Thursday, 12 December 2013

81% of all the QE is sitting in a vault and stagnant!

Source: Business Insider

Ever since the financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve has employed extremely loose monetary policy in its effort to stimulate the economy in the right direction.
This included keeping short-term interest rates near zero and keeping long-term interest rates low through bond purchases.
Some warned that this would lead to rampant inflation. But inflation has stayed extremely low.
One of the reasons for this is because the velocity of money has been low. In other words, all of the additional money in the system hasn’t changed hands as frequently as some would’ve expected.
Art Cashin, the veteran trader from UBS, discusses this in his note this morning. Specifically, he talks about how he and his “friends of fermentation” were in a “frenzy” over it.
From Cashin:
Failure To Achieve Escape Velocity – The FoF Trading Division (Local 410) was in a bit of a frenzy yesterday as they circulated a chart from the St. Louis Fed showing that monetary velocity continued to fall and had slipped to a level lower than at the depths of the recession in 2009. I have been greatly concerned about this lack of velocity for years. Here’s what I wrote back in 2010:
Pushing On A String – The Fed’s Frustration – Chairman Bernanke may not be sleeping well. In 2002, he famously said that to stave off inflation, the Fed could even drop tons of money from helicopters. That was hyperbole, of course, but the Fed’s version of the helicopter plan has not been working out very well. It’s as though they dropped the money on the lawn and the homeowner raked it up and put it all in a garage – and then went back to bed.
The Fed has tripled its balance sheet. Banks are sitting on nearly a trillion dollars of excess reserves. Corporations are sitting on over a trillion dollars in cash. Yet, the monetary base has remained stagnant for months. The broad money supply (M3) has actually fallen significantly this year.
Money has no velocity today. The money supply can only grow if you spend it or lend it. Instead, it sits idle in that garage.
Here’s what that chart looks like via the St. Louis Fed:

Cashin also references the comments of Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture:
Recently, my friend, Barry Ritholtz, did an extensive and enlightening review of those stagnant free reserves in his terrific blog – The Big Picture. Here is a bit from the opening:
Robert D. Auerbach – an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and now Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin – notes [1] today:
There is a massive misconception about where the Bernanke Fed’s stimulus landed. Although the Bernanke Fed has disbursed $2.284 trillion in new money (the monetary base) since August 1, 2008, one month before the 2008 financial crisis, 81.5 per cent now sits idle as excess reserves in private banks. The banks are not required to hold excess reserves. The excess reserves exploded from $831 billion in August 2008 to $1.863 trillion on June 14, 2013. The excess reserves of the nation’s private banks had previously stayed at nearly zero since 1959 as seen on the St. Louis Fed’s chart [2]. The banks did not leave money idle in excess reserves at zero interest because they were investing in income earning assets, including loans to consumers and businesses.
This 81.5 per cent explosion in idle excess reserves means that the Bernanke Fed’s new money issues of $85 billion each month have never been a big stimulus. Approximately 81.5 per cent (or $69.27 billion) is either bought by banks or deposited into banks where it sits idle as excess reserves. The rest of the $85 billion, approximately 18.5 per cent (or $15.72 billion) continues to circulate or is held as required reserves on banks’ deposit accounts (unlike unrequired excess reserves).
Wow! 81% of all the QE is sitting in a vault as stagnant as if it were in that proverbial garage. (It’s a terrific review and if you can access it, read it thoroughly over the holiday or on the weekend.)
Sort of puts “tapering” in a slightly different perspective doesn’t. Velocity is essential in a fractional banking system.
Interesting how things work.

A heterodox lesson about money and debt from Thomas Edison

Here's what Thomas Edison had to say about bonds and currency. Though the guy treated his employees badly, the man understood how money works.

In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.

Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:

“That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.
“Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.
“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.
” … if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.
“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.
“Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Why I can't read HP Lovecraft's fiction; because the man was fucking disgusting

I can't read his fiction, but I can listen to it (audiobooks) :P.

However, I don't like Lovecraft's fiction, albeit I think he's a fine writer, nor do I like him as a person. Just take a look at this, Lovecraft referred to the area's immigrant population by referring to Red Hook as "a maze of hybrid squalor". He spelled out his inspiration for "The Horror at Red Hook" in a letter written to fellow writer Clark Ashton Smith: "The idea that black magic exists in secret today, or that hellish antique rites still exist in obscurity, is one that I have used and shall use again. When you see my new tale "The Horror at Red Hook", you will see what use I make of the idea in connexion with the gangs of young loafers & herds of evil-looking foreigners that one sees everywhere in New York."

My main problem with the Lovecraftian POV or ideology is that all the unknown parts of the world/universe, must be AUTOMATICALLY places of "cosmic horror" and any attempt to understand such places or see such places is AUTOMATICALLY "blasphemous" & will bring insanity to the human mind - thus, they ought to remain "dead" and "forgotten". It's a view I don't agree with at all. If you're familiar with the Ancient Aliens pseudo-documentary series, Lovecraft's mindset is the same as their own but diametrically opposed on the pessimist-optimist scale. But that's a discussion for another time...


Now! Guess what asshole wrote some of these quotes. Was it Lovecraft or Hitler? Take the quiz here: http://beesgo.biz/horp.html#


SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't finished the quiz, don't read the below quotes.


"Of the complete biological inferiority of the negro there can be no question he has anatomical features consistently varying from those of other stocks, and always in the direction of the lower primates... Equally inferior and perhaps even more so is the Australian black stock, which differs widely from the real negro. In dealing with these two black races, there is only one sound attitude for any other race (be it white, Indian, Malay, Polynesian, or Mongolian) to take and that is to prevent admixture as completely and determinedly as it can be prevented, through the establishment of a colour line and the rigid forcing of all mixed offspring below that line."


