http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-06/matrix-exposed The Matrix Exposed by Tyler Durden Sep 6, 2016 6:18 PM 0 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com, I define corporatism as aneconomic model (such as our existing) that prioritizesshort term profit maximization above everythingelse even consuming all other aspects of society to attain that goal. Now I try not to simply opine on matters I discuss but attempt to substantiate my claimswith objectivequantitative analysis. And yet it amazes me the number of ‘experts’ and otherwise out there that don’tjust disagree with me but quite aggressively take exception to my claims. What is really fascinating to me is that so many stringent supportersof corporatism honestly believe they are proponents of capitalism. And it is for them thatI’ve set outto unleash the iniquitoustruth with such clarity so asto finally sever theirmisplacedloyalties to thosefalse authorities whowould have themnot only believe but defend that the system is, in fact, what ‘They’say it is. Now before we go on, I must warn you there is apotential risk lyingsomewhere between jest and certainty that you will never see the world the same way again . And so if this is something that will cause you a sense of unending doomthen perhaps best to click over to CNBC. And so…. “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.” Recently I provided some charts that show Wall Street profits up some 800% over the past 30 yearswhile over that same period median weekly earnings for the American worker have risen about 9%. The point of this was not to make a moral judgement about central bankers (I’ll leave that to you), but to highlight the fact that policy objectives are best understood through policy results. Now in today’s world of continuously updated news, facts and figures it becomes almost impossible to gauge real progress. Werarely ever hear about YoY results anymore let alone 5 year or 10 year results. Our standard of measure is relative to yesterday or at most last quarter. This allows the artistic freedom of seasonality adjustments. You see YoY results don’t require seasonal adjustments and that means the raw figures would have to be exposed. And well, that is a dangerous proposition for any government office or agency. But by keeping us focused on a new individual leaf each day they have prevented us from noticing the forest has burned down around us. So take a step back with me and let’s look at the long term results to see exactly what the policy objectives have and continue to be. What we are about to see is that for those not already in retirement and especially for those just entering the real economy today the economic future is menacingand most will not survive it. Now thesubject of trade agreementsalways seems to elicit some very intense opposition to my own views. My claims have focusedaround the concept that so called Free Trade Agreements are anything but. These international trade agreements have two basic objectives. First is to create a cost arbitrage while negatingthe high risk proposition of undeveloped economies that naturally exists in a free market. Second is to protect the cost arbitrage from tariffs when targeting consumers back in developed economies. That’s really it. If you could lock those two objectives up on the back of a napkin the corporate interests would be happy for our legislators to sign it. I’m aboutto prove that these trade agreements are the very essenceof corporatism and together with fiat money have destroyed the natural self sustainment of capitalism through the requirement of private and public debt. In doing so corporatism has sabotaged the vast majority of American households thereby eradicating the capacity for economicgrowth. Leaving a tremendously precarious situation for those whose futures are not yet secured by fortune. Note thatlabour cost arbitrage is not a real competitive advantage because it only works if government legislates awaythe naturally occurring free market risk. That is by definition, not a free market concept. So please, let’s stop calling these trade agreements ‘Free Trade’. And now think about a true capitalism cycle – Investment/production requiring profit, profit requiring consumption, consumption requiring income and income requiring investment – with only those parametres could firms profit if all firms implemented a labour cost arbitrage strategy? Well let’s quickly run through it. Imagine all CEOs replace their domestic workers with cheap foreign workers in hopes of increasing profit. A trade agreement is put in place to negate the higher risk of their foreign capital investment and to ensure no tariffs are placed on products when they sell back into the domestic consumer market. So all firms build products overseas, ship them back to the US and put them on the shelves of Walmart. So far everything is looking good. We have the Investment/production stage and now just require the consumption stage to realize profits so we can start the cycle over again. However,in our capitalism cycle it appears that consumption requires income yet all CEOs replaced domestic income with cheap foreign income in an effort to increase profitability. And so how do corporations realize profits if there is no income for domestic consumers to consume? This is the absolute heart of the problem and helps to clarifythe difference between capitalism and corporatism. Corporatism strategies (trade agreements and economic cannibalism) necessitatecredit and welfare (private and public debt) whereas capitalism is self sustaining. Please understand the above is a logical syllogism because corporate profit requires a transaction to take place. If no transaction then no profit is possible. The transaction is a necessary (but not sufficient) process for corporate profit. The transaction we call a ‘sale’. The sale we call ‘consumption’. So profit necessitates consumption. Consumption can only come by way of three means, namely, income, credit and welfare. Therefore by decreasing income in an effort to increase profit (on a macro scale, which is exactly what trade agreements do i.e. pushmicroeconomic strategies on a macroeconomic scale) firms must assume the lost consumption from the lost income will be made up by credit and/or welfare. And in our current system it is. And I’m about to prove that to you beyond any shadow of a doubt. If my claims are correct, then by implementing a labour cost arbitrage on a macro scale (trade agreements) you would end up with current account deficit inflection points following major trade agreement events. The most recent trade agreement events for the US were NAFTA and the Tokyo round of GATT (which increased corporatismbenefits by more the 500% over all other rounds combined). The reason is that domestic consumption would increase materially relative to domestic production (i.e. production shipped offshore while selling that production back in the domestic consumer market). So let’s have a look at at the data. The chart depicts total current account balance (black line) and 5 Yr moving average (red line). What we find is that following both trade agreement events we had significant increases to the imbalance of domestic consumption and production. Notice the balanced current account prior to Fiat money because you can’t run deficits on a gold standard. Notice a bit of fluctuation in current account after Fiat but prior to Gatt Tokyo. And then notice the major deficit move post Gatt and the massive deficit post NAFTA. Essentially Fiat allowed fordeficits but the trade agreements unleashed the deficits. Now the above chart showsthat our existing model post trade agreements (necessarily) integratesperpetual imbalances between consumption and production (and remember gdp = gni) so this means that the imbalance must be ‘balanced’ by some input. And my claim is that exogenous input has to becredit and welfare. You’ll notice I included the point at which we moved from a quasi gold standard to a full on fiat currency. The reason is that we couldn’t implement labour cost arbitrage agreements without the ability to print endless private and public debt and so that was a necessary part of corporatism. So Let’s have look at private and public debt. The above chart depicts changes in consumer credit + welfare as a percent of changes in personal consumption expenditures. Essentially this is tracking how much of the growth in corporate revenues is coming by way of increases to credit and welfare. What we find is that while there were ebs and flows over time there was a major shift immediately following NAFTA. The shift moved the ceiling of 37% of consumer sales growth coming from credit and welfare increases before NAFTA to 37% being the floor after NAFTA. In fact in 2015 a staggering 76% of consumer sales (PCE) growth came from growth in credit and welfare. By now I must have your spidey senses tingly but I’m about toblow your mind with this next chart. I’m going to prove to youwith absolutenessthat these trade agreements that create perpetual trade deficits have a direct requirement forconsumer credit. The above chart simply adds total real consumer credit per capita / total real salaries and wages per capita (blue line) to the first trade deficit chart above. It is useful to think in terms of per capita because ultimately the macro is just the aggregate of individual circumstances and choices. The above chart has a correlation of -.9 and highly statistically significant regression results. While correlation is not causation we have our theoretical basis that predicted this very relationship and the tightness of thatrelationship is truly striking. It tells the story that these trade agreements force the economy to subsidize income (i.e. consumption) per consumer with credit . That is, the trade deficits are a result of the trade agreements as depicted in the deficit charts above. And the deficits are then directly subsidized by consumer credit, which must makeup the relative shortfall in income. Note the blue line is an almost perfect mirror image of the black line in the chart above, validating the hypothesis thatthe subsidizing credit is a direct requirement of the ‘free’ trade agreements. Yeah, I know… colours are getting a bit brighter and things are starting to look much sharper than before. Truth can be so cleansing. Now eachof these above charts are highly supportivethat the logical syllogism I discussed above is in fact absolute. It’s logical and mathematical; two things that most have very little success debating. And remember, I’m not suggesting that international trade is necessarily bad. I’m sayingwe irresponsibly develop trade agreements with corporate objectivesthat can onlybe supported by private and public debt. The antithesis of capitalism. Corporatism embodies the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism to form a uniquely destructive economic framework. So let’s look at the destructive nature of corporatism. What we’ll find is that it isn’t only destructive to the average American but to the profiters themselves. As I’ve discussed previously credit and welfare are a function of income and if income is stagnant then as credit and welfare increase we are moving toward their limit. And this means we are heading to a maximum level of consumption (which can only be achieved by way of income, credit and welfare). But not only does credit have a limit relative to income but as it increases for the sake of consumption it actually reduces the flow of consumption over the medium and long term because of interest. Now without getting too philosophical, when one researches the concept and history of interest (usury, ribbit, riba) one finds that most ancient religions (which were the basis of law) going back to the ancient Vedic Texts prohibited interest either absolutely or in some form (this includes Christianity, Judaism and Islam). And this to me is fascinating because it suggests that these ancient civilizations were wise enough to understand the potential destructive nature of interest bearing debt. Some writings actually specifically banthe concept of consumer debt. What this means is that at some point in even more ancient history some society or societies must have collapsed under the weight of indebtedness because ancient laws were based on generationalexperience. Putting this in context with the plight of most great societies in more modern history we see the old lessons were lost on us. The irresponsible expansion of money and debt being the fatal common denominator of so many great societies in recent history. So let’s look at the destruction of our modern society by way of corporatism, which is synonymous to the expansion of interest bearing private and public debt. The above chart is pretty self explanatory. What it suggests is that we are only about 5 – 10 years from moving beyond the now 45 year period of deceleration and into actual contraction. Growth in incomes, credit and population are all below 1% on a 10 year average. Consumption and welfare growth are around 4% on the 10 year average. What’s concerning is that this trend, whilesoftening during the 1990’s hasagain intensified post 2008. One thing to note is thatincome, credit and consumption growth rates all peaked immediately followingGatt Tokyo. What I’m telling you is that this is not a coincidence but a consequence. And so I guess the point here is that youno longer have to take my word for it or for that matter the word of Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, Muhammad, Jesus, Philo or even Gautama Buddha, all of whom condemned the concept of usury. An economic model that is built around interest bearing private and public debt is a form evil in that it necessarilyends in the destruction of society. Do comprehend thatevil presentsitself not as repulsivebut nefariouslyseductive and credit is nothing if not seductive. This is no longer about theory or opinion. The facts definehow this will end. If you continue to deny these absolutes then you are technically irrational i.e insane. And so I see this as an end to the debate. The policy objectives have not been what you were told. None of the economic policieswereintended for your benefit. Monetary policy is not about you or your well being. Fiscal policies have not had your interest in mind. This is not toconclude thatthose who controlyour worldmaliciously intended you direct harm. But in the very best caseyou were and are simply irrelevant in thiseconomicmodel of Corporatism. Ironically, however, the solution is your relevance and will be the subject of discussion very soon.
Welcome To The Matrix: Enslaved By Technology The Internet Of Things Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/08/2015 21:00 -0500 B+ ETC George Orwell Google Las Vegas national security SPY The Matrix in Share 25 Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute , “There will come a time when it isn't ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” ? Philip K. Dick If ever Americans sell their birthright, it will be for the promise of expediency and comfort delivered by way of blazingly fast Internet, cell phone signals that never drop a call, thermostats that keep us at the perfect temperature without our having to raise a finger, and entertainment that can be simultaneously streamed to our TVs, tablets and cell phones. Likewise, if ever we find ourselves in bondage, we will have only ourselves to blame for having forged the chains through our own lassitude, laziness and abject reliance on internet-connected gadgets and gizmos that render us wholly irrelevant. Indeed, while most of us are consumed with our selfies and trying to keep up with what our so-called friends are posting on Facebook, the megacorporation Google has been busily partnering with the National Security Agency (NSA), the Pentagon , and other governmental agencies to develop a new “human” species, so to speak. In other words, Google—a neural network that approximates a global brain—is fusing with the human mind in a phenomenon that is called “singularity,” and they’ve hired transhumanist scientist Ray Kurzweil to do just that. Google will know the answer to your question before you have asked it, Kurzweil said. “ It will have read every email you will ever have written, every document, every idle thought you’ve ever tapped into a search-engine box. It will know you better than your intimate partner does. Better, perhaps, than even yourself .” But here’s the catch: the NSA and all other government agencies will also know you better than yourself. As William Binney, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA said, “ The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control .” Science fiction, thus, has become fact. We’re fast approaching Philip K. Dick’s vision of the future as depicted in the film Minority Report . There, police agencies apprehend criminals before they can commit a crime, driverless cars populate the highways, and a person’s biometrics are constantly scanned and used to track their movements, target them for advertising, and keep them under perpetual surveillance. Cue the dawning of the Age of the Internet of Things, in which internet-connected “things” will monitor your home, your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and your life under control and relatively worry-free. The key word here, however, is control . In the not-too-distant future, “ just about every device you have — and even products like chairs, that you don’t normally expect to see technology in — will be connected and talking to each other .” By 2018, it is estimated there will be 112 million wearable devices such as smartwatches, keeping users connected it real time to their phones, emails, text messages and the Internet. By 2020, there will be 152 million cars connected to the Internet and 100 million Internet-connected bulbs and lamps . By 2022, there will be 1.1 billion smart meters installed in homes, reporting real-time usage to utility companies and other interested parties. This “connected” industry—estimated to add more than $14 trillion to the economy by 2020—is about to be the next big thing in terms of societal transformations, right up there with the Industrial Revolution , a watershed moment in technology and culture. Between driverless cars that completely lacking a steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal, and smart pills embedded with computer chips, sensors, cameras and robots, we are poised to outpace the imaginations of science fiction writers such as Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov. By the way, there is no such thing as a driverless car. Someone or something will be driving, but it won’t be you. The 2015 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas is a glittering showcase for such Internet-connected techno gadgets as smart light bulbs that discourage burglars by making your house look occupied, smart thermostats that regulate the temperature of your home based on your activities, and smart doorbells that let you see who is at your front door without leaving the comfort of your couch. Nest, Google’s $3 billion acquisition, has been at the forefront of the “connected” industry, with such technologically savvy conveniences as a smart lock that tells your thermostat who is home, what temperatures they like, and when your home is unoccupied; a home phone service system that interacts with your connected devices to “learn when you come and go” and alert you if your kids don’t come home; and a sleep system that will monitor when you fall asleep, when you wake up, and keep the house noises and temperature in a sleep-conducive state. The aim of these internet-connected devices, as Nest proclaims, is to make “ your house a more thoughtful and conscious home .” For example, your car can signal ahead that you’re on your way home, while Hue lights can flash on and off to get your attention if Nest Protect senses something’s wrong. Your coffeemaker, relying on data from fitness and sleep sensors, will brew a stronger pot of coffee for you if you’ve had a restless night. It’s not just our homes that are being reordered and reimagined in this connected age: it’s our workplaces, our health systems, our government and our very bodies that are being plugged into a matrix over which we have no real control. Moreover, given the speed and trajectory at which these technologies are developing, it won’t be long before these devices are operating entirely independent of their human creators, which poses a whole new set of worries. As technology expert Nicholas Carr notes , “As soon as you allow robots, or software programs, to act freely in the world, they’re going to run up against ethically fraught situations and face hard choices that can’t be resolved through statistical models. That will be true of self-driving cars, self-flying drones, and battlefield robots, just as it’s already true, on a lesser scale, with automated vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers.” For instance, just as the robotic vacuum, Roomba, “ makes no distinction between a dust bunny and an insect ,” weaponized drones—poised to take to the skies en masse this year—will be incapable of distinguishing between a fleeing criminal and someone merely jogging down a street. For that matter, how do you defend yourself against a robotic cop— such as the Atlas android being developed by the Pentagon —that has been programmed to respond to any perceived threat with violence? Unfortunately, in our race to the future, we have failed to consider what such dependence on technology might mean for our humanity, not to mention our freedoms. Ingestible or implantable chips are a good example of how unprepared we are, morally and otherwise, to navigate this uncharted terrain. Hailed as revolutionary for their ability to access, analyze and manipulate your body from the inside, these smart pills can remind you to take your medication, search for cancer, and even send an alert to your doctor warning of an impending heart attack. Sure, the technology could save lives, but is that all we need to know? Have we done our due diligence in asking all the questions that need to be asked before unleashing such awesome technology on an unsuspecting populace? For example, asks Washington Post reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha : What kind of warnings should users receive about the risks of implanting chip technology inside a body, for instance? How will patients be assured that the technology won’t be used to compel them to take medications they don’t really want to take? Could law enforcement obtain data that would reveal which individuals abuse drugs or sell them on the black market? Could what started as a voluntary experiment be turned into a compulsory government identification program that could erode civil liberties? Let me put it another way. If you were shocked by Edward Snowden’s revelations about how NSA agents have used surveillance to spy on Americans’ phone calls, emails and text messages, can you imagine what unscrupulous government agents could do with access to your internet-connected car, home and medications? Imagine what a SWAT team could do with the ability to access, monitor and control your internet-connected home—locking you in, turning off the lights, activating alarms, etc. Thus far, the public response to concerns about government surveillance has amounted to a collective shrug . After all, who cares if the government can track your whereabouts on your GPS-enabled device so long as it helps you find the fastest route from Point A to Point B? Who cares if the NSA is listening in on your phone calls and downloading your emails so long as you can get your phone calls and emails on the go and get lightning fast Internet on the fly? Who cares if the government can monitor your activities in your home by tapping into your internet-connected devices—thermostat, water, lights—so long as you can control those things with the flick of a finger, whether you’re across the house or across the country? As for those still reeling from a year of police shootings of unarmed citizens, SWAT team raids, and community uprisings, the menace of government surveillance can’t begin to compare to bullet-riddled bodies, devastated survivors and traumatized children. However, both approaches are just as lethal to our freedoms if left unchecked. Control is the key here. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State , total control over every aspect of our lives, right down to our inner thoughts, is the objective of any totalitarian regime. George Orwell understood this . His masterpiece, 1984 ,portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. And people are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother, who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.” Make no mistake: the Internet of Things is just Big Brother in a more appealing disguise. Even so, I’m not suggesting we all become Luddites. However, we need to be aware of how quickly a helpful device that makes our lives easier can become a harmful weapon that enslaves us. This was the underlying lesson of The Matrix , the Wachowski brothers’ futuristic thriller about human beings enslaved by autonomous technological beings that call the shots. As Morpheus, one of the characters in The Matrix , explains: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. “What truth?” asks Neo. Morpheus leans in closer to Neo: “That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.” Average: 4.65517 Your rating:None Average:4.7 (29v
标签: matrix经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
