November 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

The Circular Economy
by robert searle 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

Maybe of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy

1 0

States are considering public banks
by robert searle 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

The following maybe of interest. http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2011/11/23/states-are-consid…

1 0

The Tipping Point of Ideas...
by robert searle 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

The following maybe of interest. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html

1 0

Confusing Dialogues
by Natalie Golovin 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

In a previous round of comments, someone said, “Let’s pack up this discussion...(I think it was profits) I’ve spent a lot of time in conversations that go nowhere, plus I get the feeling I’m an outlier, not welcome by the general P2P group. Let’s not waste each others time. I would like to stay connected, but will refrain from commenting on anything not directly related to (1)How OWS and any other groups (Tea Party-Libertarians-Paulistas, whomever) can work together to bring political pressure on Govt, Quasi-Govt “partnerships’ & the financial industry to undertake significant reforms beginning with a full audit of the FED.(2) Rethinking the US aggressive regime-change oriented foreign policy & defense conglomerate. I care very strongly about these issues and will gladly work with anyone, regardless of whatever other opinions they hold, on anything else.

3 5

COMFORTABLY NUMB
by 10natalie＠cox.net 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=25234

1 0

Fw: Investment bankers move in on Iraq
by Natalie Golovin 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

From: FT Exclusive Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 1:43 PM To: 2natalieg(a)gmail.com Subject: Investment bankers move in on Iraq If this email is not displayed correctly, please click on the following link or open your browser and paste the link into the address field: http://view.ed4.net/v/G8OTZZ/97I7N3/N7MJW8/9ZXYOL/ FT Exclusive Sunday November 27 2011 Investment bankers move in on Iraq Even as the US prepares to pull out its last troops from Iraq, well-heeled investment bankers are starting to descend on Baghdad, hoping to capitalise on the strife-torn country’s tentative efforts to rebuild its physical and financial infrastructure http://link.ft.com/r/G8OTZZ/B5QVZB/26AMLR/EXYKBM/XH2HK2/7V/h?a1=2011&a2=11&… Tools Your account Portfolio Email Briefings Price alerts Keyword alerts RSS feeds Subscribe to FT.com © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2011 ABOUT THIS EMAIL You have received this email because you have signed up for this keyword/company alert on FT.com Change Briefings • Unsubscribe • Change Email Address • Forward this email to a friend • Privacy Policy • About Us • Help This email was sent by or on behalf of a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL. Registered in England and Wales with company number 53723..

1 0

"National Defense Authorization Act" ???
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

http://www.truth-out.org/military-detention-vs-we-people/1322380800 On Monday, the Senate will grapple with Congress’ latest bipartisan foolishness, the National Defense Authorization Act<http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/SASC%20NDAA%20Markup%2002%2011-15-11…>. Ironically opposed by both the White House and the Pentagon, it would expand preventive and arbitrary detention beyond Guantánamo Bay and the CIA’s shuttered black sites, importing it into the domestic United States. The Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona), approved the bill despite its provisions for military detention of any suspect (even those apprehended within the United States) accused (not proven) of involvement in any terror-related offense. Presumably, military detention would include those accused of offenses as innocuous as "lying to a federal agent," unrelated to actual terrorism yet classified as terror-related.

1 0

Fw: [endthefed] The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy - Naomi Wolf
by Natalie Golovin 27 Nov '11

27 Nov '11

From: Aaron Krowne Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:44 PM To: endthefed-list(a)meetup.com Subject: [endthefed] The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy - Naomi Wolf Brilliant piece... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-tru… Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people?... I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response. That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted... [demand] No. 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors. When I saw this list -- and especially the last agenda item -- the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them. ... For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time). In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens. But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profits is less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. ... Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. -- Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (endthefed-list(a)meetup.com) This message was sent by Aaron Krowne (akrowne(a)gmail.com) from National Ron Paul End The Fed Meetup Group. To learn more about Aaron Krowne, visit his/her member profile To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support(a)meetup.com

1 0

Fwd: <nettime> free speech and financialisation
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 27 Nov '11

