To any power of sight which we can bring to bear upon it this koilon appears homogeneous, though it is not probable that it is so in reality. It answers to scientific demands in so far that it is out of all proportion denser than any substance known to us–

quite infinitely denser–belonging to another order and type of density altogether. For the very kernel and nexus of the whole conception is that what we call matter is not koilon, but the absence of koilon. So that to comprehend the real conditions we must modify our ideas of matter and space-modify them almost to the extent of reversing our terminology. Emptiness has become solidity and solidity emptiness.
This is some rabbit hole
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/
I really enjoyed the wave program still call to mind those two levels of independent waves in the tank with bafflement.

Weird paper. I am always intrigued by papers like this one. I always wonder what grain of truth might have spurred people to their honestly held beliefs. Lovely diagrams of the vortices. Thanks.

Exactly!

I do like your analagoy of the two vortices. I'd say that this is a manifestation of Gresham's Law which states that bad money drives out the good money.

The good money is proper state-backed sovereign currency; that which we use for normal transactions.

The bad money is the privately created bank credit. This was born into existence on false expectations of relentless growth.

Rather than debase the bank money (to correct for the overly optimistic home valuations for instance) which would be disaster for the banks, it has been allowed to contaminate the good money. Hence we see inflation in the real economy affecting the cost of living.

The Austrian prescription would be to release the pressure from the Bank money by letting it blow the reactor building roof off.

Instead we are trying to contain it within the core, with no plausible means of cooling down the excess toxic debt.

How long before the reactor containment vessel (i.e. the real economy) blows?

The thing we have to grasp is that presidents get shot for messing with the greedys plans. I can't remember the last time somebody decent shot a banker to stop the rot. They are more than happy to oblige when the tables are turned. Addicts are dangerous. Polititions have never ever won a drug war. If anything they promote them.

On a lighter note. Jamie, you have knowledge of riot etiquitte. Is it possible to hang around in front of the march and wait till it gets to you and join in at the front? Or walk in front of the march? Or will they make you go to the back of the que? I fancy standing still and letting everybody walk past me. Is that possible or do they whinge?

"Banks like any other business exist to make a profit."

At the risk of sounding utterly naive, I take issue with this somewhat fundamentalist precept of contemporary economic received wisdom.

Firstly, are banks like any other business?

Economists capitalist cheerleaders would by turns have us believe that, yes, banks are just like any other business (the same way they regard energy, potable water, food, breathable air, etc. as just another commodity) and at crunch times, no, we are told banks are very special businesses without which the sky would fall down and civilization as we know it would crumble. They can't even decide if banks belong to the industrial sector or to the services sector – the so called "banking industry" or "financial services sector". The confusion is not without basis because some would have us believe the banks are the facilitators while others go so far as to suggest they are the very creators of wealth generation, although most here would use David's phrasing, "Debt generation". And whom exactly do they primarily serve (other themselves, as is becoming increasingly evident)? (Note: Warren Buffett credited them as a manufacturing industry, their procuct being financial weapons of mass destruction.) As effective controllers of the money which EVERY individual, business and nation must use to function in society, they fulfill a unique role of great significance within the economic model and constitute a very special business indeed, – unlike any other.

Mervyn King touches upon this in his recent Telegraph interview.

"The Governor makes a point of visiting manufacturing and service industries all over the country. Such firms pay far lower rewards than financial services but have “an incredibly successful record. They care deeply about their workforce, about their customers and, above all, are proud of their products”. With the banks, it’s different: “There isn’t that sense of longer-term relationships [hence the demise of the local bank manager]. There’s a different attitude towards customers. Small and medium firms really notice this: they miss the people they know.”"

"Firstly, I don’t believe that bankers are any greedier as people than other sections of society.

"Banks like any other business exist to make a profit."

At the risk of sounding utterly naive, I take issue with this somewhat fundamentalist precept of contemporary economic received wisdom.

Firstly, are banks like any other business?

Economists capitalist cheerleaders would by turns have us believe that, yes, banks are just like any other business (the same way they regard energy, potable water, food, breathable air, etc. as just another commodity) and at crunch times, no, we are told banks are very special businesses without which the sky would fall down and civilization as we know it would crumble. They can't even decide if banks belong to the industrial sector or to the services sector – the so called "banking industry" or "financial services sector". The confusion is not without basis because some would have us believe the banks are the facilitators while others go so far as to suggest they are the very creators of wealth generation, although most here would use David's phrasing, "Debt generation".
And whom exactly do they primarily serve, other than themselves – as is becoming increasingly evident. (Note: Warren Buffett credited them as a manufacturing industry, their product being financial weapons of mass destruction.)
As effective controllers of the money which EVERY individual, business and nation must use to function in society, they fulfill a unique role of great significance within the economic model and constitute a very special business indeed, – unlike any other.

Mervyn King touches upon this in his recent Telegraph interview.

"The Governor makes a point of visiting manufacturing and service industries all over the country. Such firms pay far lower rewards than financial services but have “an incredibly successful record. They care deeply about their workforce, about their customers and, above all, are proud of their products”. With the banks, it’s different: “There isn’t that sense of longer-term relationships [hence the demise of the local bank manager]. There’s a different attitude towards customers. Small and medium firms really notice this: they miss the people they know.”"

Which brings me to the second part of my challenge, are there no businesses whose raison d'etre is to make a profit?

Is Golem in the business of making documentaries and writing purely to make profit? Is a engineer, a doctor, a farmer, a lawyer, a teacher, etc. in business purely to make profit or might they want to contribute to society in a beneficial way? I do believe bankers are greedier than other sectors of society. I'm not saying there are not others whose primary motivating factor is to make profit, but there are many whose motivation is to contribute to society in a meaningful way for which they hope to be comensurately recompensed.

Finally, with reference to some ideas from Ivan Illich's "Tools for conviviality" and Joseph Tainter's "Complexity, problem solving & sustainable societies", it seems that banks are yet another instance of a "tool" which no longer effectively serves its user and with ever increasing complexity has offered diminishing real-term benefits to society, to the extent that it is now rendering society subservient to its needs and in the process threatening societal stability.

"Banks like any other business exist to make a profit. But you are right; banks have everyone over the barrel. Either we bail them out or they drag us all down with them. What we need to focus on is how to change the Too Big To Fail reality."

Sorry John – can't agree… they are not (an were not) "too big to fail". If Darling and Brown had shown some cajones they could have overseen their controlled failure – with new banks (without the toxic assets) opening the next week – all depositors money intact (not bond holders though) and we would all be in a a better place (see Iceland for reference as to how it is done).

In the meantime, I thought the video they link to was interesting on several counts.

It is basically aimed at the general US public, trying to get them to understand that they are being ripped off by the banking system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZPWH5TlbloU

Interesting in that it is quite slick and highly-produced – I wonder who or what funded it (hmmm). Secondly, it isn't too far off the mark, with only a bit of conspiracy theory. And might be quite effectively stirring, what with all the revolutionary fervour we are seeing worldwide at the moment.

To me the interest is not so much the content, so much as the fact that there are other disparate groups pushing the same message as David, trying to get people to see what is going on.