Daily Digest

Daily Digest 9/13 - Merkel Faces Key Choices On Euro, Student Loan Defaults Jump Sharply, Oil Demand Forecasts Cut By IEA

Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10:48 AM
  • Libya’s New Leader Calls For Reconciliation
  • GOP Balks at Taxes to Finance Jobs Plan
  • How to Raise Revenue Without Violating the Tax Pledge
  • German Leader Faces Key Choices on Rescuing Euro
  • U.S. Spending Billions on Rural Jobs, but Impact Is Uncertain
  • Student Loan Default Rates Rise Sharply in Past Year
  • Gentlemen, Start Conserving
  • World Oil Demand Forecasts Cut by IEA as Global Economic Recovery Falters

Crash Course DVDOwn the Crash Course Special Edition Set with Presenter’s Pack (NTSC or PAL)

Economy

Libya’s new leader calls for reconciliation (jdargis)

Abdel Jalil’s speech was not announced in advance for security reasons, but a crowd soon gathered as a stage was erected in the square. Many more Libyans watched on national television. Red and green fireworks exploded against a black night sky to make up the colors of the new Libyan flag, and a police band played the national anthem as women and children in the front row sang full-throatedly and several cried openly.

GOP Balks at Taxes to Finance Jobs Plan (jdargis)

Mr. Obama proposed limiting itemized deductions for families with taxable income of $250,000 or more a year, ending tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners, and cutting out a tax break for investment-fund managers. The White House says the tax changes would take effect in 2013 and estimates they would raise $467 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.

How to Raise Revenue Without Violating the Tax Pledge (jdargis)

The first thing one needs to know is that not all federal revenues count as revenues. Some are classified as “offsetting receipts” or “offsetting collections.” Such revenues are classified as negative spending rather than as revenues. The classification has no effect on the deficit but does make both federal spending and revenues about $600 billion lower than they actually are.

German Leader Faces Key Choices on Rescuing Euro (jdargis)

Mrs. Merkel, 57, faces far-reaching decisions about how to deal definitively with the debt crisis in Europe and, more immediately, whether to allow Greece to default or even to leave the currency union. American officials fear that if she does not act more decisively, bank lending could freeze up and the result would be another sharp financial downturn on both sides of the Atlantic.

U.S. Spending Billions on Rural Jobs, but Impact Is Uncertain (jdargis)

“Rural areas are important to our economic future,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who heads the White House Rural Council, established in June to aid job creation by increasing the flow of capital to rural areas. “It is important that people understand that a large portion of America gets its water, food, fuel from these areas.”

Student Loan Default Rates Rise Sharply in Past Year (jdargis)

The new rates represent a snapshot in time, covering the 3.6 million borrowers whose first loan payments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010. More than 320,000 of those borrowers defaulted during that period.

Although for-profit colleges, which typically serve low-income students, enroll only about 10 percent of the nation’s undergraduates, Mr. Kvaal said, their students made up 150,000, or almost half, of the defaults.

Gentlemen, Start Conserving (jdargis)

Nascar is not the first sport to have an eco-campaign. Baseball teams including the St. Louis Cardinals and the Seattle Mariners are aggressively recycling and conserving. The Portland Trail Blazers, the Miami Heat and the Orlando Magic among other N.B.A. teams play in arenas certified by the United States Green Building Council. The builders of a new Formula One track in Austin, Tex., are planning a host of environmental initiatives, including buying carbon offsets.

World Oil Demand Forecasts Cut by IEA as Global Economic Recovery Falters (jdargis)

“The IEA is more bearish than before, but I’m a little more pessimistic,” said Christophe Barret, a London-based analyst at Credit Agricole CIB whose prediction for 2011 demand growth is 200,000 barrels a day less than the agency’s forecast. “The demand side will be weak. The impact of prices on growth is starting to show with the slowdown in economic activity.”

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

15 Comments

saxplayer00o1's picture
saxplayer00o1
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 30 2009
Posts: 4148
Italy's borrowing costs rise as demand falls

 

“This insurance role will likely continue to assist demand while concerns remain about sovereign risk and the longer-term issue of whether the dollar will still be the world’s reserve-currency in 5-10 years time.”

 

"Italy sold 3.9 billion euros ($5.3 billion) of five-year bonds Tuesday as borrowing costs rose and demand for the debt shrank. Rome's Treasury sold the debt at an average yield of 5.6%, compared to 4.93% on July 14 when it last sold similar bonds, according to a Bloomberg report. The bid-to-cover ratio, which indicates the amount of investor demand for the debt, also fell to 1.28 times the amount on offer, down from 1.93 at the previous auction, the report added."

"The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that in 2010, median household income declined, the poverty rate increased and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.

The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 ─ the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 ─ the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010, while the percentage without coverage −16.3 percent - was not statistically different from the rate in 2009.

This information covers the first full calendar year after the December 2007-June 2009 recession. See section on the historical impact of recessions.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):

Income
•Since 2007, the year before the most recent recession, real median household income has declined 6.4 percent and is 7.1 percent below the median household income peak that occurred prior to the 2001 recession in 1999. The percentages are not statistically different from each another."
 

  • Other news, headlines and opinion:

China Called On as Lender Amid Italy Crisis

U.S. motorists may spend a record $491 billion for gasoline this year

IMF releases nearly 4 billion euros of rescue funding to Portugal

ECB Said to Dilute Distressed-Bank Plan as Debt Crisis Worsens

Alabama’s Jefferson County Again Readies for Biggest Bankruptcy Decision

Sovereign, Bank Bond Risk Reach Records on Greek Debt Concerns

Delinquency rate for CMBS highest in 14 years
 

Medicaid, charity care costs rise at hospitals (Ohio)

Greece's new generation of homeless

French banks hit as SocGen ditches assets

Merkel warns on Greece, Obama voices U.S. alarm

Raimondo warns of 'death spiral' for state pensions

Import Prices in U.S. Fall a Second Time in Three Months on Food, Oil Drop ("Compared with a year earlier, import prices rose 13 percent")
 

U.K. Inflation Accelerates to 4.5%, Meets Estimates as Clothes Prices Jump

Illinois Says Hospitals No Longer ‘Poorhouses’ Shielded From Property Tax

UK total pensions liability increases by 75% in just one month

 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 845
Greek homeless
I love the last line of the article. Surreal.
 
 
"Greece: A new tax may pull the country from the brink of default, but more needs to be done,"

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Greece+generation+homeless/5392390/story.html#ixzz1XqVxNVdP

Ken C's picture
Ken C
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2009
Posts: 753
MarkM wrote: I love the last
MarkM wrote:
I love the last line of the article. Surreal.
 
 
"Greece: A new tax may pull the country from the brink of default, but more needs to be done,"

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Greece+generation+homeless/5392390/story.html#ixzz1XqVxNVdP

 

Yes, Lets squeeze that turnip a little more. There must be some blood in there somewhere.

 

DRHolden's picture
DRHolden
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 18 2009
Posts: 131
Saudi Arabia's water needs eating into oil wealth

Lack of water poses major challenge to agricultural, mining industries; kingdom uses nearly double amount of water per capita than global average.

Long before it understood the value of oil, the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia knew the worth of water.

But the leading oil exporter's water challenges are growing as energy-intensive desalination erodes oil revenues while peak water looms more ominously than peak oil, the theory that supplies are at or near their limit, with nowhere to go but down.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=237825

saxplayer00o1's picture
saxplayer00o1
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 30 2009
Posts: 4148
SC pension plan's gap soars to $17 billion

"A funding gap for South Carolina's main pension plan has soared to $17 billion, according to a draft of an expert's report released Tuesday.

South Carolina lawmakers will get a briefing on the report Wednesday are expected to consider a new round of state retirement system overhauls and likely carve into future benefits.

The draft report shows $17 billion gap if all eligible workers in the system retired now and the system had to cover that tab. While accepted guidelines say pension gaps should be covered within 30 years, the experts' draft report shows South Carolina would never be able to cover the gap."
 

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Rossi's latest con-trick. He conjures up 1MW.

Here is a preview of Rossi's 1Mw energy catalyser that works by an unknown nuclear process.

And the audacity of the man.

Just over half an hour without external energy input. Ny Teknik assisted recently in a test where the ‘E-cat’ invented by Andrea Rossi was run in self-sustained mode.

Quote from Here.

dave s's picture
dave s
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 20 2009
Posts: 56
Rossi's Latest...

This continues to have every appearance of pure charlatan-ism. 

heffe's picture
heffe
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2009
Posts: 95
Jobs and Taxes - Obsolete?

In reference to the articles on Obama's plan to create jobs, here is a great article on CNN describing why the belief in a paid income labor system is becoming obsolete.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-07/opinion/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete_1_toll-collectors-robots-jobs?_s=PM:OPINION

Favorite quote of mine from the article "Its not that we dont have enough stuff, its that we dont enough ways for people to prove that they deserve this stuff."

And referencing the almost daily assault of articles of taxation and deficits, there is far more outstanding debt then there is money, even if we taxed every citizen 100% of their income, and cut 100% of all gov't funding, we'd still be in debt by trillions.  Fractional reserve banking along with centralized, for-profit banks purchasing gov't bonds as instruments of debt equates to the reality that all money is created through debt.  An alternative currency that doesn't resort to fiat currencies, or even scarcity based gold standards, is an energy accounting unit.

It holds many tremendous benefits as a form of currency, as it can be global, abundant, not based on debt but by means of energy creation, whether through human labor or renewable sources. It is also relates to the resources of the planet, creating a 'steady state economy' that doesn't require growth. This would eliminate deflationary/inflationary cycles, as the increases of currency would reflect increases in energy production/extraction. Another great aspect is that its created through community, ground up organizations. Last great point of EAU's is that they can be universal, a mathematical equations built around principles of thermodynamics that every community in the world can understand.

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: Jobs and Taxes - Obsolete?

That is a very thought-provoking CNN opinion piece.  And it raises an interesting point: a lot of "employed" people are performing completely non-productive functions in society anyway, so what should employment be the arbitrary factor by which they become entitled to receive resources?  The writher's suggestion that basic human needs should be a right while the rest of stuff should be paid for voluntarily -- sort of a compromise between the pure libertarian and pure soviet systems -- is basically what we have now, isn't it?

But this piece raises two questions:

(1) Let's accept that everybody has a "right" to basic human needs.  That's fine.  But exactly who shall they exercise this right against?  After all, a government of the people has nothing of its own to give - it can give only what it first takes away.  So how can we say that both jobs and taxes could become obsolete?

After all, unless we utilize forced or slave human labor in government-owned production facilities, how will we accumulate the reserve of goods against which all humans will claim their "right" to basic services without taxation? 

The government could certainly operate its own production facilities and pay people to work in them, but where will it get the money, energy supplies, and physical capital to do this?  Again the question of taxation arises.  The government must take these things by force, or the threat of force, from one who already has them.  So considering that the government has nothing to give other than what it first takes away from another peron, how can taxes ever become obsolete if the promise of universal access to basic needs is to be fulfilled?

(2)  What makes us believe that the government will be any better than any othecorporation at distributing resources without stopping to unjustly enrich itself?  We can appoint people to public offices who are supposed to be working "for the good of the people," but bureaucracies are staffed -- like any other organization -- with people who are at a basic human level acting in their self-interest, working to promote their own careers, power, and personal salaries.

For this reason you will never find an example of a bureaucracy that recommends that it be disbanded or its size reduced.  A good example is the U.S. Energy Department.  Formed in the wake of the 1970's energy crises for the explicit purpose of reducing the U.S.'s dependence upon imported oil, the Energy Department failed completely in its own primary mission.  But it's still here, and the salaries of its workers are rising.  In fact, practical experience has shown that government bureaucracies are just as good - if not better than - private corporations at skimming cream off the top for themselves.  So what changes if we shift the distribution of resources from one organization to another?

(3)  Under any system, there must always be at least some people devoted to jobs of primary production.  What will be the impact of increasing energy and natural resource scarcity on the system, as increasing numbers of people are forced to shift into productive jobs (including, perhaps, farming) as the surplus energy available to support non-productive jobs decreases?

heffe's picture
heffe
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2009
Posts: 95
Jobs and Taxes - Obsolete? Reply to jrf29
jrf29 wrote:

That is a very thought-provoking CNN opinion piece.  And it raises an interesting point: a lot of "employed" people are performing completely non-productive functions in society anyway, so what should employment be the arbitrary factor by which they become entitled to receive resources?  The writher's suggestion that basic human needs should be a right while the rest of stuff should be paid for voluntarily -- sort of a compromise between the pure libertarian and pure soviet systems -- is basically what we have now, isn't it?

But this piece raises two questions:

(1) Let's accept that everybody has a "right" to basic human needs.  That's fine.  But exactly who shall they exercise this right against?  After all, a government of the people has nothing of its own to give - it can give only what it first takes away.  So how can we say that both jobs and taxes could become obsolete?

After all, unless we utilize forced or slave human labor in government-owned production facilities, how will we accumulate the reserve of goods against which all humans will claim their "right" to basic services without taxation? 

The government could certainly operate its own production facilities and pay people to work in them, but where will it get the money, energy supplies, and physical capital to do this?  Again the question of taxation arises.  The government must take these things by force, or the threat of force, from one who already has them.  So considering that the government has nothing to give other than what it first takes away from another peron, how can taxes ever become obsolete if the promise of universal access to basic needs is to be fulfilled?

(2)  What makes us believe that the government will be any better than any othecorporation at distributing resources without stopping to unjustly enrich itself?  We can appoint people to public offices who are supposed to be working "for the good of the people," but bureaucracies are staffed -- like any other organization -- with people who are at a basic human level acting in their self-interest, working to promote their own careers, power, and personal salaries.

For this reason you will never find an example of a bureaucracy that recommends that it be disbanded or its size reduced.  A good example is the U.S. Energy Department.  Formed in the wake of the 1970's energy crises for the explicit purpose of reducing the U.S.'s dependence upon imported oil, the Energy Department failed completely in its own primary mission.  But it's still here, and the salaries of its workers are rising.  In fact, practical experience has shown that government bureaucracies are just as good - if not better than - private corporations at skimming cream off the top for themselves.  So what changes if we shift the distribution of resources from one organization to another?

(3)  Under any system, there must always be at least some people devoted to jobs of primary production.  What will be the impact of increasing energy and natural resource scarcity on the system, as increasing numbers of people are forced to shift into productive jobs (including, perhaps, farming) as the surplus energy available to support non-productive jobs decreases?

 

Thank you for reading the article and taking the time to present some questions on the issue. Let me address these point by point so that we can both reach a higher understanding of the issue at hand. One thing you forgot to consider is how contemporary currency systems operate, and how alternatives such as the EAU's I described earlier can both bring about abundance and be entirely sustainable, with entirely ground up decision making and community based production.

1) "Who shall they exercise this right upon" needs to be understood more clearly. You are forgetting that productivity is going up as technology advances, and your question is referencing contemporary currency systems, which are based on debt, therefore are scarce in supply compared to available resources. Our current money systems promote an insane amount of waste, think produce in grocery stores going bad because it sat too long or cost efficiency of business. All the governments in which you reference that 'take from others to disperse around' are working within a backwards monetary framework. Its like blaming the mechanic for not being able to repair the car that was built wrong in the first place.

The big point of the article is that jobs in large portion of the society are becoming obsolete, as those jobs disappear, so will the tax revenue they were providing, thus making the whole 'gov't taxing producers to disperse to nonproducers' obsolete as well. Production should be as efficient as possible, therefore, every community should be able to produce as much of its own resources as possible, while utilization mechanization in every way possible. This way these 'rights' aren't infringing upon people performing labor. Basic needs can be met through automation, so why is it we still cling to the notion that someone has to 'own' these machines? We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body. Thus a value shift towards 'usership' instead of ownership needs to take place, as this would allow access abundance for everyone in the world.

2) You use the word 'government' numerous times throughout your post, dont trust contemporary governments? Nor should you.  But again, you are forgetting to consider how our monetary systems operate, and why current gov'ts are just expansions of the currency system we use. Corruption is the foundation of monetary economics, for exploitation and unhindered resource acquisition are the most profitable avenues, thus any regulatory system composed of people (subject to bias, either through belief, desires, or lack of information) is going to be invalid as well. And again, as I mentioned earlier, current money systems are based on scarcity, and created through debt. If money systems were instead based on energy production/extraction, such as the energy accounting units I described in my earlier post, they would be an abundance based currency, allowing ease of access through automated means while maintaining dynamic equilibrium. There would be no need to tax or regulate corporations, for they would no longer be relevent.

3) I assume you are referencing the peak in oil production, and I would also assume that your disposition towards the future is one of decling energy surplus. A city in Germany for example, produces 300% more energy than it uses, all through renewable means. If every community focused on energy abundance like this, rather than growth in jobs and tax revenue, there would be no energy shortfall to worry about. In reference to the necessity of labor in some fields, I completely agree, but we have been instilled within a paid income labor system for so long its hard to consider alternatives. What about autonomous, self directed, voluntary labor systems, where the capital gained is in the enjoyment of learning, creating and contributing itself. Nikola Tesla, the Wright Bro's, Watt, almost every one of the inventions that changed human history were done through individuals who enjoyed doing what they did. As for the jobs that aren't enjoyable, we need to consider why they exist, and how to make them obsolete. Not to mention, with an abundance based economic system, I feel people would contribute to the greater good in large numbers. It is often assumed that laziness is a human trait that will exist regardless, but really it seems that laziness is a reaction towards a forced labor system within a restricted access society. If I had the means to travel the world and learn about engineering, and have the ability to research and design, I would gladly contribute without monetary exchange. It seems backwards, but I think human productivity would triple, as people would have motivation to do so, other than todays competitive, scarcity based, restricted access paradigm.

I hope this helps to answer your questions...

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
clarification
heffe wrote:

We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body.

Could you offer some clarification on this point?  At face value, I'd pass.

heffe's picture
heffe
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2009
Posts: 95
Clarification for ao
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:

We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body.

Could you offer some clarification on this point?  At face value, I'd pass.

Well the Native Americans recognized this, and basically its a belief that in our tiny little fraction of an existence on this planet, that we can control or own land or resources.  And how is it not valid at face value?  You are controlling your body right now, but eventually it will no longer be under your control, as you are dead. Same with land you might own; its a piece of Earth thats existed for millions of years prior, and will exist for millions of years after. Thus we are essentially 'using' a piece of land for the time being.  If society was based around 'usership' similar to a library, there would be no need to own a house full of stuff that you might use 1/100 of the time.

The value in a vehicle is not in me owning it, to have sit in my driveway 80% of the time, but rather in its utility; the ability for quick transportation. Same with things like a camera or even climbing equipment. This doesn't imply that we shouldn't own somethings for our personal use,, but rather a value shift from owning every good or item you'd like to use at some point.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
heffe wrote: ao wrote: heffe
heffe wrote:
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:

We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body.

Could you offer some clarification on this point?  At face value, I'd pass.

Well the Native Americans recognized this, and basically its a belief that in our tiny little fraction of an existence on this planet, that we can control or own land or resources.  And how is it not valid at face value?  You are controlling your body right now, but eventually it will no longer be under your control, as you are dead. Same with land you might own; its a piece of Earth thats existed for millions of years prior, and will exist for millions of years after. Thus we are essentially 'using' a piece of land for the time being.  If society was based around 'usership' similar to a library, there would be no need to own a house full of stuff that you might use 1/100 of the time.

The value in a vehicle is not in me owning it, to have sit in my driveway 80% of the time, but rather in its utility; the ability for quick transportation. Same with things like a camera or even climbing equipment. This doesn't imply that we shouldn't own somethings for our personal use,, but rather a value shift from owning every good or item you'd like to use at some point.

Getting back to the specific question, we weren't talking about land or property or resource ownership.  We were talking about our body.  I talked to a few Native Americans including an elder today.  None of them knew about any Native American beliefs saying they didn't own their body.  The body returns to the earth, yes, but that doesn't deny ownership when the spirit is in the body.  I'd be interested in knowing which tribe or tribes has or have this belief system?

heffe's picture
heffe
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2009
Posts: 95
Native Americans = Numerous Tribes among numerous eras
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:

We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body.

Could you offer some clarification on this point?  At face value, I'd pass.

Well the Native Americans recognized this, and basically its a belief that in our tiny little fraction of an existence on this planet, that we can control or own land or resources.  And how is it not valid at face value?  You are controlling your body right now, but eventually it will no longer be under your control, as you are dead. Same with land you might own; its a piece of Earth thats existed for millions of years prior, and will exist for millions of years after. Thus we are essentially 'using' a piece of land for the time being.  If society was based around 'usership' similar to a library, there would be no need to own a house full of stuff that you might use 1/100 of the time.

The value in a vehicle is not in me owning it, to have sit in my driveway 80% of the time, but rather in its utility; the ability for quick transportation. Same with things like a camera or even climbing equipment. This doesn't imply that we shouldn't own somethings for our personal use,, but rather a value shift from owning every good or item you'd like to use at some point.

Getting back to the specific question, we weren't talking about land or property or resource ownership.  We were talking about our body.  I talked to a few Native Americans including an elder today.  None of them knew about any Native American beliefs saying they didn't own their body.  The body returns to the earth, yes, but that doesn't deny ownership when the spirit is in the body.  I'd be interested in knowing which tribe or tribes has or have this belief system?

 

The term 'Native American' is vague when all the variations and differing cultures of the Northern American continent are taken into account. You have the 'basket maker culture' in Mesa Pueblo, the Iroquois, Cherokee, Apache, Choctaw, Hopi, Sioux, and the list could go on.  I think its irrelevant which specific tribe, I could spend the time looking for it but again, its not important. Really its from a quote I've heard over the years "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our grandchildren" and the exact culture who phrased this term is unknown to me, however I would opine that it was Mid-Western cultures that strategically hunted buffalo to ensure dynamic equilibrium. Again, the whole point was a reassessment of values on our part. I think the idea of letting private corporations controlling entire planetary resources for profit is the most backwards approach to resource sustainability, while meeting our needs and wants we also need to think long term in our actions.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
heffe wrote: ao wrote: heffe
heffe wrote:
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:
ao wrote:
heffe wrote:

We dont own anything, everything we think we own will no longer be ours, even our body.

Could you offer some clarification on this point?  At face value, I'd pass.

Well the Native Americans recognized this, and basically its a belief that in our tiny little fraction of an existence on this planet, that we can control or own land or resources.  And how is it not valid at face value?  You are controlling your body right now, but eventually it will no longer be under your control, as you are dead. Same with land you might own; its a piece of Earth thats existed for millions of years prior, and will exist for millions of years after. Thus we are essentially 'using' a piece of land for the time being.  If society was based around 'usership' similar to a library, there would be no need to own a house full of stuff that you might use 1/100 of the time.

The value in a vehicle is not in me owning it, to have sit in my driveway 80% of the time, but rather in its utility; the ability for quick transportation. Same with things like a camera or even climbing equipment. This doesn't imply that we shouldn't own somethings for our personal use,, but rather a value shift from owning every good or item you'd like to use at some point.

Getting back to the specific question, we weren't talking about land or property or resource ownership.  We were talking about our body.  I talked to a few Native Americans including an elder today.  None of them knew about any Native American beliefs saying they didn't own their body.  The body returns to the earth, yes, but that doesn't deny ownership when the spirit is in the body.  I'd be interested in knowing which tribe or tribes has or have this belief system?

 

The term 'Native American' is vague when all the variations and differing cultures of the Northern American continent are taken into account. You have the 'basket maker culture' in Mesa Pueblo, the Iroquois, Cherokee, Apache, Choctaw, Hopi, Sioux, and the list could go on.  I think its irrelevant which specific tribe, I could spend the time looking for it but again, its not important. Really its from a quote I've heard over the years "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our grandchildren" and the exact culture who phrased this term is unknown to me, however I would opine that it was Mid-Western cultures that strategically hunted buffalo to ensure dynamic equilibrium. Again, the whole point was a reassessment of values on our part. I think the idea of letting private corporations controlling entire planetary resources for profit is the most backwards approach to resource sustainability, while meeting our needs and wants we also need to think long term in our actions.

So what you're telling me is that your claim that we don't own our bodies is not something you can cite a specific reference for nor can you state specifically which tribe(s) hold that belief?  You seem to be skirting the direct question with more circuitous, extraneous, and parallel information but that information is not what I questioned. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments