The not and distant shock fire memories that crack the rigging colour of the zigzags subway son where lilies salt our world.
258
Faces haunts the stone of fools sons and travel places on the innermost liquid hell.
Its a walking shelter of vulgarity.
Of time covered in silence.
Do our government really have to borrow money to spend?
Banks buy government securities by offering the reserves they already hold on accounts at the ”Riksgälden”. ”Riksgälden” then debit the banks deposits with government securities.
A sale of government bonds is something quite different from ”government loans”.
What we call ”borrowing” is more akin to a transfer of deposits from a transaction account to a savings account were banks get a better interest on their reserves.
When the arrangement expires the deposits is then brought back along with the interest rate or they are put up for a new period of time.
This is rightly considered as a good safety for the banks, because the state’s main asset is to create and give out new money when spending.
A government who owns its own currency cannot ”run out of money”. Which is more than evident if you are a member of the eurozone. Ask Greece, Finland , Portugal, Spain , Ireland what they have to give up not to run out.
Government securities are therefore nothing more than an interest-bearing savings account. They can always print new money. Or start issuing digital money.
Members of the eurozone like Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain are being forced to give up valuable resources to not run out. Which is likely to put them into even more dependency to the currency issuer. Since these countrys are loosing their ability to be self sufficient and self-supporting, and to make decisions on their own resources.
They are tranfered to someone else to take advantage of.
257
Out for the words we hail to love and say to the answered eclipse of the vision, and to wrestle happily with the images they make.
A moment in and beyond, after the other.
It is a stony way for the heart.
To become public property
It can differ quite a lot between one person and another intellectually, in terms of knowledge and skills, and to be able to draw conclusions from rational arguments rather than rhetorical.
But in terms of our character, the differences are much smaller.
It is with our character we share our public opinion with others. It is were it gets its outlet.
All our differences are smoothed out.
We act anonymously on public opinion with rhetorical conclusions in the protection of the majority to justify our views and our actions.
We will then become public property.
Its not about the media, its about you and me.
The feeling tone news media deliver to us is designed to function as a short circuit, to prevent us from making thought through rational considerations when it comes to our own situation. That’s why they always seems to aim to destroy our rational defences, so that we come to conclusions immediately, without reflection and in emotional distress by rhetorics instead of solid well made arguments.
Media always try to stimulate our feelings on an unconscious level,
to make people respond with automatic behaviours, and collectively instead of individually.
That is why they are so effective when we are made uncertain, in crisis, follow opinion polls, an ideology, an -ism, trends or is in shock.
We agree on things, think or act in a way we would not accept if we were given time to consider it properly.
The fact that we have a tendency to stand by the opinion in order to belong and to get recognition from our surroundings, to be consistent although the reasons for our opinions may be questionable.
That fear is something that is expected.
Unconsciously we then inflict terrible hardship on each other rather than change the beliefs we have that are created for us, to those that is created by us.
256
I like to eat clouds and branches filled with natures voices in stones.
255
This is certain
I am not the my.
To convince me otherwise, my language made attempts to my body to sure myself of me, at of which my words was born.
Its an avalanche that can bury you.
254
I own my flesh to time, not to the I where my nothing could desire my wanted imaginations necessity in myself.
I am my best constant.
Whats all this talk about a budget?
A balanced budget means no new injection of money into the economy.
The financial year looks the same at the end as it looked at the beginning.
No change has occurred.
There is only one reason to have such a limitation of wealth, that is if inflation threatens the economy as our gouvernment has charged too little tax out of it.
A budget surplus means that the government has managed to spend less money in to the private sector than they have taken out in tax.
This means that the private sector now has a deficit of money in it.
The financial year ends with the fact that there is less money in the private sector than there was in the start of the year.
This means that households and firms has to borrow or use their savings to maintain their consumption of goods and services in order to maintain the existing level of revenues and living standards.
This is also occurs when our banks are aloud to control the money supply.
If the surpluses are retained for a long time the whole of the private sector has to reduce their expectations and their economic activity, and we get a recession with unemployment as a consequence, or it has to try to compensate by putting itself into (more) debt. Which was the case leading up to the bank crisis in 2008.
A follow up to this happens when loans cannot be repaid, which later turned out to accelerate and spread the banking crisis.
With a budget deficit the state has charged less tax out of the economy than it has spent into what we use in the economy. There is a general financial prosperity and employment increase because the supply of money increases to come in line with the existing resources.
The macroeconomic terminology thus have an opposite impact on the real economy than household thinking because households and firms use the money. Gouvernments have the constitutional right to create and spend them for us to be able use them in the economy.
A budget then has nothing to do with ideology, an -ism or any doctrin. But it has all to do with who controls the money supply.
253
The eyes we make for earth are roads for travel the unknown in man’s given meaning of fate as a sign of an endless thought.
252
My veins siren and forgotten ocean nights.
In charming moments with the one who visits this dark for the stars in my skin and for the shapes in my air.
It does make multitudes of her sky for my underground, and for my immortality box.
251
Sunlit and greedy.
The ash of silence state the name for the wings.
250
We word under disgust in exile, in the distorted freedom of our electric dream life.
This is our first climb of energy and the owl is the course.
249
I am stepping into a season carefully called frozen on new fibres of the wind.
Its a nerve dance and in absolute clear green.
248
Right there between your dream and I who evil light will accept as the you there and not your living will.
A dark self settles with that and with the warmth senses of ego oppression.
It will tolerate your reason as we speak.
247
During the self and the now my instruments passage made of mirrors and beating on life awaits me when the in there alone are not where the from rises.
246
My windows breathe within those elegant reservoirs of a great fog who make these signs far above the time of any childhood clothed with my thoughts behind the bars of an automatic yesterday which are not mine.
245
The north son always shuffle us through the clocks in a mad distant sulphur mornings length towards the child-wheel.
244
This stage is only for the search of the challenges of images above the rules of each man before the intermission we affirm in our flights to harvest transparence.
243
Legs encircle the face of the morning sun with crystal stars to liquefy the distant burned brightness and bite the subway memory off in charming sensibility.
242
To consolidate the I in its pure pretension of numbered formations and calculated acrobatics one galvanizes true worship in a spontaneous theatre.
On the impression of disagreement among climate scientists
”Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.”
By Naomi Oreskes
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”. Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise”. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”.
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
241
Physical scissors gives judgment by the meridian dark machine’s swimming in the clouds.
Our hands meet.
The nimble rain pleasures baggage on the our itself.
240
It is the faces we climb in us towards the mouth of no fruit and mad stars that burns like a distant morning brightness.
That´s the hunger.
Not me.
Budget thinking patterns
The government’s challenge is not whether we can ”afford” to spend as promised to voters, but if we will be sufficiently productive as a nation that we can allow our government to fulfill its election promises without them causing inflation.
The budget deficit is the same as the non-government surplus. Thus, it is the very source of the net financial assets of the non-governmental sector since it must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts).
For a country with relatively large and persistent trade surplus comes, that at the same time, this will leave the domestic private sector with large unsustainable deficits.
Its about sector balances, not what somebody’s opinion or thinking about the budget is.
How our thinking can make things go wrong
In most budgetary discussions, it is erroneously assumed that the national government has a financial constraint and has to budget like a household.
The analogy most of us draw between household budgets and government budgets is false. Households use the currency and must finance their spending.
However, government issues the currency and must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts). The claim that governments must tax or borrow to ‘finance’ its spending is false under a fiat-currency system.
And a growing economy cannot be an end in itself – it’s the means to improving people’s lives and take into account a responsible global citizenship while doing it.
Thinking is just one way for an individual to organize his or her impressions. For good and for worse, an economic theory, or an ideology, or -ism, does that for you. But this will not replace the nagging sense that something very important is missing in our current budget thinking.
239
Stairs that appears in drawers are remembered like holes inside the bird womans virgin steps of ice from the sea to the source.
238
Pamphlets of time takes the boredom of grief by the distributed account of change back to me and takes the connection alone to no schedule of entrance
Stubbe
237
Life bounds the last delight of dreams and glides my past tomorrow soft in living breathes to the forever wildly crowned
236
The reveals of my transparency without a crowd of troubled animals burns as deltas in wonderful tears
It is of reigns in these I envy their candour
235
Sad faceless modesties accompany my wings more waken in the unwilling skins of elsewhere
234
Only the touches of a sun dress a person to speak as of like to carry his desert
233
Sails before the dazzled contours see the all that springs your fire in a certain luminous reigns conveyer
232
That mute folding seeing the scatters of motion between earth lightning and its nude limits of a life to think of the paralysed sweet visible seductive praise you simulate
The immensity ripples in masses of a welcome, descending in itself between rising
231
A crystal image hiss that throws an endless wild
against of never bold through this, but foiled within the hollow edge of nightly bright.
I am a streaming ruin when for all with virtue, thick of content having fabled summons pain
230
Eyes made from stars of diamond gleam
Like bright candles singing from no light
waking their servants
229
Faceless praise between the bounded possibles of a visible immensity descending like a dark bodily touch of a rising night sun.
228
I too bend mountains in my palms.
With all my passengers of the subterranean barometric life, and in the will of the future.
And with the sun in my head to make eyes, the yet of no ground with any town, crowns the steps of i do to a woman.
But the wolves in here will always await my forgotten instrument while playing for the shadows.
227
I am visited in the snowy water drops by a distant here of letters written on a night sky sound i depend on.
226
Our old internal scented your black shattered tell.
That greedy brew being your intended filled say of light.
In you, on your raven wings of old.
We are merging the crimson flare of clairvoyant skin.
225
Cathedral woods respond like the immense now and in itself upon you, bounding the within to a single falling leaf and the uncertain morning light dissolved.
224
The swarm sings some imaginary white in your idleness, alone to the elusive interpretations of the first light crossing the surrounding hour of dawn.
Oren Lyons on the Indigenous View of the World
223
A dark surprised side habit of infinity stretching a chain of hermetic nothing into our moving, crawling all over us on the hope for a preserver.
222
The soft subterranean transparency of separated stars on dark passes plants the names of those that wear them to become separated brazier curves behind a beating vibration.
221
Beneath ourselves at the sky speaking to the living birth of plain possession, to the unending face of seasons, I give ways over to the other age of my earthward breathes for keeping the threshold cultivated.
220
To our noiseless stream of embroideries we feed the alchemy of yesterday with the breath of hollow moons.
219
The breeze of fatality begins beyond the still jumbled voids filled from earths vast unfolding ocean of dreams.