Friday, May 31, 2019

Good News on Public Wealth Creation: California's Public Banking Act Passes California Assembly

Modern Monetary Theory, promoted by Randall Wray and Ellen Brown (among others), promotes state sovereignty in wealth creation with the idea that public banking can promote public infrastructures and social well being.

Why should private actors benefit exclusively from wealth creation?

Public entities can use interest rates from low-cost loans to subsidize public infrastructure, lessening tax burdens for citizens while promoting economic and social security. California is on the path to making this idea a reality:
The Public Banking Act “AB 857” passes the California Assembly! The Public Banking Institute
The Public Banking Act, “AB 857,” has taken public banking a historic step forward in passing the California Assembly yesterday 41 Aye's to 26 No's. The bill now proceeds to the CA Senate.

Assemblymember Miguel Santiago, the bill's co-author, tweeted “The CA Assembly just sent a historic message to Wall Street banks that we're going to put people over profits - not the other way around.”

California Public Banking Alliance co-founder Trinity Tran tweeted, “This is California’s moment to take the lead in creating a banking option that will strengthen rather than extract profit & resources from our communities.”
Public banking promises positive social transformation. The Green New Deal figures among the many infrastructure project that could be supported with public financing.

RELATED POSTS (Why We NEED Public Banking)

Majia's Blog: Income Inequality in the US Grows

Majia's Blog: Dispossession: Liberalism's Crisis Part III

Dispossession: Liberalism's Crisis Part II

Dispossession: Liberalism's Crisis

Dispossession - Majia's Blog

Neoliberal Government and the Origins of the Financial ... - Majia's Blog


Thursday, May 30, 2019

Nuclear Technologies of the Self

This week I've been fortunate to attend ASU's Energy and Society conference, which has brought together people from all over the world to discuss sustainable energy futures.

Most contributors are interested in truly RENEWABLE and SUSTAINABLE energy, a category which excludes nuclear.

However, yesterday I attended a panel where two speakers separately promoted nuclear energy.

The first speaker promoted community based groups in dialogue with their local nuclear plants with the aim of adjusting the community to the routine hazards of being situated between 2 and 20 miles from a nuclear power plant.

The second pro-nuclear speaker encouraged us to "imagine" closing the nuclear fuel cycle, a process that involves MOX (mixed oxide fuel containing plutonium) or plutonium-based fuel.

Unit 3 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi was running MOX when it exploded, spewing uranium and plutonium hundreds of miles, if not thousands.

I must admit the question and answer session became rather heated when one of my colleagues asked about the point of all this dialogue and imagination when nuclear states DON'T LISTEN to the concerns expressed by community members anyway.

That is, communities are given little-to-no-choice about the nuclear power plants or waste depositories in their areas in most countries.

Every time a nuclear power plant changes out its fuel it exposes the public to a large quantity of radioactive elements that are released with venting. This radioactive cloud drifts beyond the plant. The biological impacts (as measured in fractionated sieverts) are averaged over a year despite the exposure occurring all at once.

A friend demonstrated that in addition to contaminating the atmosphere when fuel is replaced, spent fuel pools in the open evaporate TRITIUM, which is rained out in pools, streams, lakes, etc. Tritium from nuclear power plants also contaminates ground water.

Tritium, a beta-emitter, binds with oxygen and can be incorporated into your CELLS. The high speed electrons emitted as tritium decays can damage DNA.


The nuclear industry is APPROPRIATING concepts such as DIALOGUE but really their approaches are not democratic nor even truly consultative.

In the end, we have no choice about whether our children are being irradiated.

Or do we?

Maybe we should appropriate this language of dialogue to make sure our message is received.


It is not an energy solution for Earth.

Fukushima Daiichi Today
The common spent fuel pool building has some shiny new purple lights on top: