`Back then` doesn’t count~!


From Twitter (so to be read `upwards`)
Chovanec (at the bottom) is referencing the Guardian article on sugar (demand). He is saying that `industry` only supplies what is wanted.
He notes that it is `people` that cause the problem with their `desires`
A minute later (after a Tweet about his children) … on Japan, he is noting that that `external forces` can affect `desires`.

I don’t blame people for stopping when it gets too confusing.
But you may think they should, at least notice, that they are chopping into the `cause and effect chain` (so as to be able to give a simple (simplistic) answer).




`the government`??


Ah~! … but that was `then`.




  • Axionication3

    I seem to recall you saying that Chovanec was religious.
    It’s odd how we can ascribe ‘free will’ to ourselves but yet regard people systems as cause and effect /circumstance.
    (Maybe a general forgiveness thing mixed up with a personal responsibility thing. Probably a ‘Good’ position to hold (for the greater good, that is)). …Or maybe a ‘spilt milk’ thing (when we beleive we have a shot at changing something we react differently to when we know something can’t be changed))

    • Even between us, it is impossible to know how to talk about this … so it is no surprise that other people don’t bother.

      Let’s say we were talking to a `religious Conservative` (Chovanec) … We start with –
      “The child was born where it was born, to parents it did not chose, in a body they did not chose”
      This would all go fine … because it would be thought that `yes maybe, but the choosing develops in childhood`.

      Here, we are already at a place where there will be no advance.
      I/We could say – “Yes, choosing is done, but only dealing from the deck given”
      We are now guilty of not explaining ourselves correctly (trapped by words~!)
      Because the … say … teenager is not `choosing` (dealing from the deck given). The teenager IS the `deck given` (but there would be no way of explaining this).

      Bottom line – Conservatives hang-onto this `choice/against the odds/bootstrap/who if not you` stuff (which is absolutely reasonable) … to ignore tricky (impossible) problems.

      • Axionication3

        Yes, it is absolutely reasonable to reply/think that way. One has almost no choice but to leave it be.

        Explaining/thinking/arguing otherwise is absolutely 100% ‘no I’ terrain. Fuck all. Zero. Nothing.
        Incomprehension (as if this is news to you the Nick)

  • Haploid

    The overthrow of Mossadegh for “The Shah” really worked out well to this day eh…History seems to be repeating itself in that area a little to the west.
    Here’s a tip Mystic, you need to be much more controversial in your posts this year, Mr Bang Tidy style. Look it up.

  • amoeba

    So what are they going to do?

    The USD has powered higher over the last few years.

    The Chinese have been accused in the past by Geithner (what happened to Tim?) and Trump of holding the RMB down, causing trade imbalances. And indeed by others of indirectly causing the financial crisis.

    Will the USD be allowed to go much higher, or will there be some concerted CB effort to subdue the exuberance?

    • On this one … I don’t think you can buck-the-market. The US is doing okay … and no-one-else is so solid.
      China/Chinese would be mad not to try and get a `wedge` out of the country. China will succeed, or not. I don’t see any `half-way-in-out-yes-no-iffies` for them. They have to break-out (like S. Korea) … and that is very, very difficult.
      If China does blow … it will take the whole of the East with it.

      The US is the `best bet`.
      The USD is the `best bet`.
      I don’t think the-rest-of-the-world has enough fire-power to do anything about it.
      The Fed is the only game in town.

      (Timmy is doing just fine~!)

      • amoeba

        Being the issuer of the USD does come with an extreme privilege.

        The US has somehow kept the “America Dream” thingy going consistently for centuries from the POTUS down to the, indeed, the rest of the world. It is the “dream” to get to America, become American, and make it through hard work.

        Europe has not really captured the Dream Deal. Where is the “POE” speaking out to to enrapture the Europeans with a European Dream? Who, in fact, is the POE? Europe attracts the swarms trying to escape from shit expecting money to be given to them, or immigrants not particularly wishing to be “European” but wanting to send money back home.

        Inevitably Theresa over in exiled UK has had to come up with some motivational “theme”. Her choice is about the weakest I have ever heard. It is pathetic.

        “I’m determined to build the shared society for everyone”.

        I don’t even know what that fucking means, let alone be motivated by it and truly to “live the dream”???? Yeah, Mrs May, it is my utmost desire to live and work my bollox off for the “shared society for everyone”.

        Gimme a break.

        At least China manages to produce its version of the “American Dream”, and to be sure there are many Chinese who have become immensely rich. And you will never see a Chinese anywhere who is not prepared to work away like a trojan given half the opportunity. They are truly the world’s best at opening small successful trading businesses.

        You mentioned South Korea, which, along with all these Asian countries such as Vietnam, Taiwan and Singapore has a strong national identity and a desire to succeed on a personal and national level, with a corresponding “dream” coming from the top.

        The Europeans have no dream, just a dreadful vision of a fucking endless nightmare.

        And the Brits can dream of the “shared society” at night, which will hardly get them out of bed in the morning. All they want is rising house prices and bugger the work.

        Sunday rant over.

        More next week…….

        • Haploid

          damn fine rant. As for the ‘shared’ society’, with slogans like these who needs crumbs seeing as there’s not much else on offer.

  • CSArichardo

    I note that this article points to a slippery slope in separating church and state when the state appears to be funding the operations of a church foundation ?? But the Aga Khan does not have a country …just followers ….like any other big corporate family entity (has subjects/clients/customers). ….

    The foundation is the outside secular face to our society showing they are good global citizens !!??

    “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family spent their Bahamas vacation on a private island belonging to the Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of Ismaili Muslims, Trudeau’s office confirmed Friday…..The Aga Khan is the hereditary leader to the world’s 12 to 15 million Ismaili Muslim population, with a profile among his followers similar to that of a pope among Catholics.

    He’s also one of the world’s wealthiest royals, according to a 2010 Forbes magazine list.
    The Aga Khan founded one of the world’s biggest international development organizations, the Aga Khan Development Network.

    The organization works in 30 countries around the world. The federal government provides tens of millions of dollars in funding to the Aga Khan Foundation of Canada every year.”


    • CSArichardo

      …. and this brings me to the Clinton Foundation

      “John Wonderlich, head of the Sunlight Foundation, a group that advocates for greater transparency in government, told PolitiFact, “The Clinton Foundation’s work, by its nature, blurs the lines between charity, business, politics, and public service, making it very difficult to evaluate in a traditional way.””

      Yes foundations appear to be the way powerful, rich and friendly elites put an outside face to the media world.


  • axel1million
    • CSArichardo

      Axel…you have been here before ? Have you not ?!!

      • axel1million

        Yes, you have good recall, I have been here before.
        My question is now much deeper in that it has two mysteries, the one in the song and the one of the singer.
        The singer has gone; the song is still here(for me). Some have heard the song but not the singer, others have heard the singer but not the song.
        I have heard both the song and the singer.
        …but the singer is gone! Where did he go?

        • amoeba

          You will find out when the time comes.

        • Axionication3

          Pretty impressive stinkotricity. Was thinking of making precisely the same aga khan song reference to Richardo prior to your comment. (Now) Popped his clogs he has…where indeed has he gone?