What exactly does 'aversion' of the fiscal cliff actually mean? Everyone from what I can tell seems to equate aversion with avoidance, as if these useless politicians are going to 'avert the fiscal crisis' which is pretty hard to do when you are in the depths of such a crisis.
The term 'fiscal cliff' is really some of the best propaganda around. It's catchy, which encourages people to use it even though they don't understand it's meaning. Why the word 'cliff', specifically?
The first time I heard the current fiscal crisis referred to as a 'cliff' was before the term 'fiscal cliff' even existed, Chris Martenson in his presentation 'The collapse of the exponential function' uses a 'cliff' analogy quite well to describe the predicament. Martenson uses the term cliff to visualize that there is no going back, that no matter how much you flail your arms around trying to regain your balance you're not going to be back at the top of that cliff. Martenson concludes that your time and effort in such a predicament is better spent bracing and preparing for the fall.
This is where we are at today, the cuts coming are being referred to as 'going over the cliff', because they will be just the beginning of a long, long fall. As I have explained previously, the cuts are coming one way or another, there will be no avoiding them.
It is the economy itself which is flawed
Someone tweeted at me today: "I would prefer to see the world change & prevent collapse than to prepare for economic or ecological collapse". This is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of change there can be. There can be no fundamental change in our situation without a collapse, if the current paradigm does not collapse than the world hasn't changed at all. The corruption is subversive and ingrained in our society. We are facing a future of continually poorer social services alongside re-introductions of slavery and cheap labour in our society all in the name of 'economic growth'. It is this growth itself, exponential in nature, which can not continue and is destined for collapse.
Even Paul Krugman, who subscribes to the Keynesian economic ideology, is beginning to question the viability of growth. His conclusion is still wrong though, somehow differentiating between a death in growth of labour and a birth of growth of automation and machinery. These two seemingly opposite takes on the 'growth is dead' scenario are actually functions of each other however. Automation along with temporary foreign workers will, in the near term, be looked to as the answer to the "high costs" of western human labour. This is just one stop on a very long journey however, both takes are really of the same analysis but simply looking at different time periods. Krugman still has much to learn in regards to energy economics but at least it looks like finally his whole 'QE saved us' theory may be dead.
It always, ALWAYS, comes back to energy
Still to this day, despite all of the signs, those who ignore the energy equation continue to miss their economic forecasts. Some are doing this deliberately to keep the confidence game afloat, while others simply do not get it at all, particularly those pointing to fracking as the answer. We're now pouring energy and effort into "converting" to an LNG based economy, another centrally distributed energy that can be monopolized by the energy cartels.
Contrary to popular belief, the energy cartels are not against derivative (what is mistakenly called alternative) energy. Oil is not a preference because it is oil, oil is a preference because it is controllable. Oil, which is largely the feedstock for our plastic exponential disposable economy is distributed and controlled by a small, small minority. This minority is desperate for an "alternative" supply of energy, it's quite necessary, however this energy must be one that is controllable from a central authority. The energy cartels already own the patents to most forms of energy but unless they can centralize and control the distribution of energy it's quite simply neglected. Energy is, and has always been, controlled by the ruling oligarchy. Energy is needed for survival, for prosperity, for growth, for everything. A society without energy is barely a society at all, likewise a society with "free" energy will be the best society around.
I'd like to take a moment to define "free" energy, as many misinterpret it's meaning. "free" energy is analogous to the concept of "free" software. Free energy, like free software, is not free to produce. There is an input cost, there is always an input cost in everything. The 'free' actually refers to your freedom to use, administer, and control the energy (or software) as you see fit. It does not refer to the cost, there is 'free' software that costs money, but when you buy the software you are also provided with the source code, you are allowed to make changes, you are allowed to distribute those changes. You can consider 'free energy' in the same light, you still have to pay for 'free energy' - but it's meaning in a modern context would be that you are free of the energy cartels.
Tesla's technology is often referred to as 'free energy', or a solution to peak oil. Again the word 'free' is misunderstood. Tesla technology is highly advanced, makes use of modern alloys, metallurgy, etc. Tesla could not have accomplished what he did without the oil based technological infrastructure to build off. There is an input cost, even to Tesla energy, the electric grid requires all sorts of copper, etc. There are a huge number of highly technical dependencies, however, it is 'free' energy as in should you have a Tesla device you are the creator of your own power. Freedom, true freedom and independence, that's 'free' energy.
Harper’s cabinet mulls massive Chinese resource project in Arctic
Now we see what Harper's claims to 'arctic sovereignty' were really all about in plain view, as I had been suspecting. China seems to be the only country around that's actually acting like it has any idea what the future has in store for the world. China's massive investments in gold, rare-earth metals, and energy should be sending the 'Canadian' leadership a message regarding what I assume will only be described as "increasingly protectionist policy' at some point down the line.
The art of survival
All of these aspects plus an interesting 'special report' from Reuters today provide insight into the future, and the past.
Obama warned allies that oil sanctions were the only way to avert a new war between Israel and Iran. U.S. envoys pressed Iraqi, Libyan and, above all, Saudi officials to pump up their own crude supplies. Washington and its allies massaged skittish oil markets with carefully calibrated messages. U.S. diplomats journeyed to southern Iraq to inspect plans for new oil terminals that could help blunt the loss of Iranian shipments.There should be no doubt that this last decade of sequential wars was planned, and deliberate, and largely had to do with energy. There should be no doubt that Iran was always in the game plan. Anyone else find it convenient that 'Iraqi' and 'Libyan' government officials were pressured? Governments which have recently been supported, and instated by the U.S. empire? That these governments then proved essential in 'sanctioning' (read: waging war on) Iran and not leading to an oil shock? How perfect, and all while the Chinese have been slowly snatching up resources all around U.S. territory. Ever get the feeling governments just aren't telling the whole story (or even a slightly truthful story)? Yea.. me too...
The challenge, American officials said, was to clamp down on Iran's oil exports while mitigating the risks of an oil crisis.
Click here to recommend this post on progressivebloggers.ca and help other people find this information.
Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.
Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.