Feed aggregator

Pyttur Framsóknarflokksins

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Mið, 28/05/2014 - 23:34

Þegar Framsóknarflokkurinn ákvað að nota moskumálið til að afla sér atkvæða þá opnaðist forarpyttur í íslensku samfélagi. Fram hafa stigið menn og konur sem fullyrða að trúin á Kóraninn valdi hörmungum og dauða saklausra einstaklinga. Þess vegna verði að hefta framrás Islam með öllum tiltækum ráðum og þar með að hindra byggingu mosku í Reykjavík. Guðrún Bryndís fyrrverandi innanbúðarmanneskja í Framsókn lýsir því vel hvernig Framsóknarflokkurinn er í heilögu stríði gegn þeim sem trúa á Kóraninn á Íslandi.
Hinir kristnu Vesturlandabúar eru svo penir að þeir nota ómönnuð flugför-dróna-til að drepa andstæðinga sína um víða veröld. Aðallega er um að ræða Araba í Pakistan, Afganistan og Jemen. Einhverjir tugir eru myrtir daglega og er það allt saklaust fólk. Ef það er eitthvað sem býr til hryðjuverkamenn þá eru það þessi morð. Eru þessi morð vegna kristinnar trúar? Innrásin á Líbýu með NATO í broddi fylkingar myrti þúsundir saklausra borgara og lagði landið nánast í rúst. Er það vegna kristinnar trúar?
Eigum við þá ekki að bannfæra allar kirkjur á Íslandi og jafna þær við jörðu?
Bændaflokkurinn Framsókn virðist njóta þess að velta sér upp úr þessum forarpytti rasískra skoðana eins og ónefnd dýrategund. Það er mál að linni og að fjölgun þeirra verði hamin. Það geta bara kjósendur á kjördag gert, ódeyft.

Lýðræðið okkar

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Þri, 27/05/2014 - 23:24

Í kosningabaráttunni heyrir maður í mörgum kjósendum. Það er hópur einstaklinga sem ætlar ekki að kjósa á laugardaginn. Þessir kjósendur hafa gefist upp á fulltrúalýðræðinu. Þeim finnst ekki skipta máli hvern þeir kjósa því allir svíkja kosningaloforðin. Oft vitnað í landsmálin og að núverandi ríkisstjórn hafi þegar svikið ýmis loforð. Ekki hefur útspil Framsóknar aukið virðingu þessara einstaklinga fyrir lýðræðiskerfinu okkar.

Vandamálið er í raun að það er ekki hægt að hafa stjórn á kjörnum fulltrúm á milli kosninga. Korter fyrir kosningar kemur loforðaflaumurinn og þessir kjósendur fá velgjuna upp í kok og sitja frekar heima en að kjósa. Hvað er til ráða? Ekki dugar sama uppskrift að minnsta kosti.

Það sem við í Dögun viljum gera er að 10% kjósenda geti skrifað á undirskriftalista og þar með fengið kosningu meðal íbúanna um hvaða mál sem er. Þar með hafa kjósendur fengið ákveðið vald milli kosninga. Þeir geta á þennan hátt vakið athygli á málum sem þeir brenna fyrir og skapað umræðu sem getur verið mjög mikilvæg. Ekki síst mál sem kjörnir fulltrúar vilja ekki að komist í hámæli. Auk þess getur kosningin valdið því að kjörnir fulltrúar standi við kosningaloforðin sín. Ekki slæmt eða hvað?

Með því að leggja meira vald í hendur kjósenda eykst pólitískur áhugi þeirra og virkni. Kjósendur eru ekki heimskir því þegar þeir finna sig áhrifalausa þá nenna þeir þessu ekki. Við í Dögun viljum snúa þessari þróun við og vonandi munu aðrir flokkar sjá að sér og útdeila raunverulegu valdi til kjósenda.

Að bera harm sinn í hljóði…

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Sun, 25/05/2014 - 22:06

Sem sannur karlmaður og víkingur á maður að bera harm sinn í hljóði en núna get ég ekki orða bundist. Við búum í samfélagi sem á að stjórnast af lýðræðislegum og jafnréttis gildum en því fer fjarri. Hér ræður hnefarétturinn.
Það eru all nokkrar líkur á því að þú hafir ekki heyrt um okkur í Dögun vegna þöggunar í samfélaginu. Við erum stjórnmálaflokkur sem er að bjóða sig fram í sveitastjórnarkosningunum í Reykjavík ,Akureyri og Kópavogi. Endurtekið hefir verið gengið fram hjá okkur þannig að þú hefur sjálfsagt ekkert frétt af okkur.
Fréttablaðið hefur haft heilsíðu umfjöllun um mismunandi málaflokka í borgarmálum. Aldrei er minnst á Dögun en hinir flokkarnir komast að með mynd og merki. Lesendur Fréttablaðsins vita ekki einu sinni að við erum til. Smartland Mörtu á Morgunblaðinu bauð oddvitunum í Reykjavík í róðrakeppni á líkamsræktunarstöð en ekki oddvita Dögunar. Nokkra fundi og pallborð hefur okkur ekki verið boðið á.
Sjálfsagt þúsund afsakanir hjá viðkomandi aðilum en hvar er lýðræðisástin í miðri lýðræðisveislunni. Hvar eru öll stóru orðin hjá hinum oddvitunum um lýðræðisást sína þegar þeir uppgötva að Dögun hefur ekki verið boðið. Er þeim sama, er okkur öllum sama eða er það bara svo næs að fylgja” FREKA KALLINUM” hugsunarlaust. Hvernig á maður að stunda pólitík á Íslandi ef fjölmiðlaveldin dissa mann?
Er ekki kominn tími á lagasetningu sem skyldar alla til fulls jafnréttis gagnvart öllum framboðum og að banna skoðanakannanir nokkrum vikum fyrir kosningar.

