Legislation And The Legal System

So it turns outthat the same legal system that is supposed to protect our citizens and entrepreneurs and govern our nation has been manipulated by the wealthy and powerful to stiffle competition.

When that innovation is needed to move the country forward in times of great need, we find ourselves paralyzed.

A good example is the need to reduce our dependency on oil for our economy. Not just foreign oil. The electric car was killed and many other highly efficient engine design have been shutdpwn by BigOil or the large auto manufacturers.

Meanwhile the nation is racing towards bankruptcy, perilous global climate change, and all out war to secure oil and gas around the world.

Peak oil, peak debt, peak innovation - peak everything.

Perhaps what ends all empires is its own granduer and competing interests that drive it into the ground.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

'Malaise': The last time a president told the truth about energy | Energy Bulletin

'Malaise': The last time a president told the truth about energy | Energy Bulletin

'Malaise': The last time a president told the truth about energy

by Erik Curren

Opponents want to paint Obama as the new Jimmy Carter -- a loser. But Obama might actually do well to read Carter's brilliant and unfairly maligned "malaise" speech and start talking honestly about energy as Carter did.

Today's energy crunch is starting to look more and more like the energy crisis of the late 1970s. But if President Obama doesn't want to end up like Jimmy Carter, maybe he should consider actually taking a page out of Carter's playbook and start leveling with the American public about energy.

After the anniversary of Carter's "malaise" speech earlier this month, Mitt Romney tried to cast Obama as Carter-esque -- that it to say, a loser. Obama made an off-the-cuff comment that Americans are "stressed out" by today's economic problems. In response, Romney's campaign pumped out a press release comparing today's economy to the recession under Carter and Obama's remarks to Carter's infamous speech of July 1979.

But was that speech, which Republicans have used again and again as an example of weak leadership, really so bad? And did the public's reaction to the speech, in which Carter never used the word "malaise" but did talk about a "crisis of confidence," seal Carter's fate as a one-term wonder?

Whatever the GOP wants you to think, the answer to both questions is no.

The speech itself was brilliant. And the public loved it. If many other things hadn't gone wrong, that speech could've saved Carter's presidency and put America on the path to a sane energy policy while we still had time.

Conservation a sign of civic virtue

Carter was the last president to talk honestly with the public about energy, even if some of his energy ideas wouldn't pass the green test today.

And as in his other much-maligned "sweater" speech, where Carter focused on conservation and "thrift," in the malaise speech he eschewed the path later taken by Reagan, Clinton and Bush Junior that nearly any economic problem could be solved if only America's tight-fisted consumers would just go out and buy more stuff. Instead of pandering, Carter did the opposite, and blamed the public for being too materialistic:

Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

As in so many things, Carter was dead right about consumerism: once basic needs are met, studies show, consumption may not make people any happier.

Carter then went on to outline America's crisis of confidence in terms that sound all too contemporary --

For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote...a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions.

Today, it's easy to understand why ordinary citizens have checked out of the political process, because government has so clearly been hijacked by corporate plutocrats, making Washington largely irrelevant to the world's real problems of peak oil, climate change and economic collapse peppered with obscene inequality of wealth.

But even in his day, Carter saw plutocracy as a problem and he bemoaned "a system of government that seems incapable of action...a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests."

Unlike Obama, who has kept his head down on the subject of energy, Carter was not afraid to finger the real culprit behind the late seventies recession: the energy crisis, which he called "a clear and present danger." And his solution to the economy was not to bail out Wall Street or tinker with the housing market, but to come up with a solution for energy: "Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally."

A visionary energy blueprint

Carter concluded with the outline of a plan for the US to "never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never." Along with some bad ideas like retrofitting power plants to burn coal instead of petroleum and developing shale oil -- more understandable in a world not yet warned about climate change -- the plan included many good ideas, all to be paid for with a windfall profits tax, such as:

• Oil import quotas (anticipating by three decades Colin Campbell's Oil Depletion Protocol)
• An energy security corporation to build domestic energy capacity on a war-footing, reminiscent of the War Production Board which helped the auto and other manufacturers to pump out tanks, guns and ships during World War II
• A solar bank that would finance PV panels around the country to produce 20% of our energy from the sun by 2000
• And of course, "a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford."

The speech ended on a note that today seems quaintly and almost mysteriously honest, actually calling for the public to "sacrifice":

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Obama's wasted opportunity

The peak oil community encouraged Obama to mark the occasion of the first anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon spill in April of this year by making a major energy speech where he would talk about peak oil and ask the public to help him prepare the nation for a lower-energy future. In that speech, he could've done worse than to follow Carter's example and to talk honestly about the industrial world's huge energy challenge.

But it didn't happen. Obama just let the Gulf spill anniversary pass unnoticed. He hasn't acknowledged peak oil. And he has yet to take any other occasion to make a major speech on energy at all or to connect the dots between the Great Recession and today's oil crunch.

Yes, Obama missed an opportunity. But the piper must still be paid.

So, sometime soon a president will have to make a big speech on energy. It may be Obama or it may be President Romney. But with oil surely due to rise soon back up to its historic high of $147 a barrel and then go even further, possibly to $200 or beyond, an oil crash is coming that will bring on a national emergency even worse than Carter faced.

Just as in the seventies, there will be gas lines, high inflation and a crisis of confidence in the government. When Carter gave his malaise speech, the nation was in full panic mode: "Ten days earlier, truckers and residents had rioted in usually quiet Levittown, Pennsylvania, setting bonfires to protest inflationary costs and limited supplies of fuel, made worse by recent machinations of OPEC," according to historian Kevin Mattson.

Yet, after giving the speech, Carter's approval rating went up a whopping 11%. Apparently, the American public was ready to hear some hard truths about energy and the economy. They were ready to be asked to sacrifice, as long as it was fair. They could accept that things would be hard, as long as the White House was providing leadership that was strong. As Mattson writes,

The mail that poured into the White House testified that many citizens felt moved by the speech. One man wrote to Carter, “You are the first politician that [sic] has said the words that I have been thinking for years. Last month I purchased a moped to drive to work with. I plan to use it as much as possible, and by doing so I have cut my gas consumption by 75%.”

Unfortunately, Carter then went on to spoil things by firing his whole cabinet a couple days later, signalling government meltdown. And we all know what happened in the 1980 presidential race. That's when Reagan's campaign made a secret (and probably treasonous) deal with the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostages until after the election, thus sabotaging Carter's negotiations with Tehran, a dirty-trick October surprise that effectively worked to steal the election.

The final energy crisis

In the new energy crisis that's coming, things will surely start out much the same as in the seventies. The president will get on TV to talk about America's dependence on foreign oil, as every president since Nixon has done. He'll connect it to the economy. He'll call for an all-out effort to build energy security and he will ask the public to help.

But this time, there won't be three decades left of oil for the US to import from other countries. Now, the world is tapped out on cheap oilat the most inconvenient possible time -- just when millions of new drivers in China and India are competing for the gas at American pumps.

The next president to talk to the American people about an energy crisis won't have the luxury of time to implement a plan to build US energy security over decades. Our situation will be much more serious. In that emergency, gas rationing will be only the mildest of measures that the government will propose to keep civil order and try to prevent total economic collapse within weeks or months.

And the worst part is, none of it may even work.

As Mitt Romney so eloquently put it in his news release, “Who would have guessed that we’d look back upon the Carter administration as the good old days?”

-- Erik Curren

Shell has hidden 100+mpg engine technology #peakoil #peakdebt #gashole #energy

This is more than just greedy capitalism. This is pyschopathic. Recognize that the American government has been going to WAR to defend our oil interests around the world. Meanwhile the US Government has gone into massive debt to build a military to support the global protection of oil interests. Look no further than the Carter Doctrine for EXPLICIT ties between WAR and OIL.



Who else is protecting these secrets? Who else benefits from an endless supply of oil, the wars to defend them, and keeping the American population in debt, and world populations dependent on oil? Hmmmm.



As Joe Biden would say, this is a BIG FUCKING DEAL!

Amplify’d from movies.netflix.com

GasHole (Gas Hole) 2010 NR 101 minutes An unsettling wake-up call to all Americans, this documentary dissects the country's dependence on foreign pipelines, exposes rich oil companies' devious dealings, and explores alternative fuels as a viable solution to our global energy crisis. Narrated by actor Peter Gallagher, the film includes interviews with government officials, scientific experts, academics and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Cast: Peter Gallagher, Joshua Jackson, Curtis Wright, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Jamie Court, Mark Brinkerhoff, Les Manns, Brian Pauwels, Tom Udall Director: Jeremy Wagener, Scott D. Roberts Genres: Documentaries, Political Documentaries This movie is: Controversial Availability: Streaming and DVD

Laughing reading so many angry reviews of this movie. Personally I threw out(until I research on my own) the info about the Miracle 200mpg combustion systems. Oil Corps and Auto ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GRIDLOCK QUAGMIRE L.A.traffic is now. Politicians were paid off, hmmm REALLY? to defund and remove the tracks. There are a few places the old trolly tracks can still be seen of the very extensive Mass Transit (train system)that once existed in L.A. That is fact, DOCUMENTED. If you use just a shred of common sense, what happens with the Oil Industry doesn't add up. Record profits quarter after quarter, the only industry that can claim problems with supply and yet regardless of any condition, wars, famine,floods, hurricanes, can make RECORD PROFITS. These are Multi-National Corporations, they no longer have any allegence to the U.S, that should be obvious. This year I'm getting a diesel vehicle and running BIO-diesel. BYE BYE BIG OIL...Done with YOU. 5yrs, I'll be off the grid with wind and solar. SMILE The Oil pipe line Leak at YellowStone Sealed the Deal for me. Read about the Pipeline to be built through afghanistan...FYI, Halliburton has a contract for a Port station in that one. Why so much silence about Iraqi's Oil? Open your eyes people. Sadamm Hussein took Iraqi Oil off the U.S.Dollar, put it on the Euro(Meaning U.S Had NO Control of Iraqi Oil Market) hmmm and then some kind of war started, surely just a coincidence. This is not conspiracy stuff, it is fact. This Documentary presents some ideas to a VERY ODD $$$ situation with Oil Companies. Read more at movies.netflix.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19lw0

Earth Day Recollections, The EPA, Climate Change, Population Control

Earth Day Recollections: What It Was Like When The Movement Took Off | About EPA | US EPA

Earth Day Recollections: What It Was Like When The Movement Took Off

by John C. Whitaker
[EPA Journal - July/Aug. 1988]

When President Nixon and his staff walked into the White House on January 20, 1969, we were totally unprepared for the tidal wave of public opinion in favor of cleaning the nation's environment that was about to engulf us. If Hubert Humphrey had become President, the result would have been the same.

During the 1968 presidential campaign, neither the Nixon nor Humphrey campaign gave more than lip service to environmental issues. Rather, their thoughts focused on such issues as Vietnam, prosperity, the rising crime rate, and inflation. Nixon made one radio speech on natural resources and the quality of the environment, which seemed adequate to cover an issue that stirred little interest among the electorate.

In the Humphrey camp, things were just as quiet. He dedicated a park in San Antonio, Texas, and the John Day Dam in Oregon, using both occasions to discuss the environment and conservation. Otherwise, Humphrey said nothing on the issue.

If the candidates showed little interest in the issue, so did the national press corps. In fact, Nixon staff members do not recall even one question put to him about the environment.

Yet only 17 months after the election, on April 22, 1970, the country celebrated Earth Day, with a national outpouring of concern for cleaning up the environment. Politicians of both parties jumped on the issue. So many politicians were on the stump on Earth Day that Congress was forced to close down. The oratory, one of the wire services observed, was "as thick as smog at rush hour."

A comparison of white House polls (done by Opinion Research of Princeton, New Jersey) taken in May 1969, and just two years later in May 1971, showed that concern for the environment had leaped to the forefront of our national psyche. In May 1971, fully a quarter of the public thought that protecting the environment was important, yet only 1 percent had thought so just two years earlier. In the Gallup polls, public concern over air and water pollution jumped from tenth place in the summer of 1969 to fifth place in the summer of 1970, and was perceived as more important than "race," "crime," and "teenage" problems, but not as important as the perennial poll leaders, "peace" and the "pocketbook" issues.

In the White House, we pondered this sudden surge of public concern about cleaning up America and providing more open spaces for parks, and a heightened awareness of the necessity to dedicate more land for wildlife habitat. Why, we asked, after it was so long delayed, was the environmentalist awakening so much more advanced in the United States than in other countries? What motivated millions to so much activity so long after publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962? Many factors seem to have been involved.

First, the environmental movement probably bloomed at the time it did mainly because of affluence. Americans have long been relatively much better off than people of other nations, but nothing in all history compares even remotely to the prosperity we have enjoyed since the end of World War II, and which became visibly evident by the mid-fifties. An affluent economy yields things like the 40-hour week, three-day weekends, the two-week paid vacation, plus every kind of labor-saving gadget imaginable to shorten the hours that used to be devoted to household chores. The combination of spare money and spare time created an ambiance for the growth of causes that absorb both money and time.

Another product of affluence has been the emergence of an "activist" upper middle class -- college-educated, affluent, concerned, and youthful for its financial circumstances. The nation has never had anything like this "mass elite" before. Sophisticated, resourceful, politically potent, and dedicated to change, to "involvement," it formed the backbone of the environmentalist movement in the United States.

Other factors included the rise of television and the opportunities it provides for advocacy journalism.

Also, science contributed another dimension to the national agitation. To the obvious signs of pollution that people could see, feel, and smell, science added a panoply of invisible threats: radiation, heavy metal poisons, chlorinated hydrocarbons in the water, acidic radicals in the atmosphere, all potentially more insidious, more pervasive, and more dangerous than the familiar nuisances. This could happen only in a country able to support a large, advanced scientific community with an immense laboratory infrastructure, marvelously sensitive instruments, intensive funding, computers, data banks, and vast interchanges of information able to isolate and trace the progress through the ecosystem of elements and compounds at concentrations measured in parts per billion, and to establish their effects upon living organisms in the biosphere.

The press served the pollinating function of a honey bee, transporting the latest scientific findings to the public, which reacted with fear and misgivings. These in turn were relayed by the press back to the scientific community, which was stimulated by public concern to intensify its investigations, leading to more discoveries of new perils, and so on. This in itself provided a climate in which support for environmentally related causes could be elicited .

The feverish pitch of Earth Day 1970 passed, but the environmental movement did not go away. Instead, the drive for a cleaner environment became part of our national ethic. Now it is taken for granted, the best possible testimonial that progress is being made. Our nation's thinking has changed. Endorsing growth without regard to the quality of that growth seems forever behind us. The failure of the economy to take into full account the social costs of environmental pollution is being rectified. Not only are environmental considerations now factored into federal government decision-making but over and over again Americans pay for low-polluting or pollution-free products like low-sulfur heating oil, unleaded gasoline, and coal from fully reclaimed strip mines, for automobile emission controls, for electricity from cleaner fuels, and for more parklands and wildlife refuges. More fundamentally, we are beginning to understand that the environment is an independent whole of which man is only part.

But in the early 1970s it was clear that the executive branch could not respond to public demand to clean up the environment without first creating an organization to do the job. Better coordination of federal environmental programs was needed. There were 44 agencies in nine separate departments with responsibilities in the field of what was then loosely described as "the environment and natural resources." No department had enough expertise to take charge.

At cabinet meetings, HEW Secretary Bob Finch, responsible for air pollution controls, and Transportation Secretary John Volpe, argued over which department should take the lead in developing a research program for unconventional low-polluting automobiles. On pesticides, Walter Hickel at Interior and Finch argued for tighter pesticide controls, while Agriculture Secretary Clifford Hardin emphasized the increased crop productivity resulting from the application of pesticides. And Secretary of State Bill Rogers weighed in expressing concern on whether a ban on DDT in this country might restrict the supply of DDT to the developing countries. Hickel, who at the time handled water pollution control over at Interior, wanted more money for sewage treatment control; Bob Mayo, director of the Bureau of Budget would have none of it. Maurice Stans at Commerce was wary of tighter pollution controls and what effect this might have on corporate profits. Paul McCracken, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors worried that we would be uncompetitive in international markets if our product prices reflected the costs of pollution abatement standards that were more stringent than those of other countries. There was hardly a Cabinet officer who did not have a stake in the environment issue. Even the Postmaster General joined the debate, offering to use postal cars to test an experimental fleet of low-pollution cars.

The cabinet meeting left President Nixon dissatisfied. There was no overall strategy, too many unanswered questions.. Should enforcement be done by regulation, or by user fees, or a combination of both? What were the overall costs to industry and the consumer in terms of both the increased price products for various pollution abatement schedules under varying standards and regulations? Finally, what would the various clean-up scenarios do to the federal budget? Nixon clearly needed a "pollution czar" and one agency to look for the answers.

First, Nixon discarded the option of a Department of Environment and Natural Resources as well as several other reorganization plans. In July 1970 he submitted to Congress the Environmental Protection Agency plan; the new agency came into being on December 2, 1970. Meanwhile, I had interviewed a number of candidates to run the new agency and recommended Bill Ruckelshaus to the President. I've missed the mark on lots of things in my life, but Ruckelshaus was a "bull's eye."

Now, years later, the accomplishments of the Nixon years are plain to see. New clean air, water, solid waste, and pesticide laws, coastal zone management planning seed money, new national parks, including the great urban parks in New York City and San Francisco harbors. In addition, Nixon ordered federal agencies to shed spare federal acreage that would be converted into parks and recreation areas, especially in urban areas. More than 82,000 acres in all 50 states were converted into 642 parks, the majority of them in or very close to cities, really bringing parks to the people.

More money was dedicated to buying wildlife habitat; congress passed Nixon's controversial proposal to protect endangered species. Nixon's executive orders restricted ocean dumping and tightened environmental standards for off-shore oil drilling. To quell the insatiable development instincts of the Army Corps of Engineers he cancelled construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal.

What Nixon -- and subsequent presidents -- couldn't accomplish is to address in a rational way the cost of pollution abatement control: how fast should the national clean up and at what cost? In the early 1970s, our polls clearly showed the public demanded a cleaner environment, but data on the public's willingness to pay was ambivalent. Our initial Opinion Research polls showed that about three-fourths of the public supported more government spending for air and water pollution abatement programs, that support existed in all population groups, and that it was particularly high among the young. But this did not mean that taxpayers had committed themselves to spending their own money to improve the quality of the environment. Spending for government programs never seems to equate in the public's mind with spending their own money. Opinion Research reported that in May 1971, three-fourths of the public would pay small price increases for pollution control, but six out of 10 opposed large increases for that purpose.

A Harris poll in October 1971 indicated that 78 percent of the public would be willing to pay (how much was not specified) to have air and water pollution cleaned up, and 48 percent would accept a 10-percent reduction in jobs for a cleaner environment. Poll editor Hazel Erskine indicated that individuals were not "personally anxious" to foot the bill for correcting pollution damage, although willingness to pay for pollution control was growing.

Congress received even stronger messages. Twenty-two congressmen, in a survey of 300,000 Americans in varying kinds of congressional districts, asked constituents if they were willing to pay more for pollution control. Respondents in all but three districts answered affirmatively. Representative Gerald Ford asked his Michigan constituents, "Should the federal government expand efforts to control air and water pollution even if it costs you more in taxes and prices?" The answer: 68.3 percent yes, 27.5 percent no. Subsequently, Ford voted to overrride President Nixon's veto of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. (Nixon vetoed it largely because of the very heavy federal expenditures, particularly for sewage treatment plants.) Not surprisingly, because the perspective almost always changes inside the oval office, President Ford later tried unsuccessfully to hold own sewage treatment expenditures, as he every president since then.

Nixon knew he would pay a political price by not proposing the "toughest" and costliest pollution control standards, but after looking at the federal budget and the macro-economic impact, he chose a more moderate course. As it turned out, Congress, fanned by the political hurricane of the environmental movement, enacted deadlines that could never be met, like the 1977 deadline for secondary treatment of municipal waste, and an $18 billion appropriation over the three-year life of the law, which couldn't even be dispensed under the law's cumbersome grant system. Similarly, Congress legislated technology that didn't exist by setting emission standards for automobiles that couldn't be met and later had to be postponed. The missed 1987 year-end ozone deadlines is another glaring example of Congress' tendency to legislate non-existent technology.

Early in the process we recognized that Congress and the executive branch mistrusted each other's cost impact figures for various pollution reduction strategies. Even in executive branch meetings, the EPA staff repeatedly seemed to minimize pollution costs, while other agencies weighed in with high costs to meet the identical pollution standard. Often, we halved the difference, relaxing the standard more than EPA wanted, but keeping it much tighter than Commerce, for example, found acceptable.

We might have missed a chance in those early days to help resolve the debate. Russ Train, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and I proposed setting up a national body with think tank funds plus matching federal funds to study cost-benefit analysis for pollution controls. We hoped that if a body removed from Congress and the executive branch did the number crunching, then perhaps the results would be more acceptable to all parties inside the beltway. The idea never reached the President, largely because Chuck Colson opposed our candidate to head this study group, and Colson beat me out in the White House staff warfare that goes on in any Administration.

Today Americans spend $77 billion annually for environmental improvements and that cost could easily reach $100 billion by the end of the century. Rather than ask where the next billion dollars can be spent, we must pause and again ask how clean and how fast? Today we have infinitely more scientific capability and sophisticated cost-benefit analysis to steer a course toward a cleaner environment. The question is, will our elected officials and executive branch regulators be willing to lean into the political winds, as we did, and act on the basis of objective information?

---

Whitaker was President Nixon's Cabinet Secretary (1969); associate director of the White House Domestic Council for environment, energy, and natural resources policy (1969-1972); and Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior (1973-1975). He is now Vice President, Public Affairs, for Union Camp Corporation.

United Nations Formation, Population Control, Eugenics, Rockefeller

In the early 1900's Eugenics and their population control movement arose in the United States and spread to Germany and Hitler by 1937 which lead to their grand social experiment and to China and Mao Zedong by the 1970's when they began their one child policy.



So now the question is, what is the real ideal population of the world and should any control be exerted to slow it down?



Food production and prices are rising as a result of climate related disasters but also as a result of speculation on the commodities market.



Oil prices are rising because countries all over the world are competing for a resource that is becoming more and more difficult to extract, yet more world populations are striving to live the lifestyle the American Way, grossly misappropriating resources in a wasteful manner.



Wars are being fought to secure the oil extracted from dangerous far off lands.



All because too many people exist on this planet. Or at least too many wanting a perceived better quality of life.



Meanwhile certain populations of the world grow faster than others, creating pressure on those that consume more than others.

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Population Control & Eugenics Pt. 1-3

See more at www.youtube.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19kkw

Population Control in China

Population Control and Consequences in China

Problems associated with overpopulation. China has the highest population in the world, encompassing 1.2 billion or twenty one percent of the world's population (P.R.B. 7). China faces serious social and economic problems associated with overpopulation in the years to come. Overly populated regions lead to degradation of land and resources, pollution, and detrimental living conditions. The Chinese government has tried to find a solution to the problem of increasing population with moderate success.

China's population control policy. The Chinese government has used several methods to control population growth. In 1979, China started the "one child per family policy" (Juali Li 563). This policy stated that citizens must obtain a birth certificate before the birth of their children. The citizens would be offered special benefits if they agreed to have only one child. Citizens who did have more than one child would either be taxed an amount up to fifty percent of their income, or punished by loss of employment or other benefits (Hilali 10). Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies without the proper authorization would need to be terminated (Hilali 9). In 1980, the birth-quota system was established to monitor population growth(Jiali Li 563). Under this system, the government set target goals for each region. Local officials were mainly held responsible for making sure that population growth totals did not exceed target goals. If target goals were not met, the local officials were punished by law or by loss of privileges.

Other population control methods. Other methods that have been used by the Chinese government to restrict rising population totals include birth control programs and economic changes. In the early '80's, sterilization target goals were set and made mandatory for people who had two children (Hilali 19). At its peak in 1983, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions amounted to thirty-five percent of the total birth control methods (Hilali 20). In addition, the economy changed from primarily one of agriculture to industry (Hilali 22). The government used this to its advantage; spreading the view that economic growth would hinder population growth (Hilali 22).

Problems associated with population policies. There have been many problems associated with the policies and programs established by Chinese officials. First of all, these programs have been difficult to implement and have had little success. Local officials in charge of growth totals, have falsified reports in order to avoid punishment (Zeng Yi 29). Consequently, this has led to underreporting of the number of births by as much as twenty-seven percent in 1992 (Zeng Yi 32). Moreover, compliance with the birth-quota system has been low. Of the 14,808 infants born between 1980-1988, only about half have been with a legal birth permit(Jiali Li 567). Of those born with a permit, eighty-eight percent were first children born into families (Jiali Li 567). Furthermore, out of the second children born, only eleven percent were authorized (Jiali Li 568). Lastly, people of rural communities, who depend on having larger families to help with the farms, have succeeded in finding ways around the birth-quota system (Hilali 13).

Social and political consequences. The Chinese government has also had to deal with political and social upheaval as a result of its strict policies. The United States, as well as many other countries, have publicly expressed their disapproval with Chinese leaders for their sterilization policies (Hilali 20). In addition, the Chinese citizens have retaliated with acts of violence related to the one child policy (Hilali 25). Finally, the cultural preference for sons has led to a large number of incidences of female infanticide (Hilali 21). As a result, the Chinese government has had to relax policies to include the "daughter-only-household" policy, which allows rural couples having a daughter first to be allowed to have a second child (Jiali Li 569).

Social and economic benefits. Over the last fifty years, China has raised the standards of living by keeping growth rates down. Access to natural resources have increased dramatically since 1980. According to the State Family Planning Commission, coverage in tap water has increased from eighty-four percent to ninety-four percent in the last fifteen years. Furthermore, coverage of natural gas has risen from sixteen percent to seventy-three percent. In addition, medical coverage has been extended to include birth insurance and workers compensation for mothers who follow China's birth policies (SFPC). In 1998, nineteen percent of China's population used this policy. Other benefits include increases in average life expectancy from thirty five years in 1949 to seventy years in 1996, and decreases in infant mortality rates from two hundred per one thousand to thirty three per one thousand (SFPC).

Future outcomes. Serious reforms are needed to ensure that China's population will not continue to grow. Better policies, more education, and urbanization could help China to reach population target goals. Since 1980, China has realized the importance of collaboration among agencies, and it has established the Population and Information Research Center (SFPC). This agency, along with others, is in charge of gathering information about population totals and helping the government to implement policies (SFPC). Projected growth of China's population is estimated to be around 1.5 billion by the year 2025 (P.R.B. 7). These figures will continue to rise, and the social and economic burdens will continue to plague everyone living in China.

---

Questions for debate: How does the theory of logistic population apply to overly populated regions? Explain the political implications associated with overpopulation. Differentiate the pros and cons of mandatory birth control and sterilization tactics.

---

Bibliography:

Hilali, A.Z. "Chinaís Population Growth: Policy and Prospects." China Report 33.1 (1997): 1-34.

Jiali Li. "Chinaís One-Child Policy: How and How Well Has It Worked?" Population and Development Review 21.3 (1995): 563-585.

Population Reference Bureau. World Population Data Sheet. Washington D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 1999.

State Family Planning Commission of China. www.sfpc.gov.cn.

Zeng Yi. "Is Fertility in China in 1991-92 Far Below Replacement Level?" Population Studies 50.1 (1996): 27-34.

---

Jamie Cook, December 5, 1999

Population Control - Nixon & Rockefeller 1972

What is not discussed here is the science behind the movement to control world population. Unfortunately Nixon took this as an opportunity to control the black population. Liberals criticized the movement because of the anti-immigration aspect. Conservatives fought against the movement because they believed (and still do) that infinite economic growth depended on population growth. this explains why the GOP are against Planned Parenthood since that was designed to curb excessive children among the poor.



The point is, this is all tied to peak oil, peak debt, and climate change, as we knew this as far back as the 1960's when M King Hubbert starting talking about peak oil.



It was all forgotten when the issues were politicized, there was no unification and mutual understanding.



What many dont understand now is that the middle class is slowly being destroyed by their way of life, which demands too much oil, which actually mimics the wealthy, which also has an impact on food production and climate, and it has nothing to do with race.



Now the US government (and many other world governments) is headed towards peak debt because of the policies that support predatory capitalism that has created neofeudalism and oligarchies that resemble the 13th-19th century Europe.

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Actual Recording: Richard Nixon Talks Population Control [TRUTHDOC]

See more at www.youtube.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19js8

Wikileaks: Catholic Church & US Government Fought to Keep AMLO Out of Mexican Presidency

Amplify’d from www.jornada.unam.mx

Wikileaks

Frenar a López Obrador, pidió Sandoval Íñiguez a Estados Unidos en 2006

El cardenal calificó de peligroso el avance de la izquierda en América Latina, de acuerdo con un cable de la embajada de Washington en el Vaticano

De la redacción   Periódico La Jornada Viernes 22 de julio de 2011, p. 2 El cardenal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez pidió ayuda a Washington para frenar el avance de Andrés Manuel López Obrador en 2006, de acuerdo con el cable 06VATICAN61 de Wikileaks, redactado por la embajada de Estados Unidos en el Vaticano. La representación estadunidense afirmó en dicho cable que a Sandoval Íñiguez le preocupaba el avance de la izquierda en Latinoamérica, y señaló que aumentaba el poder de Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Néstor Kirchner, Michelle Bachelet y López Obrador. El prelado se reunió en Roma el 28 de marzo de 2006 con Francis Rooney, embajador de Estados Unidos en el Vaticano, cartera que ocupó de 2005 a 2008. El cardenal Sandoval dijo a Rooney que el avance de la izquierda representaba una tendencia peligrosa, señaló la embajada en el Vaticano. De acuerdo con el cable de Wikileaks, el prelado preguntó si el presidente (George W.) Bush podría ayudar. Sandoval afirmó que durante el gobierno de López Obrador el crimen y la violencia habían aumentado en la ciudad de México. El embajador concordó con la importancia del mensaje, y agregó que durante una visita al Vaticano el entonces subsecretario de Estado, Thomas A. Shannon –ahora embajador de Estados Unidos en Brasil–, ya había tratado el tema de la ola izquierdista latinoamericana. Agregó que el presidente Bush había tocado en tiempo y forma el tema con el nuevo nuncio papal en Washington, señala el cable. Los cardenales sienten que los pobres de Latinoamérica no entienden los beneficios potenciales que les puede traer el mercado libre, por lo que apremiaron al gobierno de Estados Unidos a ayudar (a concretar tratados de libre comercio), reconociendo que la Iglesia, aunque cautelosa, también puede jugar un papel más importante en la materia, resume el texto difundido por Wikileaks. El prelado había viajado a Roma para asistir al consistorio católico llevado a cabo el 24 de marzo de 2006. Allí Rooney solicitó reunirse con Sandoval Íñiguez y otro religioso, el cardenal brasileño Claudio Hummes, con quien habló un día después de hacerlo con el primero. Sandoval mencionó a Rooney su sueño de construir un santuario en Guadalajara para conmemorar a los mártires mexicanos, pero la plática fue principalmente sobre asuntos políticos. El texto fue difundido en: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06VATICAN61.html Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks Siguiente Subir al inicio del texto Read more at www.jornada.unam.mx

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19bbb

Relationship Between Oil Energy And Standard of Living

Once again Gail has written a brilliant article making it easy even all to understand; even for those who deny that oil is finite.



The "conversation" between governments and its people occured in the 1970's with Jimmy Carter's speeches, part of which later became known as the Crisis of Confidence and the Carter Doctrine.



This is why a REAL energy policy is needed and it MUST include efficiency, conservation, focus on alternative and renewable energy, and a change of culture. Ultimately, a new model for measuring economic progress will be necessary as well. Perhaps Gross National Happiness.



If Obama chooses not to have this conversation with Americans before the 2012 election, the next president will most certainly be forced to do so. Let's hope one of them is as honest as Carter.

Amplify’d from oilprice.com

Will Less Oil Lead to Lower Standards of Living?

Written by Gail Tverberg

Friday, 22 July 2011 12:45

The amount of oil that is extracted from the ground each year has been close to flat since 2005, regardless of what has happened to price. Since world population has been growing, this means less and less is available for each person. We use oil in many important ways, including growing food, manufacturing and transporting goods, and in some parts of the world, heating homes. There is a clear tie of oil with standard of living. If we have less oil, the tendency is for people’s standard of living to drop. Figure 1. OPEC and Non-OPEC Oil Production, Compared to Oil Price. (Production is Crude and Condensate from EIA.) The “natural” approach for fixing this problem is recession and debt defaults. With limited oil supply, oil prices rise. As oil prices rise, the higher prices leave less funding for everything else, because oil is important for many necessities–food and commuting expenses particularly. A person who pays more for food and commuting expenses will cut back on discretionary spending. This leads to layoffs in market segments affected by cutbacks in discretionary spending–especially construction of new homes, building of cars, restaurant spending, and donations to charitable organizations. Those laid off tend to default on loans. Others default as well, especially those who were living “at the edge,” before oil prices rose. The government tries to fix the problem by “stimulus,” and temporarily “fixes” the situation. This temporarily hides the situation in the governmental sector. What happens, though, is that the government finds itself with increasing debt levels because of its stimulus efforts, and inadequate taxes, because so many have been laid off work, and are not contributing to the tax base. All of this leads to governmental debt problems, including the United States’ problems with debt limits, and the problems many European countries are having with debt. How does all of this get fixed? Basically, what the natural system does is push us towards a lower standard of living. This is very uncomfortable. If we need to spend more on food and required energy supplies (as for commuting), we have less to spend on other things. People who are unemployed end up moving in with friends or relatives with jobs. Young adults live with their parents longer. Most of us cut back on discretionary spending. There are a few ways we can theoretically solve our problem: 1. All of the world could cut back on their standard of living, and reduce their demand for oil products this way. It is hard to see this happening voluntarily. If oil supply should actually decline in the future, multiple cuts in standard of living will be needed. 2. Some parts of the world could cut back on their standard of living, and let the rest of the world live better. Government leaders may push for this, but it is hard to see the population of countries voluntarily accepting this result. 3. Cut back on some parts of the economy that are not critical, so as to try to save the standard of living with respect to the rest of the economy. One that comes to mind is military spending. Another that is often targeted is personal auto use, but if more efficient cars are sold, this change phases in slowly, so is not very effective in the short term. If only few countries cut back, the result is similar to (2) above, however, with the slightly lower oil prices because of the cutbacks benefitting those who choose not to cut back. 4. Ramp up alternative energy supplies to try to offset the shortfall. This approach has been most successful in China and India, where coal supplies have been ramped up greatly, but with negative environmental consequences. When alternative forms of energy are expensive (most energy sources that need subsidies), it is doubtful that the economy benefits at all–the result is just more recession and debt defaults. Figure 2. World coal consumption by area, based on BP data. 5. Drill for more oil in the US. This doesn’t do very much, very quickly, unfortunately, because of long lead times, and because the most promising areas have already been drilled. 6. Start fighting with each other over the resources that are available, so that declining standard of living is less of an issue for the “winner.” Wars are likely to use up a lot of resources, and don’t really solve the underlying problem. 7. Encourage limited family sizes (one child per family (?)), so that resources will stretch better in the future. It is hard to get agreement on this, however, and the change is very slow to have an effect on total population. * * * It is hard to see that any of these approaches will lead to very satisfactory outcomes, in short enough time frames. Ultimately, we are all likely to find ourselves with lower standards of living. This is something governments find it very difficult to talk about and plan for. Perhaps if we could start facing up to the real issues we are dealing with, it would be easier to find mitigations for our problems. By. Gail Tverberg Gail Tverberg is a writer and speaker about energy issues. She is especially known for her work with financial issues associated with peak oil. Prior to getting involved with energy issues, Ms. Tverberg worked as an actuarial consultant. This work involved performing insurance-related analyses and forecasts. Her personal blog is ourfiniteworld.com. She is also an editor of The Oil Drum. Read more at oilprice.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19aiv

Legalization of Hemp in Mexico Will Help Solve the Emigration & Rural Poverty Problems

After watching Roy Germano's "The Other Side of Immigration" and having lived in Michoacan, Mexico for 2 years, I recognize the benefits that the legalization of marijuana and hemp would bring to both the USA and Mexico. (See http://youtu.be/F8t78ClZFpY for a review of Germano's new documentary.)



Currently America suffers from a mountain of debt generated in part by poor agricultural and tax policies, a failed war on drugs, failed immigration policy, and significant unemployment, and the destruction of the small farming industry facilitated by NAFTA and corporate farming. It's about time for a new direction.



Meanwhile, Mexico has suffered a significant decrease in oil production and thus reduced oil export revenues. As Mexican citizens are unable to find employment in the US, remittances will decrease dramatically and many will return home to a lower cost of living. Unfortunately, they also return to fewer economic opportunities in the countryside, with the exception of the illegal drug trade.



20 years of NAFTA has primarily benefited US corporate farmers aided by Federal subsidies and driven Mexican farmers out of business through dumping by corporate farmers.



Mexico must pass legislation similar to H.R.1831, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, submitted by US Congressman Ron Paul, which will enable its rural farmers to grow a cash crop unlike any other.



Mexico, like all other nations, must have access to every available clean energy resource available on god's green earth and this MUST include HEMP. Legalizing and taxing hemp across the Mexican Republic would spawn new industries that could be a vital part of the solution to many of its economic problems, which in turn would help solve the emigration problem.



Hemp is high yield crop, producing more biomass per acre than most other crops and can be used for biofuels, biomass, textiles, paper, plastics, and more. Unlike oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear fuels, hemp is a biodegradable, renewable resource that could supply us with raw materials for thousands of years, without changing our climate and without producing waste that remains radioactive for millions of years.



Taxing every stage of the production and distribution of this new crop and energy source would create revenues for city and state governments fighting revenue shortfalls. Confining licenses to citizens and chartered small businesses would promote sustainable businesses for the rural farmers across the country and creative clean energy entrepreneurs could contribute to GDP with exports of their new natural and clean energy resources and products.



Americans concerned about energy, pollution, war, illegal immigration, and economic prosperity, must support HR1831 that is currently in the hands of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.



Mexicans concerned about sufficient jobs for rural farmers must lobby their own government to draft similar legislation and spawn a new and booming industry that could propel Mexico and its citizens into prosperity.



#hempforvictory #hemp4Mexico

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Legalización de la Marihuana en México

See more at www.youtube.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a18t07

Goldman Sachs Expects Long Term Stagnation in USA and EU, Growth in BRIC Nations

You've heard the "new normal" to be expected in the US economy. You've seen the enormous debt burden for the State and Federal governments. You've heard of the EU debt crisis.



But have you understood the shifting economic crisis over the past 30 years or more? Compare the rapid growth and collapse of various markets from US Savings & Loan Debacle of the late 1980's, to the USSR collapse in the early 1990's, to the Asian Tigers of the 1990's, to the Argentine economic collapse in the late 1990's, the Dot com crash of the late 1990's, all showing markets expanding at a rapid pace as capital is drawn to the next big thing, and finally exploding as the bear market gets a flash of realism and all foreign investors flee, leaving the local markets in shambles.



9/11 seems to have marked a comeback as the US government went into massive debt and a spending spree to fund 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war on terror. The ancillary markets began to recover and domestically, Americans focused on record low interest rates, a stock market boom, and a housing boom.



The financial collapse of 2008 has started the down cycle again and despite record spending by the US government and a money printing binge by the Federal Reserve, the money is concentrated in the hands of a few (the uber wealthy 1%) so a recovery is unlikely since the masses (the middle class) do not have money to spend.



Each economic crisis leaves the middle class and the local economy completely weakened, dependent, and needy like a host following a viral or a vampire attack.

Amplify’d from www.bloomberg.com

Goldman Sachs Plans Job Cuts as Debt Trading Misses Estimates

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), the U.S. bank that makes most of its money from trading, said it will cut about 1,000 jobs after a plunge in fixed-income revenue that was bigger than analysts estimated.

Second-quarter fees from trading debt, currencies and commodities tumbled 63 percent from the previous quarter, more than twice the drop at other major U.S. banks. Net income was $1.09 billion, or $1.85 per share, the New York-based company said today in a statement, falling short of the $2.30 per-share average estimate of 23 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Led by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs last year ceded its dominant position among fixed-income traders to larger rival JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) In the second quarter of 2011, Goldman Sachs cut risk-taking to the lowest level since 2006. Debt-trading revenue of $1.6 billion dropped below JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s $4.28 billion, Citigroup Inc.’s $3.03 billion and Bank of America Corp.’s $2.7 billion.

“It’s clear that Goldman underperformed many of its peers,” said Richard Staite, an analyst at Atlantic Equities LLP in London, who has a “neutral” rating on the stock. “It seems to have prompted them into a cost-saving initiative.”

The firm identified annual cost savings of $1.2 billion that will include about 1,000 job cuts this year, Chief Financial Officer David A. Viniar told analysts during a conference call after earnings were released. Goldman Sachs employed 35,500 people at the end of June, up 100 people from the prior quarter.

‘Foreseeable Future’

“It looks like the environment’s going to be somewhat slower for the foreseeable future and so we decided it made sense at this point to cut some level of expenses to be more efficient,” said Viniar, who turned 56 years old today.

Job cuts will be “broad based” and are likely to affect both junior and senior employees, he said, adding that Goldman Sachs’s plans to grow in countries such as China, India and Brazil, where the firm has been doing the most rapid hiring, won’t be affected.

Operating expenses in the second quarter totaled $5.67 billion, down 28 percent from $7.85 billion in the first quarter and 23 percent below the $7.39 billion in the second quarter of 2010. Compensation expenses fell 39 percent from the first quarter to $3.2 billion.

Goldman Sachs fell $2.73, or 2.1 percent, to $126.61 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 2:04 p.m. The stock, at its lowest level since April 2009, has dropped about 25 percent this year.

Net income climbed 77 percent from the same period a year earlier, and earnings fell 38 percent if one-time costs are excluded from the 2010 results. Last year’s second-quarter earnings were reduced by a $550 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a $600 million expense to pay a U.K. tax on employee bonuses.

Analysts in the Bloomberg survey lowered their earnings estimates by an average of $1.09 per share in the past four weeks.

Revenue fell 39 percent to $7.28 billion from $11.9 billion in the first quarter and $8.84 billion a year earlier. The figure fell short of the average $8.2 billion estimate of 15 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Return on equity, a measure of how well the firm reinvests shareholder funds, decreased to 6.1 percent from 12.2 percent in the first quarter.

No Rebound

“We’ve had four relatively weak quarters in a row, and I think it’s now quite clear that the difficult environment is going to be continued throughout the remainder of this year,” Atlantic Equities’ Staite said. “I’d be pretty surprised if we see a marked rebound any time in the near term.”

Overall revenue from trading, run since February 2008 by Edward K. Eisler, David B. Heller, Pablo J. Salame and Harvey M. Schwartz, fell 47 percent to $3.52 billion from $6.65 billion in the first quarter and was down 29 percent from $4.98 billion in the second quarter of 2010.

“Certain of our businesses had disappointing results as we reduced our market risk in response to attempting to manage fluctuations in prices and market liquidity,” Blankfein, 56, said in the statement.

Value at risk, a gauge of how much the firm could lose in a single day of trading, fell for the eighth consecutive quarter, to $101 million. The figure was the lowest since the third quarter of 2006. The firm reduced the amount at risk to equity prices, currencies and interest rates, while the risk in commodity prices jumped.

‘Not as Effective’

“During the quarter we were not as effective at navigating intra-quarter swings in market prices and liquidity as we have been historically,” Viniar told analysts. “We generated lower revenues from managing client-originated market-making inventory, particularly in our largely U.S.-based mortgages business and our global commodities and credit business.”

Goldman Sachs’s equity-trading revenue declined 17 percent to $1.92 billion from $2.32 billion in the prior quarter and rose 19 percent from $1.61 billion a year earlier. That compared with $1.22 billion of second-quarter equity-trading revenue at JPMorgan and $812 million at Citigroup. Analysts including as Roger Freeman at Barclays Capital expected Goldman Sachs’s equities revenue to be about $2 billion.

Revenue from investment banking, overseen globally by Richard J. Gnodde, David M. Solomon and John S. Weinberg, advanced to $1.45 billion in the quarter from $1.27 billion in the first quarter and $941 million in the second quarter of 2010. By comparison, JPMorgan’s investment-banking fees totaled $1.92 billion in the quarter and Citigroup reaped $1.09 billion.

Investment Banking

Goldman Sachs’s investment-banking revenue exceeded estimates from analysts at Atlantic Equities, Barclays Capital and ISI Group, who expected revenue in the range of $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion.

Fees from takeover advice, a business led by Gene T. Sykes and Yoel Zaoui, increased to $637 million from $357 million in the first quarter and from $471 million a year earlier. The firm ranks first among advisers on mergers and acquisitions announced so far this year, according to Bloomberg data.

The firm also ranks first year-to-date in managing global equity sales and initial public offerings, the data show. Revenue from equity underwriting, overseen by London-based Matthew Westerman, fell to $378 million from $426 million in the first quarter, while debt underwriting revenue dropped to $433 million from $486 million in the prior three months.

Investing and lending, the segment in which Goldman Sachs books gains or losses from the firm’s own stakes in companies such as Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (1398) Ltd. and other assets, made $1.04 billion in the period, compared with $2.71 billion of gains in the first quarter and $1.79 billion in the second quarter of 2010.

Revenue from investing and lending was more than double what was expected by analysts at Atlantic Equities, Barclays Capital and ISI Group. Their estimates ranged from $210 million to $411 million.

“People regard those revenues as pretty volatile and I don’t think people will take any comfort from a better performance” in that business, said Atlantic Equities’ Staite.

Revenue from investment management, the business run by Edward C. Forst and Timothy O’Neill, was unchanged from the first quarter at $1.27 billion and up from $1.13 billion in the second quarter of last year. Assets under management increased to $844 billion at the end of June from $840 billion at the end of March.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net. Read more at www.bloomberg.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a18pst