jueves, 24 de abril de 2014

HAZ SALTAR LA BANCA

RECIBIDO POR EMAIL:

buenas tardes
reenvío este correo que complementa el que mandé hace un rato

y disculpa si lo has recibido otra vez




Hoy lanzamos un mensaje alto y claro, podéis verlo aquí:
http://partidox.org/haz-saltar-la-banca/

Ésta es una llamada a toda la ciudadanía que ha decidido que es el 
momento de actuar.

Necesitamos información para dejar de padecer sus mentiras, para dejar 
de ser llevados de la mano como niños, para quitarnos de una vez la 
venda de los ojos. Ahora es cuando tenemos que vivir, cuidarnos y aprender.

No podemos seguir contando solo con las acciones judiciales para 
disuadir a los defraudadores. Las investigaciones se alargan años. 
Debemos llevar nuestra lucha diaria al Parlamento Europeo. Sin miedo.

Con una victoria en Europa podremos tener mayor fuerza y cambiar la 
manera de hacer
las cosas. No dentro de varios años, sino ahora.

Ahora es cuando están dejando que todo se venga abajo mientras el 
dinero… “desaparece”.

Pero no desaparece, simplemente cambia de manos; el problema es que 
nosotros perdemos el rastro del dinero.

No hablo como economista sino como experto en mecanismos de opacidad, 
como persona que lucha contra esos mecanismos.

¿Queréis saber cuál es la relación?
La desaparición del capital.
Tenemos que saber a dónde va.

No se puede esperar a que las leyes cambien y nos protejan mejor para 
hacerlo. Podemos empezar a protegernos compartiendo la información y 
coordinando mejor nuestras competencias.

Ya no son los estados demócraticos los que imponen sus leyes. Son las 
grandes multinacionales las que marcan sus pasos mientras les miran por 
encima del hombro. Hay que romper este círculo de servidumbre que no 
descansa más que sobre la corrupción de ciertos elegidos.

Es el momento de un esfuerzo común. Es el momento de salir a las calles 
de nuevo, esta vez para votar y continuar el cambio, para crear nuestra 
sociedad a diario, más allá de los periodos electorales.

El diálogo sobre nuestros destinos no puede seguir haciéndose sin que 
estemos informados y sin que participemos activamente. El futuro de 
nuestro dinero y de nuestros empleos no puede volver a decidirse sin 
nosotros.

Luchamos por el derecho a saber, sin el cual el derecho a elegir nuestro 
destino y a votar, es simplemente una parodia sin sentido.

La información es la condición para nuestra libertad y nuestra dignidad.

Este es nuestro plan. Este es nuestro objetivo.

Hervé Falciani


Anunciamos que el próximo martes 29 habrá un encuentro abierto con Hervé 
Falciani en el chat de Público.es http://charlas.publico.es/

Por favor, ayúdanos a que este mensaje llegue a todas partes 
compartiendo en FB:

https://www.facebook.com/PartidoXPartidodelFuturo/posts/777392105613082?stream_ref=10 


Y en Twitter con el ht #FalcianiXEuropa

lunes, 21 de abril de 2014

Especulación y caciquismo


José Manuel Naredo  (25 de julio de 2009)
No puede haber cambio del modelo económico imperante sin corregir la marcada dimensión especulativa y caciquil que ha venido caracterizando a la economía española durante el pasado auge. ¿Por qué no ha mejorado sensiblemente la calidad de vida de la población cuando la economía española ha venido disfrutando de una financiación inusualmente barata y abundante? ¿Cuál ha sido el destino de esa financiación?


Una parte importante de la misma se invirtió en la compraventa de empresas y activos patrimoniales preexistentes como tarea mucho más prioritaria en la lucha por el poder y por la “creación de valor” de las grandes corporaciones que la de cuidar su propia actividad ordinaria, ligada a la venta de bienes o servicios. Las mismas empresas no financieras vinieron invirtiendo en adquirir activos financieros, más del doble de lo que destinaban a mejorar o ampliar sus infraestructuras y equipos, privilegiando así, la especulación frente a la fabricación de bienes o servicios, cada vez más subcontratada y precarizada. Las copiosas inyecciones de liquidez que se vienen practicando reanimarán, evidentemente, este juego especulativo si no se modifica el contexto que lo propicia.
Otra gran parte de la financiación ha venido alimentando la burbuja inmobiliario-financiera y la constelación de megaproyectos e infraestructuras generalmente asociados a ella. Una vez obtenidas las plusvalías de la recalificación de terrenos y/o los beneficios de la fase de construcción, suele evidenciarse el fiasco económico y el sinsentido de los megaproyectos, ahora subrayado por la crisis inmobiliaria. Numerosos exponentes de este proceder han venido desordenando el territorio al dictado de oligarquías político-empresariales que sembraban por doquier, con el apoyo del dinero público, parques temáticos, nuevas “ciudades” e infraestructuras, sin contar con las necesidades de la población ni con las vocaciones del territorio. Tal vez la operación denominada Reino de Don Quijote, en Ciudad Real, pase a la historia por haber contribuido a la bancarrota de Caja Castilla La Mancha, al forzarla, entre otras cosas, a financiar un ruinoso aeropuerto privado para que accedieran los ricos del mundo a jugar en el nuevo casino que servía de pretexto a la operación. Pero esto parece un juego de niños en comparación con la treintena de casinos y la megalópolis del juego que se pretendían instalar en el desierto de Los Monegros…
Afortunadamente la crisis vino a parar tamaños despropósitos. Pero, una vez pinchada la burbuja inmobiliaria, queda el negocio puro y duro de la construcción de infraestructuras inflado por el dinero público que fluye ahora con redobladas pretensiones anticíclicas, haciendo que la letra E de España avale las obras que sin ton ni son salpican el territorio. ¿Ha preguntado alguien a la ciudadanía cuáles son sus prioridades, antes de emprender un programa de este porte? No parece que así sea y, sin cambiar las reglas del juego, las nuevas inversiones seguirán alimentando la dimensión especulativa y caciquil de la economía española que nos ha llevado a la penosa situación actual.
Economista y estadístico

domingo, 20 de abril de 2014

Fritz the Cat-Full-the-movie

Qué es Complaciencia?

Complaciencia es el hecho y la acción de complacer

Además, complacencia suena fatal, y nos está gritando que es antinatural, para nuestros sentires, que se sienten maltrechos cuando tratamos de pronunciarla sin paladear sílaba por sílaba a la fuerza, para no caer en el atractor evolutivo, fluente, que lo hace mucho mejor con la "i", esa "i" que aparece (en) complaciente, pues se s("i")ente, y es que siempre he tenido la picá de que ciencia viene esactamente de sentir, scientia, esencia, lo que se siente se hulismea, olfactea, lo mas animal, lo invisible, y lo más refinado...

Nuestra simbiodiversa definición; Complaciencia: la Ciencia Complacer Compartiendo.

A continuación, lo que nos dice enternet: 


En la columna de la izquierda se listan palabras similares a "complaciencia" y palabras que incluyen "complaciencia" o algo similar en su significado.


No se pudo encontrar "complaciencia" en el diccionario de sinónimos sin embargo al revisar "complaciencia" o voces comparables se pudo ofrecer otros resultados de utilidad.
No es posible dar con la palabra "complaciencia" en el diccionario de antónimosaunque al revisar "complaciencia" o palabras equivalentes se logró presentar alternativas que pueden ser útiles.
No fue posible dar con el término "complaciencia" en el glosario de términos gauchescos y criollos de Argentina sin embargo buscando "complaciencia" o expresiones parecidas se logró exponer los listados que se presentan.
No es posible encontrar el término "complaciencia" en el glosario de lunfardo y giros de Argentina aunque al indagar "complaciencia" o partículas análogas se pudo brindar los listados que se presentan.
Imposible dar con "complaciencia" en el glosario de jergas y modismos de Argentina no obstante al revisar "complaciencia" o expresiones análogas se consiguió proponer alternativas que pueden ser útiles.

sábado, 19 de abril de 2014

Una Epistemología del Sur

Here the complet book:

http://books.google.es/books?id=NUkI0AId42sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Una+Epistemolog%C3%ADa+del+Sur&hl=es&sa=X&ei=YTVSU_r3K-uA7QawjIHADg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Una%20Epistemolog%C3%ADa%20del%20Sur&f=false

Here a recension:

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=74721474017


"To travel means learning-and-apply".

Maybe the best (and minimum) tribute to their southern Masters,
from the part of northern Anthropologists,
would be equal to =

Apply "Una Epistemología del Sur",

Within the Habitat and Community,

Where the Anthropologist lives,


Guerra a las fronteras,

Today disciplinary borders among academic disciplines,

Makes more Damn,

Than all (actual) wars together,


Wars are too,

To risk our lives,

Just one step from our doors,

("la guerra callada del tráfico", Doctoral Thesis of Public Health,
Universidad de Valencia. Academic Title: Epidemiología de los Accidentes
de Tráfico en España from 1920 to 1975"


La costra de Wilhem Reich,

Made Chatarra por tonnes,

Durmiendo plácidamente,

En la resaca de Viernes Santo,



Podríamos distinguir tres tipos de costra urbana,

Hormigón, Asfalto y Chatarra aparcada.



Cada una de estas superficies urbanas,

Esconde grandes tesoros debajo,

O encima,



Tejados y terrazas son en potencia,

Junto con los muros verticales,

Huertos comestibles,


Que además refrescan y se comen,

Los asfixiantes gases de los coches,

etc...



Agustin Antunez Corrales

Universidad de Málaga








> Reading this text, the main problem seems to be:
>
>
>  - "There are no alternatives capable of supplanting oil as the main
> global transportation fuel in the foreseeable future." -
>
>
> But here I found another cognitive dissonance. Because we hide/ignore
> another ways to find a solution.
>
> In stead of to try supplanting oil, we may direct our attention towards
> the very low eficiency of those transportation systems based on private
> cars. To increase the eficiency of our transportation systems, we could
> see how many cities and regions have solved this "big" problem.
>
> Sometimes ago, the chief of International Monetary Fund, in relation with
> the problems of oil markets and economy, said that "we could solve the
> problem impulsing decidedly at a global level the use of bikes by
> citizens".
>
> In fact, in east Europe the impulse for biking among urban aged people has
> taken multiple advantages, among them, more health for users, and more
> habitable cities.
>
> Of course you or me alone cannot change transportation systems from today
> to tomorrow. But if society and governments are now more aware of climate
> change, maybe the easy solution comes from urban and regional planning,
> incorporating the long experiences that Do exist already in our connected
> world,in cities and regions where people have enough alternatives to use
> their private car.
>
> If maybe 80% of oil is actualy lost because of our so low eficiency
> transportation systems, based in infraused private cars, to look for
> alternative fuel seems out of sense. We need to focus in this
> overcomsuption of fuel. Maybe no other industry allows to function with
> this so low eficiency, as our private car -based systems of
> transportation.
>
> Reducing a high percentage of private cars from our cities would have a
> high number of advantages (not related to climatic change) that help to
> impulse the need and opportunity of this endeavour.
>
> Maybe you never ask:
>
> Why there are citizens comdemned to suffer each day of their lives a
> public space collapsed by privates cars reducing so much their quality of
> living?
>
> In the meanwhile there are other citizens enjoing cities made for
> citizens, and not for cars.
>
> Why this injustice?
>
> Moscow, 1989. State collapsed, and Bus systems too. And people wanted to
> travel to their destiny. And no bus functioned. People owners of vans put
> their vehicles for public use, as a emergency solution. An intermediate
> public transportation system were borning in Russia: The collective taxis.
>
> In many southern countries there are diferent intermediate transportation
> systems, as Vans, Collective taxis and Minibus (Dolmus in Istambul).
>
> The question is: Why these intermediate public transportation systems seem
> to have disappeared in the Northen countries?
>
> Is it possible to reincorporate them today?
>
> I think yes!
>
> We could thus speak of virtual oil?
>
> ((Pardon, I am not english fluent))
>
>
> Agustín Antúnez Corrales
>
> University of Málaga
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Robert
>> Rapier<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/15/how-do-you-justify-consuming-exxonmobils-oil/#more-16458>,
>> one of my go-to writers on energy matters (esp oil), offers some
>> interesting comments on the Exxon's evaluation of the likelihood of
>> stranded assets.
>>
>> Introduction
>>
>> Sometimes the written word is easy to misinterpret. More than once I
>> have
>> written an article to find that some minor point I made became the
>> focus,
>> or that the point I was making was just lost. Most of the time that’s my
>> fault, but sometimes it’s because an editor wanted to spice up the title
>> and make it a bit more controversial. In that case, that can inflame the
>> reader before they even begin to read, and they either make comments
>> based
>> on a misleading title, or they read the article with significant bias.
>>
>> I think there is a risk of misinterpretation with today’s article, so I
>> want to spell out my intent up front. This should not be read as a
>> defense
>> of ExxonMobil or their business practices, because that’s not what it
>> is.
>> It’s an attempt to get the reader to understand how they think, and why
>> they do some of the things they do. Importantly, you may not be able to
>> understand their actions given your view of the world. It’s not because
>> they are simply denying reality so they can keep making money, they just
>> don’t see the same things you see. Here is my attempt to explain that.
>>
>> A Carbon Asset Bubble?
>>
>> The 2009 Copenhagen
>> Accord<https://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php>
>> on
>> climate change stipulated that if the worst impacts of climate change
>> are
>> to be avoided, we have to stop taking fossil fuels from the ground and
>> burning them. Doing so has been increasing the carbon dioxide in the
>> atmosphere for the past two centuries. Former Vice President Al Gore has
>> been but one high profile voice advocating for leaving those fossil
>> fuels
>> in the ground, which would create a big problem for fossil fuel
>> companies
>> whose value is based on their fossil fuel reserves. Gore outlined his
>> position last year in a Wall Street Journal editorial The Coming Carbon
>> Asset
>> Bubble<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163663464339836?mod=djemEditorialPage_h>.
>>
>> This is obviously an item of significant interest for fossil fuel
>> companies and their shareholders. In fact, in February several investor
>> groups filed shareholder
>> resolutions<http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/shareholders-file-resolutions-to-press-fossil-fuel-companies-on-low-carbon-strategies-carbon-asset-risk>
>> with 10 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron
>> (NYSE: CVX), Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN), Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) and
>> Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), seeking an assessment of how they are
>> preparing for the possibility that some of their fossil fuel reserves
>> may
>> become stranded under a low-carbon scenario.
>>
>> ExxonMobil Responds
>>
>> ExxonMobil responded to these resolutions with a 30-page
>> report<http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report%20-%20Energy%20and%20Carbon%20-%20Managing%20the%20Risks.pdf>.
>> The company indicated that its investment decisions are based on a
>> comprehensive annual analysis of the global outlook for energy that is
>> consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy
>> Outlook and the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual
>> Energy
>> Outlook. In other words, investment decisions are not simply based on
>> the
>> world according to ExxonMobil, but also on the world energy outlook from
>> the US government and the IEA, which represents 28 member countries
>> (including the US).
>>
>> The report states that ExxonMobil takes the threat of climate change
>> seriously, a point reiterated by ExxonMobil government affairs chief Ken
>> Cohen in an Associated Press
>> interview<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023271795_apxexxonclimatechange.html>
>> following the paper’s release. “We know enough based on the research and
>> science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps
>> should be taken to address that risk,” Cohen said.
>>
>> I am not going to get into the gist of the report here, except to
>> summarize ExxonMobil’s position, which is: “World demand for oil will
>> continue to be very strong, and our oil reserves will not be stranded.”
>> If
>> you want to know the basis for their argument, it’s laid out in the
>> report.
>>
>> ExxonMobil Answers the Wrong Question
>>
>> Those pushing for the resolution didn’t like that answer. While
>> acknowledging that responding was a step in the right direction, Natasha
>> Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, stated: “The
>> question
>> is not whether or not we’ll face the low carbon standard, but whether
>> they
>> are prepared to address it. We need to know what’s at stake. But at
>> least
>> now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario
>> and placing investor capital at risk.”
>>
>> With all due respect, that might not have been the question you asked,
>> but
>> if ExxonMobil doesn’t believe it’s a credible scenario, then they aren’t
>> going to spend a lot of time and money addressing it. As an example, how
>> much time do you spend each day planning how you will spend your lottery
>> winnings? If you aren’t spending any time, you will be totally
>> unprepared
>> for winning the lottery. Oh, you don’t spend that much time on it
>> because
>> you don’t believe the outcome is likely? You may fantasize about what
>> you
>> would do if you won the lottery, but you don’t spend a lot of time each
>> day making financial plans based on that outcome.
>>
>> Likewise, I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that ExxonMobil is
>> spending some efforts on alternatives to oil. It’s not a lot relative to
>> their overall business, but it’s relative to how likely they think
>> demand
>> is shifting away from oil. And if demand starts to shift, they will
>> shift
>> their spending to try to capture where the markets are headed.
>>
>> That’s how oil companies operate in the real world, and not in the
>> cartoon
>> world many people think they inhabit. People view them through different
>> lenses and see their own projections, but the reality is that ExxonMobil
>> has seen a future in which oil continues to be the basis for
>> transportation (as does the EIA and IEA), and they have been correct in
>> that view since they have been in existence.
>>
>> But that doesn’t mean they can’t change. It just means that the catalyst
>> for change isn’t necessarily YOUR view that their oil reserves will be
>> stranded. Which brings me to my final point, which is reflected in the
>> title of this essay.
>>
>> Cognitive Dissonance
>>
>> With some extremely rare exceptions, the people who brought those
>> resolutions forward that demanded to know how ExxonMobil would cope with
>> leaving their oil reserves in the ground – all of them use oil. My point
>> is not to argue hypocrisy, but rather the cognitive dissonance at play.
>>
>> Those of us who are concerned about climate change – and I include
>> myself
>> in that group – all justify our consumption of oil in different ways. We
>> either reason that our individual contribution won’t make that much
>> difference, and what we would have to sacrifice to live without oil
>> isn’t
>> proportional to the miniscule impact on the environment from our single
>> contribution. Or, we reason that we do what we can to minimize our
>> personal consumption, but by using oil to travel around to urge others
>> to
>> limit consumption (the Al Gore/Bill McKibben sort of justification), our
>> net impact will be lower oil consumption.
>>
>> The thing is, ExxonMobil can argue exactly the same points. First of
>> all,
>> oil is a very small contributor relative to coal (and coal consumption
>> is
>> for me a very different argument), and ExxonMobil is a small percentage
>> of
>> global oil production. So ExxonMobil can make the argument “our impact
>> just isn’t that great”, just as individuals do.
>>
>> But oil also has few viable substitutes relative to coal. So ExxonMobil
>> can reason that their relative contribution to climate change is very
>> low,
>> while the impact of affordable transportation for people is great. They
>> can further argue (and did in the response to the shareholder
>> resolution)
>> that they are doing what they can to lower their environmental impact.
>>
>> So just keep in mind that if you want to press ExxonMobil to leave their
>> oil in the ground, you are on thin ice when it comes to arguing why it’s
>> then OK for you to use the oil they produce. If you use oil, you are
>> part
>> of the reason ExxonMobil continues to profit from producing the oil. If
>> you really want them to leave their oil in the ground, convince everyone
>> to stop using it, and do so yourself. Then the asset will be stranded.
>> But
>> you aren’t going to have much luck stranding the asset when demand
>> continues to grow. Every time you justify your oil consumption,
>> ExxonMobil
>> justifies producing more oil.
>>
>> But as my friend Geoffrey Styles points out in his take on the
>> issue<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/02/exxonmobil-confronts-the-carbon-bubble/>,
>> ExxonMobil does model “its projects and acquisitions at proxy costs of
>> up
>> to $80/ton of CO2, compared to current levels of $8-10/ton in the EU’s
>> Emission Trading System.” And even though they believe governments are
>> unlikely to adopt such high carbon prices, even 10 times the current
>> value
>> of carbon dioxide emissions in the EU is unlikely to strand Exxon’s
>> petroleum assets because there just isn’t a good substitute.
>>
>> Conclusions
>>
>> In my view, the relative benefit of future oil consumption is far
>> greater
>> than the relative benefit of future coal consumption, because oil has
>> fewer potential substitutes. There are many different ways of producing
>> electricity at a price that is competitive with coal, but with lower
>> emission of carbon dioxide. In a low carbon emission scenario, the
>> lion’s
>> share of the reduction effort should be directed at coal. Coal is a much
>> larger relative contributor, and there are potential replacements.
>>
>> Thus, I think ExxonMobil gave a reasonable answer in saying that it has
>> looked at the risks, and doesn’t believe any of its reserves are likely
>> to
>> be stranded. There are no alternatives capable of supplanting oil as the
>> main global transportation fuel in the foreseeable future. There will
>> continue to be contributions from biofuels, and electric transportation
>> will continue to make inroads, but crude will continue to do the heavy
>> lifting.
>>
>> Link to Original Article: How Do You Justify Consuming ExxonMobil’s
>> Oil?<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/15/how-do-you-justify-consuming-exxonmobils-oil/>
>>
>> You can find Robert
>> Rapier<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2006/01/12/about-me/> on
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/RRapier>,
>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-rapier/5/7ab/10a>, or
>> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/robert.rapier.1>.
>>
>
>