Borgarbankinn

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Þri, 20/05/2014 - 23:03

Þegar frambjóðendur okkar í Dögun hafa verið á ferðinni og rætt við fólk hefur það komið í ljós að fólki finnst hugmynd okkar um Borgarbanka mjög góð. Það er mikill samhljómur meðal þeirra sem rætt hefur verið við að hagnaðurinn eigi frekar að fara til almennings en fárra útvaldra.
Hugmyndin er ekki flókin en hún gengur út á það að Reykjavíkurborg stofni sinn eigin banka. Hagnaður bankans gangi síðan til eigenda sinna, þ.e. borgarbúa. Þannig eykst geta borgarinnar til að sinna borgarbúum. Þar setjum við í Dögun megin áhersluna á að hjálpa þeim sem minnst hafa.
Það sem gerir þennan banka sérstakan er að hann yrði mun gagnsærri og borgarbúar gætu haft mun meira um starfshætti hans að segja en aðra banka. Eins og við vitum eru venjulegir bankar ósnertanlegir fílabeinsturnar. Auk þess væri lánastefna borgarbankans þröng, þ.e. hún væri mjög samfélagsmiðuð og ekki væri leyfilegt að taka þátt í því sem stundum er kallað ”spilavítishegðun”. Bankinn mætti lána til verkefna sem búa til raunveruleg verðmæti og ekki fjárfesta í froðuhagnaði.
Það má leiða sterkar líkur að því að ef allir bankar á Íslandi hefðu verið reknir eftir þessari hugmyndafræði þá hefðum við sloppið við bankakreppuna 2008. Samfélagslega rekinn banki hefði ekki mátt taka veð í óveiddum fiski. Auk þess er það dæmi um spilavítishegðun að þiggja óveiddan fisk sem veð sem er eign þjóðarinnar en ekki lántakandans.
Dögun vill að Borgarbankinn styrki borgarsjóð og gefi gott fordæmi um hvernig góð bankastarfsemi geti verið. Mjög mikilvægt er að umræðan um Borgarbanka komist á dagskrá því það er augljóst að við erum enn að kljást við afleiðingar af fjárfestingastefnu einkabankanna.

 

 

Réttlæti

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Sun, 18/05/2014 - 00:07

Rauði kross Íslands kynnti núna rannsókn á þeim í samfélagi okkar sem eru félagslega berskjaldaðir eða það sem oft er kallað fátækt. Fátækt hefur aldrei verið vinsælt umræðuefni á Íslandi en hefur þó komist meira í umræðuna í seinni tíð, aðalega vegna aukinna rannsókna. Menn geta ekki neitað tilvist fátæktar í dag.
Að fátækt sé fylgifiskur samfélags okkar er merki þess að við erum ekki að gera hlutina rétt. Það vill örugglega enginn verða fátækur og þess vegna getur það ekki verið rétt að við sættum okkur við það að aðrir séu það. Framkoma okkar gagnvart fátækum í samfélagi okkar er ekki merki um réttlæti. Við erum því að breyta rangt og fremja óréttlæti.
Við verðum því öll að taka okkur á og ekki að linna látum fyrr en við höfum útrýmt fátækt því erfitt er að afsaka aðgerðaleysi í landi þar sem margir eru þó enn aflögufærir. Bankar og útgerðafyrirtæki græða vel að minnsta kosti. Fyrst og fremst þurfum við að viðurkenna fyrir okkur að þennan vanda verði að leysa strax og forgangsraða í þágu þeirra sem búa við fátækt.
Dögun í Reykjavík viðurkennir vandann og krefst þess að Reykjavíkurborg standi við lagalegar skyldur sínar við að framfleyta þeim sem geta ekki gert það sjálfir. Okkur finnst þetta vera mannréttindarmál og Ísland hefur ritað undir Barnasáttmála SÞ. Við teljum okkur ekki stætt á því að veita afslátt á mannréttindum.

Thinking The Right Thoughts

Media Lens - Fim, 15/05/2014 - 07:25

By David Cromwell & David Edwards

There are always convenient news-hooks on which corporate journalists can hang their power-friendly prejudices about the West being 'the good guys' in world affairs. Channel 4 News is not immune from this chauvinism. For example, Matt Frei introduced a report about last month's elections in Iraq with this propaganda bullet:

'Now, America once invaded Iraq so that, in large part, Iraqis could do what they did today – go to the polls.' (Channel 4 News, April 30, 2014)

Frei was, in fact, diligently reading out the first line of a blog piece by his colleague Jonathan Rugman, C4 News foreign affairs correspondent. The actual overriding reason for the West's war of aggression – strategic geopolitical dominance, including control of valuable hydrocarbon resources in the Middle East – was simply brushed aside. As ever, 'we' must be seen to be acting out of benign intent and pure desire to bring democracy to people around the globe. The reality is that 'we' must stifle other countries' independent development and, if required, bomb them into submission to Western state-corporate hegemony.

Frei acting as a mouthpiece to Rugman's bizarrely skewed perspective on the Iraq War was yet another case of sticking to the editorial line from the C4 News 'team you know and trust'. When we asked C4 News correspondent Alex Thomson whether he agreed with this particular editorial monstrosity from his team he ducked out:

'whoah - I'm surfing right now and staying well out of this one!'

To be fair to Thomson, that was his jovial way of not defending his colleagues. He knows we know, and we know he knows we know, where his sympathies lie on that one.

Whereas Thomson has enough savvy to see behind much US-UK government rhetoric, he is aware that he must rein in any expressed scepticism to hang on to his job. As a general rule, journalists in the public eye are constrained to direct scepticism in one direction only: towards the propaganda output of officially declared enemies.

Thus, BBC Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg was free to make this observation via Twitter:

'Dominating the Russian airwaves, Moscow's lexicon for the Ukraine conflict: "junta", "fascists", "Banderovtsy", "genocide", "extremists"'

That's fine. But when has Rosenberg, or any of his colleagues, ever highlighted how 'our' airwaves are dominated by 'London's lexicon' and 'Washington's lexicon'? Why is it the job of a supposedly impartial BBC journalist to expose 'Moscow's lexicon', but not that emanating from London or Washington? Rosenberg ignored us when we asked him those questions on Twitter.

Thinking The Right Thoughts

Media Lens - Fim, 15/05/2014 - 07:25

By David Cromwell & David Edwards

There are always convenient news-hooks on which corporate journalists can hang their power-friendly prejudices about the West being 'the good guys' in world affairs. Channel 4 News is not immune from this chauvinism. For example, Matt Frei introduced a report about last month's elections in Iraq with this propaganda bullet:

'Now, America once invaded Iraq so that, in large part, Iraqis could do what they did today – go to the polls.' (Channel 4 News, April 30, 2014)

Frei was, in fact, diligently reading out the first line of a blog piece by his colleague Jonathan Rugman, C4 News foreign affairs correspondent. The actual overriding reason for the West's war of aggression – strategic geopolitical dominance, including control of valuable hydrocarbon resources in the Middle East – was simply brushed aside. As ever, 'we' must be seen to be acting out of benign intent and pure desire to bring democracy to people around the globe. The reality is that 'we' must stifle other countries' independent development and, if required, bomb them into submission to Western state-corporate hegemony.

Frei acting as a mouthpiece to Rugman's bizarrely skewed perspective on the Iraq War was yet another case of sticking to the editorial line from the C4 News 'team you know and trust'. When we asked C4 News correspondent Alex Thomson whether he agreed with this particular editorial monstrosity from his team he ducked out:

'whoah - I'm surfing right now and staying well out of this one!'

To be fair to Thomson, that was his jovial way of not defending his colleagues. He knows we know, and we know he knows we know, where his sympathies lie on that one.

Whereas Thomson has enough savvy to see behind much US-UK government rhetoric, he is aware that he must rein in any expressed scepticism to hang on to his job. As a general rule, journalists in the public eye are constrained to direct scepticism in one direction only: towards the propaganda output of officially declared enemies.

Thus, BBC Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg was free to make this observation via Twitter:

'Dominating the Russian airwaves, Moscow's lexicon for the Ukraine conflict: "junta", "fascists", "Banderovtsy", "genocide", "extremists"'

That's fine. But when has Rosenberg, or any of his colleagues, ever highlighted how 'our' airwaves are dominated by 'London's lexicon' and 'Washington's lexicon'? Why is it the job of a supposedly impartial BBC journalist to expose 'Moscow's lexicon', but not that emanating from London or Washington? Rosenberg ignored us when we asked him those questions on Twitter.

Eeny, Meeny Madness - Beyond Racism

Media Lens - Mán, 12/05/2014 - 13:11

By David Edwards

Jeremy Clarkson is star presenter of the BBC's Top Gear show which, tragically for anyone who cares about the climate, holds a 2013 Guinness world record for most widely watched factual programme in the world.

Clarkson asked for his viewers' forgiveness following the publication of a clip that showed him reciting the nursery rhyme, 'Eeny, meeny, miny, moe; catch a nigger by the toe', in unaired footage obtained by the Daily Mirror. Clarkson can clearly be seen mumbling a portion of the N-word.

The Blairite Deputy Labour leader, Harriet Harman, who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was part of the government that waged the war, said:

'Anybody who uses the N-word in public or private in whatever context has no place in the British Broadcasting Corporation.'

In the Guardian, senior columnist Suzanne Moore commented:

'Clarkson is not stupid. Nor is he a maverick or outlier. He is a central part of the establishment. He parties with Cameron. Just as Ukip is not a maverick party, but made up of disgruntled Tories; just as Boris Johnson is not a maverick but a born-to-rule chancer... this section of the right deludes itself that it is somehow "outside" the establishment rather than its pumping heart.'

We wrote to Moore on Twitter:

'You say the right "deludes itself" it is "somehow 'outside' the establishment rather than its pumping heart". But which paper sold us Blair, the man who destroyed resistance to the establishment? Which paper told us to vote Blair in 2005, after Iraq? And which paper sold us "R2P" ["Responsibility to protect"] in Libya and Syria, which has clearly involved "the rich and powerful deriding the powerless"?'

Moore ignored us but noted on her Twitter feed:

'Media Lens have roused themselves to tell me off? Why this week? Why not every week?'

But the point we were making to Moore was a serious one. As John Pilger commented to us in 2008:

'Since Blair and Brown closed down the last vestiges of Labour as a social democratic party, the task of the media has been to deny the great political happening of the post-war years: the convergence of Labour and the Conservatives as one political entity with two factions serving a single ideology state.' (Email to Media Lens, November 24, 2008)

Pilger has also described how, for many years, the Guardian 'swooned over Blair as a mystic of the "Third Way".' 

On May 3, 2005 - two days before the UK general election and two years after the criminal invasion of Iraq - a leading article in the Guardian opined:

'While 2005 will be remembered as Tony Blair's Iraq election, May 5 is not a referendum on that one decision, however fateful, or on the person who led it, however controversial...'

The editors concluded:

'We believe that Mr Blair should be re-elected to lead Labour into a third term this week.'

The leader was titled: 'Once more with feeling.'

The Guardian has continued to boost Blair on numerous occasions since then.

Eeny, Meeny Madness - Beyond Racism

Media Lens - Mán, 12/05/2014 - 13:11

By David Edwards

Jeremy Clarkson is star presenter of the BBC's Top Gear show which, tragically for anyone who cares about the climate, holds a 2013 Guinness world record for most widely watched factual programme in the world.

Clarkson asked for his viewers' forgiveness following the publication of a clip that showed him reciting the nursery rhyme, 'Eeny, meeny, miny, moe; catch a nigger by the toe', in unaired footage obtained by the Daily Mirror. Clarkson can clearly be seen mumbling a portion of the N-word.

The Blairite Deputy Labour leader, Harriet Harman, who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was part of the government that waged the war, said:

'Anybody who uses the N-word in public or private in whatever context has no place in the British Broadcasting Corporation.'

In the Guardian, senior columnist Suzanne Moore commented:

'Clarkson is not stupid. Nor is he a maverick or outlier. He is a central part of the establishment. He parties with Cameron. Just as Ukip is not a maverick party, but made up of disgruntled Tories; just as Boris Johnson is not a maverick but a born-to-rule chancer... this section of the right deludes itself that it is somehow "outside" the establishment rather than its pumping heart.'

We wrote to Moore on Twitter:

'You say the right "deludes itself" it is "somehow 'outside' the establishment rather than its pumping heart". But which paper sold us Blair, the man who destroyed resistance to the establishment? Which paper told us to vote Blair in 2005, after Iraq? And which paper sold us "R2P" ["Responsibility to protect"] in Libya and Syria, which has clearly involved "the rich and powerful deriding the powerless"?'

Moore ignored us but noted on her Twitter feed:

'Media Lens have roused themselves to tell me off? Why this week? Why not every week?'

But the point we were making to Moore was a serious one. As John Pilger commented to us in 2008:

'Since Blair and Brown closed down the last vestiges of Labour as a social democratic party, the task of the media has been to deny the great political happening of the post-war years: the convergence of Labour and the Conservatives as one political entity with two factions serving a single ideology state.' (Email to Media Lens, November 24, 2008)

Pilger has also described how, for many years, the Guardian 'swooned over Blair as a mystic of the "Third Way".' 

On May 3, 2005 - two days before the UK general election and two years after the criminal invasion of Iraq - a leading article in the Guardian opined:

'While 2005 will be remembered as Tony Blair's Iraq election, May 5 is not a referendum on that one decision, however fateful, or on the person who led it, however controversial...'

The editors concluded:

'We believe that Mr Blair should be re-elected to lead Labour into a third term this week.'

The leader was titled: 'Once more with feeling.'

The Guardian has continued to boost Blair on numerous occasions since then.

Valdið til fólksins

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Lau, 10/05/2014 - 18:30

Baráttan um brauðið hefur lítið breyst í áranna rás. Atvinnulausir verkamenn reyndu að framfleyta sér með stopulli hafnarvinnu í kreppunni miklu. Litlar sem engar bætur fyrir atvinnumissi, sjúkdóma eða slys. Fátækir og heimilislausir í Reykjavík voru til staðar í den. Þá var horft framhjá þeim og skýringin var að um sjálfskaparvíti væri ræða. Þessi hópur hafði litla sem enga möguleika til að hafa áhrif á ríkjandi valdhafa, lýðræðislegur máttur þeirra var nánast enginn. Kjör þeirra bötnuðu vegna verkalýðsbaráttu áratuganna á eftir og stríðsgróða.
Í dag eru vandamálin svipuð en betur falin. ASÍ hefur hægt um sig og því er ábyrgð sveitafélaga meiri, þau þurfa því að berjast fyrir réttindum þeirra sem minna mega sín. Enn í dag er tekist á um það hvort um sé að ræða sjálfskaparvíti eða hvort það sé samfélagslegur gróði að leysa vandamálin með sameiginlegu átaki.
Dögun er nýtt stjórnmálaafl sem býður núna fram í borgarstjórnarkosningunum. Dögun hefur skýr markmið og drjúgur hluti stefnuskrár Dögunar í Reykjavík snýst um að lyfta fram og gera þá sem minna mega sín sýnilega. Við teljum að þeir eigi að njóta forgangs fram yfir þá sem geta bjargað sér. Auk þess viljum við nota hugsanleg völd okkar til að færa valdið til borgarbúa þannig að þeir stjórni meira beint í sínu nærumhverfi.
Bankar eru einráðir um magn peninga í umferð og skammta þannig pólitíkinni fjármagni til að láta drauma sína rætast. Þess vegna viljum við í Dögun í Reykjavík stofna Borgarbanka. Þannig munum við flytja peningavaldið undir lýðræðislega stjórn þar sem það á heima. Afrekaskrá einkaaðila af stjórn banka er svo hörmuleg að ekki er hægt að toppa það. Gróði Borgarbankans mun styrkja fjárhag borgarinnar og veita auk þess aukna möguleika á lánum með lágum vöxtum til arðbærra framkvæmda.
Kjósum framboð sem vill völdin til almennings og frá fjármálavaldinu.

