5th December 04. The US dollar has been used for many years as an international currency and as a day to day currency in countries with a weak currency. People in many parts of Africa and S.E Asia have used the US dollar for day to day transactions and as a currency in which to hold savings. The money held in these economies is effectvely a loan to the federal reserve. Currency lost and permanently tied up in these economies is a gift to the federal reserve. The fed can print and spend money as it is taken out of the U.S economy then must buy it back out of the economy as it is returned to the US economy. If the fed doesn't print money, the dollar becomes more concentrated; each dollar becomes more valuable and inflation goes down and the dollar becomes stronger against other currencies. Conversely, if more dollars enter US circulation, the dollar becomes more diluted; the dollar falls, inflation rises- the dollar is diluted.
Let's assume the federal reserve is empty and the US government has no reserves to trade for circulating dollars. Then let's assume the US government has really annoyed foreign investors in the US dollar (including prdinary people holding dollars). People decide to get rid of dollars. Dollars are re-patriated in large quantities, faster than they can be re-purchased by the fed. This will lead to a drop in the value of US dollars. The drop in US dollars will be self fuelling. As the dollar drops, people get out of dollars. As people get out of dollars, the drop is self perpetuating. Where will the downward spiral finish? What impact will a complete collapse have on economies around the world? These are interesting questions in their own right, but more importantly, will a more sustainable future be possible, if so, how?
I began using the GNU/Linux system in 1998 as a means to understand computer networking. An interesting question was: How can a system of such complexity be organised and programmed outside the usual system of software licensing and charging for software? There is no one answer to this question. There are many answers. The answer which will seem most important to you will depend upon your approach. I have come to understand the system is supported by a mixture of social altruism and a new form of value creation which works hand in hand with traditional economic systems.
I have only run businesses strongly involved with recycling and extending the life of consumer products we use. Being interested in technology, this has led me to be involved with recycling and life extension of computer related hardware. For example, memory expansions in Atari STs in the late 80's, Chip recycling in the early 90's, Simmswapper memory adapters in the mid 90's and setting up a business reseller company dealing with surplus components to supply small scale manufacturing and equipment repair companies. This has meant a balancing act of technical director, circuit designer, programmer and entrepreneur. I have found balancing such a skill set rewarding and have proven that a broad skill base is often more valuable than being highly specialised.
Civilisation exposed to the threat of wipe-out through disease. We must investigate the threats to the human race posed by widespread long-distance travel. There is an ever present threat that in any given population, a disease will mutate to become more contagious or more pathological. The greater the number of infected organisms in a culture the greater the chances of wipe-out. If the culture is bigger, the effects are more devastating. Through ubiquitous international travel, the entire industrialised human race has become one culture as far as disease propogation is concerned.
As a human race, we need to understand these risks and be in a position to make informed choices. Medical science is generally slow to respond to new diseases. Many categories of contagious disease cannot be effectively controlled through drugs or other modern treatments. HIV is a good example of a fatal disease which has spread worldwide through ubiquitous long distance travel and cannot be cured by medical science after two decades.
Another way to bring this home is by common example. Here in London, there are at least 5 new strains of common
cold and 2 or 3 strains of influenza introduced to the population each winter. If we rewind the clock back
150 years, it is unlikely that even a town like London would experience more than one strain of common cold every
1-2 years. Influenza probably far less common. Once you have caught a strain of cold or flu, you don't catch
the same strain again. You will have built up antibody resistance.
Then Why do we keep catching influenza and colds?
In order to catch a cold more than once, you need to be infected by a cold which is a mutation of the
cold you had before- a cold virus which is so different that it cannot be immediately recognised by your body as
the virus it has previously become immune to.
In the UK, there are not enough people infected at any one time to create a substantial number of
viable mutants. In the entire connected civilised world, there are plenty of opportunities for viable mutants
to evolve. Common colds and influenza are a result of a large connected population. - This is an example
using colds and flu, which don't tend to be fatal.
You can extend the same ideas to diseases such as viral infections leukemia and HIV. HIV probably started as a little known regional disease or mutated to the global killer we know today from something benign. Without widespread long-distance travel, HIV may have been contained as a regional illness and perhaps affected a few hundred people before local awareness and screening brought it under control.
Speaking as a member of humanity, unless we have a fundamental breakthrough in biology, which we as humans can resist using against our fellow humans(1), which can quickly identify and create a cure for any known or unknown pathogen, the human race's future is not one of widespread long distance travel.(2)
Note 1: Given the trend in the growth of fear and polarisation (fear mongering, war mongering, bowing to
the demands of rights holders) in the year 2003
brought about substantially by and within the US and UK governments, the chances of this seem
as remote as they have ever been
Note2: Not only from the point of view of disease wipe-out but also from the point of view of the renewability
of energy resources we use to travel and the global environmental impacts of pollution through air travel. It is
likely a study of disease dynamics will show we as humans need5A to make serious choices about long distance travel.
Perhaps mandating international quarantine zones- quarantine for travellers between zones, a reduction in long
distance travel to a vanishingly small level or to ignore the risks or to take the risks on board and accept the
risks in full knowledge of the consequences. If the media you use hasn't brought these issues to your attention,
contact them and ask them why.
Customers buying batteries need more information. There is a great deal of difference in the capacity of the same shape battery but using different chemical formulations. The situation is currently like being told you can buy some potatoes, but without being given any clue how much potato your £1 will buy. I propose batteries should be labelled in a consistent way to give customers a simple method of comparing one battery against another both in terms of capacity and performance.
Better customer information will lead to a market where battery manufacturers work harder to make their product better. Better battery formulations and longer battery life will lead to fewer batteries in landfill, and less wastage of raw materials, less pollution.
I am writing a specification which I will propose to MEPs which will guarantee customers will know how much battery power they are buying.
I feel some gratitude to MEPs for comprehensively rejecting the directive on 'software implemented inventions'. Some of the proponents for this directive may have been mindful that the directive would focus a great deal of power in the hands of a few software giants, and put programming outside the realm of small businesses. I am concerned that such a directive could get as far as it did, with the backing of the council of ministers and the European Comission.
This does demonstrate the need to restructure two organisations;
UK Patent office
Is an arm of the DTI in London, the PTO is pretty much at arm's length, based in wales and is responsible for,
amongst other things, formulating government policy on Patents, Trademarks and Copyright. The government
tends to devolve policy decision making for these issues to the patent office with little or no
scrutiny of the policies which are returned and rubber stamped as policy of the government of the day.
There are substantial public policy issues at stake with regards to policy and laws in the areas covered by the PTO. The government must re-organise so that policy is formulated closer to government, by elected representatives, with the patent office performing the role of advisers.
How did such a dangerous piece of draft legislation find it's way so firmly lodged in the
policy creation framework?
The patent office works very closely with patent departments of corporations. Pretty much everyone
the patent office comes into contact with each day firmly believe patents are a good thing. If they started
to believe otherwise, they wouldn't last long in the patent business. Secondly, given the business proximity
of the patent office to the patent office of large corporations, the patent office can be very effectively
lobbied by the corporate patent departments. The patent office may see the corporate patent departments, which
pay for the service, as their customers and want to give their customers what they want.
Very clearly, by letting the patent office write government policy on patents, there is a conflict of public policy interest with corporate interests. I believe there are many things which are both in the public interest and in corporate interest. The interests are by no means exclusive. However, just because something is in the corporate interest, it doesn't follow it is in the public interest. The now defunct directive on software implemented inventions is an excellent example of this. In a well functioning democracy, public interest must trump special interests.
Open letter to MPs concerning government reliance on monopoly corporations.