There are days when even the most cynical person must want to think that Conservative economic and social policy is all about cock up and not conspiracy. I do honestly try to see the good in all people. I would like to think these people have a conscience and it is merely incompetence that leads them into pursuing the policies of neoliberalism without realising the potential consequences.
And then we get days like today, when thirty year old cabinet papers are made available in the National Archives and we realise that this is not the case: hardship and chaos are imposed by the Tories by choice. The first example is from the FT and relates t the 'Big Bang' in the City, which did, of course, inexorably lead to the chaos of 2008 from which we are still suffering. As the FT put it:
David Willetts, who was in the policy unit of 10 Downing Street, told the prime minister in a memo in 1985 that sudden financial deregulation could lead to “unethical behaviour” and ultimately to “boom and bust” as banks became more competitive. “Some things were bound to go wrong,” he said in a memo.
But John Redwood, head of the policy unit – and a future minister – reassured the prime minister that greater competition would minimise wrongdoing in the City.
Pragmatism failed: dogma ruled and disaster followed.
Much the same is true with regard to the poll tax. There the Guardian reports:
These files show that cabinet critics confronted Lady Thatcher and her acolytes with well-costed and fully enumerated warnings about the fiscal and political impact of the poll tax. Seven million people would lose out. Evasion would become endemic. The political consequences would be volcanic. But the papers go on to show that these objections were brushed aside by the policy's advocates in terms that should make all those concerned blush with shame when they look back on the consequences today.
Except I doubt that the survivors do feel any such shame: Oliver Letwin is still advising the current government, after all, despite his central role in this. One has to conclude they are beyond shame precisely because they do really believe in imposing the suffering and chaos they create.
And one day, no doubt, we will find that the suffering of the bedroom tax was deliberate.
And that the misery caused by cuts was well known.
And that the creation of low paid, zero hours work was consistent with an economic master plan to shift power from labour to capital.
And that the NHS really is subject to a privatisation plan.
All we have to do is learn from the past and realise that the same mentality prevails now. We hardly need to read runes: we just have to be logical in our thinking to understand that what is being said is not what is meant.
I am quite convinced this government knows what it is doing is not necessary. I am equally convinced that what is happening is what it wants.
And that is something that should be widely appreciated as we enter 2015.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It’s blindingly obvious that the government are implementing these polices through ideological choice, not through necessity. What I can’t understand is why the electorate vote for them. It is truly like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Agreed- except Turkeys have a good excuse-the apparent lack of ratiocination. We, as homo sapiens(?) do not which redounds to our discredit.
Why so many have mutedly accepted the austerity discourse post financial crash can only be analysed in terms of a combination of psychopathology and the efficacy of media propaganda.
Or, as Erich Fromm described in his book of the same name -the ‘Fear of Freedom.’
The time will come when we as a basically passive people will snap. Its happened before and it can happen again when people get com[letely pissed off with the lies and deceit of the political class who, to use the American vernacular, cannot find their asses with bothe hands. They are blinded by ideologies which do not and have not represented the wishes and ideals of the populace for 100 years!
With people like Ian Duncan Smith on the prowl in cabinet, I can’t say I’ve ever felt charitable enough to assume incompetence over malice (or just plain evil). Certainly worth pointing out loudly and frequently in the run up to the election.
The problem is that to the average voter the Tory policies make sense. If you get into debt then you have to cut back, reduce spending and repay the money. This is particularly true when the Labour party are saying virtually the same thing.
I had a conversation with some friends recently about this. These were intelligent well educated professional people and when I suggested that the present policies were wrong and that the government should change course, they listened politely but clearly did not believe a word. This is what we are up against.
I agree
That is the problem
yes- this is fundamentally a problem of education about money. The Information is out there it’s just been sidelined. (Think Gesell,Modern Money Theory et al).
The Tories are pragmatists while the majority of other folk are idealistic fantasists, unable to come to terms with the unpleasantness of reality. The Tories understand fully their tribe survives and prospers or the rest of us do and act accordingly, the rest of us dither around worrying about fairness and try to initiate reasonable discussion etc. Tee-hee. The Tories win every time. Why wouldn’t they? They make sure we’re burdened with a morality they’re not, which leads to prominent bloggers of all persuasions suggesting futilely they should know shame. If shame was a factor for them, they couldn’t behave as they do and that’s the point! They don’t have any shame, it’s an alien concept for them.
I think that is what I was saying
Well done Richard – it’d about time a certain Mr Letwin was exposed – and his side kick Francis Maude. Whether they are the puppet masters or puppets of this amoral government is yet to be seen, but they have cast long shadows over the whole proceedings. It’s as though they operate as a government policy unit WITHIN a policy unit. It is hard to see whether it is the dog wagging its tail or the tail wagging the dog so to speak. The objective seems to have has been to have the whole of the Tory front bench fronting for these callous ultra-Thatcherites.
However, the person who I feel sums up the neo-lib malaise in the Tory party the best is none other than John Redwood who seems to revel in it all rather publically. He has no modesty whatsoever about what the modern Tories are all about. Never mind shame – Redwood is beyond redemption.
The discussion suggests that the Tories are morally bankrupt. According to your morality the government has a central role in providing a safety net. Tory morality is based on the individual and immediate family taking that central role instead, and indeed, who knows better than you and your immediate family what is in your best interests, for many things in life anyway. So, reducing taxes, cutting public services and pensions all logically follow this morality.
The morality of the Tories falls down when they allow the system to be stacked in favour of those who already have: off shore accounts for the rich; private education (fundamentalist protectionism); the old boys network and it’s inevitable links to lucrative contracts. Individualism and the free market have their own inherent logic and morality but they have to be regulated to avoid cronyism and ensure fair play. They have always allowed legitimate self interest to go to far, so that it becomes habitual selfishness.
Now, now Steven come on – I know what you are saying and you are right to say it – of course many of us work hard and want to make our way through the world and stand on our own two feet.
But as you seem to admit yourself, it is becoming increasingly hard to do that with falling wages, increased employment insecurity and very little help from proper social security (not ‘Welfare’) to see us through these economic phenomena which are becoming permanent for far too many of us for the wrong reasons (like offshore production that delivers more returns for investors in the guise of ‘shareholder value’ but leaving national governments with increasing numbers of unemployed or poorly paid people to look after).
The State I want is one that harks back to the birth of the ‘Welfare State’ that wanted to take the 5 Giants to task – Want, Ignorance, Disease, Idleness and Squalor (read Nicholas Timmin’s book – even John Redwood said it was a fair account. I mean……………….John Redwood for goodness sake). This is because that post war State was made up of people who had come from lots of different backgrounds and whom had known want, disease and squalor at a personal level. Today’s millionaire politicians don’t seem to know of these things. Those 5 Giants are still with us, but are being caused by different things (speculative bubbles, corrupt practices, market manipulation, credit default swaps……the list could go on but also technological advances come into it too).
We ordinary folk have to live with more uncertainty to give the markets increased certainty. It is as simple as that. How can any family – including yours Steven – continuously keep coping with that?
I’d like a State that now deals with other more dangerous Giants like ‘Greed’, ‘Corruption’ (Hi City of London!) corporate Tax evasion (hello!) and Environmental destruction. These issues are not just moral but also practical ones that affect us all in some way. A state that saw its job as balancing markets with social utility is one I’m after – not one that increasingly tips the scales towards markets and then turns a blind eye when things go wrong.
If the state is not there to do such balancing, then what is a state for? Permanent war mongering? Just making sure we are selling arms? Letting corporations murder us with bad products and polluting the life-giving Earth? Helping shareholders fill their pockets with public service contracts?
The thing to remember is this – even talented and driven people like you can one day come a cropper and you and you family or wider family may not have the resources to cope. And I’m not saying that you would have to take State help (every year, millions of benefits in this country are left unclaimed – but it is there if you need it). There are lots of valid reasons as to why you or your family might find taking it helpful. You talk with such certainty that you’ll never need outside help. Are you sure?
How’s this for a real example. In Italy, the Catholic Church – that most conservative of institutions – has recently been telling the Government there that Italian families can’t do anymore to help each other and that the Government must now step in to offer help. And this is a country where family ties are extremely strong. The State in Italy has increasingly offloaded burdens onto its people and Italian family life is now threatened. This is what an over-dependence on one idea, or one way looks like Steven. It limits and restricts the way out to a better life. Please think about it a bit more.
I think the Conservative’s policies will always fall down on this because they are rather reminiscent of those old cars, sold by old spivs, that were 2 cars soldered into one.
Mrs T always described herself as a “C19th liberal” but her party also contains, needless to say, C19th Tories. They didn’t agree on anything in the C19th & they don’t now, except for the need to keep the grubby fingers of the proletariat off the levers of power.
The Liberals wanted absolute free trade, free markets & liberation in all things.
The Tories wanted protectionism & security for the queen, the nobility & the English institutions they admired.
The present Conservative party stands for both those, logically incompatible, views. Protection for a tiny handful of wealthy, well-connected toffs & the absolute jungle for everyone else.
I seriously expect the party to split by 2017 if it fails to win this year
The strains are now too obvious to hold together
Labour’s the same, having as it does two inherently incompatible factions in it. As I’ve said before, I expect in the near future to see both parties split and form into new parties, one neoliberal and the other anti-neoliberal. The old paradigm of left versus right is effectively over.
It’s a constant criticism from those on the left that the Tories are ‘evil’ yet analyse the current policies of Labour and Tory and you’d struggle to slip a cigarette paper between them.
Criticism aimed at all parties is something I can agree with. Criticism aimed at the Tories as if they were somehow miles off tangent to the rest of the political mainstream is just party political fluff.
Respectfully, this is nonsense
I agree the centre ground us muddled and now far too far to the right
But to say the left is not different is absurd
Respectively, then explain in percentage terms the cuts the Tories are suggesting are necessary and then the cuts Labour are suggesting.
Indeed. Labour are even promising those ‘won’t alter Tory spending plans’ deals ahead of the 2015 election.
So you call my criticism nonsense. Set out how wildly different things will be in Labour are in power next May.
There is a ‘left wing’ alternative but it is not any of the mainstream parties. How can you say otherwise?
The difference is Labour is excluding capital spending
That is some difference
But yes, others are more radical, and so am I
but the argument of TJN and others is that the entire political spectrum is captured by finance as all sign up to ring fencing offshore zone and its participants no?
I don’t hear Labour calling for a complete end to the City of London…
Some in Labour do
I am not a member of the Labour Party and am not aware of anyone in TJN who is
Geoff – pardon me but I think that you need to get out a bit more often and at least do some more research.
I can’t say that I am a big fan of Labour – nor have I been since the Iraq debacle. I’m likely to vote Green at the next election and not just to curry favour with the owner of this blog. I like Miliband but I’m not sure that his party will let him be adventurous enough.
There is I feel a much more significant problem within Labour however.
Within Labour, there are a bunch of people whom I’m afraid have become rather obsessed with getting into power for power’s sake. These fools have actually lost faith in the electorate – so chastened and hurt were they by the apparent turn to Thatcherism by the great British public that they now look at the electorate like a bunch of gazelles gaze at a pride of lions.
So faithless are they that they will even put on the clothes of the Tories to look like and sound like them in order to get into power. I think that they also borrowed a lot from the Clinton as well (look what he did for welfare in the USA – what a fool).
There is tangible evidence to suggest that Labour DID improve matters for the poor and public services (check out Polly Toynbee’s analysis) whilst in power but also still did other things that were quite questionable probably in order to please the Right-wing press and the ‘Blue Labour’contingent. Labour did use PFI (a Tory invention?) – this has been most regrettable and will prove costly. But when you are a Blairite and only answerable to God – what does it matter?
There are though Geoff tangible differences between Labour and the Con-Demns that need to be considered – even by you. I remember driving to Manchester once in around 2010 and seeing lots of new school buildings – results of such Labour investment after years of underinvestment because your ‘un-evil’ Tories had been using spare cash as tax cuts to bribe the electorate and stay in power. That’s a fact. Evil or not – it is historical economic fact.
Many planned renovations and new build in schools were simply stopped dead by the Tories/Libs when they got into power. But no doubt what I saw was new and in use and creating a better environment for state school pupils.
But to really understand the difference between the two (three?) parties is to look at how they dealt with the credit crunch from 2008. Read William Keegan’s recent book. Brown and Darling did a good job of trying to keep the economy going whilst the banking system froze up entirely because of a financial disaster of its own making. Labour in power cut VAT, got quantitative easing going to get liquidity (money flows) moving and did other practical steps to the extent that as they left office the economy whilst not exactly booming was getting better.
In comes the very (according to you my dear Geoff) un-evil Osbourne, who raises VAT to 20% (thanks mate – I and millions of others have done nothing wrong, but you are penalising ME to pay for a £850 billion bail out of a bunch of highly paid cretins in the financial sector who can’t do math); who then starts to cut budgets and investment in the public sector that even affect the private sector; who tells us all that we are going the same way as Greece (oh really!?) and then wonders why for the next three years the economy flat lines even though the corporate sector is apparently awash with cash but doesn’t want to spend it because it’s scared that there is no effective aggregate demand to give a return on any investment!! Enough!!
I tell you what Geoff – I’m going to stop there because me telling you what happened next will just encourage you to be lazy and not read more which I something you lead me to believe you need to do more of. I’m serious.
Even if we forget the ‘evil’ label, it is a FACT that the State is funded by the taxation of financial transactions that are part of a functioning economy (wages, invoices etc.,) and as Paul Krugman has said (I paraphrase) ‘Everyone’s wages is someone else’s wages too’.
And this includes the Government (the State). If those transactions are reduced, the by-product can only ever be that the State has to do less and that is when the market vultures can move into the NHS for example and start making money out or medical misfortune because we will be told that we can no longer afford the NHS.
So Geoff, whether the Tories are off-tangent, or evil is not really the issue; it will be the outcomes of their policies that I think will show that their intent is nothing short of malicious – to cut off funding from the State; to break the public sector and replace it with something more costly (hint – read about current government grant levels to the privatised railway companies Geoff duckie – see what you think about that).
The Tories don’t need or want an educated population, in fact they don’t want or need the population. They’ll be importing waiters, baristas, construction workers or rocket scientists from other countries as they need them using Mode 4. That’s why they won’t spend money on education here, it’s cheaper and more effective to let other countries educate the servant classes and then bring them in as needed. Indians and Koreans here on Mode 4 won’t be worried they don’t have rights, they’ll be thrilled with their minimum wage as it’ll translate into a lot when they go back to their home countries with it. What money the Tories have spent has been to acquire land (playing fields etc) and pass taxpayers money from the public purse to their own predatory tribe. They won’t act in our favour when they don’t want or need us, as far as they’re concerned we’re a generally docile herd there for the milking.
Geoff
When Osbone says he wants to reduce Govt spending to 30%, I’d say that was fairly off tangent from every other party. I could slip a bumper box of Xmas cigars between them.
There is an exceptionally fascinating film recently out based on Richard Werner’s book “Princes of the Yen,” wherein he analyses the role of Central Banks and their ability to transform economies. This looks to me to be his lifes work, with his main laboratory being Japan. But it could, with a few tweeks, be any country that has undergone neoliberal financialisation.
The insights into how politicians and economists have been brainwashed by Washington, persuaded and cajoled, possibly even bribed into deregulating banks and making their central banks independent are second to none. The most powerful drive is the deliberate manufacture of a crisis, caused by the creation of asset bubbles which cons people into paradigm change is well analysed. It shows that George Osbournes help to buy bubble is just so incompetent, after all that has happened, and obviouslyly lobbied for by the City. This film is a must see.
Richard Werner assumes that the administrators, bankers, and polticians who ran Japans “War Economy” took their secret to the grave, and so the art of running a peoples economy has been forgotten. It reminded me so much of Tony Benn’s constant reminders that war spending can continue in peace time to create full employment.
A link to the film-
http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/12/princes-yen-documentary/
Thank you Richard for enabling this post and thank you Sandra for passing this on – I’ll definitely have look.
Gosh
I have to say that I managed to watch the first half hour of ‘Princes of the Yen’ before new year festivities pulled me away from it but it was compelling and I’d recommend to anyone who is interested in this topic.
It follows in the footsteps of films like ‘The Flaw’, ‘Inequality for All’ ‘Inside Job’, ‘Capitalism: A Love Affair; ‘Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room’ and ‘The Shock Doctrine’.
Basically, it seems as though the merde hit the fan in the up to then stable Japanese economy when the Americans started to lean on them (using their post war ‘special relationship’) to ‘liberalise’ their economy.
In order to get such changes, the powers that be needed to create a crisis and they did that through a bubble in the property market that was fuelled by debt.
I know I only watched half an hour, but does any of this sound familiar? It does to me I’m afraid!!
Well, I’ve just managed to finish watching ‘Princes of the Yen’ and I’m sort of , well just shocked really by the implications of the film. This film has made me feel naïve even though I’ve had an interest in politics and economics since being a mature student in the mid to late 1990’s. The implications put forward by this film are huge.
To summarise, the asset bubbles are used to destabilise functioning economies in order that a crisis be created that means that politicians in particular are more likely to change the structure of the economy. These changes result in an environment that is more friendly to the financial sector and positively toxic to the other interests – even corporate interests but including the interests of labour (decent wages and conditions) and country’s welfare systems.
Basically it points out that Central Banks are more likely to have been made independent of political control which prima facie looks like a sensible thing to do.
However, this does not mean that they are free from any particular influence and the film suggests that the operative influence is American style financial capitalism. The film also looks at what happened in Asia in the late 1990’s (Korea, Thailand & Indonesia).
The film ends looking at the ECB here in Europe and how instead of printing money to alleviate the recession in Europe – something that Japan could have done in the 1990’s but didn’t under the influence of the USA and something that the Asia could not do because the IMF made Indonesia, Thailand and Korea make all of its Central banks ‘independent’ as part of its bale out condition – the ECB by its actions is just prolonging stagnation in order to worsen the crisis towards structural change.
What is thoroughly shocking is that Japan and SE Asia all had properly functioning economies and democratic institutions to run this before this happened.
I have to say that this film is not histrionic but very sober in its analysis. It’s a horror story to be sure. I have been worried about the ‘free market’ driven European project for a long time, but I’d now call for a stop to further European integration and a moratorium on it. If we cannot be sure of the intentions of the ECB and if we cannot be guaranteed of its independence and impartiality then we would be better off not getting any deeper into the European project. Just who are Central Banks accountable to under the aegis of ‘independence’?
The problem for this country is that if we turn away from Europe, we end up running into the arms of America. So much for choice!!
I’ve got to say I’m still reeling from the implications but Mr Werner’s book (that feeds into this film) needs to be read by every voter – he has raised some big questions from which we all should be seeking some answers – for our children’s sake at least.
I have never trusted the idea of ‘independent’ central banks – that is just an exercise in giving finance control
I do not agree with Richard Werner on everything – but think has is vastly undernoted for his work
I do not think we should leave the EU. I think we should be instrumental in reforming it.
One thing to be learned from the “Princes of the Yen” is that the Tiger Economies, instead of creating their own currencies, were fooled into borrowing dollars from the IMF/US. This started their problems with trading and currency values.
I see a parallel in the EU, with the Maastrict and Lisbon treaties. They prevent, through articles 104 and 123 respectively governments being able to monetise debt through the central bank. Governments are controlled by banks who want the profit on money creation, and compound that by lobbying for lower taxes. As Richard Werner states, a sovereign government could print money to get out of a crisis, and also direct banks to lend to productive purposes.
Richard’s right on much of this
I also prefer a reformed EU
I agree with your summary about Princes of the Yen Sandra. And be assured that I’m not here on an anti-European ticket.
But surely we are actually now in a better position in the UK by not having the Euro and retaining the pound? If the ECB wants to hold back printing money to relieve the European downturn, then at least our politicians may still go down that route of printing our own money as we do not have currency union yet? We have retained some level of flexibility – and therefore hope?
It terms of reforming the EU – yes Richard I agree. If neo-lib/American style capitalism/thinking is now inculcated in the EU then it needs to be ‘turned’. As I said, this film has made some of the scales fall away from my eyes. If we are to see the ‘debate’ between neo lib ideals and a courageous state as a war of ideas, then to me the battle front has just widened and deepened considerably. There is much to do. We have to not only try to cure the neo lib jaundice in our government but also Europe itself!
Crikey!
¨The problem for this country is that if we turn away from Europe, we end up running into the arms of America. So much for choice¨
If TTIP and TiSA have their way, the EU and the USA will be tied together in an unbreakable knot permanently.
https://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
1)One specific example of Conservative choice of hardship and chaos is Oliver Letwin – “Oliver Letwin has reportedly told a private meeting that the “NHS will not exist” within five years of a Conservative election victory.” – http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/letwin-nhs-will-not-exist-under-tories-6168295.html
2)There’s an intention taking place within a certain right wing ideology which is about shaping reality while opponents just look on in shock – from Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
“The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):
“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
3) Just over the past couple of days this fascinating video by Adam Curtis was made (it was a segment from Charlie Brookers 2014 Newswipe’)concerning a trend in politics which is about disarming all opposition through chaotic means – Nonlinear warfare: A new system of political control [Adam Curtis] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggr8zTJsvZA
4) Think you may already have seen this but all of their behaviour is very much represented in Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock Doctrine’ –
My fear with all of this is that we are in a new age of politics, where all folks can do is watch and despair unless they are part of the system, and if they are part of the system it’s already too late :/
Folks could start local currencies, or local scrips or voucher systems – the new talent system might be worth implementing, I offer it here as food for thought – and set up local farms, and go indie from central government as much as possible. They could press for local public banks too which would help a great deal if they were properly managed. There’s plenty that can be done, but sitting round hand-wringing and waiting for government to bestow favours shouldn’t be as high on our priorities as it clearly and lamentably is :-).
My only gripe concerning local currencies is would they be subject to currency exchange markets like the principle currency (the pound) is?
Would money markets be manipulating the difference in local currencies say between Derbyshire and Kent?
And yes – I am ignorant of how these work.
As for the latter part of you post Bill I’m not sure there is much hand-wringing – what I see is just ignorance. How do we manage ignorance?
Adam Curtis is someone who calls himself a polemicist (in order I think to get funding or platforms from which to launch his analysis – it makes him less threatening if he calls himself a polemicist) but what I see is someone who drills down into issues and defines them accurately. I actually trust him more than any politician! I also think that he is seen as a major political threat – try buying his films on DVD!
Having seen the Youtube clip (thank you for posting and enabling) Curtis’ proposition seems sound to me. He’s not far off the mark. It smells right. The quote from Rove above also seems to confirm matters.
Even now, the HNS is being geared up apparently for a 24/7 service with no extra funding. Remember, that if you want a real change you have to create a crisis. So, public expectation of the NHS will be raised – it will be over-used, under funded and it will be enabled to fail. Then the privatisation will begin promising a new dawn (except that now the tax payer will have share holder mouths to feed – and like cuckoos in the nest – they will be greedy).
Then when any of us comes out of a life-threatening illness, alongside our family at the bed side as we wake up will by our health insurance loss adjuster who will question if we filled in our insurance plan accurately and whom is likely to decline to pay for a portion of the treatment leaving you with a debt to pay. And as the nurse gives you your meds on the way out, she’ll also shove a credit card terminal under your nose to pay for you part of the bill.
And then – later – looking at your debts you will deeply resent paying your taxes but still moan that the pot holes in the road are getting bigger, that there are not enough police on the streets and why does everything cost so much?
The hope lies in those of us however who see through the chaos and can discern what is going on – but the problem is there may not be enough of us! This brings me back to the thorny issue of mobilisation of the counter narrative. What do we do? I’d rather die on my feet than on my knees. What about the rest of you?
I think one of the reasons it is difficult to pitch a counter-narrative is that the ‘hydra’ of money management capitalism has us all by the short and curlies (sorry for the gender bias). Whoever controls the issuance of money (private banks) controls the economic ‘air’ we breathe.
There is nothing new in this, the political history of 19th Century America has much to do with a fight between elected presidents and the banks.
Unfortunately we have a tired out post-industrial culture with a highly stressed population that collapses into drugs, crap TV, drink in varying combinations – combine this with a one party state pretending it has three (or four) parties and an undemocratic voting system and we can see why it is so difficult.
The opposition is there, it is just largely limited to lecture halls and hasn’t broadened out as yet but we have some signs that it might be starting with celebrities like Russel Brand raising issues (even if the hard economics is not thought through. I also agree with Richard Wolff that marx’s analysis of capitalism is ripe for reappraisal.
I suggest again as I have above. We need to make the City redundant before we can burn it 🙂
Broadening the subject for discussion a little, if I may, Richard, I note above Richard suggests the Tories will split and gets 17 dislikes, and just below I suggest both main parties will split etc. and I get 35 dislikes. Goodness – this is a record for me and as the regulars will know I’ve said this many times before here and not been subject to anything like that deluge of disapproval. I know we have a lot of new people here now so if Richard’s ok with it, would any of the critics care to step up and articulate why they variously feel Richard and/or I are wrong about the party/parties splitting? Or perhaps this should be the subject for a new blog altogether…