 

The world has nothing to fear from the US losing power | Mark Weisbrot

Mark Weisbrot - nýjar greinar - Lau, 03/05/2014 - 12:00
As China looks set to overtake the US as the world's largest economy, a multipolar world can only be good for democracy

The news that China will displace the US as the world's largest economy this year is big news. For economists who follow these measurements, the tectonic shift likely occurred a few years ago. But now the World Bank is making it official, so journalists and others who opine on world affairs will have to take this into account. And if they do so, they will find that this is a very big deal indeed.

What does it mean? First, the technicalities: the comparison is made on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, which means that it takes into account the differing prices in the two countries. So, if a dollar is worth 6.3 renminbi today on the foreign exchange market, it may be that 6.3 renminbi can buy a lot more in China than one dollar can buy in the US. The PPP comparison adjusts for that; that is why China's economy is much bigger than the measure that you have most commonly seen in the media, which simply converts China's GDP to dollars at the official exchange rate.

Continue reading...

1 maí, hvar liggja völdin

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Mið, 30/04/2014 - 19:50

Verkalýðsbaráttan hefur fært okkur töluverð réttindi. Ef þau eiga ekki að glutrast niður þarf töluverða vakningu hjá almenningi og mikla baráttu. Á Íslandi og víðar í Evrópu höfum við lært að það skiptir ekki máli hvort við höfum hægri eða vinstri ríkisstjórn. Það er alltaf sama uppskriftin notuð. Alþjóðagjaldeyrissjóðurinn bjargaði fjármálafyrirtækjunum á Íslandi og fórnaði hag almennings. Lang flestir besservisserar töldu það einu færu leiðina(”there is no alternative, TINA”) og vinstri stjórnin kokgleypti það án þess að hiksta. Sömu sögu er að segja frá mörgum öðrum löndum Evrópu og þar hefur Seðlabanki Evrópu, AGS og framkvæmdavald ESB varið stöðu fjármalavaldsins miskunnarlaust. ASÍ hefur stutt þá stefnu á Íslandi en verkalýðsfélög erlendis sem hafa mótmælt hafa fengið lögregluna í fangið(Gúttóslagurinn).

Þar sem fjármálavaldið fær allt sitt á silfurfati frá stjórnmálamönnum þá liggur valdið augljóslega hjá fjármálavaldinu en ekki hjá pólitíkinni. Mikilsverðir stjórnmálamenn hafa vitnað um áhrifaleysi sitt gagnvart fjármálavaldinu. Fjármálavaldið á heima fyrst og fremst í bönkunum. Þess vegna er það nokkuð ljóst að þeir stjórna.

Vald bankanna liggur í því að þeir búa til peningana sem við notum. Ríkisstjórnir, sveitafélög, fyrirtæki og einstaklingar þurfa peninga og þeir fást eingöngu hjá einkabönkum og viðlika fyrirtækjum. Þessi einkafyrirtæki búa til peninga úr engu og hafa einkaleyfi á því. Þeir sem hafa haldið þessu fram hingað til hafa verið litnir hornauga og alls ekki mainstream. Núna hefur Martin Wolf dálkahöfundur á Financial Times bæst í hóp þeirra sem gagnrýna núverandi kerfi. Allt í einu er þessi umræða orðin mainstream umræða og hans niðurstaða er sú að valdið til að búa til peninga skuli tekið af einkafyrirtækjum og flutt til hins opinbera þar sem það á heima.

Eitt er ljóst að ef valdið til að búa til peninga verður flutt til hins opinbera frá bönkunum þá munu bankarnir hafa svipuð völd í þjóðfélaginu eins og hvert annað einkafyrirtæki. Þar með er valdið til að stjórna aftur komið heim og þá mun pólitíkin hafa eitthvað að segja til um framvinduna í þjóðélagi okkar. Þá fyrst fer pólitíkin að skipta máli því þá mun fólk kjósa stjórnmálamenn sem hafa einhver völd til að breyta.

'Hard Clay' - Remaking Afghanistan In 'Our' Image

Media Lens - Mán, 28/04/2014 - 11:13

By David Edwards

 

Last month, we reviewed the mind-boggling contrast between corporate media coverage of the January 2005 election in Iraq and the March 2014 referendum in Crimea.

Whereas all media accepted the basic legitimacy of an Iraq election conducted under extremely violent US-UK military occupation, they all rejected the legitimacy of a Crimea referendum conducted 'at [Russian] gunpoint'.

It was not difficult to guess how the same media would respond to the Afghan presidential election of April 5 under the guns of Britain and America's occupying force.

The Daily Telegraph had welcomed 'the first democratic elections' in Iraq (Leader, 'Mission accomplished,' December 6, 2004) and dismissed the Crimea vote as 'an illegal referendum conducted at gunpoint'. As for Afghanistan:

'The sight of millions of Afghans defying the Taliban to vote in their country's presidential election should induce genuine humility. We might take democracy for granted; they emphatically do not.'

