My Life on this planet.

We notice worldwide tensions are growing within societies. This is mainly as a result of growing inequality but also other factors are involved such as a virus and climate change that destroys crops so people start to migrate as essentials become rarer and thus more expensive compared with what people earn. The result is likely that increasingly people in places where the migrants move to will demand a closing of their borders. Let's discuss. Financial crisis 2008-2009 While inequality was growing as a result of what many people earned versus rising costs of products, this accelerated when the financial crisis was organised just over ten years ago. As a result, people lost work and many even their home such as in the USA so poverty increased although the rich became richer. But, while house prices dropped because many flats and houses became available, those with money were able to buy them cheaper and sell or rent them out to make money when property prices rose again. The problem...

What's the different between Mr Biden and Mr Sanders? Little as you could have heard in the first video in this article (no longer available) and the other two videos and in  this video that summarised the highlights: both want actions concerning climate change, healthcare for everyone, education, more just migration, gun control, ... . However, it is clear that Mr Biden is more for a pragmatic approach to change the system because, yes, most of Mr Sanders's proposals will not make it in Congress when the wealthy or their confidences have to agree on them because they would simply disagree because of the person. But, what with Mr Biden's proposals? Did he not experience when he was vice president under President Obama that little could be achieved because President Obama's proposals were considered too extreme? Although, there is a difference: President Obama is black while Mr Biden is white. And thus, maybe he may convince the wealthy elite that universal healthcar...

I've mentioned it before: interest rates should not be too low. Indeed, people who save should earn something that they can use to spend in the economy. Similarly and as mentioned in this article , borrowing should not be too cheap and thus easy to avoid that more risks are taken by borrowing too much as that can destabilise the economy. Indeed, companies need to sell and according this they can invest more although that doesn't mean they can never borrow to expand, but only when needed and not only because interests are low so companies expand too quickly and not according the need. And thus, as companies seem to borrow too much while customers have almost no return on savings so they spend less (although many businesspeople and economists think this is good for the economy as they think it will force people into buying shares that at this moment still give larger returns than saving accounts), predictions are that companies may feel it very severely when a new, ...

How do banks come up with it? Now Danish bank decided to pay negative interests on mortgages , meaning they agree to give you money to buy a house and you pay back less than what they gave you. Sounds logic for companies that must make profits? I don't think so. Indeed, the article mentions that "In reality, the Jyske mortgage borrower in Denmark is likely to end up paying back a little more than they borrowed, as there are still fees and charges to pay to compensate the bank for arranging the deal, even when the nominal rate is negative." Thus, although they say you pay back less, costs to belong to the bank increase and likely for everyone. In addition, while today people can get a tax reductions when they buy a house/flat, as now banks pay some of the mortgage, this may be seen as an additional income and thus I question whether people will have to pay more taxes and this way reduce countries deficits? Costs at banks Banks claim they need to take such...

Indeed, as the Guardian article mentions, climate change actions mean people work together to survive the transition to what may become a new world. Religious people and scientists agree that the world is changing such as melting of ice on poles and glaciers that changes the appearance of the world. And while I think everyone must work together, others such as certain religious people only want to help like-minded people: the same skin colour, religion, political and economic ideologies that can even worsen the situation. Thus, while I think investments in farming and new economies such as clean energy but also conservationism should receive priority, others think it is better that our wealth is protected while the most greedy persons selloff what we have, often because it's not theirs so they have the money (that what we can't eat and drink) while society can pay foreign companies and countries as they buy the technology we developed. As written in the article, standi...

A few months ago, the film 'Noah' came out in cinemas. I haven't seen the movie but the film started some discussions about Noah's role whereby people question whether he was 'the good guy' as I ones did. And although I wrote already about Noah, as I think I now start to understand the story I write something more worked out (I never imagined I would ever feel the need to try to explain these stories in the hope it may prevent some people from following extremists although, it can be dangerous reading others explanation in some countries ). Of course, my interpretation can be wrong (up to you to decide). Here I go ... Ark of Noah? Summary of the story The story of Noah is about a person who built a large boat to survive according to the story the biggest flood ever on Earth and this together with some family members and seven pairs of ritually clean and one pair of ritually unclean animals of each species. The flood was ordered by God to destroy the ...