"Therefore it is wise to discourage all mixtures of sharply differentiated races - though the color line does not need to be drawn as strictly as in the case of the negro, since we know that a dash or two of Mongolian or Indian or Hindoo or some such blood will not actually injure a white stock biologically."


"However, that wouldn't work in Poland or New York City, where the Jews are of an inferior strain, and so numerous that they would essentially modify the physical type."


"It is a fact, however, that sentimentalists exaggerate the woes of the average negro. Millions of them would be perfectly content with servile status if good physical treatment and amusement could be assured them, and they may yet form a well-managed agricultural peasantry."


"Race prejudice is a gift of nature, intended to preserve in purity the various divisions of mankind which the ages have evolved."


"The only thing that makes life endurable where Blacks abound is the Jim Crow principle, and I wish they'd apply it in New York both to Niggers and to the more Asiatic types of puffy, ratfaced Jews!"


"The Black is vastly inferior. There can be no question of this among contemporary and unsentimental biologists... But, it is also a fact that there would be a very grave and very legitimate problem even if the Negro were the White man's equal."


"When, long ago, the gods created Earth In Jove's fair image Man was shaped at birth. The beasts for lesser parts were next designed; Yet were they too remote from humankind. To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man, Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan. A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger."

Thursday, 3 October 2013

The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
(Full text of article from the Winter 2000-2001 issue)
Source: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html

The recent report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is in total disagreement with the opinions widely propagated by the international media, by the Greens, and by the governments of Belarus and Ukraine, that there have been tens of thousands of cancer deaths and epidemics of genetic disorders, allegedly caused by the Chernobyl accident. To the contrary, UNSCEAR states, even among the progeny of the survivors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who received radiation doses hundreds of times higher than the radiation doses to the inhabitants of regions contaminated by the Chernobyl accident, no radiogenetic disturbances of health have been found.
UNSCEAR's 1,220-page magnum opus: "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," subtitled "The UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes," was published in September. The report to the General Assembly itself is short, only 17 pages, which serves as a non-technical summary of the 10 technical appendices.
These 10 annexes present an in-depth review of the current state of research on radiation levels and effects, based on 5,400 scientific references.1 The total report represents the work of 146 committee members of 21 national delegations to UNSCEAR, and of the organization's 15 scientific staff and consultants, over the past six years.

The Chernobyl accident is still surrounded by anti-nuclear lies and fear. Here, the damaged reactor, photographed in 1992.P. Pellerin

The two most important points that the report makes to the General Assembly are first, a comparison of the radiation doses that an average inhabitant of the Earth receives from all types of natural and man-made sources; and second, an estimate of the health effects caused by the Chernobyl accident, probably the largest possible catastrophe that can occur at a nuclear power station. This juxtaposition offers the reader a way to realistically compare man-made radiation hazards, such as Chernobyl, with the everlasting and ubiquitous natural radiation.
Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.
At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the averagenatural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).
No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.
In 1986, some 116,317 persons were evacuated from contaminated regions of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. After 1986, about 220,000 additional persons were relocated, and relocation continued until 1992. In all, about 336,000 persons were resettled, incurring enormous costs to the country, and bringing great suffering to the people involved. There were actually plans to relocate 850,000 people, which fortunately were not fully realized.
The basis for the resettlement was, first, the possibility that those people living in the most contaminated areas would absorb a lifetime whole body dose (that is, their total dose received over a period of 70 years) higher than 350 mSv, which is about double the average global natural radiation dose. Later, this lifetime limit was lowered to 150 mSv, and then to 70 mSv (1 mSv per year).

The scientists who have monitored the status of the contaminated area around Chernobyl, have argued on the basis of the development there, that the regulatory standards for radiation exposure for animals and plants should be higher than those for human beings. Here, Chernobyl's swans (left) and storks.Courtesy of Dr. Ronald Chesser

According to Prof. Leonid Ilyin, the Soviet scientist who was a member of the group overseeing the rescue operations, a temporary evacuation was probably necessary for about 50,000 people, in addition to a special case of 49,360 inhabitants of the city of Pripyat, very close to the plant. In fact, the decision to evacuate Pripyat was not based on the actual contamination of the city (the lethal fallout covered about 0.5 km2, in two patches extending up to 1.8 km from the reactor, and did not reach Pripyat). The decision was made based on the suspicion that the burning reactor core might melt the concrete floor on which it was standing and fall into cellars below, which may have been filled with a large amount of water. In this case, an enormous vapor explosion might have sent vast amounts of radionuclides into the atmosphere, thus endangering the inhabitants of Pripyat. Fortunately, as became known later, there was no water in the cellars.
Thus, in the special case of Pripyat, one can say, that the early decision to evacuate the inhabitants of Pripyat was well conceived, and correctly performed. But most of the other evacuations were unnecessary, erroneous, and harmful.
The ultimate cause of these unnecessary relocations was the principle of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) relationship between radiation dose and health effects, which is accepted as the gospel of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP).

Contrary to the scare stories about a nuclear wasteland, the most contaminated region around Chernobyl is now a magnificent nature preserve, with abundant flora and fauna.Courtesy of Dr. Ronald Chesser

LNT to Blame
The ICRP bases its recommendations for protection of the public in radiation accidents on the LNT. These recommendations—the lifetime limits of 350 mSv and 150 mSv—were used by the Soviet decision-makers, even though they are lower by a factor of 4 to 40 than the natural lifetime doses in many countries of the world, which have been inhabited for thousands of years.
People who were evacuated in 1986, received an average, whole-body radiation dose of 20 mSv, and a dose to the thyroid (from iodine-131) of 470 mSv. Inhabitants of the most highly contaminated parts of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, where deposition of cesium-137 was higher than 555 kBq per m2, received the whole body doses of 47 mSv, 36 mSv, and 83 mSv, respectively. The average doses to the thyroid in the most contaminated regions were 177 mGy in the Gomel district (Belarus), 37 mGy in the Bryansk district (Russia), and 380 mGy in the 8 most contaminated districts of Ukraine.

The Thyroid Cancer HoaxIn its final conclusions on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, the UNSCEAR report stated the following:
"The number of thyroid cancers (about 1,800) in individuals exposed in childhood, in particular in the severely contaminated areas of the three affected countries, is considerably greater than expected based on previous knowledge. The high incidence and the short induction period are unusual. Other factors may be influencing the risk."
One of these factors are what are called "occult" thyroid cancers, those detected at autopsies by histological studies, and which do not cause visible clinical disturbances during the person's lifetime. These occult thyroid cancers occur en masse all over the world. For example, in Canada their incidence is 6,000 per 100,000 population; in Poland it is 9,000; in the United States 13,000; and in Finland 35,000. The highest incidence of thyroid cancers in children found in Russia, before the Chernobyl accident, was 26.6 per 100,000; in Belarus, 17.9; and in Ukraine, 4.9. Thus, the potential for the discovery of "excess" thyroid cancers, after the intense health screening that took place after the accident, is enormous.
According to UNSCEAR data, the increase in thyroid cancers diagnosed in children under 15 years old, began to be seen as early as 1987 in Russia, and in 1990 in Belarus—that is, only one year and four years after the accident. However, the latency time for radiation-induced solid cancers, such as thyroid cancer, is about 10 years. According the data presented in the UNSCEAR 2000 report, there is no relationship (or rather there is an inverse one) between the registered incidence of thyroid cancers in children, and thyroid radiation doses to the population in contaminated areas (Figure 1).

Figure 1MAXIMUM THYROID CANCER INCIDENCE RATES IN CHILDREN IN HIGHLY CONTAMINATED REGIONS, COMPARED WITH RADIATION DOSEShown are the maximum thyroid cancer incidence rates in children in highly contaminated regions of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, who were under 15 years old at the time of diagnosis, compared with average thyroid radiation doses. As can be seen, the area with the lowest radiation dose has the highest incidence of thyroid cancer.
Thyroid cancers are 90 percent curable. As of this writing, only one of these children has died.
Source: Adapted from UNSCEAR 2000, Annex J, Tables 40 and 57

No Increase in CancersFinally, UNSCEAR concludes: "Apart from the increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure, no increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality have been observed that could be attributed to ionizing radiation. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns (leukemia is the first cancer to appear after radiation exposure, because of its short latency time of 2 to 10 years), does not appear to be elevated, even among the recovery operation workers. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to actual radiation doses."
"Finally," the report continues, "it should be emphasized that . . . . . th. the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to, or a few times higher than, the natural background levels. . . . . . Li. Lives have been disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view and based on assessment on this Annex (ÔExposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident'), generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail."
The future will see what prevails: the diligent, objective, scientific judgment of UNSCEAR, which is the most competent scientific body worldwide on radiation matters, or the ideologically and politically motivated propaganda of fear.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, a former chairman and current member of UNSCEAR, is a leading expert on the effects of radiation. He is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Notes1. The 10 annexes discuss dose assessment methodologies; exposures from natural radiation sources; exposures to the general population from man-made sources; medical and occupational exposures; DNA repair and mutagenesis; effects of low-level radiation doses; combined effects of radiation and other agents; epidemiology of radiation-induced cancers; and exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident.
2. For more details, see Z. Jaworowski, "A Realistic Assessment of Chernobyl's Health Effects," 21st Century,Spring 1998, pp. 14-25.

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Emigrant's Manifesto (A romanian girl's reflections upon her own country)

Source: http://odeena.net/emigrants-manifesto/
written by Odeena 
This post is from the heart. I don’t usually ramble and rant (not this bad, anyway) but there’s too much pent-up frustration that needs an out and too many things that need to be said. The tl;dr is that I don’t want to live in this country anymore, and my country doesn’t want me either. Here’s why.
PS.: I’m licensing this under Creative Commons. Feel free to share.
I believe in freedom of thought, speech and expression in a country that tells me what you ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ think, say and do. We may have seen a revolution in 1989, but all we did was swap one dictator for several others. The people’s minds were never really ‘freed’ from communist prejudice. If you go against the grain, you’re out. If you’re smart (and not street-smart, or smecher), you’re out. If you try to stand up for yourself and for what you believe in, they’ll pull you right back down where they think you belong.
The system is so deeply ingrained in people’s minds that one of the first things I learned as an elementary school student was to keep my mouth shut. Romanian living 101: shit sucks, everyone knows it, but you’d better keep it to yourself. Nothing makes the trolls come out of the woodwork like an opportunity to berate someone for telling the truth.
I believe in freedom of religion in a country where atheists and non-Orthodox worshipers of any kind are met with near-pathological hatred by a large part of the eighty-seven percent Orthodox majority. Orthodox religion is taught in schools as a compulsory subject for twelve years. Many people think of atheists, agnostics, non-Orthodox Christians and people of other religions as something less than a man, less than a woman, less than human in some cases.
A label of ‘atheist’ or ‘sectarian’ invalidates all critics of the state Church as a ‘vile, unfounded attack by a non-believer’. And yes, I really did say ‘state Church’, because politics and religion haven’t been separate (in direct violation of our Constitution) since the ’89 Revolution.
Here’s something to put it all in perspective. Some schools lack even the most basic utilities and hospitals are closed off due to lack of funding. Some smaller cities don’t have an ER. Yet the church, bless their hearts, sees fit to build a 400 million Euro cathedral in our capital city and hundreds of smaller churches. And I, along with thousands of other concerned citizens, have absolutely no say in it. Yet with all the tax exempts, lands and titles, hundred-thousand euro cars and golden domes, the Church is posing as a victim when its finances are questioned. Yeah, fuck that.
I believe love has nothing to do with sex or gender in a country where LGBTs are subject to more hatred and bigotry than even in some parts of the United States. LGBTs, even more than atheists or sectarians, are demonized to a sickening extent. A lot of people base their hatred on religion (wasn’t God quoted as saying ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’, though? I don’t remember there being any footnote saying ‘unless he’s a sectarian’ or ‘unless he’s gay’). Others base it on prejudice that has been passed along for generations. When questioned, they don’t even know why they hate gays so much. They just do.
These people fail to see that, aside for their sexual preferences, LGBTs are no fucking different than anyone else: they’re real people with real feelings, friends, families, jobs and dreams. And they just want the hate to stop. Is that too much to ask? In Romania, it is.
And how could it be different when homophobic remarks in public are hardly ever taxed? I remember one of my professors making a series of derogatory statements about gays during her lecture. I remember several outraged students writing to the dean about it. And I remember the professor denying all responsibility and the dean siding with her one hundred percent… and even asking students why they occupied his time with it when he had more pressing matters at hand. It makes me sick.
I am a woman in a profoundly misogynist country. Granted, very few countries are a shining beacon when it comes to women’s rights, but Romania seems to be doing, on average, far worse than other places. Thinly-veiled sexism can be see virtually everywhere. It’s perfectly acceptable to say berating things to or about a woman on national television and get away with it (several members of the Parliament are also notorious misogynists). Rape victims are constantly blamed for having ‘asked for it’ – by the rapist, by the police, even by their families sometimes.
And then there’s the day-to-day sexual harassment: cat-calls, groping, disgustingly graphic remarks, aggressive flirting even after being politely told to fuck off because hey, here’s my fucking wedding ring. ’It’s a man’s duty to try. That’s what men do‘, I’ve been told by a man in a friendly talk on women’s rights (or rather, lack thereof). With so much entitlement going around, how can anyone ever expect things to change?
I’m sick of hearing how women are such bad drivers when I love to drive (and I’m better than some of the men I know, including that one guy with a sports car who has no clue what RPM he should shift gears at). I’m sick of being told that no matter what I do in life, it’s still my ‘duty as a girlfriend or as a wife’ to clean and cook for my man (by women, no less). I’m sick of being treated like some naive little thing whenever I step out of my comfort zone.
I’ve not felt safe since I came back to Romania four years ago. I got attacked by a pack of stray dogs in broad daylight once; the same stray dogs that NGOs are so desperate to protect they’d rather see people get maimed than dogs be put down. Another time, I got chased down by a homeless man for wearing ‘satanic symbols’ (a Legacy of Kain pin). Some guy spit on my car because I ‘splashed mud’ on his while parking on a rainy day, even though I apologized. Another guy, a Gypsy this time, tried to grab my purse and run away with it – and when that didn’t work, he spit on me, too, before he ran off. Out of the many people walking by, only an elderly man stopped, gave me a tissue and asked me if I was all right. Everyone else stared. Free entertainment!
And then, there’s the violence. Regularly, I hear about kids beating up or killing other kids. It tends to happen in or around schools. There’s kids who beat up their teachers, and then there’s teachers who beat up their students. All in all, when I have children, this isn’t the country I want to send them to school in. I can’t even begin to imagine what the parents must be going through. At least those who stayed in the country, because a lot of them are working abroad.
All in all, I’m tired of living in this country, and no amount of money or property can make me stay. Even if I were filthy rich – which I’m not – I’d still have to face Romanian realities every time I went out. My children would still go to school to learn useless crap and pick up shitty habits. I can’t even begin to change things because, on the whole, this country doesn’t want to change. It missed that train twenty-one years ago, when a man who should’ve been tried and executed for crimes against humanity became president. And while it’s not too late to begin now, I don’t want to spend my best years fighting a system where human rights translate as ‘rights of the straight white Orthodox men, and maybe women, too, if we’re feeling generous’.
And so, after I earn my second degree, I’ll get out of here faster than a bat outta Hell. I deserve a better life. My family deserves a better life I want to contribute to the society that’ll be so kind as to take me and my family in, and with my skillset and experience I know I will. I’ll miss my friends and family – those who stayed behind, anyway – but I know the country won’t miss me. Hell, it might even give me the proverbial boot: well, good fucking riddance, we didn’t want you anyway, you unpatriotic English-speaking swine.

Thursday, 19 September 2013

UN Conference on Trade and Development: Report 2013

By Dan Kervick
Source: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/09/un-conference-trade-development-report-2013.html

The UN Conference on Trade and Development released its 2013 report on September 12, and it is both an invigorating read and a welcome break from the stagnant and conservative thinking that dominates most US economic discussion. The full report can be downloaded from the UNCTAD website, and a much shorter overview of the report is also available.

You can also listen to this podcast of a public event at the London School of Economics marking the release of the report last Thursday. The Podcast features Richard Kozul-Wright, who heads the unit on Economic Integration and Cooperation Among Developing Countries at UNCTAD, and Robert Wade, professor of Political Economy and Development in the Department of International Development at LSE.

Here is an UNCTAD synopsis of the report’s main messages. I have highlighted the remarks that struck me as most important:


Five years after the onset of the global financial crisis the world economy remains in a state of disarray, with global output growing at around 2 per cent and global trade growth virtually grounding to a halt, the Trade and Development Report (TDR) 2013 stresses. Growth remains subdued in developed countries, where labour market conditions, fiscal tightening and on-going deleveraging hinder domestic demand. With an external economic environment showing few signs of improvement, developing and transition economies could not avoid growth deceleration.

Prior to the Great Recession, buoyant consumer demand in the developed countries seemed to justify the adoption of an export-oriented growth model by many developing and transition economies. But that expansion was built on unsustainable global demand and financing patterns. Thus, reverting to pre-crisis growth strategies cannot be an option. The Report notes that to adjust to what now appears to be a structural shift of the world economy, fundamental changes in prevailing growth strategies are needed.

TDR 2013 notes that developed countries must address the fundamental causes of the crisis: rising income inequality, the diminishing economic role of the State, the predominant role of a poorly regulated financial sector and an international system prone to global imbalances; while developing and transition economies that have been overly dependent on exports need to adopt a more balanced growth strategy that gives a greater role to domestic and regional demand.

Distinct from export-led growth, demand-led strategies can be pursued by all countries simultaneously without beggar-thy-neighbour effects. The Report also affirms that, if many developing countries manage to co-ordinately expand their domestic demand, their economies could become markets for each other, spurring regional and South-South trade. Hence,shifting the focus of development strategies to domestic markets does not mean minimizing the importance of the role of exports.

In adopting a growth strategy with a larger role for domestic demand, countries should achieve an appropriate balance between increases in household consumption, private investment and public expenditure. Fostering the purchasing power of the population is a key element in this regard. It can be achieved through an incomes policy, targeted social transfers and public sector employments schemes. Income creation and redistribution favouring lower- and middle-income households is crucial to this development strategy, because those households tend to spend a larger share of their income on consumption, particularly of locally or regionally produced goods and services.

Increased aggregate demand would provide an incentive to entrepreneurs to invest in expanding productive capacities and in adapting them to new demand patterns. Doing so requires investment which, in turn, necessitates access to reliable and affordable long-term finance.

With that aim, foreign capital may be useful in financing imports of essential intermediate and capital goods. However, large cross-border financial flows to developing and transition economies have often led to lending booms and busts, currency mispricing and the build-up of foreign liabilities without contributing to an economy’s capacity to grow and service such obligations. A cautious and selective approach towards cross-border capital flows is needed for reducing the vulnerability of receiving countries to external financial shocks and directing credit to productive investment.

The Report finally underlines that these countries should rely increasingly on domestic sources for investment finance. It affirms that central banks should enlarge their mandates beyond inflation control and, through a credit policy, play a much more engaged role financing the real economy. The implementation of such a credit policy can be facilitated through the involvement of specialised institutions, including national and regional development banks. Indeed, a network of specialized financial institutions may be more effective in channeling credit for development-enhancing purposes than big universal banks, which tend to become not only “too big to fail” but also “too big to regulate”.

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Restart, a better start

I've recently unpublished A Stage For Traitors from Smashwords and the other retailers. While writing the 2nd book, my humble writing skills have improved, my voice has gotten bolder, and I need to bring some elements in sink with the story's progression in the 2nd book. Therefore, I'm currently doing an overhaul of A Stage For Traitors, while concomitantly writing the sequel, A Heretical Divide. When both of them are finished, they'll be released on the same day. I've learned from my past mistakes. I won't botch this release like I did with the first one. When that happens, both of them will appear on Amazon, and I will charge a little money for them. For those of you who want to experience the OHAL universe, but who are unable to purchase the books, you'll be able to download it for free at Obooko.com.
I will also attempt to transform the books into audio, and upload them to youtube. I'm not crazy about money; but it would be nice to make some in order to pay the utilities. ^^
All in all, best wishes - and stay tuned.

Monday, 22 July 2013

Freemasons are way above their heads vis-a-vis the masonic purpose

Check out this vid. It's really funny and boring at the same time.



One of the guys in the audience, the man in the left (minute 2:25), is really sleeping through all of this. Lol. From what I read about the masonic purpose, it's supposed to preside over the evolution of mankind, threefold - emotional, intellectual, spiritual. It's supposed to bring humanity to its apex - the ultimate goal being that of deification. Seriously, now... are these dudes supposed to "build" that future for us all? They don't seem fit to carry themselves, let alone lead a species.
PS: LoooL at Eye of the tiger moment.

Wednesday, 3 July 2013

10 words than ruin your resume, also used by employers. So wtf?

According to this article, the 10 words that ruin one's resume are:
-"Salary negotiable"
-"References available by request" (Ok, this one I understand.)
-"Responsible for _"
-"Experience working in _"
-"Problem-solving skills"
-"Detail-orientated" (I'm torn between this one. It's pretty sterile without some context.)
-"Hardworking"
-"Team player"
-"Proactive"
-"Objective"
Instead of salary negotiable, what would the employer want to applicant to write? "Will accept minimum wage?" The goddamn employer is offering the job, so it's him/her who's making the salary offer - and the applicant decides if he/she will take it or not.
Why is the term "responsible" so wrong, that it needs to be replaced with stronger verbs? Why do we need euphemistic semantics in order to impress somebody. And why the hell does the employer need that sort of language from the applicants - when in fact, the employer should discern between fact and flowered up descriptions?
The author claims that experience is something that happens to you, not something you achieve. Well, shit. A guy working for x number of years in z business doesn't acquire experience, that just simply happens. He's not actually getting up in the morning doing the work, that just happens to him. You are dead wrong, sir, dead wrong about this one.
Apparently, writing "hardworking", "team player," and "objective" is telling, not showing. Guess those lines about experience or lack of it, add nothing to the eyes of the employer. They should be replaced probably with words which have a more medieval feel to it. Like... "I'm a man of TOIL. I CONFORM to management. And I'm so detached from my personal life, that I'm like a ROBOT SERF in the field - I mean, office or at the work-bench."
According to the author of the article, monkeys and dogs possess "problem-solving skills" too. Alright, but many job descriptions use that expression. So why is it a no-no for the applicant to use it as well? That goes for the word "proactive". It's part of so many job descriptions. It's obvious hypocrisy.
Conclusion:
Unemployment is not a natural phenomenon, it's a policy of the establishment. The corporate powers and their fellow puppets in government in charge of policy-making, don't want to have unemployment close to 0% - they don't want all those who are able and willing to work, working, because that makes wages go up. Because that means shrinking poverty and consolidating the middle class. That means more people have access to resources, education, and awareness. And they can't exert their arsenal of dividing society, in order to maintain their rule as it is - legal theft. If all people would have a decent living, you couldn't divide them with bullshit notions like: race, ethnicity, religion, social status, ideology etc.
The powers that be want unemployment to ALWAYS be a problem, because that ensures the existence of a destitute class, that puts downward pressure on wages, and the rich keep getting richer, while everyone gets a little bit poorer, if not a lot more (depending if your government near you is practicing austerity).
In my honest opinion, that article is pure bullshit, and as such, the person who wrote is full of crap. Because so long as there is free labor (unemployment) and unused resources, that means the government is either taxing too much or spending too little.

Sunday, 9 June 2013

RIP Iain Banks

Iain Banks the novelist has died at the age of 59. A committed supporter of the anti-war movement, he tore up his passport in 2007 in protest over Tony Blair's lies that took Britain into war with Iraq.




The writer Iain Banks is a long time supporter of Stop the War Coalition who in 2007 tore up his passport and sent it to then prime minister Tony Blair in protest against the Iraq war.
"It was Blair's war. There is the technicality of cabinet reponsibility, but it was Blair who bowed to Bush in the first place, and Blair who convinced the Labour party and parliament of the need to go to war with a dossier that was so close to lying that it makes no difference."
"In 2004, Banks signed a petition urging that Blair be impeached for taking Britain into an illegal war. "I still look forward to seeing him in that glass cubicle in the Hague," he says.
"What Blair did was morally corrosive," Banks continues. "It made me wonder why I was bothering to obey speed limits. What is the point of the rule of law when our prime minister breaks such a big one shamelessly? There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgment that we should have a moral point of view."
Iain Banks is also committed to the cause of the Palestinian struggle for peace, freedom and justice. Below he explains why he joined the boycott of Israel and has stopped all of his books being published there.
On 3 April 2013, Iain Banks published a personal statement announcing that he had terminal cancer and only a few months to live. Messages of condolences for Iain's family and friends can be sent to Banksophilia, a website set up by his friends.

I support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign because, especially in our instantly connected world, an injustice committed against one, or against one group of people, is an injustice against all, against every one of us; a collective injury.
My particular reason for participating in the cultural boycott of Israel is that, first of all, I can; I'm a writer, a novelist, and I produce works that are, as a rule, presented to the international market. This gives me a small extra degree of power over that which I possess as a (UK) citizen and a consumer.
Secondly, where possible when trying to make a point, one ought to be precise, and hit where it hurts. The sports boycott of South Africa when it was still run by the racist apartheid regime helped to bring the country to its senses because the ruling Afrikaaner minority put so much store in their sporting prowess. Rugby and cricket in particular mattered to them profoundly, and their teams' generally elevated position in the international league tables was a matter of considerable pride. When they were eventually isolated by the sporting boycott – as part of the wider cultural and trade boycott – they were forced that much more persuasively to confront their own outlaw status in the world.
A sporting boycott of Israel would make relatively little difference to the self-esteem of Israelis in comparison to South Africa; an intellectual and cultural one might help make all the difference, especially now that the events of the Arab spring and the continuing repercussions of the attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla peace convoy have threatened both Israel's ability to rely on Egypt's collusion in the containment of Gaza, and Turkey's willingness to engage sympathetically with the Israeli regime at all.
Feeling increasingly isolated, Israel is all the more vulnerable to further evidence that it, in turn, like the racist South African regime it once supported and collaborated with, is increasingly regarded as an outlaw state.
I was able to play a tiny part in South Africa's cultural boycott, ensuring that – once it thundered through to me that I could do so – my novels weren't sold there (while subject to an earlier contract, under whose terms the books were sold in South Africa, I did a rough calculation of royalties earned each year and sent that amount to the ANC). 
Since the 2010 attack on the Turkish-led convoy to Gaza in international waters, I've instructed my agent not to sell the rights to my novels to Israeli publishers. I don't buy Israeli-sourced products or food, and my partner and I try to support Palestinian-sourced products wherever possible.
It doesn't feel like much, and I'm not completely happy doing even this; it can sometimes feel like taking part in collective punishment (although BDS is, by definition, aimed directly at the state and not the people), and that's one of the most damning charges that can be levelled at Israel itself: that it engages in the collective punishment of the Palestinian people within Israel, and the occupied territories, that is, the West Bank and – especially – the vast prison camp that is Gaza.
The problem is that constructive engagement and reasoned argument demonstrably have not worked, and the relatively crude weapon of boycott is pretty much all that's left.
(To the question, "What about boycotting Saudi Arabia?" – all I can claim is that cutting back on my consumption of its most lucrative export was a peripheral reason for giving up the powerful cars I used to drive, and for stopping flying, some years ago. I certainly wouldn't let a book of mine be published there either, although – unsurprisingly, given some of the things I've said about that barbaric excuse for a country, not to mention the contents of the books themselves – the issue has never arisen, and never will with anything remotely resembling the current regime in power.)
As someone who has always respected and admired the achievements of the Jewish people – they've probably contributed even more to world civilisation than the Scots, and we Caledonians are hardly shy about promoting our own wee-but-influential record and status – and has felt sympathy for the suffering they experienced, especially in the years leading up to and then during the second world war and the Holocaust, I'll always feel uncomfortable taking part in any action that – even if only thanks to the efforts of the Israeli propaganda machine – may be claimed by some to target them, despite the fact that the state of Israel and the Jewish people are not synonymous.
Israel and its apologists can't have it both ways, though: if they're going to make the rather hysterical claim that any and every criticism of Israeli domestic or foreign policy amounts to antisemitism, they have to accept that this claimed, if specious, indivisibility provides an opportunity for what they claim to be the censure of one to function as the condemnation of the other.
The particular tragedy of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is that nobody seems to have learned anything.
Israel itself was brought into being partly as a belated and guilty attempt by the world community to help compensate for its complicity in, or at least its inability to prevent, the catastrophic crime of the Holocaust.
Of all people, the Jewish people ought to know how it feels to be persecuted en masse, to be punished collectively and to be treated as less than human. For the Israeli state and the collective of often unlikely bedfellows who support it so unquestioningly throughout the world to pursue and support the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people – forced so brutally off their land in 1948 and still under attack today – to be so blind to the idea that injustice is injustice, regardless not just on whom it is visited, but by whom as well, is one of the defining iniquities of our age, and powerfully implies a shamingly low upper limit on the extent of our species' moral intelligence.
The solution to the dispossession and persecution of one people can never be to dispossess and persecute another. When we do this, or participate in this, or even just allow this to happen without criticism or resistance, we only help ensure further injustice, oppression, intolerance, cruelty and violence in the future.
We may see ourselves as many tribes, but we are one species, and in failing to speak out against injustices inflicted on some of our number and doing what we can to combat those without piling further wrongs on earlier ones, we are effectively collectively punishing ourselves.
The BDS campaign for justice for the Palestinian people is one I would hope any decent, open-minded person would support. Gentile or Jew, conservative or leftist, no matter who you are or how you see yourself, these people are our people, and collectively we have turned our backs on their suffering for far too long.
Extracted from Our People by Iain Banks, from Generation Palestine: Voices from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, edited by Rich Wiles, published by Pluto Press.

Friday, 31 May 2013

Religious fundamentalism may be a ‘mental illness’ that can be ‘cured’ - God willing ^^ (See what I did there?)



Religious fundamentalism and cruelty to children may one day be treated in the same way as mental illness, a neuroscientist has speculated.


Kathleen Taylor, a research scientist at Oxford University’s Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, says strong negative beliefs could be eradicated using techniques already in the works.


Dr Taylor was speaking at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales when she was asked what she forsaw as positive developments in neuroscience in the coming years, The Times reports.


She replied: “One man’s positive can be another man’s negative. One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated.


“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology – we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.


“In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage.


“I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children.


“These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorised as mental illness.”


In a previous blog for the Huffington Post, Dr Taylor wrote of the “astonishing” advances in neuroscience and how it offers hope for some of the most feared diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.


But she concedes motives beyond those which are purely clinical run into problematic territory.


Writing in September, a month before the release of her book The Brain Supremacy, she says: “The ethics developed by doctors, over centuries, to deal with human suffering, are different from those developed by scientists trying to understand how the world works.


“They're still more different from the ethics of businesses keen to cash in on the new technologies… techniques created to heal can also be employed for other purposes, and the ability to get data from living brains is a holy grail for many interested parties other than neuroscientists and doctors.”


She adds: “Human systems are always changed by their interactions with others, and in hard-to-calculate ways. What a volunteer says and does in a research lab may be altered not only by the lab environment or the phrasing of a question, but by who the experimenters are and how they behave. The human person thus needs to be considered. Technologies which directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to commercial exploitation as any new gadget.”


Links between extreme faiths and mental health have been made before, with former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Dr Dinesh Bhugra, highlighting recent religious conversions being more associated with a developing psychotic mental illness.


In a paper entitled ‘Self-concept: Psychosis and attraction of new religious movements’, he points to data from studies which shows that patients with first onset psychosis are likely to change their religion.


The introduction to Dr Taylor’s book adds further caution: “We need to be careful when it comes to developing technologies which can slip through the skull to directly manipulate the brain.


“They cannot be morally neutral, these world-shaping tools; when the aspect of the world in question is a human being, morality inevitably rears its hydra heads.


“Technologies which profoundly change our relationship with the world around us cannot simply be tools, to be used for good or evil, if they alter our basic perception of what good and evil are.”


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/30/religious-fundamentalism-categorised-mental-illness-cured-_n_3359267.html?utm_hp_ref=uk#comments

Sunday, 26 May 2013

A show like no other - Garth Marenghi's Darkplace

Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6
If you can't see and hear the humor in this show, congratulations then, you're an idiot.

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Hey, girls, look at my machinery...


Alright, men. In the words of the great lord Flashheart, Let's doooo it!

The book's free to download and you won't be disappointed. Heck, if I'm not willing to back it up, who will? And even if we were to make the absurd presumption that you wouldn't find it engaging enough, I'm still working on the draft for the sequel, A Heretical Divide. And I'm gonna keep writing after that's done as well.

Yes, in the beginning I had wild dreams about it. Thought I'd be discovered over night and make a fortune. Go fly around the western countries, and then come back to Romania to buy The Iron Gates 1 and 2 (our hydroelectric dams). But something happened... After I quit smoking cigarettes, I also stopped smoking air. ^^
What matter are my sons and daughters. I am their father, and I also their slave. Here's the kind of music that fits my world Of Hate And Laughter - it fit's like a charm.
X-Ray Dog!!!

Regardless of what the future has in store for me, I'm not going to stop writing. If fate takes away my arm, I'll use my other one. If fate takes away both of them, I'll try to write using my toes - though, recording my voice on a tape is easier. But that means I'll have to find some bloke charitable enough to type in the sound as letters on the computer on my behalf. Maybe I'll get lucky, and fate will be kind to me. Whatever her mind, I plan to leave on this earth more than the shadow of my dust.

Remember, children (young and old) - the government deficit equals the net savings of the private sector in a given year. Taxes don't finance public expenditure. It's the other way around. Remember that EVERY human being is full of shit. And remember that God hates nothing more than those who worship him out of fear, ignorance, and superstition; instead of worshiping him out of love. We who are about to die salute you!

Saturday, 18 May 2013

Confessions of an Erratic Marxist

When I chose my PhD thesis, I intentionally concentrated on a method within which Marx was not simply wrong, he was irrelevant. When I landed my first economics lectureship in Britain, the implicit contract between my university and me was that the sort of economics I would teach our students would be as far removed from Marxism as is humanly possible. When I moved to Australia in 1988, unbeknownst to me, I was recruited by the right wing of the Sydney University Economics Department in order to keep out of the Faculty another candidate whose former supervisor was thought of (quite rightly!) as a dangerous Marxist. Later I moved to Greece where I (foolishly) became, quiet officially, an advisor of George Papandreou -- the man whose government was to mediate Greece's passage to Hell a few years later. While I resigned that position in 2006, having gotten whiff of the impending disaster, I carried on teaching, at the University of Athens, quaint (and admittedly vulgar bourgeois) subjects like Game Theory and Microeconomics to a large number of Greek students, who remained touchingly oblivious to the catastrophe about to befall them. Back in 2002, well before the Global Crisis erupted, Joseph Halevi and I tried to sound a warning -- but we failed to make an impact. Even though in 2006 I did my best to warn Greek society, and anyone who would listen, of the impending disaster, I shamefully remained part of Athens' and Europe's 'polite society', not once taking to the streets. When the Global Crisis erupted in 2008, and soon engulfed the Eurozone, I began writing articles and making frantic appearances in established and less mainstream media alike, promoting a fundamentally bourgeois agenda for saving capitalism from itself! When the going got really tough, at a personal level, in Greece, I migrated to the USA and took up an appointment at the University of Texas. To this day, I am struggling to impress the powers-that-be that they must urgently adopt specific bold policy recommendations in order to prevent an inevitable crisis from crushing capitalism. In summary, not one of my academic publications can be thought of as explicitly Marxist, while my energies are channeled into preventing capitalism's collapse. Nonetheless, all along, from my student days in Britain to this very day, the only way I could make sense of the world we live in is through the methodological 'eyes' of Karl Marx. In itself, this 'fact' renders me a theoretical Marxist. Moreover, I feel Marxism in my bones every time I am engaged in any form of intellectual pursuit: from discussing the Arab Spring to debating the intricacies of Art with my artist partner. Furthermore, a democratic, libertarian, socialist future is the only future that I would be willing to fight for. A most peculiar Marxist no doubt, but a Marxist nevertheless.

Yanis Varoufakis
Political economist and a professor at the University of Texas, Austin. After training in mathematics and statistics, Varoufakis received his economics doctorate in 1987 at the University of Essex. Before that he has allready began teaching economics and econometrics at the University of Essex and the University of East Anglia. From 1989 until 2000 he taught as Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Department of Economics of the University of Sydney. In 2000 he moved to his native Greece where he was Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Athens. He is an active participant in the current debates on the global and European crisis and the author of The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy (2011).

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Fox News and its public should shoot themselves

Fox News has practiced an abject propaganda campaign against Jay Z and Beyonce's trip to Cuba. Fox News has spewed pure lies, saying that in Cuba there's a racist (Apartheid) regime, and that Che Guevara was a racist. How is this channel allowed to air such abject manipulation and lies without any sort of responsibility?


Tuesday, 9 April 2013

42 reasons to loathe Margaret Thatcher, by a british citizen

42 reasons to loathe Margaret Thatcher

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment.
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry, creating the untenable situation Britain endures today whereby we import everything from either Germany, the USA, or China. Britain went from a world leader in manufacturing to an international joke.
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws.
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" being a popular slogan at the time).
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that has turned out).
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration.
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership).
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million, and this still does not take into account those forced on to incapacity benefits.
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands.
10. The poll tax (an unfair tax levied equally on every member of society regardless of income)
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad.
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War.
13. She privatised state monopolies such as energy and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years.
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS.
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits which led directly to the 2008 crash.
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA, prior to this support had been more bilateral and measured.
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control.
18. Section 28, a homophobic clause reading that a local council "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist".
20. She supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers.
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population.
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany.
23. She invented Quangos (shady government/private bodies with powers to influence policy but very little supervision)
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%, an evil flat tax on all.
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet.
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike.
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%.
31. BSE (deregulation of what could be fed to farm animals).
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession.
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process, exacerbating the feeling of unrest amongst the Catholic population.
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa during apartied.
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin, corruption after corruption.
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher.
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion.
38. Poverty doubled whilst she opposed a minimum wage.
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders. British energy bills fund cheap energy for the rest of the continent.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education.
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions.
42. 21.9% inflation.

She inspired many other governments to instigate similar reforms as part of the massive lurch to the right in the last 30 years.
The list of reasons why this woman deserves to rot in hell for all eternity is endless.

Post made by Lord Weasel on the Ars-Regendi forums: http://forum.ars-regendi.com/thatcher-has-kicked-the-bucket-t-22853.html