Democracy it was, then. Had the editors forgotten that the vote was taking place under US-UK military occupation? In fact, no:

'The idea that the Taliban are waiting to sweep back to power as soon as American and British troops depart has also taken a knock. If this poll continues to proceed smoothly, the country should have the inestimable benefit of a legitimately elected leader.'

The election was thus declared both democratic and legitimate. As in Iraq, the delegitimising effect of military occupation was ignored – 'our' occupations are simply accepted as legitimate and uncontroversial.

A Sunday Times leader hailed 'democratic elections' in Iraq, noting only that they were threatened by 'terrorists' - Iraqis, not the illegal foreign invaders who had wrecked the country with war, sanctions, bombing and more war (Leader, 'Send more troops,' October 10, 2004). By contrast, The Times claimed that the Crimea referendum was made absurd by Russian troops 'massing on their western border'. (Leading article, 'Russian Pariah,' March 17, 2014)

But The Times found nothing absurd about the Afghan election:

'We should honour and celebrate the resolve of these voters, their commitment to the democratic process.'

To be sure, military involvement had been a problem:

'The Taleban has been malignly active in the run-up to the election, attacking foreigners in restaurants and showering death threats on democratic activists.'

What about the occupation?

'As US and British troops ready themselves for withdrawal by the end of this year, the Afghans are evidently eager to take command of their own political destinies.'

And yet this was impossible in Crimea, although Russian troops were not occupying and fighting, merely said to be 'massing' on the border.

For the BBC, the Iraq election was 'the first democratic election in fifty years'. (David Willis, BBC1, News at Ten, January 10, 2005) But the West had dismissed the Crimea referendum 'as illegal and one that will be held at gunpoint'.

The BBC felt no need to reference the West's view on Afghanistan, stating baldly:

'The election marks the country's first democratic transfer of power.'

On Channel 4 News, Alex Thomson, a courageous and comparatively honest reporter, covered the Afghan vote from Kabul. We tweeted him:

'How free are these elections, Alex? What's the state of press freedom, for example?'

We supplied some context:

'In 2004-5, press supplied no analysis of state of press freedom prior to elections in Iraq, January '05. Will you in Afghanistan?'

Thomson responded: 'huge questions gents'. He added:

'quick honest answer? I probably won't regrettably. There's a civil war on and it's not too priority...'. Moreover: 'I can only work 18-20 hours a day and there isn't time is truthful answer. Someone should find research.'

Establishing whether the elections were actually free and fair - or not - was not 'too priority', somebody else's job. A few moment's research, and indeed thought, would have told Thomson that an election under US-UK occupation could not be described as free and fair.

Thomson later commented on his Channel 4 blog:

'So enjoy your election in all its colour, noise, excitement and yes, valid democratic exercise up to a limited point.'

'Hard Clay' - Remaking Afghanistan In 'Our' Image

Media Lens - Mán, 28/04/2014 - 11:13

By David Edwards

 

Last month, we reviewed the mind-boggling contrast between corporate media coverage of the January 2005 election in Iraq and the March 2014 referendum in Crimea.

Whereas all media accepted the basic legitimacy of an Iraq election conducted under extremely violent US-UK military occupation, they all rejected the legitimacy of a Crimea referendum conducted 'at [Russian] gunpoint'.

It was not difficult to guess how the same media would respond to the Afghan presidential election of April 5 under the guns of Britain and America's occupying force.

The Daily Telegraph had welcomed 'the first democratic elections' in Iraq (Leader, 'Mission accomplished,' December 6, 2004) and dismissed the Crimea vote as 'an illegal referendum conducted at gunpoint'. As for Afghanistan:

'The sight of millions of Afghans defying the Taliban to vote in their country's presidential election should induce genuine humility. We might take democracy for granted; they emphatically do not.'

Democracy it was, then. Had the editors forgotten that the vote was taking place under US-UK military occupation? In fact, no:

'The idea that the Taliban are waiting to sweep back to power as soon as American and British troops depart has also taken a knock. If this poll continues to proceed smoothly, the country should have the inestimable benefit of a legitimately elected leader.'

The election was thus declared both democratic and legitimate. As in Iraq, the delegitimising effect of military occupation was ignored – 'our' occupations are simply accepted as legitimate and uncontroversial.

A Sunday Times leader hailed 'democratic elections' in Iraq, noting only that they were threatened by 'terrorists' - Iraqis, not the illegal foreign invaders who had wrecked the country with war, sanctions, bombing and more war (Leader, 'Send more troops,' October 10, 2004). By contrast, The Times claimed that the Crimea referendum was made absurd by Russian troops 'massing on their western border'. (Leading article, 'Russian Pariah,' March 17, 2014)

But The Times found nothing absurd about the Afghan election:

'We should honour and celebrate the resolve of these voters, their commitment to the democratic process.'

To be sure, military involvement had been a problem:

'The Taleban has been malignly active in the run-up to the election, attacking foreigners in restaurants and showering death threats on democratic activists.'

What about the occupation?

'As US and British troops ready themselves for withdrawal by the end of this year, the Afghans are evidently eager to take command of their own political destinies.'

And yet this was impossible in Crimea, although Russian troops were not occupying and fighting, merely said to be 'massing' on the border.

For the BBC, the Iraq election was 'the first democratic election in fifty years'. (David Willis, BBC1, News at Ten, January 10, 2005) But the West had dismissed the Crimea referendum 'as illegal and one that will be held at gunpoint'.

The BBC felt no need to reference the West's view on Afghanistan, stating baldly:

'The election marks the country's first democratic transfer of power.'

On Channel 4 News, Alex Thomson, a courageous and comparatively honest reporter, covered the Afghan vote from Kabul. We tweeted him:

'How free are these elections, Alex? What's the state of press freedom, for example?'

We supplied some context:

'In 2004-5, press supplied no analysis of state of press freedom prior to elections in Iraq, January '05. Will you in Afghanistan?'

Thomson responded: 'huge questions gents'. He added:

'quick honest answer? I probably won't regrettably. There's a civil war on and it's not too priority...'. Moreover: 'I can only work 18-20 hours a day and there isn't time is truthful answer. Someone should find research.'

Establishing whether the elections were actually free and fair - or not - was not 'too priority', somebody else's job. A few moment's research, and indeed thought, would have told Thomson that an election under US-UK occupation could not be described as free and fair.

Thomson later commented on his Channel 4 blog:

'So enjoy your election in all its colour, noise, excitement and yes, valid democratic exercise up to a limited point.'

Borgarbanki 2

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Sun, 27/04/2014 - 16:35

Það er allt til í henni stóru Ameríku. Í Norður Dakóta á fylkið bankann. Þar með hagnast almenningur samtímis og bankinn þeirra græðir. Bankinn má eingöngu fjárfesta í raunverulegum verðmætum og framleiðslu. Þar sem bankinn fjárfesti ekki í vitleysu þá hafði bankahrunið 2007 lítil áhrif á hann. Þar sem vaxtakostnaður er nánast enginn fyrir Norður Dakóta er mun meira til skiptanna. Flest ríki/sveitafélög setja inn skattgreiðslur þegnanna inná bankareikninga og fá litla vexti fyrir. Aftur á móti geta vaxtagreislur verið þungur baggi af lánum sem ríkin þurfa að taka. Auk þess er vaxtakostnaðurinn breytilegur og eins og í dæmi Grikkja þá voru þeir slegnir niður með háu vaxtastigi og fullveldi þeirra fór í hendur erlendra aðila.

Íslenka ríkið greiðir mikið í vaxtarkostnað og það á við fleiri ríki. Vaxtgreiðslur þýska ríkisins er næststærsti liðurinn á fjárlögum þeirra. Vaxtakostnaður er stór hluti af kostnaðinum við að reka heimili. Vaxtakostnaður eru stór hluti af öllu sem við greiðum fyrir hvort sem það eru vörur eða þjónusta. Sá kostnaður er um 40% af rekstarkostnaði venjulegs heimilis. Ef við slyppum við þann kostnað gætum við minkað vinnuna verulega og verið heima hjá fölskyldunni okkar.

Bankinn í Norður Dakóta var stofnaður 1919 og er enn að dæla fjármunum inn í fylkiskassann. Oftar en ekki þegar bankinn græðir vel getur fylkið lækkað skatta, þ.e. fólkið nýtur arðsins. Fylkið þarf ekki að eiga varasjóði fyrir mögru árin því þau eru sjaldséð og eru þau þá helst í formi náttúruhamfara, þá fær fylkið lánað til byggja upp á nýtt(vaxtalaust). Auk þess styður bankinn við alla einkabanka í fylkinu þannnig að þeir blómstra í stað þess að vera á heljarþröm eins og víðast hvar annars staðar. Þar sem öll lán til fylkisins eru í raun vaxtalaus þá minnkar fjármagnskostnaður við allar framkvæmdir um 40% og það er ekki lítið.

Er þetta ekki skárra en það sem við höfum núna?

 

Borgarbanki 1

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Mán, 21/04/2014 - 20:55

Mörgum er ljóst að eiga banka getur gefið vel í aðra hönd. Langflestir bankar eru í einkaeigu og því rennur hagnaðurinn til fárra fyrir utan einhverjar skatttekjur sem greiddar eru af starfseminni. Bankakreppur eru ekki óalgengar og þá lenda bankarnir í miklu tapi sem almennir skattgreiðendur taka á sig. Það er prófessor við Háskóla Íslands sem hefur réttlætt þetta með kenningunni um að græða á daginn og grilla á kvöldin.

Það eru margir ósáttir við núverandi bankastarfsemi. Vaxandi áhugi er á því að nýta bankastarfsemi til hagsbótar fyrir fjöldann þannig að margir græði á daginn en ekki bara elítan. Hvers vegna ekki að opinberir aðilar reki banka og ágóði starfseminnar sé nýttur til að greiða fyrir útgjöld hins opinbera, jafnvel væri hægt að lækka skatta á almenning. Það er hvorki réttlátt né sanngjarnt að halda því fram að einkaaðilar séu réttkjörnir að gróðanum. Skattgreiðendur borga tapið hvort eð er þannig að áhætta elítunnar er ekki til staðar.

Innlánsreikningar bera lægri vexti en útlán. Mismunurinn á víst að vera lifibrauð bankanna og á Íslandi hefur niðurstaðan verið tugmilljarða gróði. Ef opinber aðili ætti bankann þá myndu vaxtagreiðslur skipta litlu máli því þær væru undirstaðan fyrir arð bankans sem síðan rynni inn í sjóði almennings, eigenda bankans. Alveg rakið til að bæta kjör almennings eða hvað?

 

The Neverending ‘Wakeup Call’

Media Lens - Þri, 01/04/2014 - 22:47

By David Cromwell and David Edwards

The new report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that the impacts of climate change are likely to be 'severe, pervasive and irreversible'. Impacts include droughts, floods, heat waves, endangered species, crop failure, food insecurity, famine and even war.

But for more than 25 years, since the IPCC was set up in 1988, there have been numerous scientific 'wakeup calls' and nothing significant has changed. In fact, turbo-charged, fossil-fuel driven capitalism has proceeded to run amok. And, for the vested interests who are the winners in the global economy, the tiny 'one per cent' or less, it is vital that nothing stops their continued 'success'. Their cynical propaganda campaign is often dressed up as the need to be 'sensible' and to take measures that do no 'harm' to the economy.

As Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com, notes:

'Contrarians have tried to spin the conclusions of the report to incorrectly argue that it would be cheaper to try and adapt to climate change and pay the costs of climate damages. In reality the report says no such thing. The IPCC simply tells us that even if we manage to prevent the highest risk scenarios, climate change costs will still be high, and we can't even grasp how high climate damage costs will be in the highest risk scenarios.'

The BBC News website asked on its front page, 'Is climate report overly alarming?', and linked to a piece by environment correspondent, Matt McGrath. The BBC journalist had trailed his piece via Twitter:

'Dissent among scientists over key climate impacts report'

But, as several Twitter users observed, the 'dissent' among 'scientists' amounted to the objections of one individual, Richard Tol; that's one IPCC author out of 70.

Leo Hickman, chief adviser on climate change at WWF-UK, retorted:

'Hey, BBC, I've fixed the headline for you: "One go-to contrarian scientist dissents over key climate impact report"'

The noted climate scientist Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, retweeted Hickman's comment approvingly.

In fact, Tol is not even a 'go-to contrarian scientist', but rather a 'go-to contrarian economist'. He is a professor of economics at Sussex University.

The BBC's McGrath kept his head down. Twitter user Peter Webber noted:

'Days later and @mattmcgrathbbc hasn't had professionalism to rebut criticism of his "inaccurate reporting" on IPCC "scientific dissent"' 

Entirely missing from 'mainstream' coverage were salient facts about Tol's ideological stance and wretched background. For instance, Tol has worked with Bjorn 'Skeptical Environmentalist' Lomborg in downplaying the importance of tackling the climate crisis. In 2009, Tol was listed as an adviser to the Nigel Lawson-chaired Global Warming Policy Foundation, the notorious pro-business climate denialist 'thinktank'. Two years earlier, in 2007, Tol was among the US Senate Republican Party's 'list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims'. Tol 'dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming'. He outrageously scorned the Stern review on the economics of climate action, and the urgent need for concerted action, as 'preposterous', 'alarmist and incompetent.' 

The Neverending ‘Wakeup Call’

Media Lens - Þri, 01/04/2014 - 22:47

By David Cromwell and David Edwards

The new report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that the impacts of climate change are likely to be 'severe, pervasive and irreversible'. Impacts include droughts, floods, heat waves, endangered species, crop failure, food insecurity, famine and even war.

But for more than 25 years, since the IPCC was set up in 1988, there have been numerous scientific 'wakeup calls' and nothing significant has changed. In fact, turbo-charged, fossil-fuel driven capitalism has proceeded to run amok. And, for the vested interests who are the winners in the global economy, the tiny 'one per cent' or less, it is vital that nothing stops their continued 'success'. Their cynical propaganda campaign is often dressed up as the need to be 'sensible' and to take measures that do no 'harm' to the economy.

As Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com, notes:

'Contrarians have tried to spin the conclusions of the report to incorrectly argue that it would be cheaper to try and adapt to climate change and pay the costs of climate damages. In reality the report says no such thing. The IPCC simply tells us that even if we manage to prevent the highest risk scenarios, climate change costs will still be high, and we can't even grasp how high climate damage costs will be in the highest risk scenarios.'

The BBC News website asked on its front page, 'Is climate report overly alarming?', and linked to a piece by environment correspondent, Matt McGrath. The BBC journalist had trailed his piece via Twitter:

'Dissent among scientists over key climate impacts report'

But, as several Twitter users observed, the 'dissent' among 'scientists' amounted to the objections of one individual, Richard Tol; that's one IPCC author out of 70.

Leo Hickman, chief adviser on climate change at WWF-UK, retorted:

'Hey, BBC, I've fixed the headline for you: "One go-to contrarian scientist dissents over key climate impact report"'

The noted climate scientist Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, retweeted Hickman's comment approvingly.

In fact, Tol is not even a 'go-to contrarian scientist', but rather a 'go-to contrarian economist'. He is a professor of economics at Sussex University.

The BBC's McGrath kept his head down. Twitter user Peter Webber noted:

'Days later and @mattmcgrathbbc hasn't had professionalism to rebut criticism of his "inaccurate reporting" on IPCC "scientific dissent"' 

Entirely missing from 'mainstream' coverage were salient facts about Tol's ideological stance and wretched background. For instance, Tol has worked with Bjorn 'Skeptical Environmentalist' Lomborg in downplaying the importance of tackling the climate crisis. In 2009, Tol was listed as an adviser to the Nigel Lawson-chaired Global Warming Policy Foundation, the notorious pro-business climate denialist 'thinktank'. Two years earlier, in 2007, Tol was among the US Senate Republican Party's 'list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims'. Tol 'dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming'. He outrageously scorned the Stern review on the economics of climate action, and the urgent need for concerted action, as 'preposterous', 'alarmist and incompetent.' 

Syndicate content