27 Nov '11

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/232Hans Ulrich ObristIn Conversation with Julian Assange, Part IJA: "Censorship is not only a helpful economic signal; it is always an opportunity, because it reveals a fear of reform. And if an organization is expressing a fear of reform, it is also expressing the fact that it can be reformed.""In places where speech is free, and wherecensorship does not exist or is not obvious, the society is so sewn up — so depoliticized, so fiscalized in its basic power relationships — that it doesn’t matter what you say. And it doesn’t matter what information is published. It’s not going to change who owns what or who controls what. "Forwarded conversation Subject: <nettime> free speech and financialisation ------------------------ From: *nettime's avid reader* <nettime(a)kein.org> Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:21 PM To: nettime-l(a)kein.org http://www.e-flux.com/journal/**view/232<http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/232> <....> JA: Censorship is not only a helpful economic signal; it is always an opportunity, because it reveals a fear of reform. And if an organization is expressing a fear of reform, it is also expressing the fact that it can be reformed. So, when you see the Chinese government engaging in all sorts of economic work to suppress information passing in and out of China on the internet, the Chinese government is also expressing a belief that it can be reformed by information flows, which is hopeful but easily understandable because China is still a political society. It is not yet a fiscalized society in the way that the United States is for example. The basic power relationships of the United States and other Western countries are described by formal fiscal relationships, for example one organization has a contract with another organization, or it has a bank account, or is engaged in a hedge. Those relationships cannot be changed by moderate political shifts. The shift needs to be large enough to turn contracts into paper, or change money flows. HUO: And that’s why you mentioned when we last spoke that you’re optimistic about China? JA: Correct, and optimistic about any organization, or any country, that engages in censorship. We see now that the US State Department is trying to censor us. We can also look at it in the following way. The birds and the bees, and other things that can’t actually change human power relationships, are free. They’re left unmolested by human beings because they don’t matter. In places where speech is free, and where censorship does not exist or is not obvious, the society is so sewn up — so depoliticized, so fiscalized in its basic power relationships — that it doesn’t matter what you say. And it doesn’t matter what information is published. It’s not going to change who owns what or who controls what. And the power structure of a society is by definition its control structure. So in the United States, because of the extraordinary fiscalization of relationships in that country, it matters little who wins office. You’re not going to suddenly empty a powerful individual’s bank account. Their money will stay there. Their stockholdings are going to stay there, bar a revolution strong enough to void contracts. <....> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/**listinfo/nettime-l<http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ---------- From: *John Young* <jya(a)pipeline.com> Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM To: nettime-l(a)kein.org "Free speech" has come to mean to protect your wallet for that enterpise has been "financialized" by media, academia and NGOs -- and whistleblowers, not to overlook documentary makers and once honorable alt media. Assange is a courageous and creative person, don't smirk at the journo-formulaic cheap shot, but from the beginning he has put fund-raising first on the WL agenda, exaggerated WL uniqueness, overstated (with coy understatement) its influence, and misrepresents WL's inept security. My early critique of those fatal flaws is still valid. Although Julian now has a PR team of ghostwriters, bloggers and quasi-intellects (authorized spokespeople WL brays) providing material to advance the crypto-free-speech brand he set out to establish with the carny-corny-copyist Wiki + Leaks. The e-flux pieces are epitomes of that lucre-driven genre of unctuous fancy branding. The cliche of artist interlocutors stroking one another with sappy artworks and puff-ball questions for masterful ghost-scripted pontificating by Julian is pure NYC world capitals of capitalism stagecrafting of how commerce undergirds the high-branded, prize-winning! culture for consumption by blockbuster addicts. Zizekism fits the bill. ---------- From: ** <navva(a)earthlink.net> Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM To: nettime-l(a)kein.org As one of those cliched artist interlocutors you do not bother to name, i would like to observe, john, that your own linguistically painful post seems to exist merely to make you feel better about something or other. Are you more upset by Julian Assange, by documentary makers and once honorable alt media, > or perhaps zizek, or or or stagecrafting > or yours, martha rosler <...>

1 0

Slipping Backward on Transparency for Swaps - NYTimes.com
by 10natalie＠cox.net 27 Nov '11

27 Nov '11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/slipping-backward-on-transparenc…

1 0