- Pas de nouveau billet avant le 15 mars -
Un petit livre à n'est pas rater pour comprendre le sujèt: L'esprit et la pensée de Krishnamurti, pour nous les soi-disant intelectuelles!!!! ;-)
La France veut mettre en place la taxe Tobin/financière, même si l'idée peut être sympatique au début, ça va rien changer au fond.
En bref cette solution technique dans une monde virtuelle/technocrate, c'est pour se donner l'idée aux gens qu'il fond des choses. Mais en bref c'est une grande mascarade bullocrate. Pour mettre le brouillard à eux même et pire à nous! Mais ils ne sont pas conscient de tout celà.........
Alors ne soyé pas trop sévère vers eux/nous. :-) ;-)
A lire aussi:
Si j'ai bien compris François Hollande, le PS, veut aussi cette taxe financière. Il n'a rien compris non plus, ni de Marx ni d'Adam Smith et surtout l'intégralité des deux. Mais au moins le PS et Sarko sont d'accord sur quelque chose. ;-)
Malheureusement François Bayrou reste aussi aux côtés des tehnocrates, même si il est façon parler mille fois plus nuancé que Sarko et Hollande.
photo pris de nouvel obs, mais je ne suis pas certain
Tax and Customs Administration
PO Box 9100
7100 HA WINTERSWIJK
6 November 2006
Copy to : Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende and the Supreme Court
- Under fearful believers -
Reference: 64.57.502.V.XXXXXXXRe: Writ of Execution
Are we but insignificant cogs in a big machine? A machine whose most important objective is to produce money, to grow and to make profit? Can we use this money to resolve social problems both at a national and an international level? Or has money actually become a key part of the problem? For instance, can famine, disease, education and environmental challenges be fixed with money? Nowadays, money has become a goal in itself, resulting in it leading a life of its own. In the Middle Ages, God was the answer to ‘all evils’, but that also meant that society was imprisoned by a religious elite who’d confiscated the exclusive rights to God. There’s nothing essentially wrong with God or money, but when they appropriate the most important role for themselves, this creates a certain type of world and we are made subordinate to the laws we dreamt up ourselves, whether they represent God, money or something else.
Just suppose I’m going to fool you that the moon possesses special powers and that every time you look at the moon you have to pay me 20 cents. Or you take out a subscription and pay ten euros a year allowing you to look at the moon as often as you like. This may be a ridiculous example which you’d never fall for, but with God and money we have succeeded in fooling ourselves and others into this. So why wouldn’t this work with the moon or the sun, especially when I have an army and a judiciary on my side, completely independent of course (but still completely dependent on the system, faith or science).
Is money in itself worth money?
If this were actually the case, then nobody would have to work anymore, which just wouldn’t work. Therefore, it’s vital that there are enough people, and governments of course, who believe that money in itself is worth money.
Is looking at the moon worth money?
In the end, it’s a question of what we want to believe, how convincingly it will be presented and what sanctions there may be for the unbelievers. Power and fear can imprison a society for centuries, even if nobody actually wants that. I don’t blame the Tax and Customs Administration for doing what it does; after all, that’s what it was appointed to do and even that was logical initially. Nonetheless, I think it’s important that we understand that we’re all in the same boat, and as long as we keep seeing each other as competitors and/or accomplices to defend our own interests, breaking through to a more sustainable and just world will continue to be impossible. A government which subordinates itself to a system that makes the rich richer and makes society increasingly dependent loses its credibility and breeds chaos and human impotence to change things for the better. This latter point is impossible because we have to remain subservient to the law that money in itself is worth money. Other priorities are eclipsed by this and will remain as such because making money is the most important ‘economic’ priority. As a result, we’ve created a Catch 22 situation: first make money, and then we can use that money to fix the problems. I don’t know how much longer we can continue to fool ourselves and each other with this little fairytale, but it just doesn’t work in practice.
.... c'est l'évolution de notre propre conscience.
Ministry of General Affairs
Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende
PO Box 20001
2500 EA THE HAGUE
9 June 2006
Copy: to the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Tax and Customs Administration in Winterswijk and the European Court
Re: Refusal to collaborate further on the fundamental injustice within the (current) Dutch and European constitutional state, the chronic bureaucratic corruption.
- under believers -
Dear Mr Balkenende,
Thank you for your response in your letter of 22 May, which I greatly appreciate. It would seem that my letter was not very clear, which is perhaps somewhat logical. In my letter of 2 May, I question something that we have considered logical, just and scientific for 5,000 years. Something that has conditioned and pre-programmed individuals and our society as a whole for over 5,000 years will probably not be immediately clear. Although I am no lawyer, I did try to indicate in my letter that the current politico-economic system is unjust and contrary to the democratisation of society. The inseparable politico-economic ingredients competition, profit and interest have created a government that holds society and itself captive between debt and reward. This keeps society (including the government) small, dependent and adrift. It has resulted in us living in two economic worlds, one with an actual exchange of goods and services and the other a bureaucratic reflection of the goods and services traffic. This second stream is in fact the accounting side of the economy. In a healthy and open society, these two streams (economies) run completely synchronously, forming the perfect reflection of each other. This is not the case in the current politico-economic system, in which they are two separate politico-economic streams. Of course, there is a partial overlap (2%) between the goods and services economy on the one hand and the accounting ‘economy’ on the other, but over the course of time this has got completely out of hand, meaning that we’re living in a global financial casino where the largest part of accounting economy activities no longer have any roots in society, except in the belief that money in itself is worth money. Or in other words, accounting has acquired value in itself and today represents the most important‘politico-economic’ power in itself, at the expense of…….! The 5,000-year-old source that resulted in accounting acquiring value in itself and it also becoming a politico-economic power factor was uncovered by historians in Mesopotamia, the current Iraq. Today, we know it as a ceaseless number of derivatives, which are variations on that same accounting theme: interest on money.
In this letter, I will try to use a more legal approach to explain why I no longer charge (de Hutte Holding BV) and pay (EURL Petit Château Roquetaillade – Aveyron) any interest and, therefore, no longer wish to pay any more taxes on the income deriving from interest of de Hutte Holding BV. In short, this means that I refuse to support a system/structure that more or less completely undermines democratisation and justice within our society. In pure monetary terms, this undermining of the constitutional state, democracy and straightforward economic communication represents 98% of the whole. In plain language, this undermining means: a totally out of control bureaucratic fantasy at the expense of society.
From this point of view, the current politico-economic way of thinking/doing business more or less completely undermines article one of the constitution.
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
If ‘mutual competition’ really is so good for society, then I think it would be better to immediately scrap article one from our constitution. Encouraging and promoting mutual competition is nothing more than the final institutionalisation of the ‘law of the jungle’, which has automatically led to economic discrimination. For our democracy, this means that ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’. Is that what we understand by democracy? In that case, there’s nothing that we need to change today, seeing as ‘this will sort itself out’ and a winner will always emerge. The government runs a relatively small risk in such a situation, as there is always a winner who then hands over a part of the profit, with which the losers can be partially compensated. Naturally, there can’t be any full compensation because then the profit stream would dry up all too quickly. Politically, legally and practically speaking, the government has manoeuvred itself into an impossible position. Whether it is willing to recognise it or not, the government is a stakeholder in this situation, because it is dependent on the financial ‘winners’. By opting for mutual competition in society, the government has pushed aside its indispensable impartiality, thereby in fact losing all moral ground for faithfully and justly steering society.
La fossée entre politque et peuple est enorme aujourd'hui. Il y a presque quarante ans la lutte de Larzac est commencé.
Peut être aujourd'hui on doit se demander c'est quoi l'origine de la fossée entre le monde politque et le peuple?
Les différents moyens de (sur)vie?
La BCE achète de la dette italienne après l'adjudication
LONDRES, 14 novembre (Reuters) - La Banque centrale européenne a commencé à acheter de la dette italienne sur le marché secondaire, en raison d'une montée des taux de rendement à la suite d'une adjudication d'obligations à cinq ans lundi matin.
Cette adjudication de trois milliards d'euros a produit un rendement de 6,29%, le plus haut depuis l'introduction de l'euro, coupant court à l'effet apaisant qu'avait produit la nomination de Mario Monti à la présidence du Conseil italien.
Les marchés se recentrent maintenant sur l'ampleur de la tâche que Mario Monti doit accomplir, ce qui ne les rassure pas.
Un trader a dit que la BCE achetait du papier à échéance 2018 et un autre a signalé qu'elle portait son effort sur le papier de quatre à cinq ans.
Le rendement du papier italien à cinq ans gagnait deux points de base à 6,55%, après un pic de séance autour de 6,63%. (Kristen Donovan, Wilfrid Exbrayat pour le service français, édité par Dominique Rodriguez)