year is extracted using a process called gold cyanidation, said Zhichang Liu, a postdoctoral researcher in chemistry at Northwestern University in Illinois. This process uses cyanide to leach gold out of the rock that holds it. Unfortunately, cyanide is toxic, and the process is anything but environmentally friendly.

In 2013 a bloke named Liu and his colleagues reported in the journal Nature Communications that they’d stumbled upon a way to extract gold from ore with benign starch rather than toxic cyanide.

There is about $130 billion in gold in Fort Knox.

The entire stockpile now weighs 147.3 million troy ounces, which is worth about $130 billion at today’s prices.

The bad news is that the way we use gold is starting to change.

Up to now it has never gone away. It has always been recycled.

“All the gold that has been mined throughout history is still in existence in the above-ground stock. That means that if you have a gold watch, some of the gold in that watch could have been mined by the Romans 2,000 years ago.” The way gold is being used in the technology industry, however, is different. About 12% of current world gold production finds its way to this sector, where it is often used in such small quantities, in each individual product, that it may no longer be economical to recycle it.

In short, gold may be being “consumed” for the first time.

Platinum is even more scarce than gold. Only 3.6 million troy ounces are produced per year.

WE LEFT WITH THE QUESTION WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS HAVE GOLD BARS IN THE VAULT?

It did sweet fanny Adam to stop the financial crash.

It’s a holdover from the old Gold Standards. Gold standard regulation required all banks, including the central bank to hold gold as a regulatory asset.

In the last gold standard, the Bretton Woods regime, the US in particular had to hold gold to back the dollar. The requirement went away with the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1973, but the gold didn’t.

These days there isn’t any requirement to hold gold. Gold on the Federal Reserve’s book isn’t even held at market prices, it’s marked to a notional statutory value of ~$42.

By the same token, there isn’t any requirement not to hold it.

“So why does anyone hold gold?”

It is expected to retain its value through cataclysmic events. The value of any currency, on the other hand, is dependent of the faith of the government or authority that backs it. The argument is that for some reason foreign markets become suddenly very adverse to take your currency, you should have some other medium of exchange that allow you to finance imports or serve short-term external debt.

All fiat currency is constantly competing with gold for value.

If everyone stopped creating money, and started hoarding gold, the central banks would, by definition be useless and powerless.

The trade-off between holding and selling the gold is different for “anyone” and countries.

Here a few Videos that are Gold.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE DRAWS ITS CONCLUSION ON WORLD ORGANISATIONS.

23 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Climate Change., Humanity., Sustaniability, The world to day., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE DRAWS ITS CONCLUSION ON WORLD ORGANISATIONS.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Globalization, The Future of Mankind, United Nations, World aid commission

Over many centuries, human societies across the globe have established progressively closer contacts.

Recently, the pace of global integration has dramatically increased.

Unprecedented changes in communications, transportation, and computer technology have given the process new impetus and made the world more interdependent than ever.

All giving rise to the question:

Why is our world in such a mess and our World Organisations so helpless to do anything about it.

The Answer is simple and can be summed up in one Paragraph.

Self Interest, no long-term planning, greed, unsustainable consumption, religion beliefs, drugs, guns, inequality and our out of date reactionary World Organisations which are not funded and have zero power to do anything about it.

At the turn of the Millennium, the atmosphere of optimism at the end of the Cold War and the confidence that globalization would “lift all boats” led to the belief that extreme deprivation could be overcome without any major change in global economic governance.

Now, after two decades of increasing inequalities and having reached or surpassed many of the planetary boundaries identified by science, it is extremely difficult to argue that the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) can be achieved without affecting some privileges of the rich and powerful.

This won’t happen without social and political struggle.

The good news is that the emerging global consensus is not any more on the side of plutocracies.

The Globalization of Politics, of Culture and of Law sweeps away regulation and undermines local and national politics, just as the consolidation of the nation-state swept away local economies, dialects, cultures and political forms.

Globalization may well create new markets and wealth, but it is a source of repression and a catalyst for global movements of social justice and emancipation.

Even as it causes widespread suffering, disorder, and unrest and now threatens the very atmosphere that we all rely on we carry on regardless of its consequences.

It is beyond comprehension, that we all sit in front of our TV, walk about with our Smart phones and worry about personnel satisfaction when the very world we live in is going to rack and ruin.

In the global partnership for development the focus has shifted towards private sector involvement while minimizing the goals for fair trade, debt relief and neglecting the regulation and control of capital movement.

Multinational corporations manufacture products in many countries and sell to consumers around the world. Money, technology and raw materials move ever more swiftly across national borders. Along with products and finances, ideas and cultures circulate more freely.

As a result, laws, economies, and social movements are forming at the international level are woven together in a complex manner, making it difficult to summarize positive or negative effects.

For example, giving the business sector the key role, being a contributor to job-generating growth. This comes before the adoption of “business-binding human rights standards.

However, it also reflects a new concept for “international partnership for development,” which has been based on the following:

(1) promoting fair trade to help developing nations improve their economic performance and revenues; (2) reconsidering foreign debts, which are consuming large public budget revenues; (3) increasing development aid in quantity and quality (the aid effectiveness track was launched in 2003); (4) speeding up technology transfer to help developing nations overcome the challenges of improving development tools; and (5) addressing the issue of medicines for dangerous illnesses, which is part of commitments by rich nations towards developing ones.

However there is little point to the above if there is no funds to effect the reforms. Why adopt goals at all?

Any systematic effort to answer this seemingly elementary conceptual question has been disturbingly absent in all our World Organisations.flag_2_access

UN reform is endlessly discussed, but there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose.

UN ‘fit for purpose’, but it is important to ask, ‘whose purpose will it be fit for’?

Funding of all UN system-wide activities is around US$40 billion per year.

While this may seem to be a substantial sum, in reality it is smaller than the budget of New York City, less than a quarter of the budget of the European Union, and only 2.3 per cent of the world’s military expenditures.

We needs to move from ‘Billions’ to ‘Trillions.

Member States have failed to provide reliable funding to the UN system at a level sufficient to enable it to fulfill the mandates they have given it.

With the ongoing financial constraints, it has opened the space for corporate sector engagement.

Increasingly the UN is promoting market-based approaches and multi-stakeholder partnerships as the business model for solving global problems.

Driven by a belief that engaging the more economically powerful is essential to maintaining the relevance of the UN.  This practice has harmful consequences for democratic governance and general public support, as it aligns more with power centers and away from the less powerful.

Donors’ priorities are limited to humanitarian intervention to help refugees and victims of wars and conflicts and to dealing with security concerns in countries torn by wars and conflicts.

The UN working methods reflect a bygone era.

The question of how a fair sharing of costs, responsibilities and opportunities among and within countries can be achieved in formulating and implementing a Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda is overlooked.

The goal to reduce inequality within and among countries, the goal to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, and the goal to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for development are all unattainable without funding.

The Post-2015 Agenda will only succeed if these goals include specific and time-bound targets and commitments for the rich that trigger the necessary regulatory and fiscal policy changes.

This will never happen.

The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) enjoy the privilege of veto power. This power has been intensely controversial since the drafting of the UN Charter in 1945.

Without the veto privilege. Fifty years later, the debate on the existence and use of the veto continues, reinvigorated by many cases of veto-threat as well as actual veto use.

The UN cannot perform effectively as long as its budget remains tightly constrained.

For all the talk about auditors and oversight bodies, the UN mainly needs cash. Financial reforms must consider new ways to raise funds, including “alternative financing” such as a global system of revenue-raising must be put in place to fund genuinely international initiatives.

There is only one way to achieve this. 

By placing a world Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds acquisitions and on all New Drilling licences Gas/Oil.

The foreign exchange market is the largest market in the world, with an estimated $4 trillion of foreign exchange traded per day (2011).

This means that in less than one year, currency worth 25 times the global GDP is traded.

Of this massive amount, international trade in goods and services, which requires foreign exchange, accounts for only a small percentage ($9 trillion per year) of the total trading.

A commission rate ranging from 0.005 to 0.25 percent would generate between $15 and $300 billion per year, of which a substantial amount could be allocated to promote international peace and development.

Add High Frequency Trading and SWFs not forgetting Oil and Gas Drilling and you have a perpetual funded UN.

Apart from the potential to tackle inequalities and injustices worldwide, it would trigger decisive action to protect the integrity of our planet, to combat climate change, and put an end to the overuse of resources and ecosystems by acknowledging planetary boundaries and promoting the respect for nature.

This is the only real solution.

Meanwhile exchange rate speculation accounts for at least 80 percent of the global currency market. These speculative movements, which can take place rapidly and unpredictably, threaten to empty central banks’ currency reserves and trigger financial crises such as those in Mexico (1994), East Asia (1997-98), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999), Turkey (2000) and Argentina (2001).

These crises have had far-reaching socio-economic consequences, throwing millions of people into poverty and unemployment.

Unfortunately, social achievements in reality are often fragile particularly for the socially excluded and can easily be rolled back as a result of conflict (as in the case of Ukraine/Syria/ Middle East), of capitalism in crisis (in many countries after 2008) or as a result of wrong-headed, economically foolish and socially destructive policies, as in the case of austerity policies in many regions, from Latin America to Asia to Southern Europe.

In the name of debt reduction and improved competitiveness, these policies brought about large-scale unemployment and widespread impoverishment, often coupled with the loss of basic income support or access to basic primary health care.

More often than not, this perversely increased sovereign debt instead of decreasing it.

In the United States poverty increased steadily in the last two decades and currently affects some 50 million people, measured by the official threshold of US$23,850 a year for a family of four. In Germany, 20.3 percent of the population – a total of 16.2 million people – were affected by poverty or social exclusion in 2013. In the European Union as a whole, the proportion of poor or socially excluded people was 24.5 percent.

Last, but not least, rich countries tend to be more powerful in terms of their influence on international and global policy making and standard setting. Actions by international institutions like the IMF or World Bank are shaped by their governing bodies, whose composition is directly linked to the affluence of member countries.

Similar patterns exist in donor-recipient relationships or in the dynamics of international and/or inter-state negotiations.

The results can be very tangible, as in the case of the creditor-debtor-relationship between Greece and EU and IMF, or rather subtle as sometimes in the voting behavior of smaller actors in the UN Security Council.

If we are to have a global transformation, it would require not only the mobilization of the international community but also a fair sharing of costs, responsibilities and opportunities among and within the countries of the World. Include fair trade and investment regimes and migration policies, and international financial system reforms; more specifically they include the revision of bilateral and international investment agreements, the creation of a global regulatory framework for transnational corporations, greater flexibility in intellectual property rights protection for developing countries, genuine efforts to combat tax evasion and profit shifting, the creation of a debt workout mechanism for highly indebted countries as well as the reform of existing global economic governance institutions.

Not secret Trade Agreements like the TTP and the TTIP

All countries have responsibilities in this regard, but the rich have a greater responsibility given their capacity, resources and influence in international institutions and economic governance.

A UN study has estimated that about $150 billion per year is needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals, including halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, ensuring primary schooling for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.

 

The richest 85 people in the world own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire global population.

Yes, that equation works out to: 85 > 3,000,000,000.

By the end of 2016 the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world’s wealth

People everywhere want to be free to determine their own future so we must take the profit out of war and profit for profit sake.

The Conclusion can only be:  

That unless we the citizens of the Planet demand change nothing or any reform will be possible. We must make profit for profit sake provide the Funds. Take the current Climate Change Conference in Paris. With no funds any agreements to tackle the problem will be worthless.   

If you agree: Join me. Get off your rear end and get involved. ( see previous posts.)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART SEVEN. WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO)

22 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Life., The Future, The world to day., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART SEVEN. WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO)

Tags

World Organisations.

Following the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the organization was heavily criticized for its bureaucracy, insufficient financing, regional structure, and staffing profile.

OBTAINING AN INSIGHT INTO THIS ORGANISATION REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF NOT ONLY OF WORLD HEALTH AND ALL THAT ENCOMPASSES. BUT THE OVERLAPPING OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE WORLD BANK/ IMF AND DRUGS.

It is impossible to objectively and fairly assess the functioning of WHO as a whole.

It may in fact be impossible to assess WHO’s functioning in individual policy areas in a manner that is objective, fair and just.

Another words since the World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948, the development of many new institutions in the field of health challenges its original vision as the ‘directing and coordinating body on international health work.

In a world with increasing isolation, tension and recourse to violence, it is clear that the Red Cross Red Crescent must champion the individual and community values which encourage respect for other human beings and a willingness to work together to find solutions to community problems.The Movement’s seven Fundamental Principles as they stand today were unanimously adopted in 1965 by the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross.

Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization working in more than 60 countries to assist people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe.

Health is vitally important for every human being in the world. Global health matters to everyone, not just to those living in developing countries. The Movement is independent.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Since 15 June 2007, the world has been implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR).

WHO evolved from a body principally aimed at the control of infectious diseases to a more holistic approach to the improvement of health characterized in the 1970s by the slogan ‘Health for All.

The International Health Regulations are a legally binding international agreement that govern the roles of the World Health Organization and its Member States around the globe in identifying, sharing information about, and responding to public health events that may have international consequences.
Afficher l'image d'origine

Under Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1990s a serious attempt was made to refocus WHO and raise its status as a player in the development policy arena, but with mixed success and limited sustainability.

More recently WHO’s chronic financial problems, characterized by excessive dependence on voluntary short-term funding by donors, have precipitated another round of reform.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the body of the United Nations (UN) responsible for directing and coordinating health.

The United Nations’ system is comprised of the UN itself and more than 30 affiliated organizations — known as programs, funds, and specialized agencies — with their own membership, leadership, and budget processes. Many of these Programs and funds overlap each other.

For example.

UNICEF, United Nations Children’s Fund provides long-term humanitarian and development assistance to children and mothers. Recent UNICEF initiatives have included polio immunization for 5.5 million children in Angola when WHO is supposed to be responsible for global vaccination campaigns.

A WORTHY  FUND that is giving today’s children a chance to grow into useful and happier citizens, it contributes to removing some of the seeds of world tension and future conflicts.

 UNFPA, United Nations Population Fund– UNFPA works on the ground in 140 nations to “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS is co-sponsored by 10 UN system agencies: UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, the ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the World Bank and has ten goals related to stopping and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

As such WHO has come to play a vital role as an actor in the field of international public health and international public health policy. Since its inception in 1947 WHO has been at the forefront of many breakthroughs in the field including, most notably, what has come to be described as one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the 20th century, the elimination of Smallpox in 1979.

However WHO’s inability to control the spread of  HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa has cast doubt on its effectiveness.

Though much of the media attention given to WHO concentrates on its role in controlling and ultimately eliminating infectious disease, WHO’s mandate as you can see from the above is far broader.

The constitution of the World Health Organization entered into force on the 7th April 1948; however the idea of an international (or at least transnational) approach to dealing with matters of health had existed since the middle of the 19th century with efforts centered on combating infectious disease.

As the 20th century progressed, the focus of international health policy broadened.Afficher l'image d'origine

The constitution of WHO indicates that, by the middle of the 20th century nations were willing to cooperate in a broad range of health-related policy matters. Chapter II, Article 2 of WHO’s constitution lists the twenty-two functions of WHO.

The top six functions are:

  1. Providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint action is needed;
  2. Shaping the research agenda and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge;
  3. setting norms and standards and promoting and monitoring their implementation;
  4. Articulating ethical and evidence-based policy options;
  5. Providing technical support, catalysing change, and building sustainable institutional capacity;
  6. Monitoring the health situation and addressing health trends.

The constitution of the World Health Organization also addresses its structures.

These structures are complex, with three levels of organization at an international level, the World Health Assembly (WHA), comprising representatives of every WHO member state, The Executive board, which comprises members elected by the WHA and The Secretariat composed of WHO’s Director-General and technical and administrative staff.

The constitution also specifies provisions to create regional organizations and “committees considered desirable to serve any purpose within the competence of the organization.

In addition to a continuing focus on infectious disease there are also functions that specifically deal with areas including research, assistance to government and addressing non-infectious disease that had previously been given little attention on the international health policy stage.

The focus of WHO’s work has shifted over time. This is not surprising, considering the broad scope of WHO’s mandate that the organization tends to focus its work around only some of its functions at any given time.

The question is whether WHO member states and its secretariat are asking sufficiently searching questions about WHO’s place in the international system and what might need to be done to put its future on a more secure footing.

WHO is acutely aware of the challenges it faces if it is to remain a relevant actor in international health and second, the direction of WHO’s work for is geared towards meeting the health related Millennium Development Goals.

Before examining WHO’s role in maternal health it is important to understand how the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have come to play such a prominent role in shaping WHO’s work.

The MDGs came out of the United Nations Millennium Declaration which was endorsed by 189 countries in September 2000 and resolves to work towards combating poverty, ill-health, discrimination and inequality, lack of education and environmental degradation.

The MDGs are eight specific goals that the 191 United Nations (UN) states have committed themselves to achieving by 2015.

The MDGs goals are:

1.     to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

2.     to achieve universal primary education;

3.     to promote gender equality and empower women;

4.     to reduce child mortality;

5.     to improve maternal health;

6.     to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;

7.     to ensure environmental sustainability;

8.     and to develop a global partnership for development.

These goals are interdependent, progress or lack thereof in achieving one goal will have effects on progress towards achieving the others.

Likewise it is acknowledged that in order to achieve the MDGs goals all sections of the UN system will be required to work together and, more importantly, that the UN alone cannot achieve the MDGs goals.

The MDGs are unique in that they have broad support across the international system. The constituent bodies of the UN and all 191 UN member states are committed to achieving the MDGs.

Achieving the MDGs goals will require the cooperation and action of UN member states and of other international, regional and local governmental and non-governmental organizations.

WHO in particular accepts this to be the case.

WHO’s need to work closely with other UN bodies, states and other actors in the international system is a major theme of WHO’s Eleventh General Programme of Work 2006-2015.

0NCE AGAIN both of these points indicate that WHO is aware of the fact that it cannot function as an independent actor in the international system.

Any action WHO takes must be informed by the actions of other actors in the international system and likewise WHO’s actions impact upon the actions of other actors in the international system.

Enter the World Bank. Who’s major health funder in the 1980s and a proponent of market-based health policies challenged WHO’s pre-eminent position in the field.

Along with regional organizations including the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) frame, to varying extents, their policies in a variety of areas around the achievement of the MDGs.

Many major international charities such as the Red Cross and OXFAM are focusing their work, again to varying degrees, on achieving the MDGs.

There are also many civil society organizations, operating at local, national, regional and international levels that are engaged with the MDGs.

Considering this broad support it is little wonder that WHO have chosen to focus so heavily on the achievement of the MDGs in the Eleventh General Programme of Work 2006-2015

The 2014/2015 proposed budget of the WHO is about US$4 billion. 

About US$930 million are to be provided by member states with a further US$3 billion to be from voluntary contributions.

( As of 2012, the largest annual assessed contributions from member states came from the United States ($110 million), Japan ($58 million), Germany ($37 million), United Kingdom ($31 million) and France ($31 million). The combined 2012–2013 budget has proposed a total expenditure of $3,959 million, of which $944 million (24%) will come from assessed contributions. This represented a significant fall in outlay compared to the previous 2009–2010 budget, adjusting to take account of previous under spends. Assessed contributions were kept the same. Voluntary contributions will account for $3,015 million (76%), of which $800 million is regarded as highly or moderately flexible funding, with the remainder tied to particular programmes or objectives.)

When you consider the value of the Drugs market.

As a result of the pressure to maintain sales,  there is now, in WHO’s words, “an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way”.

Afficher l'image d'origine

The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe.

A similar conflict of interests exists in the area of drug research and development (R&D) particularly in the area of neglected diseases.

The private sector dominates R&D, spending millions of dollars each year developing new drugs for the mass market. The profit imperative ensures that the drugs chosen for development are those most likely to provide a high return on the company’s investment. As a result, drugs for use in the industrialized world are prioritized over ones for use in the South, where many patients would be unable to pay for them.

In a number of cases, international corporations and foundations have contributed drugs or products free of charge to help in disease eradication.

Smith Kline Beecham has made a US$500 million commitment to WHO of its drug albendazole, used to treat lymphatic filariasis (elephantiasis).

American Home Products has provided a non-toxic larvicide and the DuPont Company has contributed free cloth water filters for the eradication of guinea-worm disease (dracunculiasis).

The Japanese Nippon Foundation has enabled WHO to supply blister packs containing the drugs needed for multi-drug therapy (MDT) of TB in sufficient quantities to treat about 800 000 patients a year in some 35 countries.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Tomorrow, the World Health Organization (WHO) is expected to officially certify that south-east Asia, formerly one of the regions with the worst levels of polio, has eradicated the disease, after India found new no cases in the previous three years. (The WHO counts India as part of south-east Asia.)

The cost of achieving this has stretched past $10 billion, much of it fronted by donors from wealthy countries that have already eliminated the disease, as the US did in 1979.

For comparison, eliminating smallpox cost $500 million in 2008 dollars.

In 1998, researchers forecast that the eradication of measles in the US by 2010 would save $45 million a year.

Despite official “eradication” in 2000, cases of the measles are growing again thanks to the anti-vaccine movement’s push against immunization.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), the health body of the United Nations (UN), has released a new report stating the huge leaps made in the global fight against malaria. In the space of only 15 years, between 2000 and 2015, the rate of new malaria infections has dropped by approximately 37 per cent, with the global death rate falling by a dramatic 60 per cent during the same period. This means over six million deaths have been prevented since 2000.

“In the last decade of the previous century, malaria was rampant, killing more than one million people every year,” “Today, global malaria control ranks as one of the most successful stories in public health, since the start of the century.” However “Malaria still causes one in ten child deaths in Africa and costs the continent’s economies around £8bn every year.”

There is no doubting that this World Organisation and the work it does is essential to us all.

Being a humanitarian organisation which is much more than just giving people medicine it must recognize that everybody is an individual with a story, with a life, with a right to a future.

It is incapable of achieving this because it has to rely on ( like the United Nations, the World Wildlife Fund, and the United Nations Children’s Fund) insecure sourcing of financing.  

A 0.05% World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions would create a perpetual fund  that would transform all them.    

There seems little point in begging for funds when thinks go wrong.

There has never been a more pressing time for our out of date world organisation to function. Order has broken down in numerous countries. Armed groups and individuals explicitly target girls and women for rape, trafficking, and forced “marriage.” Smugglers sell desperate refugees into slavery. Predators attack the displaced, exploiting their vulnerability. And the consequences, both immediate and long-term, are profound.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYETHE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART SIX – THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)

20 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Climate Change., Sustaniability, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYETHE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART SIX – THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)

Tags

A world Aid Commission, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Extinction, Visions of the future., World Organisations., World Wildlife Fund. WWF

This is the first World Organisation in the series of posts that can hold its head up high, because we cannot separate the well-being of people from the well-being of the ecosystems where they live.

World Wildlife Fund was conceived in April, 1961, and set up shop in September, 1961, at IUCN’s headquarters in Morges, Switzerland. H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization’s first president.

In its first year, the Board approves five projects totaling $33,500.

TO DAY IT is one of the largest environmental and conservation groups with worldwide affiliates. The panda drawn for the first time in 1961 by Sir Peter Scott, artist and co-founder of WWF, remains until today the organization’s symbol.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Its mission is to use scientific knowledge and advance that knowledge; to “work to preserve the diversity and abundance of life and the health of ecological systems by protecting natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species”; to promote “sustainable approaches to the use of renewable natural resources”; and to promote “efficient use of resources and energy and the maximum reduction of pollution.”

In 1973 WWF grants $38,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to study the tiger population of the Chitwan Sanctuary in Nepal.

WWF begins awarding the annual $50,000 Getty Prize for outstanding contributions to wildlife conservation in 1974. The Prize increases to $100,000 in 1999, and now focuses on the education of future conservationists.

During the first three years of its existence, “WWF raised and donated almost US$1.9 million to conservation projects.”

HUMANITY’S FOOTPRINT IS OUTSTRIPPING EARTH’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE

Already, 60% of ecosystem services—things like water supplies, fish stocks and fertile soil— are in decline because of human impacts on the environment.

Already, we need the equivalent of 1½ Earths to meet the demands people make on nature. We are eating into our natural capital, making it more and more difficult to sustain what will be needed by those who come after us.

THE PLANET IS CHANGING. WE ARE TOO. EVERY DAY, THE THREATS FACING THE PLANET BECOME MORE STARK.

TARGETING SPECIFIC PLACES AND SPECIES IS NO LONGER ENOUGH.

Fortunately, making connections—between the health of the planet and the health of humanity, between sustainability and a strong bottom line, between the sources of energy we choose and the water we drink—is one of WWF’s greatest talents.

Today, the WWF International is focused on six global issues, each critical to the health of our world and its inhabitants. The organization’s Web site lists the focus and need for each of the six programs.

The challenge comes in establishing that connectivity in a way that inspires action from people everywhere, on all levels.

ONE IN NINE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET SUFFERS FROM HUNGER.

90% OF THE OCEAN’S FISH STOCKS ARE OVER FISHED OR BEING FISHED TO THEIR LIMITS. AMERICANS CONSUME NEARLY 5 BILLION POUNDS OF SEAFOOD A YEAR NOT TO MENTION JAPAN, SPAIN. OCEANS FEED MORE THAN 1 BILLION PEOPLE. THEY GUIDE US TO ADVENTURE AND CONTEMPLATION, ABSORB CO² , AND HOLD THE PLANET’S GREATEST DIVERSITY OF LIFE.

GLOBALLY, OVER FISHING IS HAVING A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE SEA.

WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE DECLINED BY AN AVERAGE OF 52% OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.

BY 2030, GLOBAL DEMAND FOR FRESH WATER IS PROJECTED TO EXCEED CURRENT SUPPLY BY MORE THAN 40%.

573 MILLION ACRES OF FOREST WILL BE GONE BY 2050 IF WE DO NOTHING TO STOP DEFORESTATION.

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO² IN THE ATMOSPHERE IN 2013 WAS HIGHER THAN IT HAD BEEN IN AT LEAST 800 THOUSAND YEARS.

FORESTS ARE AT THE HEART OF LIFE ON EARTH. BILLIONS OF ANIMALS, PLANTS AND PEOPLE DEPEND ON THEM. THEY PROTECT OUR WATERSHEDS AND SUPPLY THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. BETWEEN 46,000 AND 58,000 SQUARE MILES OF FOREST ARE LOST EACH YEAR ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO 36 FOOTBALL FIELDS EVERY MINUTE.

FRESH WATER IS CENTRAL TO OUR SURVIVAL. RIVERS, WETLANDS, LAKES AND STREAMS SUPPORT MORE THAN 10% OF ALL KNOWN SPECIES. WATER IS A CONDUIT FOR HEALTH, ENERGY AND FOOD. VIRTUALLY NO FRESHWATER SYSTEM REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES.

WILDLIFE INSPIRES US. ANIMAL POPULATIONS ANCHOR A WEB OF LIFE THAT IS INTEGRAL TO EVERY HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM ON EARTH. IN THE SPAN OF JUST TWO HUMAN GENERATIONS, HALF OF EARTH’S WILDLIFE HAS DISAPPEARED.

FOOD SUSTAINS AND RENEWS US. ITS CREATION, PRODUCTION, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORT ENCROACH ON NATURE IN HARMFUL WAYS.

IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE,WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REPLENISH THE WORLD’S FOOD SUPPLY FAST ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND.

A HEALTHY CLIMATE IS A PRECARIOUS GIFT. CLIMATE CHANGE IS UPSETTING THE BALANCE THAT PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE NEED TO THRIVE.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris is fast approaching—and with it, our best chance to secure meaningful global climate change action. But the decisions that define our day-to-day lives have a huge impact as well.

Now, the 21st century and social media have ushered in a new set of trends. Younger generations respond less to formal affiliation and gravitate to supporting stand-alone causes and initiatives to get things done. The same is true of some sectors of philanthropy. Increasingly, successful individuals, along with foundations and corporations, see giving as a tool to confront and mitigate some of the biggest problems of our day.

Taking into account the above conditions that are currently prevalent  to our plants and the consequences to all living creatures, included us, you would think that our World Governments and Large Multinational Corporations would be funding the WWF work and projects.

You would be wrong. It has to beg, steal and borrow.

84% of WWF’s spending is directed to worldwide conservation activities.

(32% of its Funding comes from Individual Contributions, 19% from Government grants & contracts, 19% from in-kind and other revenues, 10% from other/non operating contributions, 9% foundation contributions,7% WWF network revenues and last 4% from corporate contributions.)

There is a lot of room for some corporation like Apple, Microsoft, or Banks to step up to the plate or it could be funded by the establishment of a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, and Drilling Licences. (see previous posts)

(WWF’s FY14 financial performance remained steady, with total revenues and support at $266.3 million. WWF’s programmatic spending represented 84% of total expenses, with management and administration costs accounting for a modest 5% of total expenses. Total net assets of $357.9 million represented a 12% increase over FY13.)

Afficher l'image d'origine 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FIVE – THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION.

19 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in The Future, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FIVE – THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Current world problems, Distribution of wealth, Globalization, ongoing Privatization of the world, World Organisations., World Trade Organisation

The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world’s population consume 86 percent of the world’s resources while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent.

The WTO began life on 1 January 1995, but its trading system is half a century older.Afficher l'image d'origine

Since 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had provided the rules for the system. (The second WTO ministerial meeting, held in Geneva in May 1998, included a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the system.)

The last and largest GATT round, was the Uruguay Round which lasted from 1986 to 1994 and led to the WTO’s creation.

Whereas GATT had mainly dealt with trade in goods, the WTO and its agreements now cover trade in services, and in traded inventions, creations and designs (intellectual property).

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization of 161 members that deals with the rules of trade between nations. With Russia’s accession in August 2012, the WTO encompasses all major trading economies.Afficher l'image d'origine

The work of the IMF and the WTO is complementary.

The WTO Agreements require that it consult the IMF when it deals with issues concerning monetary reserves, balance of payments, and foreign exchange arrangement.

The policies of the WTO impact all aspects of society and the planet, but it is not a democratic, transparent institution.

The WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations.  The WTO would like you to believe that creating a world of “free trade” will promote global understanding and peace. On the contrary, the domination of international trade by rich countries for the benefit of their individual interests fuels anger and resentment that make us less safe.

WTO rules put the “rights” of corporations to profit over human and labor rights.

It is time that trade was put firmly in its place, so that it is viewed not as a goal in itself but as a means to achieving broader social, environmental and development goals.

At the very least, the world’s richest countries must honour their commitment to tackling their own damaging practices, particularly subsidies that drive down prices and increase poverty for farmers across the world.

Multilateral trade negotiations need fundamental reform, to be based on fair negotiations, not power play, so that developing countries have an equal place at the table. Genuine consultation with civil society in both the global north and south would no doubt produce other proposals for improvement.

If agreement can’t be reached on a small package of measures to help developing countries, as part of development agenda, then the relevance of the WTO and the multilateral trading system must be questioned.

The sad reality is that very often it is not in a business’s financial interests to act ethically. And no amount of persuasion will change that.The point, then, is not so much to persuade businesses that it is in their interests to act ethically and sustainably – they will work that out for themselves – but to make sure that it is.

Which means two things in practice: raising the benefits of acting ethically and sustainably, and raising the costs of not doing so. There are two principal ways, in a democratic capitalist society, of ensuring that the right incentives are in place for a business to act ethically: via the consumer and via the regulator (indirectly influenced by the citizen).

When humans get into big organisations it can be hard to apply moral values, and the incentives of the business context tend to hold sway. Especially when the boardroom is often far from a particular initiative that may be many thousands of miles away.

The big problem is the lack of global level regulation to match our now thoroughly globalised financial system. Such an international regulatory system is very far from being a reality, but if it is needed to guide, enable and sometimes restrict the activities of the financial sector, it is equally needed in other international sectors, from the extractive industries to manufacturing to agricultural trade.

Attempts at getting companies to sign up to voluntary measures (such as the UN Global Compact) are fine, but they are regarded as quaint by the majority of business people.

For every CEO who has a damascene conversion and transforms or builds their business along ethical lines (think Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) there are thousands who don’t. Lip service is paid, the odd children’s playground is built, the business of business goes on.

The point is to change incentives, and voluntary measures don’t do that. Only legal sanction or consumer action is strong enough, and consumer action is too erratic to rely upon.

In a globalised world, national level laws are clearly inadequate. People say international law is impossible, but they say that about everything worth doing. It is not only possible, it is vital, and is the major project of the 21st century. Without it, the global public cannot expect a private sector that works for people, not just for profit.

If you wanted clear evidence of the above just look at the Two trade Agreements recently negotiated The TTIP and TTP.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
← Older posts
Newer posts →

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE. WE NEED TO RADICALLY CHANGE THE WAY WE DO EVERYTHING. October 31, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. The AI industry’s boldest promise right now is that AI will soon improve itself, with almost no need for human oversight.  October 30, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH IODOITS IN POWER? October 29, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT AMERICAN CULTURE. October 28, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS POLITICS HAS LOST TOUCH WITH YOUNG PEOPLE. October 26, 2026

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE EXP…
Jason Lawrence's avatarJason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
bobdillon33@gmail.com's avatarbobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
Ernie's avatarOG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 107,072 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    bobdillon33blog
    Join 217 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • bobdillon33blog
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar