In an interview for the "New Statesman" today Ed Milliband nailed his colours to the mast and, it pains me to say, it was the white flag of surrender. Cowed by 30 years of not being able to make any political statements that are even faintly socialist, still afraid of the right-wing press despite the apparent demise of Murdoch and eager to reassure the banks, he seems relieved that the Tories will do all the nasty stuff and all he has to do is hold up his hands and tell us that its too late to do anything about it. His one big idea seems to be "predistribution" as opposed to "redistribution" which seems to involve ordinary people getting a living wage - though how he's going to stop private companies from "cutting costs" by forcing wages down he doesn't say. One thing was clear, however, and that was the complete absence of any reference to the NHS. Ed Milliband is revealed as a mainstream western politician - afraid to dismantle and then rebuild an economic system that is broken beoyond repair and utterly lacking in any vision for the future. All we can expect from him or any Labour administration he might lead is a slightly watered-down version of Cameron's prescription - basically more of the same tricked out with catchy phrases that, ultimately, will change nothing. We have been essentially disenfranchised in a democracy in which there is no real choice any more - all we have is the right to choose between competing branches of the Tory party. Walter Raleigh is credited with writing a few lines that sum up rather well where we find ourselves at the beginning of the 21st century; "Put not your trust in princes, for in them lies no salvation."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot 'faintly socialist', it amazes me how pervasive the insidious creep of Marxist doctrines have completely taken over society, to the point that even the slightest retracement is seen as an affront to the wonderful ‘caring’ progress of the State.
ReplyDeleteGovernment spending accounts for nearly 50% of GDP from less than 20% in the early 1900s, how much more of the economy would you like the Government to control, 80% 90% and even then the target would be for 95% (A percentage that I believe I will see in my lifetime). As the ‘State’ grows so does its laws and therefore so does tyranny.
In the 1920’s a man could go about his life never feeling the hand of government controlling what he did, now every single facet of a person’s life is the business of the state. Hand-outs and a reduction is liberty go hand in hand.
You surely can’t believe that they designed Communism as a vehicle to redistribute wealth equally do you? Even if they did, which they didn’t, Socialism’s has become the perfect vehicle to make the maximum amount of people rely on the State for some form of hand out and therefore become the supporters of their own oppression.
Collectivism, Socialism, Communism call it what you like is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
It would take me for ever to provide you with enough historical context of why the system we have right now, under all three parties, is purposefully designed to funnel wealth and power from the people to the masters. Voting for Socialism is like Turkey's voting for Xmas.
I'd like to ask a question to anyone interested in answering, startign with a simple analogy; there are signs posted in most of America’s national parks saying ‘Do Not Feed The Bears’ as they become dependent on the hand-outs, seems common sense right? So what makes Socialist hand outs any different for human beings?
Ah yes, the good old days. Let me tell you my family's experience of "the good old days". My grandfather died in 1917 at the age of 31 because he couldn't afford an operation that, even in those days, was perfectly feasible. He left a widow with four children including my father who was six months old. She had no recourse to state funds because her husband had not died fighting in the war - he was in a reserved occupation. My grandmother died in 1932 from malnutrition. My father's older brother died in 1940 from TB. My father was literally forced to join the army in 1935 as soon as he turned 18 after he'd lost his job because employers didn't want to pay adult rates to their workers. Socialism might well be wasteful but it is no where near as wasteful as the neoliberal claptrap you believe in. Socialism might well waste money - the Tories, like they always do, waste lives. I might add that at no time in my piece did I once mention communism. The politics of envy? How would you describe a system that allows the rich to envy you have anything at all - because if you have anything, they can't have everything. As for not feeding the bears - fine, as long as you don't mind them coming to look in your backyard for the food that you won't allow them. You believe only in untramelled selfishness, but who from your "collective" will jump to your defence when someone comes to take everything you have?
ReplyDeleteDescribing the needy as wild animals is shameful.
ReplyDeleteFor your information Anthony, the countries that are currently weathering this economic recession best are those with the highest state spending as proportion of GDP - around 60-65%. These are advanced democratic economies such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. They are not communists, nor are they brutal, tyrannical regimes. I'm not sure why this notion that governments must always be corrupt persists. Fair enough, I agree that what we have at the moment is incredibly corrupt, but let's look at why that is shall we?
Over the last thirty to forty years, we have seen the rise of laissez-faire governance. The idea that deregulation of and lowering tax levies on various industries will promote growth. This aligned government policy with the highest 1% of population as figured by income – mostly CEO’s and Financiers. Most of the economic growth in this period was achieved by this 1% - so they were right, at least for the 1% anyway - and it saw their incomes soar, leaving the rest of society behind. Now, their superior spending power helped to secure their interests in further government policy and laws – hey look Anthony, you were right! – but it also has a huge effect on the spending of the economy as a whole. It puts a downward pressure on those below them on the income scale to up their spending in order to compete. With wages for everyone else pretty much stagnant, that means increased borrowing. Now, I imagine you are thinking ‘well they should know better than to spend beyond their means’ but where would capitalism be without spending? Well, as the income of the 1% soared and because the laissez-faire view believed that it was immune to recession and depression, everyone believed that lending money no longer carried any risk. (Mostly this is because it created a situation where for the financiers it was heads he wins, tails the government loses.) So they lent money, at a price, to everyone. The bubble burst and the economy floundered and it is still floundering. So, rising income inequality and the laissez-faire governance that supports it causes high levels of debt throughout society and leads to financial instability.
Despite what you might think, this economic crisis was not caused by state spending.
It isn’t the first time an economic crisis has happened and it won’t be the last unless we do something about it, but it doesn’t look like we will do anything about it. The state’s job is not to meddle or to enforce tyranny, but to protect the interests of its people – ALL its people. They are supposed to BE the people. It is their job to make sure that the system looks after itself and that requires a great many checks and balances to keep it stable and thriving (wealth redistribution, regulation, strong health and education etc). You don’t get that from letting one small group of people run wild throughout the system.
I do not want a communist revolution – revolutions only replace one regime with another. We are all capitalists; we cannot exist outside of a capitalist system. It is what works. But it should work for everyone and it can. We just need to be practical about how we make it work. The state has an incredibly important role in making sure it does and that role is not standing to one side and letting it eat itself. Capitalism is not best served by pandering to the interests of only its richest members. Government can and should be a force for good.
ReplyDeleteWe are in a death spiral. Consumer and investment spending is down, whilst everyone tries to pay off their debt. Sadly, one of the largest single spenders in the economy – the government – is also slashing its spending. This drives incomes down and gives rise to high unemployment. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy, the less you spend in the economy, the less income there is available and down, down we go. The government is best-placed to fill the gap left by consumers and investors. In fact, it is their job to do so. Borrowing costs for the government are at their lowest since forever. However, as long as people persist in the notion that state spending is somehow evil and the enemy of capitalism – rather than its best friend – then we will be stuck in this death spiral.
So, well done Anthony, you are in fact the Turkey voting for Christmas.
My point was not to hark back to the ‘good old days’, because I don’t believe at any time in our modern history have we had a political system whereby the average person has been free enjoy the fruits of his own labour without the damaging effects of state interference. My point was to highlight the out of control growth of the state, at around 50% it’s a massive proportion of GDP now and it seems that you would have it grow even further.
ReplyDeleteYou seemed to infer that Labour is lacking any socialist policies, but I would say that even the Conservative party of today has socialist policies that the Labour Party of your Grandfathers time couldn’t have dreamed of.
This is the exact reason why Socialism is an unstable political structure, which ultimately will end in the failure of a nation, because by its very nature it has to continue to consume everything in its path until it leaves a country bankrupt. Your views are a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with Socialism. Socialists are never satisfied, there is always another needy person to redistribute the wealth of others to. And you can see this effect in the GDP growth of the State, and the fact that we are living way beyond our means by not being able to balance our books, this is the smoking gun so to speak, but Socialists still want more. This is the incessant creep of Marxist doctrines.
In my personal experience, socialists on the face of it believe that they are morally superior, but are in fact are just extremely generous with other people’s money. I’m sure you have a spare bob or two, so why don’t you go redistribute this on the street to those less fortunate than yourself? I’ve offered this challenge to every socialist I’ve met and not one has been prepared to lower their own standard of living for the benefit others, why not lead by example? But the majority say, “but this is mine, I’ve worked for it” and “see him over there? Has more money than me, so he should give up his money first.” Are you the same?
And just so you know, Communism and Socialism are twin brothers and are practically synonymous terms. Even Karl Marx believed that the ultimate goal of Communism, which was the utopian dissolving of the State (Stateless social order) after it defeated Capitalism leaving an equal classless society, was not attainable; and mainly referred to Socialism as being the most pragmatic social structure. There is evidence to suggest that he himself thought it was all a load of bullshit, he just used the proletarians, so he could attain power for himself and his cronies. And in that respect he was successful and in terms of using Socialism to redistribute wealth he was clearly unsuccessful.
Socialism is just another social structure designed to allow a certain type of despot to gain and retain power all done under the guise of caring for people.
Anyway, I believe that we want the same things, which for my part is caring orderly society whereby wealth and power is not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but distributed across the widest proportion of the population. Socialism has proven not to be that vehicle and neither is Corporatism, or Fascism. I’m not a Neoliberalist but it’s closer to the mark.
There is no such thing as a perfect system, but the one which has to be the fairest is the one which allows the greatest possible freedom for the individual. A State that uses its monopoly on violence to take from those that are willing and distribute to those that are not is nothing more than common theft.
@ Anonymous 1.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, you’re kidding me re the wild animals, right?
You make a lot of points, but before I attempt to answer each, I just want to make sure that we both are in agreement with the fundamentals, underpinning your post. This relates to the ability of government to spend its way out of a recession, % of GDP of other countries, laissez-fair governance, because they are all the much needed effects of the primary cause.
The primary cause is the fact that we have a debt based monetary system, you know this right? Which means that all money in existence is in fact owed to someone else as a loan. If all debts were paid, which is a mathematical impossibility, there would be zero money in circulation, not a single penny and in fact there would be a considerable shortfall, so therefore money is constantly in danger of becoming scarce, and no debtor (i.e. the Government) wants that. Just Google money = debt.
So what does have to do with answering your post? Anyone who understands this concept knows that because money has to be loaned into existence and the vast majority of loans come with interest on top, then in order for the system to work, money has to grow by at least the average percentage of all the loans which came before it. Think of it like this, it’s your classic Ponzi scheme, you need to find more and more people entering the system (i.e. loaning money) otherwise the system collapses.
When I use the term people, I mean anyone who can loan money and that includes governments. Nearly every country in the world has given up its sovereign power to create money debt free and passed this important responsibility to its Central Bank, who between them creates approximately 3% of the world’s money, the remaining 97% is created on the balance sheets of private banks.
This is all well and good if the system can continue growing exponentially, which it can’t of course, because there is a limiting factor. Everything is ticking along nicely at first because the system is loaning money to responsible governments and people, but because it has to grow its debtor base to survive it has to move on to risker and risker options (i.e. relaxing Governance to allow those risky loans to take place, sub-prime etc…) The Government knew it HAD to do this or the system would have collapsed years ago, but eventually the system runs out of people to loan money to. You see the system is intentionally designed to collapse, because then whoever is holding the loan note gets to confiscate the assets securing the loan. And this is exactly what is happening to Greece and what will happen to every single country running this debt based monetary system.
The lovely Gordon Brown and his “no more boom and bust” was either very naive, which is the very reason why Governments are dangerous and should only exist for very limited reasons, say defence, or he was complicit, which is the second reason why Governments should not exist.
So my last point is this, the monetary system is on its last legs, and now the only people who are credit worthy or stupid enough to borrow in order to keep the monetary system expanding are Governments but, of course if you understood the above explanation, you will know is unable to go on for ever. So Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism will never work while we have a debt based monetary system. We aint seen nothing yet in terms of social unrest. They say everyone is just 9 meals away from rioting, well we will soon find out if that’s true.
And @ Anonymous 2 read my reply to @ Anonymous 1. And then let me know If you have any questions after that.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1 and 2 are both the same person: Me. It just wouldn't let me post it in one go. I don't mean to be anonymous I just can't be bothered to set up an account. Hello, my name is Michael.
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry Anthony, because at first I thought you were just a Tory, then I thought you were simply misguided and now I’ve re-read your last comment and realise that you are just plain nuts. You’ve cobbled together a bunch of random facts and snippets of economic and political theory (much of it inaccurate – exactly where did Karl Marx attain power?) and then just dispensed with all of that and said we’re all doomed. Well done, you’ve discovered that in the long run we are all dead.
I can’t even be bothered going into how the monetary system works, because you are so obviously potty if you think it’s all some sort of ‘matrix’ style illusion. What are you, 15?
Do I believe that socialism is morally superior? Too right I do. Untramelled capitalism of the neoliberal variey has been and is a force for pure evil. It raises the adulation of greed to the level of policy whereas, in fact, it is merely a character flaw. It has all but destroyed the economic system it pretends to support. Neoliberalism is not capitalism it is feudalism designed not take us forward into the 21st century but back to the 19th. Do I have a bob or two - the short answer is no. I earn exactly the same amount of money that I did in 1983, own no property and have no debts whatsoever. I used to work in finance and walked away from it, quite volutarily, because I couldn't stomach the kind of people I had to work with every day. Am I some sort of champagne socialist? The short asnswer is no. I have and do lead by example, fighting against injustice not because it pays but because its the right thing to do. I have enough for my needs and have no desire to accumulate money simply because its the only thing I know how to do. Nor do I seek power as you seem to suggest. My hero is Socrates not Stalin. I don't even have an argument with capitalism - at its best it works well. My argument is with greed, corruption and selfishness which is why I despise the Tories so much. Don't assume you understand me from you own narrow perspective - you obvioulsy do not.
ReplyDeleteHi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI don’t particularly mind that you are calling me nuts, because our monetary system is nuts, I therefore understand the foundation of your insult because it’s a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Henry Ford is once famously quoted as saying; It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
The most important thing every single person should understand is exactly how money is created, who creates it, how much they profit from the process. Once a person becomes proficient at this then the meaning of another famous quotation becomes obvious, which is; "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".
Respectfully I offer a challenge to you Michael and to any other person reading this post. If you believe money is created via another method please share it because I would genuinely love it if I was wrong, because the consequences of me being right is contained in my second quotation, that every single country and political party is ruled not by the people but by money lenders and always will until sound money is restored.
I truly do not understand you. You are quite right about how the creation of money and debt have been one and the same, but what has that to do with socialism. The "fiat" money you're talking about was created by the banks, the conditions that allowed it were created by the neoliberals and they are the very ones seeking to shrink the state you seem to hate so much. None of this was the result of socilaism, communism or Marxism - it was the result of the new capitalism based entirely on greed, deregulation and privatisation with "private enterprise" usurping many functions of the state.
ReplyDeleteHi Iphidaimos,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it’s getting confusing because I’m trying to respond to you and Michael separately, but you both seem to select random points from either post to respond back to. My last post was intended for Michael, as I needed to make sure that he understood the money creation process as this is the primary cause of a lot of his points and concerns, if you fix that, the majority of his issues will fade away.
OK firstly, as I have stated previously I am NOT a Neoliberalist, I said it was closer to the mark than the others but this theory has major flaws as it still supports some important state controlled monopolies.
Secondly, I enjoy reading your blog because you have already made the connection that politics is corrupt. It always has been and always will be. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But it seems from this conversation that you place Labour in a different light, which according to you are in the only option to bring about a fair society.
Socialism/Communism is just another political structure designed to allow a certain type of despot to gain and retain power all done under the guise of caring for people. This is an undisputable FACT proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Russia has had it, China, North Korea and all it has brought is the sharing of misery by a ruthless leadership. Socialism and Communism are exactly the same in nature, just slightly different technical nuances.
Given human nature, power concentrated in the hands of a few will get abused; socialism does it by hiding behind the myth of what’s best for the collective.
Labour, Conservative, Liberal are all exactly the same they just have a slightly different recipe for achieving the same result, which is power in the hands of a few corrupt despotic people and these people are one and the same. They use the political system to give people the illusion that they have a choice, but they don’t. Choosing one political party over another gives the choice of which colour hand cuffs to wear but all roads lead in the same direction.
A bipartisan view is futile, you need to see the whole game for what it is, one big corrupt system designed to keep us in our place. It’s not one individual team which has gone bad, it’s the whole game that needs an overhaul.
End 1 of 2.
Start 2 of 3.
ReplyDeleteFree market neoliberalism, what a joke!! It’s a fact that we have never had a free market, ever period. There are government created monopolies working harm in every facet of society. All the woes that the working man has ever endured is because of the ruling class (Government, Aristocracy etc..). For example if you start right from the very beginning with the enclosure acts, who stole the common lands, driving people off the ancestry homes and lands and into Feudalism? the Aristocracy/government, legitimising its theft via the right of might and some spurious claim about divinity.
What was the primary need for the union movement? The government used its monopoly on violence to protect the industrialists and made it illegal via their Combination Acts to organise into groups to argue for better working conditions, disrupting the balance of power in favour of one class over another.
Governments break your leg, then give you a crutch and say, “look you wouldn’t be mobile if we didn’t provide our assistance”. Every single damaging effect has the same primary cause, government interference. Every single government creates the conditions which allow monopolies to take hold and flourish.
Let’s move to the most important monopoly there is, money creation. Every single government in the world has created the conditions via legislation to put the issue of money in the hands of international bankers. Communists, Socialists, Corporatists, Fascists the whole lot want the exact same thing: the issue of money controlled by the international banking cartel. Come on, you’ve got to make the connection, not one single political party wants to go back to sound money, this alone should set off the alarm bells, every political structure wants to protect the private interests of international bankers.
End 2 of 3.
Start 3 of 3.
ReplyDeleteIt’s all contained in the second quotation I posted to Michael "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".
The free market is about the ability for two individuals to deal with one another on a level playing field without the interference of a 3rd party, and if either is injured the Common Law is there to weigh up the extent of the injury and penalise the culprit. In a free market, a strong fair legal system, Habeas Corpus and a trial of 12 of your peers, is key in ensuring that wrongs are punished equally. The Common Law is sophisticated beyond anything our Civil law is able to legislate for, it stood us in good stead for 100s if not 1000s of years. It protects the rights of the individual from every other individual and the collective.
A total shift in mind set is needed in order to comprehend the political structure needed to protect the rights of the individual and to stop power becoming concentrated and abused by any one group of people.
The world is waking up to the fact that we need to evolve from the political system we have now to one where liberty of the individual is paramount, every single entity is equal in law to everyone else, this especially applies to the government whose only primary role should be defence. No Aristocracy. Civil law should be abolished. The principals of Common Law which is the ‘no harm’ principal and Habeas Corpus should be robustly implemented. Corporate personality would not exist and full accountability for a company’s actions would lie with each employee, director, shareholder and employee, none of them could not rely on the Nuremburg defence. The free market would compete with many different types of legal tender, breaking the monopolies of the international banking cartel. No taxation on work i.e. no income tax whatsoever, no corporation tax whatsoever and only a tiny tax on the consumption of finished goods. Property rights would be restored back to full Allodial Title , IP would be OK just as long as it didn’t infringe on the sophisticated Common Laws relating to cornering the market etc.. etc.. etc..
Iphidaimos, we want exactly the same things. It’s just that Socialism has proven it’s not the vehicle to get it.
One last point as seen as you appear to have completely capitulated in the face of facts.
ReplyDeleteThe fiat money system that's placed global power in the hands of the international banking cartel was devised by the socialist/communist peodophile John Maynard Keynes and his communist buddy Harry Dexter White at Bertton Woods.
Explain that one?
Sorry but you assertion that "fiat" money was invesnted by John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White is completely wrong. "Fiat" money came into existence during the 1980's when banks were given the power to create money by national governments. Up until that point money was entirely in the control of national governments. This was a neoliberal concept and was sold on the basis that it would free banks to "invest" more easily, quickly and efficiently in national economies. The weakness was that the banks created "fiat" money to invest in mortgages - that is all the money they created was debt. Once the banks had run out of credit-worthy customers they had no choice but to give mortgages to subprime borrowers to keep the whole system going. This they tried to hide by bundling the mortgages together and then selling them to other banks. They were, in effect, playing a game of "pass the parcel." When the music stopped they looked into their parcels and found that they had all been doing the same thing and no one had a parcel that was worth having. What did any of that have to do with Keynes whose main thesis was simply that governments need to save money when times are good and spend it during economic downturns? You analysis of the Breton Wood conference is badly awry, especially since governments had already been implimenting his ideas well before the war.
ReplyDeleteSo far everything you have written on this post is factually incorrect; you have swallowed hook line and sinker the state propaganda and your last post is yet another example of why the world is like it is, you do not question the state propaganda enough, your beliefs are built on a falsehood. You probably think that Iran has weapons of mass destruction which they are planning to use on us, or that just a little more government spending will solve the world’s debt problems lol.
ReplyDeleteEvery problem you are trying to solve looks like a nail as you only have a hammer. Given this it’s not surprising that you are a socialist. You are still trapped in the red team verses blue team mentality. I notice that you’ve given up on the Socialism garbage in your replies to me.
If you did found a new nation, as per your profile, what would you create, just another Communist state with you pulling the strings. Sounds fantastic… Not.
You are confusing fiat money, fractional reserve banking and convertibility (the gold standard). Why don’t you do a bit of research as to the historical background of each and then have another attempt at defending your precious Socialist crooks?
As a former university lecturer in history and international realtions I have done more than my fair share of research. I see you know the jargon but seem to lack any understanding as to what the terms you are using actually mean. Much as I hate to tell you but no country in the world practices convertability after the system ceased to have any meaning when President Richard Nixon ended the direct convertibility of the dollar to gold on August 15, 1971, resulting in the system's breakdown. I suggest that, before you accuse me of talking garbage and accusing me of things you evidently barely comprehend, you should try getting and education - you might find it useful. I will repeat for your benefit, since you seem to find reading such a chore, that I have no interest in a communist state. As for socialism you obviously have not even a dim idea as to what that might actually be. My profile comment is ironic - but I take it that you don't understand humour either - and is a parody of Plato's wish list in his "Republic." May I suggest you have a look at "A Child's Guide to Socrates" or "Socrates For Dummies" in order to get a handle on what I am actually doing in my blog.
ReplyDeletePS. The Bretton Woods Agreement that ran between 1944 and 1971 fixed the value of 35 US dollars at one troy ounce of gold. That was the precise antithesis of "fiat" money since its value was fixed against a tangible asset - gold. Fiat money was actually first invented and used by the Chinese in the 11th century but was not co-opted by the world economic system until the so-called "Nixon Shock" in 1971 (Keynes had been dead for 25 years by that time) while the creation of "money" in response to the need for credit did not really begin until the early 1980's.
ReplyDeleteLMFAO! The fact that you felt the need to legitimise your arguments by stating you were a lecturer is to me hilarious. By doing so you actually reinforced everything that’s been wrong with the opinions you have put forward, in that the only reason people like you believe they have credibility is that your state conditioning tells you so. Stop being such a sheep.
ReplyDeleteOnce you realise that ‘the state is not your mate’ then your ‘system’ is obliged to stand on its own volition. For example; supporting stealing the labour of one group of people, wasting and pilfering a large portion of it in the middle, before passing it on to another group of people, who everyone knows as a whole don’t deserve it, but will vote in your favour come election time, is nothing more than theft and bribery. Socialism supports thievery, socialism condones actions that would be illegal if done by one individual against another. Anyone who is able to think independently could not possible condone such a ridiculously unfair act; two wrongs do not, in this case, make a right.
Ah Socrates. I would very much doubt that I had spent enough time to consider myself as proficient, however, since you raised the subject, the first relevant point which springs to mind is the Allegory of the Cave. You my friend are one of the prisoners, what you believe to be true right now will disintegrate once you allow your mind to receive the real truth, however I suspect you will react true to type.
OK, so now onto your post. Firstly, at what point did I lead you to believe that I thought that any country practices convertibility? Come on, have a little more rigour in your replies. Even though I can see that you have had a quick look at Wikipedia, you still confuse fiat money, fractional reserve banking and convertibility. I can see that you need to do a lot more research before you get the actual global consequences. This goes back to one of my first posts to you where I stated ‘It would take me for ever to provide you with enough historical context of why the system we have right now, under all three parties, is purposefully designed to funnel wealth and power from the people to the masters.’
I see your mate Richard ran off with his tail between his legs once his ‘the government’s role is to spend their way out of debt’, hogwash was debunked. He’s obviously not ready to have everything which makes him feel safe removed just yet, so he’s gone off to peddle his snake oil to a more gullible victim. The current system is not broken, it’s designed this way.
If you are ready to step out of the cave then I can point you in the right direction, but only if you are ready to have everything which anchors you to your safe beliefs swept away.
“Make no mistake about it, enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It is seeing through the façade of pretence. It is the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.” ADYASHANTI.
I know! How ridiculous for someone who has spent his life researching his subject to parade his credentials. Far better to make insubstantial assertions and eschew the use of such useless things as facts. You show all the atributes of a true genius - able to pluck the "truth" out of the air without recourse to knowledge. I can see why reading something might be a chore to one such as yourself. As a matter of fact I too believe that the world economic system - i.e. neoliberalism - is designed both to funnel money from the poor to the rich and that it is designed to "break" every now and again. Having established that capitalism, at least in its present form, doesn't work for the majority of people and having decided that socialism has been "debunked" what would you, oh master of the written word, suggest? I woukdn't trust you to point me towards the nearest post office let alone out of the present world crisis. Arrogance and a lack of any knowledge are not qualifications as you seem to assume. I noticed thet you have shyed away from any more discussion about Bretton Woods. What's the matter, embarssing truth getting in the way of your pet theories?
ReplyDeleteHi Again,
ReplyDeleteOK so I now get your juvenile debating style, which it to completely swerve responding to previous points where I have shown you to be plainly and simply wrong, and there have been many. You’ve offered zero arguments to support emotional rants, and have just responded with cheap jibes and swathing generalities.
You’re just your average uninformed teacher (anyone who recons they know Socrates will know how derogatory that term is) / regurgitator of the state version of historical events, you’re blind to the fact that your version of history is unadulterated state orchestrated propaganda. I feel sorry for every student which you indoctrinated with your total dearth of contextual knowledge of your so called chosen subject matter ‘History and International Relations’, haha, how embarrassing.
You’re even wrong on stuff which is out there for all to see, where you don’t need a deeper understanding of the thread running through our monetary and geopolitical history.
For example:
The communists Keynes and White were instrumental at drafting the Bretton Woods System. All sovereign currencies at that point were for all intents and purposes fiat, with pegging to the dollar, which had at that point had conditions of limited convertibility. Keynes and White set up the IMF and the IBRD for god’s sake. Even if you do the most rudimentary search on the internet you will see that other uninformed idiots refer to the IMF aiding neoliberal policies, considering Keynes was a communist, what do you make of that. Don’t bother answering, I’m not interested.
You’ve swallowed the neoliberal clap trap, you can’t even make the connection of what that term is supposed to stand for and the economic system we are witnessing with our own eyes. We are not even living under neoliberalism, this is unadulterated Fascism.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.
I was going to point you to some of the most compelling research on the subject, but it will be lost on you because you and your generation are too stuck in your blue team vs red team ways. You are clearly happy to debate shadows on the wall. I’m bored of this conversation now. I’ll continue reading your blog, just to laugh at what an uninformed saddo you really are.
It was you who decided to make personal comments about my character without responding any way at all to the points I made refuting your assertions about Bretton Woods. Having thought about your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject you have now switched from the assertion that Keynes and White were responsible for the creation of fiat money to the more point that they helped to set up the Bretton Woods system. That makes about as much sense as accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill of being responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Keynes and White were not responsible for the way in which the system has been warped by a neoliberal economic thesis that did not exist in their day. In response to you jibe about not bothering to answer - it is difficult to answer a question that is so confused and lacking in even a basic understanding of the subject. For instance, you say that we are living under a facist system. What do you understand, if anything, of the term "facism"? For Mussolini facism might have meant "a merger of state and corporate power" but did it mean that to Hitler? Franco would almost certainly have agreed with Mussolini but Franco wasn't a facist - merely a military dictator who used the trappings of facism. I welcome that you will continue to read my blog and hope you will do so with an open mind instead of an open mouth. Again you accuse me of being stuck in "blue team vs red team ways." I take it that you believe, therefore, that I am a Labour supporter and see all things in party-political terms. If so I invite you to read the article again since it makes it quite plain that I am not. Sad I might be, but at least I am not utterly confused.
ReplyDeleteSorry I just couldn't resist. How could Keynes and White have known how fiat currency and the IMF would be used to destroy economies. Well there are only two answers, pure fluke or it was planned that way by people pulling the strings will a longer term plan guiding them. This is why my friend you know absolutely nothing about history because you are a brain washed dullard.
ReplyDeleteGod, this is getting confusing! Are you the same anonymous who commented before and was this comment aimed at me or Mr.Board?
ReplyDelete