Oligarchs Rule Western World

Somewhere along the line, democracy died. Today, countries throughout the developed world are ruled by oligarchies, or plutocracies:

 

Revolution 21st Century

It occurred to me the other day that we've gone past the trigger point where revolution usually results. It was actually Jimmy Dore who reminded me of this; on one of his shows he talked about how the Beatles were actually reactionary and working as sleeping pills, preventing a revolution. 

What I've detected is a complete change in the way people now think. In the workforce, people used to talk about what had been on the news the night before, and what TV shows they liked. Pretty much everyone was on the same page. But, now this is no longer the case and everyone pursues their own specific interests. However, since 2020 they've started giving up on believing.

I follow the Kenneth Clark view of civilisation. Clark was an art historian who produced and fronted a well known TV series from 1969 which examined western civilisation. He maintained that civilisation was fragile and could be quickly destroyed. 

Clark subscribed to the great man approach to history. This holds that great men do great things, which leads to great change. While I agree they do have an impact, I subscribe to the idea of economic, social and political issues of a time and their overall sweep effecting change.

What I've observed is that we stand on the edge of a cliff, and that since 2020 all trust has been lost and thus, there are no threads left holding us together. I regularly hear people talking of things they hate, and talking of the enemy. The enemy is within when they say this, it is the politicians, the capitalists, academics, teachers and so on. People do not see Russia as the enemy, despite the best efforts of the media to make it appear so. 

This leads me to the conclusion: we are headed for a French-style revolution, although it will be bloodier. 

Why hasn't revolution happened if we've gone past the trigger point? Think of those Beatles again, but this time consider the American dream, a myth for most but still a dream clung to by a dwindling number. The American dream is a pop song, putting everyone to sleep. When the numbers of those who believe have dwindled far enough, then it will kick off. 

The Fall

It occurred to me today that I may get to see the fall of western civilisation. Incredible, I know, but it may happen. All the pre-conditions exist; a total lack of faith in institutions and our way of life, economic failure caused by corruption, political interference and gross incompetence, tyranny and the removal of free speech and self-expression, including the arts.

This is particularly evident in the developed English speaking world, but not limited to it. Across the OECD, it is not an exaggeration to say we may be heading for complete collapse, total system failure. Civil war is now openly contemplated, incredible.

But, what caused this and what is the solution? Lack of education is the cause. That's right, everything flows from that; feelings of hopelessness, despair, lack of initiative and a reluctance to work or take risks results from a lack of education. Furthermore, people who lack an education often no longer aspire, and if they do, they aspire to the wrong things, things that make no material difference to everyday lives. If you have an undereducated and ignorant populace, they can be ruled by tyrannical and self-serving rulers. 

I can hear people say, no, we need better healthcare. Oh really? What is the point in living longer, just to be slave to a system? 

I then hear people say, we need freedom of speech. OK, but if uneducated then the people don't know how to use that speech. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out comments on social media. People there are so ignorant of basic facts, and so unable to develop any kind of cogent argument, that night soon becomes day.

I believe, certain interests want to keep it this way, they do not want the people advanced enough so that they think for themselves. 

I often use the example of Catholic schools in largely Protestant countries. Faced with prejudice, Catholics simply started their own schools.

The solution to our current predicament is to get schools up and running, schools that will teach the lessons that need to be learnt. This is a combination of what to know and how to think, the two run together like hand in glove. Once you have a general level of accomplishment, things will happen as the next generation will demand change, or they'll simply take control and make it happen. 

Global Population Decline

Park this one under; will someone tell the Green movement to 'shut the hell up'. If the worldwide population is set to decline, why are we chasing our tails with their Eco nonsense? Won't emissions reduce as the fewer consumers belch less emissions (heh...too many cows - get it)?

New Zealand is an interesting case. The replacement level of the population is 2.10 births per woman. The last time NZ was at that level was 2012. Yes, the rate of births has declined significantly over time, from 1960 when each woman had 4.10 children, on average, through to today where women have about 1.60 children. Within this long term trend, the birth rate has fluctuated; NZ dropped off in the 1990's, then built it back to 2012's level, and now things have dropped off again. 

Below I embed an Al Jazeera video looking at the topic, but I disagree with a lot of the rationale used. I think the cost of living is directly to blame. Where families are supported and where incomes are sufficient, people still have babies. 

Right now, we are faced with governments trying to kill us, destroy us, tax us into oblivion and offer no support whatsoever, so what do you think is not going to happen? That's right, they're not having kids is what is not going to happen.

What I am saying is that New Zealand's record proves that despite having a high standard of living and an educated workforce, that given the right conditions, the birth rate can be maintained at no less than replacement levels.

But, hang on, Africa has a fast growing population, the average age of sub-Saharan Africa is about 18. They're poor right? Right, but the cost of living is not so bad and they have resources coming on stream. Off the back of those resources and the related employment it creates, plus the lower cost of living, they can have large families. There is a strong incentive to get out there and earn, to make the family richer. 

People look at poorer countries and assume they'll have large families, but when you look closely, you'll find their pace of development is high. Their cost of living is low, and barriers to entry for business and professionals are not insurmountable. Larger families can grab a greater share of this wealth being created. Think of this as a fairer distribution of wealth.

Meanwhile, in the West there are many barriers to entry. It takes too long to become qualified when entering the workforce. By the time people are fully up to speed, they're in their thirties and for women, they have a far narrower window through which to make babies.

If you want to see birth rates rise; support families, remove barriers to entry, exploit resources and lower the cost of living.

The Great Takedown

According to a conspiracy theory doing the rounds, this Saturday the 24th of September is when the big takedown occurs. Electricity is going to be cut worldwide, thus preventing communications and life as we've come to know it in the western world. 

Oh well, it was nice knowing you all. I'll be heading for the bush as the great reset takes place. But if this takedown doesn't happen, I'll be back on deck being my usual intelligent, questioning and rather handsome self, humble too.

Rhetoric for War

I've noticed that as the Russo-Ukraine War goes into its fifth week, the level of rhetoric from NATO and the rest of the West has amplified. It seems the West is itching for a war with Russia. We need cool heads here, a war with Russia would not go the way people think, principally because it would bring in Belarus and the Stans on the side of Russia. This is a formidable lineup and it's not as though they have to go far to get involved.

Ukraine cannot win this war. What is winning exactly? In this context, for Ukraine winning is not losing. But if we look at the map it becomes easy to see why they cannot avoid losing. That's because they cannot get supply, or relieve pressure on besieged cities.

Here are my three main reasons explaining why Ukraine loses:

1. The relative losses matter NOT absolute losses of equipment

I swear watching the western MSM talk you'd think Ukraine was conquering all. You need something to compare things with and Russia starts with a much larger stock. It doesn't matter if Russia loses two pieces of equipment or even five pieces of equipment for every one Ukraine loses. Over time, what happens is Ukraine runs out and Russia is left standing. I noticed Zelensky is now asking for planes and tanks. That tells me a lot, Ukraine are running out.

2. Fuel and ammunition

Russia are targeting fuel and ammunition depots. Earlier in the conflict, they were taking vehicles out when they found them, but now by using drones they track military vehicles back to the refueling depots often hidden in forest or industrial buildings, and then take that target out. Ukraine must start running out of fuel. There is some evidence to support this view as it is not hard to find abandoned Ukrainian equipment.

3. Food

Crops need to be planted about now. This won't happen on such a wide scale and so food will become scarce. An army marches on its stomach. 

These three critical areas mean Ukraine cannot win. I'll give it six months and Russia will control Ukraine.

Rather than talk up war, diplomatic efforts must be made to bring the hostilities to an end. This should have been happening before the invasion began. Why did UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres not visit Putin? Why did NATO not visit Putin? This seems to be a massive failure of diplomacy.

2022 and the Future of Western Civilisation

We are standing on the edge of a cliff. The western world is facing its biggest crisis in at least 200 years, maybe longer. It feels hard to fathom. Look back at the ground covered, consider some of the lowlights over the last two years; the biggest being the USA's defeat in Afghanistan. This stands as the biggest humiliation of a large power in all of modern history, possibly the biggest in recorded history. That's how shaming the loss. Given how ragtag the Taleban are, their victory seems even more incredible. 

But more significant than the defeat in Afghanistan, we have the loss of freedoms in the western world. Science has become misinformation and propaganda is now science. Statements such as 'follow the science' translates in correct thinking to 'believe government propaganda.' Democracy has been permanently damaged through widespread censorship online and in the mainstream media. Intelligent debate has been replaced by cancel culture and Big Tech's deplatforming of anyone asking questions that don't fit the narrative.

But it gets worse; entirely healthy populations have been put under house arrest, their movements restricted, their ability to exercise and seek social connection compromised.

And then if that wasn't enough; businesses have been destroyed, livelihoods taken away.

Then finally, we see the suspension of the Nuremberg Code and the coercion of people to submit to medical experimentation through vaccine mandates and 'no jab no job' demands of employers, demands that are quite often completely unlawful. It needs repeating often; the Covid vaccines are not fully approved and the long range clinical trials will not be completed until 2023 at the earliest. The data does not look good either, that's why the need for boosters, and there appears no end in sight for these boosters. This amounts to endless moving of the goalposts, which to anyone already injected must make them feel vulnerable, cheated or betrayed. If it doesn't, then they're not that bright. And all of this in response to a virus that's really a bit of a wimp. As it mutates it gets weaker, which makes the draconian response look even more ridiculous and overreaching.

Can it get any worse? Yes it can, sadly, I predict 2022 will be a lot worse.

1. I believe we are in the phoney war stage of World War III. The real shooting is about to start. There are several flash points; the Ukraine, Taiwan, the Middle East, the border between India and China, and Kashmir to name a few. Where it will kick off is hard to predict, but right now the Ukraine and Taiwan seem the most likely.
2. People injected with the vaccines will start to die in numbers. They are already dying, in New Zealand mortality has increased in 2021, directly in line with the roll out of the Pfizer mRNA gene therapy (which is called a vaccine - it is no such thing). As each age group received the jab, deaths increased compared to 2018 and 2019. What happened in 2020? Deaths were lower, there was no pandemic. 
3. Not only will people die but a large proportion of those receiving the vaccines will have their health compromised permanently, their organs and immune systems irreparably damaged. 
4. Governments will double down and become even more authoritarian. They'll try to remove cash from the payments system, and link vaccine passports with everyday items, such as access to food and water. This will result in riots and widespread civil unrest and full-on revolution in some countries.
5. Governments will link the vaccine passport with a social credit score, that will dictate access to life. People won't be able to leave their house without the correct social credit score.
6. Further down the line, beyond 2022, if misbehaving or if considered of no economic value, access to boosters will be denied. This will constitute a death sentence as people's immune systems will have been damaged so badly they'll soon die when they catch any disease or become rundown generally. 
7. In future, well beyond 2022 but near enough for my children to be affected,  these boosters will no longer be free. They'll cost the recipient their house and their life savings.

Call 2022 the beginning of neo-feudalism if you like. Most people in the western world will become serfs or be very close to that. 

What I am seeing is a two-pronged approach. In 2020, China went to war. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand may have already been given up as they sit on a part of the globe that is not easily defended.

The west responded to this attack by becoming authoritarian and its citizens surrendered their freedoms with barely a whimper. Governments don't trust the people, they never have. China effectively helped democratic countries seize power, but I think this was an unintended result of their actions, not something they came up with as a Machiavellian plot. 

For the everyman, is there a way out? Yes, most definitely there is. But it requires the people to rise up en masse. It requires police and the military to refuse unlawful orders. And in dealing with China, they need to be isolated, their trade routes shut down. This would soon bring them to heel. 

Western World is at War

It is incredible how the media and politicians seem incapable of acknowledging that the western world is at war right now. Look at what is happening; we have a global pandemic that is largely the fault of China. Russia is massing its forces on the border with the Ukraine and scaring everyone. We have war in the Middle East. The Taleban is going on the offensive in Afghanistan now they've defeated the US  (c'mon this is obvious). Then we have repeated attacks on our tech infrastructure shutting down hospitals, fuel pipelines, you name it. Connect the dots and start taking this stuff seriously. Clearly the western world is under attack. Maybe not everything is connected but a good proportion of it must be.

The Dark Age Looms

I am embedding a YouTube documentary which looks at the end of the Bronze Age. What followed was a dark age that lasted hundreds of years. The written word largely disappeared, civilisation destroyed; not much is known about this dark age as so little written evidence survives. What happened? It is likely a number of things brought on the sudden end of the Bronze Age. Climate change, pressure on resources, war, population growth and the attendant migration, they're all part of it.

We are now witnessing the end of our world. The end of Western Civilisation. War has contributed to this decline, as has climate change. But overarching this is the loss of identity. The West no longer believes in itself, it pulls itself down at every opportunity and is defeated before if even gets out of bed in the morning. What will follow this crash, the crash to end all crashes, will be a dark age that will last hundreds of years. When will this crash occur? The precise timing is unclear, we cannot be certain. But it will happen within the next 200 years. When it does happen, the crash will be sudden as a tipping point will have been reached. Cities will burn and people will die.

In 3,000 years time they'll be talking about this time and what happened exactly. There will be different theories about the collapse of our age, that it was inevitable, they (that's us) failed to heed the message. They'll marvel at how advanced our technology seemed, that we set foot on the moon. They'll wonder why they had to reinvent everything, finally doing much better but it was so hard, and these earlier people (yes, that's us again) often had the answer but thought little of the future.

Of course our language and much of our written history will have gone. They'll know of our existence by digging up remains and sifting through our landfills.

Please view the video, then try to tell me I'm wrong.

Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory

I know this guy who has that annoying habit of seeing things clearer than others, he is able to predict what will happen in the future. One example was when Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and locked up in 2019, he predicted he'd be dead by the end of the year. Boy, was he right.

Now one should assume that being in jail is relatively safe, especially when on suicide watch. What happened? He killed himself of course. My friend thinks this is a nonsense and believes this was staged, largely because Epstein funds have been moved into the bank he owned in the Caribbean. A bank that has never operated.

OK, that's fine, it doesn't mean he escaped though, someone with power of attorney could be doing the transactions, and in so doing removing assets from any potential civil claims. But did Epstein kill himself? Probably not, and that's where my friend nailed it, predicting Epstein's demise so accurately.

Now he's got another idea. That COVID-19 was an attack by the US on China. The tariffs weren't working, so they took the virus to China from the US Army's biological studies at Fort Detrick and planted it during the World Military Games in October 2019.

Since the outbreak the US has been on the front foot pointing the stick at China; their food habits, cleanliness, you name it. The US media has been particularly busy. Maybe too busy.

Iran and Italy are collateral damage. It got out of hand and now the whole thing has blown up in America's face. That's because China's authoritarian regime was able to get on top of the epidemic quickly, and they're first up best dressed. When the world recovers, they will be the one ready to buy everything. China may end up owning the world.

Will the west be ready to accept that? My friend thinks not, and that's why they'll go to war with China. Either that or wrap themselves in knots justifying economic sanctions. If calls for war or sanctions grow in the US and become accepted, my friend believes this will prove the virus originated in the United States. What do you think?

[Update @ 25/03/2020: It has been pointed out that the virus could not be a biological weapon as it has been proven it was not produced in a laboratory. I accept the second part, that it was not manufactured. However, simply saying a virus was not produced in a lab does not mean a virus could not be used for malicious purposes.

Trump: his saying that America must emerge soon from its harsh restrictions is a statement of the way it is really. America must emerge soon or it will wake up and find itself surpassed by China. If we look at the sheer volume of rhetoric emanating from the USA, all directed at China, and measure by that standard alone without looking at the science, it certainly does look as though this theory has legs. That is, the person doing all the finger pointing is often the perpetrator.]

[Update @ 21/10/2021: it is now fairly well accepted that the virus did originate in a lab, or at least it leaked from a lab there. What is still being contended is whether the US supplied this virus or funded research on coronaviruses that resulted in catastrophic outcomes. I'm giving my friend another pass mark on this, he's proven to be more right than wrong.]

Recession and the Upside

Due to the coronavirus, oil output, general stupidity on the part of governments regarding their levels of debt, private companies borrowing too much and whatever else; we are now in a worldwide recession. This will likely last the entire year. People are going to lose their jobs, they don't deserve to but companies, especially large companies, will use this event to shed staff. It's going to get worse before it gets better, let's put it that way.

Is there an upside to any of this, apart from the obvious, plenty of bargains for the cashed up investor. The main upside is all of these silly Green initiatives are toast. I'm talking about all those things the taxpayer funds, whether it is kerbside recycling or electric vehicles. Consumers are not going to be spending, they'll have to take the cheapest and most efficient option, out goes so-called Green. Green is not really Green I hope you realise, the whole thing is an exercise in fleecing you, me and everyone else. The only people who win are the crooks coming up with their silly ideas.

In the not too distant future, soon after the airlines get their bailouts (I hate to say it, they likely will get their bailouts), the Green companies will be crying to survive. Don't let them get access to your hard earned dollar.

Sand Wars

I watched the documentary Sand Wars on al Jazeera recently, it was interesting but ultimately came up short, and that's because the documentary lacked balance and became emotive.

I know something about sand. Some may call me an expert on the subject but I wouldn't go that far, I'd call myself a specialist. That said there are several things to consider about sand and where to find it, how to process it. Sand is critical for construction, the oceans, and our coastlines. We can't have a civilisation without sand and our environment is jeopardised if we extract too much ot it. So what is the answer? That's what I'm going to deal with here:

1. Natural or Man-made?

The above documentary never once considered quarried rock being transformed into sand. They did have someone at an aggregate trade show or conference saying that all the natural deposits of sand and gravel had been taken away. That is nonsense.

There is a rule in the sand business; first find a natural deposit. This can be quite difficult as a lot of factors need to be considered when searching for a suitable extraction pit. Such things as distance to market or end-user, ease with which the resource can be extracted, the physical properties of that resource having a bearing on just how much processing is involved, water sources and so on. But increasingly regulation and the NIMBY effect come into it as well. There is a lot of natural, clean sand out there, you're just not allowed to touch it because of that last factor.

So what now then? You have to manufacture that sand at your already operationally consented rock quarry. This is not an easy exercise and involves complex machinery which can be very expensive. Even when set up the end-product can be of much lesser quality than the natural equivalent. It doesn't have to be, but man is fallible and they don't always get it right.

Is sand running out? The short answer is No.

2. Sand from the Sea or Beach.

This is generally not the answer as salt comes with the sand. Sand dredged from below the sea is not as heavy with salt as beach sand is, but this source of sand still requires further processing, or thorough washing before it can be used in construction. The documentary said that buildings in Tangiers may fall down because they're built with sand from the sea. If the sand is salt ridden then the structures would be weakened over time due to the rusting of the reinforcing steel inside the concrete. The buildings would be fine if that sand had been washed sufficiently or simply came within specification without further processing.

How much sand comes from dredging operations? Much less than you're led to believe. Ships are a pain in the arse and you can't see below the water. Even land based dredging from wet pits or lakes is thwart with difficulty. I've seen the figures on this and sand dredging is still the little bedfellow on the block in terms of the whole.

3. Recycling and Blending.

Not just glass, but concrete can be recycled also. Valuable sand and other aggregates can be re-extracted. This extends the life of existing in-ground resources. But also overlooked is blending the sand. That is, taking some man-made, some natural and maybe some recycled resource and blending them together. A pugmill or similar process can do this most effectively.

4. Concrete

There are few alternatives to this amazing stuff called Portland Cementous Concrete. Our world does not function without it and we have got to learn to manage it. People talking about straw bale houses is not the answer. Yes we can use wood and steel and such but what the Romans knew all along and the rest of the world woke up to in the nineteenth century is that Concrete is the answer. If in doubt concrete it.

If you have a sand deposit and don't know what to do with it, or need help in any way, then please contact me using the contact form on this page. I'm here to help.

Greens Can't Be Trusted

The Greens are almost always wrong about everything and here's why:-

Myth: the world is over-populated.

Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.

Here's a map of Stewart Island:-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png

Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.

Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.

Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet

Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.

Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.

I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.

Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.

Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.

Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.

Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.

Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.

Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.

It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.

The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.

Ken Horlor's Digital Currency

Okay, after criticising  bitcoin yesterday, what would I do?

The following is my outline.

Link a digital currency to the production of silver. Silver is a finite resource that is readily mined. We know how much has been mined thus far, and how much can be produced each year.

If you like, this system could work in a decentralised way, with the bitcoin type of mining operation. Alternatively it could be centralised and run by a charitable foundation. Either way works, but I'll go with decentralised for now, just to describe what I'm thinking about:-

1. There have been 40.5 billion ounces of silver produced since the beginning of time, according to the US Geological Survey. We take a small proportion of that to form the core of what may be mined virtually. Let's say 40,550,000 ounces or coins.

2. Each coin at the current price would be nominally worth $17.22, which is the current silver price each ounce. 

3. At current rates of extraction silver is mined at about 887 million ounces a year. This forms the rate of inflation, on top of the starting figure of 40.55 million, 887,000 coins (or ounces) would be added each year. You'll notice that I'm dividing production by one thousand.

4. This is where it gets interesting, I'd link the success of mining these units to the actual cost of mining the same resource in the real world. Overburden ratios, process costs, distribution - the lot. The more scarce silver becomes or more uneconomic to mine, so too goes the digital currency. If real output of silver falls globally then the amount of inflation of the virtual currency reduces.

Also, mining the virtual silver would have a skill factor included. This is so that those with just computing power could not dominate the 'industry.' Just as in real life, a small operator who is a good miner would be able to produce.

5. Then the secondary market kicks in and the currency is traded and exchanged amongst users.

With this decentralised model, the digital coins are created by virtual miners who are faced with the same uncertainty real world miners face. I'm starting with a figure to reflect where civilisation is at to this point, but adding to it each year to reflect progress. There is an element of intervention, in the case of how many coins to add at an anniversary each year, but this could be done through an auction or consensus model, and of course this wouldn't take too long as it only involves determining how much silver has been produced the previous year.

Derivatives could come into play as well. Miners could sell their output forward just as real miners do. This would create price stability.

What about tangible backing for the currency? In the decentralised model this would be very hard to achieve. But if centralised, then a charitable foundation could tax the miners and create a reserve of real silver and of derivatives. The proceeds of the charity could go towards anything worthwhile.

The underpinning of any system like this is trust. My model attempts to establish trust by pinning the creation of the currency to real-world values.

We could call this digital coinage bitDenarii. Derived from the Roman coin.

GFC: Why We Are Screwed

I have implied in posts on here, an opinion of where I think things are headed. However, until explaining to one of my children what I am actually on about, I realised I hadn't blogged about my views in full.

Okay, so the GFC, aka the Global Financial Crisis. This started happening straight after the dotcom bubble burst. Things were getting out of hand, banks were lending irresponsibly, blah de blah, you know the rest.

In 2008 things got very bad and the property market crashed, everything came tumbling down. Small businesses were screwed, they had their overdrafts called in, banks could no longer trust one another, the system was broken.

In stepped big mother governments the world over. They ruled that some were too big to fail and bailed those precious few out. Then they started quantitative easing to avoid further collapse. Retired folks saw their incomes plummet. The oldies and small businesses were the biggest casualties globally.

What were the alternatives? Well, a short sharp shock would have worked fine.

What happened is governments rewarded the ineffective, incompetent, stupid and weak. These governments are run by venal and malfeasant cowards who buckled and bailed out their old-school mates. What has resulted from that lame decision-making, has been eight years of bumping along the bottom.

I'll explain this another way. Imagine you break your leg and you are delivered to the hospital by an ambulance that is pedal powered. At the hospital the doctors take a look and decide to not properly knit your bones back together, instead finding it cheaper to have your leg grow back crooked and keep you on painkillers for a few years as their mates own the drug manufacturers and pharmacies.

Get the idea?

Or would it be better for the doctor to say, 'this is going to hurt,' AHHHH, fix your leg properly and have you walking again free of pain in three months?

Hmm? Well the crooked leg and painkiller example is what we got.

What does all this mean? It means we are royally screwed. Governments throughout the Western world are telling us they avoided another Great Depression (they say). How about, what they actually did was put us on a path to extinction. That's what I think.

I've had people tell me that technology cannot be lost. Oh yeah? Tell that to the people living through the Dark Ages, just after the end of the Roman empire. That's where we're headed. I won't live to see this happen, and neither will you, but I think it is inevitable. Crazed loons like ISIL are going to be running the world and they'll destroy everything. This will happen because we promoted stupid and dishonest people and gave up being vigilant and prepared to protect our hard fought freedoms.

What we have now is not capitalism. In a capitalist system you have the absolute right to go bust. No-one is too big to fail. If you promote stupid and dishonest people and entrench them in power, you end up with complete devastation.