Ce e in sufletul ministrului Daea

Am aflat tarziu si eu de gafa ministrului Daea ca a comparat operatiunea de eliminare a porcilor bolnavi de pesta porcina cu operatiunea de eliminare a evreilor la Auschwitz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnvRS89dFpE
https://newsweek.ro/politica/gafa-incredibila-daea-compara-incinerarea-porcilor-cu-auschwitz-ul
Pentru mine al doilea razboi mondial e ca o hartie de turnesol pentru al doilea razboi mondial:
Daca apreciezi eficacitatea armatei germane de a face fata a 3 puteri mondiale si a SS-ului de a anihila "dusmanii poporului" atunci ai tendinte autoritariste apreciezi forta bruta si supunerea oarba in fata ordinelor. Probabil faci drepti in fata sefului si urli ordine la subalterni.
Pe de alta parte daca apreciezi lupta de rezistenta, capacitatea de a rezista in lagare in fata exterminarii voite a evreilor,polonezilor si rusilor, atunci apreciezi drepturile omului,legea si democratia.
Constatarea de mai sus e generala,nu-l cunosc pe dl. Daea nu stiu daca este un om autoritar care zbiara la angajati, dar ce am remarcat este ca in guvernele lui Dragnea este promovata supusenia.
Erau doi premieri am uitat cu ii cheama ca au zburat ca nu prea raspundeau la comenzi. Ah Grindeanu si Tudose, restul ministrilor care au ramas probabil au plecat capul.
In plus promovarea de catre Dragnea a femeilor nu are nimic cu promovarea lor si egalitatea de sanse. De obicei barbatii sunt mai agresivi si mai competitivi si te poti astepta din partea lor sa te rastoarne si sa-ti ia locul, femeile sunt mai putin agresive.

Resource economy versus market economy

Nature manufactures with what is readily available: if it has Hydrogen,Carbon and Oxygen. It uses this to manufacture what it needs.
On the other side humans are driven by society demands (market): if gold is desired and rare and it is expensive, then humans will cross seas, and mill mountains  to get it.
On the plus side this allowed a better distribution of of resources and of people on earth. Some cities in Siberia exists because of expensive mineral resources.
Also high price of resources developed technologies, expensive spices payed the development of new ships. 
On the minus side it lead to exhaustion of the natural resources.
The whales were many,cheap and had plenty of oil.This lead to excessive hunting, this increased price for them which lead to investment in new,better whale ship, which lead the whales on brink of extinction.
Other disadvantage is that the market demands an expensive good that has higher consts for environment and for society. For example natural diamonds: the only purpose of this trinket is to be on the finger of a lady, but for this tonnes of earth are excavated, children in Africa are enslaved.
The demand of Chinese for donkey skin has determined stealing and slaughtering of these animals in Africa, where the are main way to transport goods.
In global market economy the side effects are payed by someone else from the other part of the globe.
In order to be beneficial the market economy must be rational (this is impossible) and the technology development must be directed toward substitution, and efficiency not to exploitation.
In 19 century while other invested in whaling ships other invested in petroleum. Finally petroleum replaced whaling oil in lightning and lubrication, saving the whales.
If the investments for new whaling ships should have been directed to oil industry, the whaling industry would died off sooner, and we would have more whales now.
If the money invested in new oil wells would have been in invested in new more economic technologies, we would not use tar sands, and drill on the Arctic.

Difference between tribalism and democracy

Till the end of second civil in England the poor and the weak carried fights for heir lords. Peasants were force to conscript, poor people sold they warrior skills as mercenaries.
Once the parliamentarian regime was established the situation reversed: classes and group of interests fought in parliament using members of parliament. A member of the elite fought with words and persuasion for a group that support him, similar like a king against another king in middle age when they tried to avoid bloodshed between armies.
In this way the conflict was brought from society into parliament.
What happens when you cannot solve the problems in parliament? Like now when a majority ignores all common sense and avoid dialogue with opposition?
The conflict goes into the streets, groups are pitied one against another and they form tribes, which eventually try to kill one each other.
The parliamentarian know each other well and it unlikely that will to kill one each other, while the members of the tribes they don't know each other   and they avoid one each other so the likelyhood that the violence will burst is increasing.
A good parliamentarian regime prevents a civil war.

Soft power

In 1939 a polish boy flee his country, to find shelter in Romania against nazi and soviets.
He lived a happy childhood a nice Moldavian village till 1945 when he returned to Poland.
In 1968 he was an officer in Warsaw pact headquarters.
The soviets discussed the invasion of Romania to punish Nicolae Ceausescu for having the nerve to condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia from the same year.
Finding out about the date and details, he slipped these informations to the country that had provided him a happy childhood.
I am thinking at 2000 children who are separated  from their immigrant parents.
How they will react to USA if they will be send back, or if they will remain.
If they will remain more likely they will be alienated from society, if they will leave they could join the drug cartels who sell drugs in US.
Every man that you upset it is a lost opportunity.
USA the land of opportunities kicked out 2000 of them.

Fate in humanity

You can say about human race that is selfish and cruel but you cannot say that is stupid.
We couldn't survive and thrive if we were stupid.
I think when all the things will go bad, and everyone will be affected in directly in same way, we will do the right thing that the human specie will survive.
We did it with nuclear weapons, we did it with ozone layer and CFC, we did it with lead gasoline.
With these problems it was easier because we had more control and we had options to stop production.
Nuclear weapons were concentrated in hand of few countries (USA,Soviet,Union,China,France and UK)
CFC compounds and lead gasoline  were produced by few.
Also once you removed the CFC and lead gasoline from system this went to normal.
CO2 is produced by many and doesn't affect clearly the life as the nuclear weapons. Also if we don't produce anymore CO2 the response of the system will be slower, it could take decades to come to normal.
We start to lose a lot of money because of climate warming, this will trigger an economic crisis this will reduce consumption, will reduce CO2, and save life
This economic crisis will be the worst to come, emigrants from Africa and Middle East will pour in Europe, China will experience big internal troubles. In general the more populated will be an area, and more incompetent will be the government the worst will be the problems.
USA will have the standard of living lower than now.
The global economy will be history.
But this crisis will save the world, because it will re-balance the consumption and will force people to cooperate, to find solutions.

What is really backing fiat money

The critics of fiat money and supporters of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are saying that the government printed money have value because we agree upon it. At first sight it seems true, but the fiat money cannot have the value 0 as the cryptocurrencies can have because, there will be always a demand for fiat money from government.
The government demands that the taxes to be payed in current currency, if you don't pay your taxes your good will be seized and sold, and if you opposed you be arrested, if you opposed you can be shot.
So fiat money are supported in fact by the barrel of the gun.

What is politics

Suppose you want to punch someone in the face for whatever reason.
If you punch him, the public will intervene to stop you and maybe you be arrested by police.
But instead if you convince that your enemy is a baby killer, a nationalist warmonger, a stoned hippy, a cosmopolitan traitor, a womaniser and a homosexual in same time, the public not only that it will take your side but a bonus, it will lynch you enemy to the nearest tree.
This all the politicians do, they incite the public against their enemies so that they have the hands clean.
In this game, we have the target (the person to be removed),the public, the message to incite the public, the channels, the politicians who stays in the shadow and those who gain fro he turns of events.
The target, the public and the message are clear.
What is not visible are the channels and the politician who benefits.