(For statistical material go to our References section!)

Please check out our Editorial Policy also.
Free Hit Counters

CrisisMaven’s blog

In this blog you will find postings on a variety of subjects, firstly, as the blog name suggests, on the current global financial and economic crisis, then, where warranted, on other crises, both historic and contemporary sometimes interspersed with subjects that hold the potential for future crises and tragedy (aka “crises in the making“), both financial or economic, above all affecting human welfare, such as the use of atomic (or euphemistically: nuclear) energy, the proliferation of  genetically modified organisms (GMO), nano technology, climate change (or lack of it) and the like.

Mind you, CrisisMaven is not of the Luddite type, this blog does not argue against progress. Equally we are not in bed with any NGO‘s some of whose founders may from originally good intentions sometimes have gone on to making an income from these intentions, income that is often coming out of public coffers that others mandatorily had to contribute to even if they don’t share the views thus financially supported.

All that will ever be argued here is if one man’s action is another man’s tribulation or not. In an ideal world one man’s action is either neutral to his fellow men or adding to the common welfare. If scientific and hence technological progress is soundly financed including the means to cover all potential damages then let those who bring it about reap the rewards however enormous they may be.

All arguments posted here should come from sound economics science, epistemology, systems theory or cybernetics and should in general be backed up by proof in the domain of scientific research they pertain to and/or through rigorous formal logic reasoning. The former should fulfill the criterion of falsifiability (in Sir Karl Popper‘s sense, i.e. critical rationalism), the latter should be provable in itself.

If you would like to comment I would cherish a culture of mutual respect and above all that your comments would adhere, at least from your good intentions, to the criteria just mentioned. Other than that of course feel free to point out where I might have unwittingly deviated from my own principles.

  1. RC
    2011-03-27 at 00:59

    Thank you for your post at EFG-BN U.S. Food Reserves. We appreciate your information on H20 purification. If you have a PDF copy of your information, we would be happy to make it available to our readers. Regards, RC

    • 2011-03-27 at 12:02

      Hi RC, as of now I have no PDF, as all this is volatile. Feel free to use my post and make it into PDF for the time being if you like as long as you give me credit.
      However, I am working on a several hundred pages long German “brief” on the whole catastrophe and will also then provide an English translation of the said “e-Book”. But this could take a while still, as I am currently collecting readers’ questions to my German post
      as I noticed that, while I used to always be able to make nuclear matters understood, there are hundreds of aspects I would have never addressed had they not been brought up in public debate – something that wasn’t possible to that extent thirty years ago when there was no Internet.
      This comprehensive e-Book will then address each and every aspect that I was/am/became aware of through my own reasoning, extensive study or public debate and will hopefully answer all questions in a kind of manual form, with index, FAQs and survival tips, link lists, glossary and what have you.
      At the moment I am so overwhelmed with questions and assignments that you’ll have to use what I can publish in whatever form and maybe reuse that for a while.

  2. flyingcuttlefish
    2011-03-26 at 17:53

    For your article on radiation in tap water maybe re-post it to indymedia.org and send it to http://www.science20.com

    I will repost it on my blog. I will check into Japanese translation.

  3. 2010-03-19 at 11:49

    Will get a reference for you on my comment.

  4. 2010-02-09 at 12:43

    Hi, I saw your comment following the post [ http://www.theotherschoolofeconomics.org/?p=794#comments ] regarding the “efficient market hypothesis” and the work of Andre Orlean.
    You wrote “The whole discussion is a waste”.
    I just spent some time on your blog and given the style and view points I am not sure where your comment is coming from. I would have thought this is the type of research that rightfully challenges the established schools of economics ?

    • 2010-02-09 at 12:57

      Oh, sorry, I should have phrased that differently. Of course the discussion must be undertaken and you do. It was just an expression of my exasperation at this recurring redefinition of markets and other economic terms by certain schools. It strikes me as if medicine defined the ideal man as having only one leg and thus needing crutches and that all two-legged humans are aberrations that need to be curtailed like we see in anti-trust regulation. Then after we tie up one leg, we’re back to the usual “sound” theoretical footing: see, he’s not able to walk alone, now, let’s give him a crutch. Talking to such quacks would be a waste of time, but if they had a following of devout patients then of course it would be still our moral duty to address those patients, and I think, that’s what we do, so, sorry again, no offence meant.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Comment/Have your say or else have a good day!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: