Debt Rattle August 8 2019
- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Piet Mondriaan New York City I 1942 • Globalization As We Know It Will Not Survive Trump (G.) • The Technological Revolution Devours its Childr
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle August 8 2019]• The Super-Rich Have Made Britain Into A Nation Of Losers (G.)
Institute for Fiscal Studies
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14303
The characteristics and incomes of the top 1%
Robert Joyce, Thomas Pope and Barra Roantree
Briefing note
06 Aug 2019
In this briefing note, we use data from HMRC’s income tax records to document some key facts about the highest-income people in the country.
Key findings
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
“nobility obliges” and denotes the concept that nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person who holds such a status to fulfill social responsibilities.Noblesse oblige, while seeming to impose on the nobility a duty to behave nobly, conveniently provides the aristocracy with an apparent justification for their privilege. This argument is “as nobles, we have rights, but we have duties also; and such duties thereby validate our rights”
Facts …. opinions …. beliefs …. truth ….. Lies ….
… recent trends in politics, technology and the climate point to the need for a new world order focused more on local solutions, stronger nation states and a reformed international system.
Monopolies are good for monopolists. For the rest, they are maximizers of anti-resilience and minimizers of freedom.
ELECTRIC VEHICLES : BATTERIES
Although nickel may be an issue in the short term, in the longer term ALL the components of lithium batteries will be an issue – resources are finite.
Lithium batteries are old technology and not really appropriate for cars. A recent program I saw suggested car batteries based on graphene. The advantage is that it would charge as quickly as you can feed in power, so it could take the same time to recharge a car as it does to fill with petrol.
The exciting part was that the researchers had found a simple way to make graphene – put a thin layer of graphite on a substrate and use lasers similar to those found in CD players to convert it to graphene. This would seem easy to scale up to industrial production and graphene has a LOT of potential uses – it could change the world.
Solar cells are similarely a complex, clumsy and expensive technology. I am intrigued by research into creating solar cells using perovskite. This would be a transparent thin film layer which could be bonded to any surface. Unfortunately while this material produces energy as good as current solar panels it is unstable so needs further development.
In another area Yale proposed building ‘city batteries’ based on manganese rather than lithium, a more plentiful resource.
I would like to see far more spent on research into truly sustainable technologies and far less spent on creating the current clumsy ‘renewable’ resources.
No, really, the only way to use energy better, to prevent warming and other pollution, is to not use it. Laying out the future based on unproven technology is forever a bad idea. We still have the possibility to redesign our societies for a huge decrease in energy use. It will upset some people, of course, but the window is still open. Once both fossil and -hence- renewable sources start diminishing, that window will be shut. And no-one will be talking about graphene or perovskite or nuclear fusion any more. Those are all just dreams based on fossil fuels.
Technology without a superabundant resource it can tap into is as useful as a spoon if your bowl is empty. The logic is simple: spot the resource; if you can’t, it’s probably you.
This certainly sounds reasonable. I have been impressed with the numerous times that Catherine Austin Fitts and Joseph P. Farrell have suggested that much of the loser-booty stolen after WWII and backdoor theft of US assets by “Mr. Global” have been spent on development of some cheap, abundant technology (that the Nazis were working on) that is being held in abeyance until the globalists extract the last drop of maxiumum profit from fossil fuels. These are two smart and ethical people and if what they imply is true, then maybe there is a curtained Tesla-esque resource to engender long-term optimism and we just don’t know about it.
Still Solar Cells pay considerably better than a 30 year bond. — safer too
It took us way too long to move our food procurement to local organic farms the only thing is I wish we would have done it sooner.
The environment cannot handle four more years of Trump. Would be nice to see him reap what he has sown but the cost is far too high.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/@The Technological Revolution Devours its Children
Have you noticed that Dmitry has shut down the comments to his blog?
Apparently, the task of censoring all of the comments which lack the requisite quantities of adulation for all of his self righteous proclamations has become too arduous.
For those few folks who have subscribed to his fee based services and thus, can still submit comments, I would recommend that you never question his assertion, “I can assert that if you live your life as if God exists and abide by His commandments it is statistically likely that numerous benefits will accrue to you” by comparing it to faking an orgasm. Apparently, reducing religious commitment to a trip to the casino is nothing like stopping off at the horse ranch beforehand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.