May 10

Are we seeing all that is there? I was touched by a German piece which helpfully in English pointed out the difference between outward rhetoric and the internal reality of German politicians. Thus the thing that really riles up politicians is optimism not hard questions. Indeed ask David Cameron if the average British family will be able to buy a home in 5 years time after another economic miracle. Bet that would have the tetchy creep being very tetchy. That’s not on offer.

The fears I would presume are that what is happening to western economies (slowing growth) and that this was an inevitable function of Globalisation. That low Western investment was a function of low labour costs in a global market. That this could turn around as China’s birth policies and usage filled up. Does this make more sense of the austerity meme whereby the west deflates and transfer payments need to reduce?

Personally I think this is a factor and certainly the unskilled racists who want to prevent immigration really really misunderstand that importing the skills here will have good side effects in such a world rather than leaving the skills abroad or even to be imported by other countries. Nonetheless it should not obscure the idiocy of handing trade disputes [TTIP] to a committee of lawyers to prevent countries changing Environmental/Banking/Pollution laws and the banks blowing debt bubbles. Sound economic management is still needed even if you can explain some factors by rising skill and access to the market in the rest of the world.

Indeed one outcome is surely to back infrastructure investment not just as graft as Tories and Labour do [HS2 Low Speed Old Tech Money to Friends]. How do you create a premium for doing work in the UK or any other country? You certainly won’t by privatising income streams and nationalising debt. Nor will you do it with subsidy paid out of the wages of workers in that market.

Maybe a proper response relies on Politicians being honest or even knowing why they do what they do. The fear I have in the UK is that apparent idiocy is not because they cannot explain it but because they believe it.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , ,

Jan 15

My father made the point re minimum wage yesterday that we no longer have fields of sharecroppers but a bloody great combine harvester which produces compacted bails. The intriguing question is as pursuit of rentier incomes becomes the goal of a Plutocracy anxious to cement their position is this a precursor to a lack of progress?

Has investment fallen in recent years as Globalisation has made Labour cheaper? Will Monsanto owning law courts and the US Govt improve food production long term or will they take their Obama Administration approved Monopoly profits? Will the ever expanding financial sector be able to expand forever? Will housing and continue to climb? Who and how in a West of declining wages be able to support this?

Dystopia may not await but it’s not clear if it is not the goal from the policies pursued by Westernites. It’s becoming like the world of the Matrix with 1999 as some stepping off point. As increasingly the aim appears to freeze society and allow those with assets to live off rentier incomes.


written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jan 30

When it comes to economics it does seem no matter how well voiced one is it’s hard to know what is right and we may choose our response on the basis of what we’d like to believe. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sep 21

France says it is clearing illegal Roma camps and illegal immigrants. That’s not an issue for me. I believe in the law and people cannot form their own camp sites and homes where they like. So I am not upset at Sarkozy’s government’s policy.

However why is a policy about a mere 15,000 people vexing France? Why is it being personally pushed through by Sarkozy himself? Why is it not a low priority issue for the French Home Office to deal with? Why is it done so publicly to seemingly add humiliation to a group who are admittedly a pain but pathetic at the same time?

What does it say about France that this kind of publicly berating a small unpopular racial group would appear anywhere in the top 200 priorities of a French President facing up to the demands of Globalised Capital and Debt on a Social  Democratic Society? Why is he not dealing with the real problems?

The answers are not a positive on Sarkozy or a French electorate stupid enough to take their eyes off the ball. It does reflect that modern Western Govts have no answers. They merely try to fill our vision helped by the Tabloid Culture with temporary obfuscation.

The real issues are the Environment and Climate Change, Debt, our economic model in the face of China not an insignificant racial group who are at worst an irritant for the country as a whole.

I am pretty sure this is what a 4th term of Labour would have looked like here so no odium. Merely sadness that 77 years after Hitler came to power people still want to blame their problems on someone else rather than seek a real solution.

It says more about the people of France than the mental weakling  pushing it.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Aug 07

The media and the idiots who spew bile (moi?) were out in force this week at Naomi Campbell who showed far too much respect for the ICC by pointing out the inconvenience of her testifying in a case she had no worthwhile evidence for. Indeed I assumed I was in hell in a snow storm this morning as I almost felt sympathy as the press desperately grab at things she might have done that were illegal – even though any laws she may or may not have broken were aimed at protecting de Beers monopoly and the concepts of Blood Diamonds was hardly currency in 1997.

Yet who was the villain? Charles Taylor of course. Who invited Taylor? Who was the only reason Campbell was there given she had no idea who Taylor was? Whose foundation was likely taking blood money and who knows maybe blood diamonds from Taylor? Why aren’t the media asking hard questions? Where’s Chris Hitchens when you need an iconoclast? The point is that the nuance of being a friend of the butcher Taylor and a much more knowing accomplish than Ms Campbell does not fit the pastiches of a Mandela the super hero who served 27 years for his cause.

Indeed like many leaders Mandela’s critics probably lie in South Africa’s own borders. Mandela’s  failure to offer poor South Africans improvements the buffoon Chavez has tried to with his country’s natural resources in terms of stuff like housing, clean water, doctors, education. Mandela’s South Africa instead agreed to the strictures of Globalised Capital the poor of all races remain the poor relatively and absolutely.

This is not to damn Mandela who did a formidable job and survived his incarceration without bitterness merely to say that it says nothing good about the media when a vacuous supermodel is the story for doing next to nothing except maybe believing the myth that one person is 100% good.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , ,

May 12

One of the oddities of a the Lib Con coalition is that it will have both a right and a so called left wing against the policies of the Govt. It also even allowing for Ulster’s support does not have a huge majority.

An argument being made by nay sayers, who are guessing, is that the activists of both parties will not wear it for long. I put the following  to someone who still supported Labour about how the activists and Trade Unionists of 1997 felt about the following Labour policies:-

  • 90 day detention and internment. A flagship policy trumpted as a triumph for democracy by both Blair and Brown.
  • Detention of young children of Asylum seekers.
  • Putting Britain at the fore front of the Globalisation movement to have our workers compete at home and abroad with low wage economies.
  • Actively helping and facilitating the US policy of rendition.
  • Knowingly receiving intelligence based on Torture
  • Going to war without the Geneva convention on our allies side.
  • Being part of a war where depleted uranium and cluster bombs were used.
  • War in Iraq. I doubt Labour activists would have considered Afghanistan  beyond 2003 as a worthwhile cause if ever given most opposed the righteous Kuwait re-capture.
  • Bailing out the banks and then letting the sponging bastards have huge bonuses. Socialism in action?
  • Applauding judges for stopping strikes.
  • Foundation hospitals, Polyclinics.
  • PFI handing more money to Brown’s rich friends in the city.
  • In 1997 they would have assumed that hospitals would be cleaned and the MRSA C-Diff murder by indifference would not have continued for years after. They were wrong but administrators and bureaucrats in the health service earn as much as 50 cleaners so be proud of ‘Your Labour’.
  • Bank of England independence probably would not have got their vote in 1997.
  • Cheer-leading for Business leaders like Willie Walsh making a point and trying to break the Unite union.
  • The re-reclassification of marijuana. The left may be against most personal freedoms but they do not live on beer alone.
  • CCTV everywhere.
  • Powers to stop and search people without reason – even Arizona has not gone that far
  • Lecturing people for their eating and drinking habits.
  • Support for Israel almost no matter what it does – a few weasel words maybe but nothing more.
  • Groveling before China’s authoritarian Govt – Brown’s ideal by some accounts
  • Religious schools
  • Sending asylum seekers back to Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe and other hell holes.
  • Locking up children of asylum seekers.
  • Forcing Single Mums back to work – Portillo suggested it and they burned effigies Brown and they suggest people hate him because he’s not photogenic.

I’ll be adding to this list as things occur to me but the point is that activists views never count. Much of the above I find so bad that I view a vote for Labour as little better than the BNP. The BNP would counter they have not yet abused human rights as much as Labour has done even if only by de facto support and tolerance of the US doing things.

Activists and sanctimonious self important morons may bring down the coalition. However as we see with Labour activists move with the party and see power as the only goal in reality – they are fans basically and a bit like the Green and Gold at Old Trafford their protests do not stop them handing over money and being fanatical at all costs whereas the players change colour as suits their personal ambition.

I do not take activists seriously.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , ,

Apr 27

Standard and Poor have brought the guillotine down on any Greek pretension that they have any say in their economy by reducing their debt status to junk bonds. One feels for Greek workers but unless they are planning or willing or able to junk Capitalism they have no choice. Time for the Greeks to grow up and take the medicine.

What really showed Greece up was that the EU and IMF agree a rescue fund and the weak willed Greek Prime Minister sees an easy way out by just grabbing this money and don’t do what is required as though the markets would just swallow that – make their problems everyone else’s problems. If anyone bails them out now they are burning money that is in short supply in the world at present.

For me double dip be damned the British need to decide to cut early. We do not want to be caught in a Tsunami of bad debt next year with Japan, and the rest of the PIIGS nations in a race to the bottom. Plus as we are not in the Euro there will be no queue of people to bail us out. In a world that could be deflating around us even the growth dependent cuts planned may not be enough anyway.

Like Greece we are not dumping capitalism anytime soon so any other policy is roulette. The reality in the modern world is this you either behave or have your ball taken away from you. Greece has had its taken away and the only way to get it back is to be serious about living within their means.

This is one policy that I kinda back the Tories on because to cut sooner creates market confidence and is not a hostage to fortune. We don’t know what the world will be like in a year’s time and I’d rather not find out how a nation running huge untackled deficits with low market confidence lasts in a Globalised Capitalist world.

Sadly this could develop in a race to the bottom.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , ,

Mar 05

Gordon Brown gave the game away today but no one cared as our media prefers the trivial and easily understood debates which do not have definitive answers. On most substantive questions he obfuscated rather than admit culpability or the fact that he was irrelevant to what happened in many ways. However in answering why he supported the war he said they had to invade Iraq because (From BBC)

he feared the “new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk”.

Who asked for this New World Order? What was it?  Is he saying that Saddam was made an example of so that the US and its one real ally could force through some doctrine and hierarchy no one asked for? That the intention was to use military power on other nations until they signed up for this New World Order? To impose a New World Order.

The rest of the world reading that just had all their suspicions confirmed this was about some weird unspoken doctrine written one assumes by the humanitarian ‘Dick’ Cheney whose other hand controlled his glove puppet Bush jnr? We went to war because a small US clique with UK support thought the world should be restructured. That this was given added biblical references by Blair and Bush (who spoke of Gog and Magog to Chirac) must confirm everything the Muslim world has believed? That they were to be forced to adopt Western style Global Capitalism, without abortion of course.

So all the death and rubbing out of the reputation of the USA and UK was for an undisclosed theory and ideology that was not told to us. It was about laying down a marker for other countries that did not do what we said. That at least makes more sense than to pretend it was about freedom and democracy. After all 3 Trillion dollars later and Iraqis can now vote for an armed faction of their choice and religion. I guess the economic downturn killed the NWO as at 3 Trillion to quell 31 million people it’s hardly economic. We could have provided food, clean energy and water to much of the world for that price.  It was purely about power after all we tolerate a lot more butchers who we could overthrow at a fraction of this price.

Quite what is so worrying about this New World Order is that it’s never been discussed formally. It’s never been a policy in anyone’s manifesto. Brown, Straw and Blair have all given different reasons for supporting the US war so maybe they did not really know either.

The term is an old one but in the contemporary context was first used by George Bush Snr as a glib throwaway.  Then taken up by WCW Wrestling and the Hollywood Hulk Hogan faction. Maybe that was an important development step in Dick Cheney’s thinking but I’d like to believe it was unrelated.

In the end was this just about replacing Ba’athist “Socialist”  ideology in Iraq, Syria and the region in general?

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Mar 02

Given the parlous state of the economy and the whole Western model of Globalised Captital you’d think that this election would be about Darling, Cable and Osborne. Yet none of the main parties will debate this or put their plans forward.

We get a series of viral campaigns about relatively unimportant issues or issues which no major party will do anything different to the others. Seriously whose vote is going to be changed by: Brown the bully: Ashcroft the un-taxed peer: MI5’s enthusiastic cheer-leading for torture and rendition. Are any of these things going to be changed by any result?

The elephant in the room is clearly climate change but maybe that is for the next election.

Our politicians will cynically not allow real debate on real issues to happen.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , ,

Feb 18

The Dalai Lama having been met by Gordon Brown in a stable got to meet Barack Obama without a photo in a brick outhouse or some similar building. Really why do Brown and Obama bother? We know for all their liberal clothing the still follow neo-con foreign and economic polices like Globalisation and War. They have no need to meet this poor man merely to patronise him and do nothing.

Until the West breaks off allowing China to slowly own us by continuing to live beyond our means this is a game with only one result. There will be a denouement.

This is the irony of Globalisation it seems against the US National Interest as well as being a Climate Change disaster. The wars have achieved no obvious goal bar making the US even more in debt and reliant on China and consuming even more expensive, in a Carbon sense, goods.

Put simply the west needs a new paradigm and one that is much more self sustaining.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , ,