It's not about dinosaurs

Would you rather explain away the following, or share in it?

1. The death of William Blake, 12 August 1827:

“Just before he died His Countenance became fair. His eyes Brighten'd and he burst out Singing of the things he saw in Heaven”

2. The experience of St Thomas Aquinas, 6 December 1273:

LXXIX: The witness went on to recall that while brother Thomas was saying his Mass one morning, in the chapel of St. Nicholas at Naples, something happened which profoundly affected and altered him. After Mass he refused to write or dictate; indeed he put away his writing materials. He was in the third part of the Summa, at the questions on Penance. And brother Reginald, seeing that he was not writing, said to him: 'Father, are you going to give up this great work, undertaken for the glory of God and to enlighten the world?' But Thomas replied: 'Reginald, I cannot go on.' Then Reginald, who began to fear that much study might have affected his master's brain, urged and insisted that he should continue his writing; but Thomas only answered in the same way: 'Reginald, I cannot - because all that I have written seems to me so much straw.' Then Reginald, astonished that ... brother Thomas should go to see his sister, the countess of San Severino, whom he loved in all charity; and hastening there with great difficulty, when he arrived and the countess came out to meet him, he could scarcely speak. The countess, very much alarmed, said to Reginald: 'What has happened to brother Thomas? He seems quite dazed and hardly spoke to me!' And Reginald answered: 'He has been like this since about the feast of St. Nicholas - since when he has written nothing at all.' Then again brother Reginald began to beseech Thomas to tell him why he refused to write and why he was so stupefied; and after much of this urgent questioning and insisting, Thomas at last said to Reginald: 'Promise me, by the living God almighty and by your loyalty to our Order and by the love you bear to me, that you will never reveal, as long as I live, what I shall tell you.' Then he added: 'All that I have written seems to me like straw compared with what has now been revealed to me.'

Relativism

It's hard to measure what's going on, because currencies have turned out to be rulers made out of very stretchy elastic - especially for us Brits, recently.

In this article, Kurt Kasun reproduces a chart from Marc Faber's latest newsletter, showing an estimated drop of c. 50% on the world's stockmarkets - a loss of some $30 trillion.

So I've looked at the Dow and the FTSE, as priced in Euros, since the Euro appears to be more stable than either the dollar or the pound sterling (until we discover the supermassive black hole at the centre of the European financial galaxy, no doubt).

Fasten your seatbelts

I've relayed rumours of these things here earlier: a dollar crash and US bond default. Now a respected Japanese ratings agency is preparing us for the reality. (htp: Karl Denninger)

Democratic deficit

How come I can vote several times a week at Waitrose, but only once every five years or so in national elections (and with a result that's a foregone conclusion)?

Vengeance is mine

Following comments on the last post, I see the feeling that scores should be settled is spreading - see Denninger and a threatening post to which he's linked.

UPDATE

And Jim Kunstler, too.

Every little thing's gonna be all right

From what I read, some people are becoming survivalist: storing food, water, medicines, cash, even weapons.

Perhaps it's no coincidence that BBC is currently screening a remake of Terry Nation's gripping 1975 post-catastrophe series, "Survivors". But that series assumes that most people have died suddenly because of a virus, so the ecosystem has not been destroyed by desparate, starving victims. I don't think Survivors is the model we should use. If we are to survive, it'll be together, in our populous societies, because if society breaks down, you and I are unlikely to emerge as the last people standing. Lone heroes don't win; this is a fantasy.

I think spare supplies are a good idea, because there could be some disruption, which could affect the very young and elderly; so we need ways to keep warm, eat and have clean water in an emergency. And it's important to make your home secure against a rise in burglary, which is associated with economic downturns; and not to go out after dark without at least one or two companions. Weapons are another matter: "guns in the home are far more likely to be used against members of the household than against intruders."

Pace the doomsters, the UK and the USA will feed itself. We may end up eating more veg and less meat; and we may be using public transport instead of cars; personally, that would simply take me back to the 70s, when I was slimmer and fitter. Globally and locally, there is enough to feed the world, although not enough to overfeed it or encourage unproductive men to sire children.

Two aspects of the current crisis worry me:

1. The present method of organising resources may be replaced, not by one dreamed of by well-fed Western socialists, but by a cruel, remote, commanding elite as in North Korea or East Germany, who far from minimising scarcity will use it to get and maintain power.

2. The transition from this system to whatever replaces it, may be disorderly and involve suffering for many people.

This is why I think the underlying issue for us is to preserve and strengthen democracy, to increase the chances that both the journey and the journey's end are acceptable.

Why banks?

Banks require re-capitalisation. The capital is required to cover losses. Capital is also needed for assets returning onto their balance sheet (as the vehicles of the “shadow banking system” are unwound). This capital is required to restore bank balance sheets. Additional capital will be needed to support future growth. Availability of capital, high cost of new capital and dilution of earnings will impinge upon future performance.

Satyajit Das (htp: Jesse)

Nope. Banks need destroying, as does all this bank-created debt. The mistake is to try to keep things as they are. How did we come to buy houses "on tick", then cars, and now our clothes and groceries? Why is there any lending for consumption, seeing how it only means reduced future consumption? Why should banks be kept going, requiring a significant proportion of our earnings, so that wages have to be high for us to live on what's left, making us uncompetitive with the developing world?

I am reminded of the pitiless response of the Comte d'Argenson to the satirist, Desfontaines:

Desfontaines: I must live.
D'Argenson : I do not see the necessity.