As far as MP's expenses go, it is very easy to fall into the toxic, negative viewpoint, that "they're all it" - they're all corrupt bastards with their snouts in the trough.
But for all of us railing against the lack of integrity in our Parliament, it is important to maintain a level of honesty ourselves, and appreciate and acknowledge that there is a whole host of MPs who are doing the best they can, who refuse to mooch of the taxpayer and who refuse to compromise their integrity and the trust of their constituents who voted them in. In short, power can corrupt, but it doesn't have to.
The Telegraph has done a series of articles detailing who "the good guys (and girls)" are in Parliament. The House may have fallen into disrepute, but that does not mean that every individual parliamentarian who composes it has personally fallen into disrepute. Read the articles here, here, and here - and whatever your anger at the broken, corrupt system, don't forget these people.
We need an election, no doubt. But let's not chuck the finite amount of good apples in the basket that we have along with the significant amount of bad apples. Our democracy is broken. It has been tainted by an insular, entrenched political class - but that does not mean that all of our parliamentary representatives have also been tainted.
And to the Labour Party's credit, a notable number of the good bunch come from them. When the General Election finally comes along, let's not go mad with anger and hatred.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Friday, 22 May 2009
Funff Jahre Plan!
Via Diary of a Geek in Oxfordshire, I found this rather entertaining:
"The First Five-Year Plan will focus on stabilising Britain for the future, and is to include the following key points:
The immediate removal of Sterling from all Exchange mechanisms;
The immediate and complete nationalisation of all private enterprise, to reduce and eventually eliminate Government debt;
The elimination of unemployment by retraining all those currently unemployed as Political Commissars, who will then be posted in all the newly-nationalised companies to offer advice on meeting NuLieBore targets;
The elimination of MP's expense scandals by the removal (and imprisonment if necessary) of the free Press;
Radical reform of the Electoral system granting suffrage rights only to NuLieBore MPs."
The funny thing is, for a moment I almost thought it was genuine. My mind clicked back into plac about here:
"Under the terms of the Plan, Gordon Brown will be elevated to the position of 'Great Heavenly Leader, Coryphaeus of Economics, Father of the British Socialist Nation, Brilliant Genius of Humanity, Great Architect of New Labour Social Justice, Uphill Gardener of Human Happiness'."
I pronounce myself amused.
"The First Five-Year Plan will focus on stabilising Britain for the future, and is to include the following key points:
The immediate removal of Sterling from all Exchange mechanisms;
The immediate and complete nationalisation of all private enterprise, to reduce and eventually eliminate Government debt;
The elimination of unemployment by retraining all those currently unemployed as Political Commissars, who will then be posted in all the newly-nationalised companies to offer advice on meeting NuLieBore targets;
The elimination of MP's expense scandals by the removal (and imprisonment if necessary) of the free Press;
Radical reform of the Electoral system granting suffrage rights only to NuLieBore MPs."
The funny thing is, for a moment I almost thought it was genuine. My mind clicked back into plac about here:
"Under the terms of the Plan, Gordon Brown will be elevated to the position of 'Great Heavenly Leader, Coryphaeus of Economics, Father of the British Socialist Nation, Brilliant Genius of Humanity, Great Architect of New Labour Social Justice, Uphill Gardener of Human Happiness'."
I pronounce myself amused.
Obama vs Cheney - THE BIG ONE
Our American cousins seem to have gone a bit doolally over the supposed massive showdown between Barack Obama and former Lord of the Sith Dick Cheney, as they supposedly battle it out by each doing speeches on national security within minutes of the other.
The gist of Darth Cheney's speech was more or less:
"We need to be able to torture and send to permanent, illegal detention facilities anyone who we even suspect of maybe being a terrorist, in order to keep the entire American people safe. Tha Barack Obama isn't willing to do that shows that he is a soft, woolly, pacifist liberal with no backbone."
The gist of the President's speech was more or less:
"Nuh-uh, in case you haven't noticed Dick, I've done some bad-ass shit too."
I suppose I'm just bemused by the fact that Obama's big title fight challenger on national security policy seems to be from a man I didn' t think had any credibility.
The gist of Darth Cheney's speech was more or less:
"We need to be able to torture and send to permanent, illegal detention facilities anyone who we even suspect of maybe being a terrorist, in order to keep the entire American people safe. Tha Barack Obama isn't willing to do that shows that he is a soft, woolly, pacifist liberal with no backbone."
The gist of the President's speech was more or less:
"Nuh-uh, in case you haven't noticed Dick, I've done some bad-ass shit too."
I suppose I'm just bemused by the fact that Obama's big title fight challenger on national security policy seems to be from a man I didn' t think had any credibility.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Nick Griffin is horrendously ugly
I can't be bothered analysing what a disgusting, illiberal, socialist, fascist, racist, fucking Nazi society of plebs, paedophiles and slimy wankers that make up the team behind the BNP are - I may get into that another day, but there's a good chance that when I do it will be the most abusively foul-mouthed, crude post this blog has ever seen, because there aren't words to describe how much I utterly despise every single little thing about their ideology.
But I'll leave my blog-battering of the BNP for another time. For now, I thought I'd pass light comment on just how ugly Nick Griffin is - and I don't mean inner ugliness of character, though there is undoubtedly that too. I'm referring to simply his face-value physical appearance. The man is fiendishly ugly.
Take a look; is it that much of a stretch? I'd been wracking my brains trying to work out which ugly fictional creature Mr Griffin reminded me of. And then I realised I was asking myself the wrong question, and should have actually been acting: what ugly, factual human do the villainous Sontarans from Dr. Who remind me of? Answer: Nick Griffin.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Goodbye, Mick
As readers even remotely aware of my political persuasions can probably guess, I'm not remotely inclined to our Speaker Michael Martin, and am in no way sad to see him go.
That said, watching his statement on the box, I couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for our Mick. I do understand the implicit difficulties in having a Speaker who can't actually really Speak, but at the same time, why is one man taking the flak for the entire, disreputed House of Commons?
It seems a diversionary tactic to me, and isn't going to solve the problems of corruption that have come as the result of an entrenched, insular, greedy and arrogant political class.
Speaker Michael Martin may be many things, but what he is not is an adequate scapegoat. The adequate, deserving scapegoat should be Parliament itself.
It should be dissolved immediately, and a General Election should be called.
That said, watching his statement on the box, I couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for our Mick. I do understand the implicit difficulties in having a Speaker who can't actually really Speak, but at the same time, why is one man taking the flak for the entire, disreputed House of Commons?
It seems a diversionary tactic to me, and isn't going to solve the problems of corruption that have come as the result of an entrenched, insular, greedy and arrogant political class.
Speaker Michael Martin may be many things, but what he is not is an adequate scapegoat. The adequate, deserving scapegoat should be Parliament itself.
It should be dissolved immediately, and a General Election should be called.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Dan is Uncontainably and Unnecessarily Excited
It's the LOST season finale tonight! I'm so ridiculously excited that I am going to watch it live, streamed in from the US, beginning at 2am and continuing until 4.
I don't usually talk about much else besides current affairs here, but I thought that, in light of my effervescing excitement at this televisual prospect, which is, as I write, a paltry fifteen minutes away, I would share it with you, dear reader.
If this piques up any interest from commenters who also follow this most marvellous of mind-f*cking TV shows, I may well review it tomorrow, in the manner of the film and TV reviews done by such bloggertarian stalwarts as The Nameless Libertarian, whose Dr. Who reviews I must admit to rather geekily enjoying.
Anyway, if you're not a "Lostie" then I'm about to hit you with a barrage of pre-finale questions which will make absolutely no sense to you.
I don't usually talk about much else besides current affairs here, but I thought that, in light of my effervescing excitement at this televisual prospect, which is, as I write, a paltry fifteen minutes away, I would share it with you, dear reader.
If this piques up any interest from commenters who also follow this most marvellous of mind-f*cking TV shows, I may well review it tomorrow, in the manner of the film and TV reviews done by such bloggertarian stalwarts as The Nameless Libertarian, whose Dr. Who reviews I must admit to rather geekily enjoying.
Anyway, if you're not a "Lostie" then I'm about to hit you with a barrage of pre-finale questions which will make absolutely no sense to you.
- Can events in the past be changed, or did "whatever happen, happen"?
- How the hell does Locke expect to kill Jacob?
- Who, what, or when is Jacob?
- What's the deal with that big four-toed statue?
- Is Richard Alpert really a bad guy, especially after his comment that Locke's nascent leadership may "be trouble"?
- Has there ever been a more awesome TV villain/(ambiguous hero?) than Ben Linus, as played by the electric Michael Emerson?
- and finally ... WHAT THE HELL'S GONNA HAPPEN? AAAAHH I CAN'T WAIT.
So deflation was a load of old cods-bollocks? Yes siree.
The real risk, like I've always said, is inflationary depression - like stagflation, but really bad. But until the mainstream politicos and economic "experts" get their act together, the rest of us can sit back and try and glean some sort of dark amusement from the continuing disprovals of mainstream economic theories, as the economy slowly crumbles.
The real risk, like I've always said, is inflationary depression - like stagflation, but really bad. But until the mainstream politicos and economic "experts" get their act together, the rest of us can sit back and try and glean some sort of dark amusement from the continuing disprovals of mainstream economic theories, as the economy slowly crumbles.
Good on the French!
As a French student, who will be going there as part of my degree in not long over a year's time, it is good to learn that, despite the fact that their President is a narcissistic moron, they sometimes come up trumps, as I see via Guido:
"France has just cut booze and restaurant sales tax from 19.6% to to 5.5%. Booze taxes are already reasonable in France, this makes going out even more reasonable. "
Excellent! A 14% cut! It's hard to even imagine that happening here - no wait, it's hard to even imagine imagining that happening here.
"France has just cut booze and restaurant sales tax from 19.6% to to 5.5%. Booze taxes are already reasonable in France, this makes going out even more reasonable. "
Excellent! A 14% cut! It's hard to even imagine that happening here - no wait, it's hard to even imagine imagining that happening here.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Expenses Expenses Expenses
You may have (though probably not) noticed a pointed quietness from yours truly on the issue of MP's expenses. Believe me - this is not because I have any reservations about calling out the trough-snuffling MPs for what they are: corrupt, and unfit for public office.
I'm just immune to caring about it. I really just - don't - give - a monkey's. And admittedly, this is probably A Bad Thing.
But it is no surprise to me to learn that many of our public representatives are looting the public purse; that we live with a parliamentary system that is endlessly exploited by those within it for their personal gain. This, for me, is not news. It is a boring, disappointing formality of political life in this country. It doesn't rile me into a state of angry-Mr.-Blog-Twice-A-Minute as it seems to do with many of my fellow bloggers. The predictability of the whole thing - of the angry bloggers, and the weaselling justifications of the apologists, and the clamouring of political leaders to "seize the initiative" - does never cease to at least amuse me. But I feel rather aloof from the whole farcical saga.
Of course, deep down, it does annoy me. It irritates me. The egregious misuse of public money always annoys me. But the very last thing all these stories of MP's expenses do is surprise or outrage me.
I suppose, for me, I just feel that if your beef really is political corruption - and I would say it is one of mine - then there are so many larger and more important examples of waste and political corruption that, in their frenzy to nail MP after MP on their expenses claims (quite rightly, don't get me wrong), some on the blogosphere seem to be overlooking.
QUANGOs.
Fake charities.
The non-existent (as of yet) and consistently delayed Iraq War inquiry.
The corruption of corporatism and lobbying - big business and big government joined at the hip for the purpose of their gain, not ours, and the revolving door scenario between senior corporate employees and senior parliamentarians.
That's four far more pressing examples of waste and corruption, in terms of proportion. Next to these, all the recent elaborate expense claims border on trivialities. Now like I say, I do understand that it's a matter of principle, and I hate the fact that crooks are taking our money to watch "Ben Dover and the Cyberdykes" and buy bath plugs (which I hope aren't somehow indecently connected) - but I just wonder if we aren't missing the bigger picture. The expenses saga is undoubtedly one of the more overt examples of how b*ggered our political system is - but that said, it is just one of many, and a proportionately modest example at that.
So that's why I'm not being such a zealous activist in the cause of exposing our corrupt MPs, though perhaps I should be. I'm just not catching Expensivitus (or better, still, MPs-are-swine Flu) like a lot of other bloggers are.
That said, do sign the petition, co-authored by the TPA and FOI campaigner Heather Brooke, calling on all MPs expenses to be
I'm just immune to caring about it. I really just - don't - give - a monkey's. And admittedly, this is probably A Bad Thing.
But it is no surprise to me to learn that many of our public representatives are looting the public purse; that we live with a parliamentary system that is endlessly exploited by those within it for their personal gain. This, for me, is not news. It is a boring, disappointing formality of political life in this country. It doesn't rile me into a state of angry-Mr.-Blog-Twice-A-Minute as it seems to do with many of my fellow bloggers. The predictability of the whole thing - of the angry bloggers, and the weaselling justifications of the apologists, and the clamouring of political leaders to "seize the initiative" - does never cease to at least amuse me. But I feel rather aloof from the whole farcical saga.
Of course, deep down, it does annoy me. It irritates me. The egregious misuse of public money always annoys me. But the very last thing all these stories of MP's expenses do is surprise or outrage me.
I suppose, for me, I just feel that if your beef really is political corruption - and I would say it is one of mine - then there are so many larger and more important examples of waste and political corruption that, in their frenzy to nail MP after MP on their expenses claims (quite rightly, don't get me wrong), some on the blogosphere seem to be overlooking.
QUANGOs.
Fake charities.
The non-existent (as of yet) and consistently delayed Iraq War inquiry.
The corruption of corporatism and lobbying - big business and big government joined at the hip for the purpose of their gain, not ours, and the revolving door scenario between senior corporate employees and senior parliamentarians.
That's four far more pressing examples of waste and corruption, in terms of proportion. Next to these, all the recent elaborate expense claims border on trivialities. Now like I say, I do understand that it's a matter of principle, and I hate the fact that crooks are taking our money to watch "Ben Dover and the Cyberdykes" and buy bath plugs (which I hope aren't somehow indecently connected) - but I just wonder if we aren't missing the bigger picture. The expenses saga is undoubtedly one of the more overt examples of how b*ggered our political system is - but that said, it is just one of many, and a proportionately modest example at that.
So that's why I'm not being such a zealous activist in the cause of exposing our corrupt MPs, though perhaps I should be. I'm just not catching Expensivitus (or better, still, MPs-are-swine Flu) like a lot of other bloggers are.
That said, do sign the petition, co-authored by the TPA and FOI campaigner Heather Brooke, calling on all MPs expenses to be
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
The Guilty Party
Mark Steel is on rather good form in today's Independent, on the New Labour car-crash, and their panicked attempts to "re-engage" with us:
"It's as if a builder had a discussion with you that went: "I have to accept that the bond between us has been fractured in these difficult times, which is why I'd like this opportunity to reflect on the many positive aspects of our work."
"It's as if a builder had a discussion with you that went: "I have to accept that the bond between us has been fractured in these difficult times, which is why I'd like this opportunity to reflect on the many positive aspects of our work."
"You blew up my house."
"Yes, and this was an unpopular policy, and I recognise it as such. But I'm sure that when the time comes, you'll decide that I am the builder best qualified to lead you out of the rubble.""
Via Dan Hannan, the Centre for European Reform has released a report which summarises the state of our State as such:
"Britain will have Scandinavian levels of taxation and American levels of public services and social welfare."
Well if that doesn't just knock the smile off your face, eh?
Best of both worlds.
"Britain will have Scandinavian levels of taxation and American levels of public services and social welfare."
Well if that doesn't just knock the smile off your face, eh?
Best of both worlds.
He's Unbelievable
I'm just watchinga clip from today's PMQ's, where David Cameron is asking the Gorgon about thee Hazel Blears "Youtube if you want to" article, and why she is still in the Cabinet.
Now, I can understand why the Gorgon does not fancy the idea of answering this question - but it is a legitimate question nonetheless. He's a friggin politician - he doesn't have to answer it truthfully or concisely; in fact, it's pretty much his job not to. As PM at PMQ's, he's expected to deflect/parry/lie when answering uncomfortable questions - but he doesn't do either of these things. He pretends he just hasn't been asked, and talks about whatever he feels like, normally consisting of "do-nothing", "jobs", "mortgages", "help", "unemployed", and "action" on randomised looping. He doesn't even address the basic content of the question.
Now I can't really recall much of what PMQ's were like before Brown - I am a young 'un after all. I remember snippets of Blair at the podium, and very very vague images of Major, but little else. Someone with a little more age and wisdom can perhaps inform me - is this how PMQ's has always been done?
I accept as a given that since the dawn of time, politicians have lied and obfuscated and given oblique, unsubstantive answers to questions they didn't like. But the answer, however, should at least logically proceed from the question, even if it consists of utter face-saving rubbish, surely?
But the Gorgon doesn't even make a single attempt to address Cameron's questions at all, even vaguely or insincerely. And Cameron asks more or less the same question twice. But no, Gorgon just ploughs off on his own tangent. It's probably the most tedious, exasperating thing I've ever seen. He is, one hundred percent, absolutely clinically selectively deaf. There can be no question of that.
How can it be called Prime Minister's Questions, if the Prime Minister doesn't even address any part of the questions? It's beyond "not answering the question" - a phrase more often employed when a politician addresses the content of a question but fails to adequately and specifically answer it - and is far more like "pretending the question never happened."
It's beyond a joke. He is an utter, utter embarrassment to watch, knowing full well that, somehow, I am the citizen of a country led by that stammering oaf. PMQ's is kind of like really cringeworthy reality TV.
The concept pitched to the producers:
"Right, We'll get this really incompetent, arrogant, gloomy moron who is impervious to any criticism, justified or no, and make him the Prime Minister, and he has to take barrages of questioning by verbally-literate politicians every week, and we'll watch him crack and squirm and humiliate himself."
"Sign here. When can we start?"
Why is PMQ's called PMQ's? The "Q's" part of the acronym is 100% redundant. It's more like PMTWIR's (Prime Minister's Tangential and Wholly Irrelevant Ramblings). Nah, it probably won't catch on, but I like it. I tend to like things that are pointlessly convoluted and wordy.
P.S. If you haven't already, don't forget to petition our dear PM to resign. It's for the best.
Now, I can understand why the Gorgon does not fancy the idea of answering this question - but it is a legitimate question nonetheless. He's a friggin politician - he doesn't have to answer it truthfully or concisely; in fact, it's pretty much his job not to. As PM at PMQ's, he's expected to deflect/parry/lie when answering uncomfortable questions - but he doesn't do either of these things. He pretends he just hasn't been asked, and talks about whatever he feels like, normally consisting of "do-nothing", "jobs", "mortgages", "help", "unemployed", and "action" on randomised looping. He doesn't even address the basic content of the question.
Now I can't really recall much of what PMQ's were like before Brown - I am a young 'un after all. I remember snippets of Blair at the podium, and very very vague images of Major, but little else. Someone with a little more age and wisdom can perhaps inform me - is this how PMQ's has always been done?
I accept as a given that since the dawn of time, politicians have lied and obfuscated and given oblique, unsubstantive answers to questions they didn't like. But the answer, however, should at least logically proceed from the question, even if it consists of utter face-saving rubbish, surely?
But the Gorgon doesn't even make a single attempt to address Cameron's questions at all, even vaguely or insincerely. And Cameron asks more or less the same question twice. But no, Gorgon just ploughs off on his own tangent. It's probably the most tedious, exasperating thing I've ever seen. He is, one hundred percent, absolutely clinically selectively deaf. There can be no question of that.
How can it be called Prime Minister's Questions, if the Prime Minister doesn't even address any part of the questions? It's beyond "not answering the question" - a phrase more often employed when a politician addresses the content of a question but fails to adequately and specifically answer it - and is far more like "pretending the question never happened."
It's beyond a joke. He is an utter, utter embarrassment to watch, knowing full well that, somehow, I am the citizen of a country led by that stammering oaf. PMQ's is kind of like really cringeworthy reality TV.
The concept pitched to the producers:
"Right, We'll get this really incompetent, arrogant, gloomy moron who is impervious to any criticism, justified or no, and make him the Prime Minister, and he has to take barrages of questioning by verbally-literate politicians every week, and we'll watch him crack and squirm and humiliate himself."
"Sign here. When can we start?"
Why is PMQ's called PMQ's? The "Q's" part of the acronym is 100% redundant. It's more like PMTWIR's (Prime Minister's Tangential and Wholly Irrelevant Ramblings). Nah, it probably won't catch on, but I like it. I tend to like things that are pointlessly convoluted and wordy.
P.S. If you haven't already, don't forget to petition our dear PM to resign. It's for the best.
People of Manchester ...
Tell the government to b*gger off with their ID friggin cards, by not volunteering for one.
If they really want us to have ID cards then they can impose them on us by force, and end this sad facade that, in the end, we have any say in the matter. I, for one, will burn mine and piss in its ashes.
Tell them where to go, Manchester.
I suppose the title of this post should really be British Nationals of Manchester, because foreign nationals are certainly having no say in the matter.
Ian Dalton, Swinebuster #1
Thank God they've brought in a Swine Flu Tsar, Ian Dalton, to deal with this ever-deepening threat to all of humanity:
"The appointment came as the number of UK cases of the H1N1 virus reached 28."
AAAARRRGH, 28? That's nearly one two-millionth of the population! We need a serious Tsar for serious Swine Flu.
"Ian Dalton, currently chief executive of NHS North East, will become national director for NHS Flu Resilience.
He will ensure that the NHS "is in the best possible position to protect the population," the health secretary said."
I do hope he's not getting a pay rise for this.
"The appointment came as the number of UK cases of the H1N1 virus reached 28."
AAAARRRGH, 28? That's nearly one two-millionth of the population! We need a serious Tsar for serious Swine Flu.
"Ian Dalton, currently chief executive of NHS North East, will become national director for NHS Flu Resilience.
He will ensure that the NHS "is in the best possible position to protect the population," the health secretary said."
I do hope he's not getting a pay rise for this.
History Repeating
Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know of my derision for Keynesians, and that I find the fact that the theories they hold so dear to are currently in prominence throughout the world's corridors of power deeply disturbing.
I've said this before and I'll say it again - history proves you can't spend your way out of a deep recession/depression. And reinflation may work in a shallower recession, such as the NASDAQ downturn at the start of the century, but all this means is that you delay an inevitable recessionary/depressionary crisis that makes its predecessors pale in comparison in terms of economic devastation.
That's what I believe we're looking at now, as in the 1930's: the bubble that cannot be reinflated. And trying to do so will only worsen the situation.
I always bang on about the Great Depression and how, contrary to the views of the prevailing mainstream consensus (that same prevailing mainstream consensus who didn't see this coming when it was staring anyone of the Austrian persuasion in the face for years), it was - FACT - too much monetary, fiscal and regulatory government intervention which caused the "Great"Depression. Emphasis on "Great". In that FDR greatly deepened, entrenched, and generally worsened the crisis. That is FACT.
But just to prove my point, and because I'm too lazy to produce any of my own stats, I'll give you some nuggets of solid statistical fact from Robert Murphy's new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal".
One prevailing nonsense totally taken apart by Murphy is that of Hoover as Free-Market-Do-Nothinger, following whose tenure Roosevelt had to come in and fix everything.
The only way this little story could be any further from the truth would be if Hoover was also secretly an Egyptian woman and Roosevelt a closet sufferer of syphilis. Here are the FACTS (Factually Accurate Cunting Truths, Shitheads!):
"Hoover's response to the stock market crash was an enormous increase in government spending, with the budget exploding by 42 percent over his first two years … it is true that Hoover blinked and tried to tame the unprecedented (at the time) peacetime deficits. But this was only after the "stimulus" approach failed horribly."
Stimulus in the 1930's: FAIL
Stimulus today: WILL ALSO FAIL.
Because the approach fundamentally does not work. In fact, the government is the most inefficient "spender" in society. Spending can stimulate growth if consumers want to spend, but they will only spend at the level they are comfortable with, and on what they think is best for them - and they're a damn sight clearer on what is the best, most efficient way to spend their money than the government is with their - no, sorry, our - money. And by taking our money and spending it on the utter shit they do - do I need FACTS to back up that assertion, I mean we see it literally every single day, on every hare-brained half-baked initiative and authoritarian scheme - they take from the productive parts of the economy and give it to the unproductive. The same way that in the bailouts, they give to the unproductive and implicitly take from the productive.
Another FACT, this time countering monetarist misconceptions:
"So we see that immediately following the stock market crash, the Fed began flooding the market with liquidity and in fact brought its rates down to record lows…. If the ostensible cause of the Great Depression — the one factor that set it apart from all previous depressions — was the Fed's unwillingness to provide sufficient liquidity, then how could it possibly be that the Fed's record rate cuts proved inadequate to solve "the problem?" "
Record low interest rates and excess liquidity in the 1930's: FAIL.
Stands to reason that those policies repeated to combat this depression will, also, FAIL
Are there any historical successes in dealing with a depression, then? Is there any hope *sob sob*.
Why, yes, little Helm's Deep boy, there is always hope. Enjoy these couple of FACTS:
"In the Austrian view, depressions come about because expansion of bank credit results in malinvestments. Because these need to be liquidated, the government should follow a "do nothing" policy that allows the market to return to normal conditions. When this policy was followed, recovery from depression took no more than a few years, in the 1873 depression, in contrast to the total failure to recover during the New Deal. The results were even better in the 1920–1921 depression, when both Wilson and Harding slashed government spending: "the 1920–1921 depression was so short-lived that most Americans today are unaware of its existence." (p. 71)"
But sadly, one can't help but think that this solution is not one which is around any nearby corner. It's far more likely that something like this is around the bend:
"Ordering the public to turn over its gold — under penalty of a $10,000 fine and up to ten years in prison — was a clear-cut robbery."
That was Roosevelt's gold policy. Seeing as Roosevelt is Obama's historical bumchum, and Gordon Brown is his present-day bumchum, I may renege on buying an ounce of gold when my trust fund comes through in September. What thieving bastards (they will probably be).
So, basically, to sum up, either the Keynesians are right, and the only problem with the various attempts at stimuli in the 1930's was that they weren't enough (a theory with absolutely no basis in reality or history), or we're all f*cked.
Which is it?
H/T David Gordon at Mises blog.
I've said this before and I'll say it again - history proves you can't spend your way out of a deep recession/depression. And reinflation may work in a shallower recession, such as the NASDAQ downturn at the start of the century, but all this means is that you delay an inevitable recessionary/depressionary crisis that makes its predecessors pale in comparison in terms of economic devastation.
That's what I believe we're looking at now, as in the 1930's: the bubble that cannot be reinflated. And trying to do so will only worsen the situation.
I always bang on about the Great Depression and how, contrary to the views of the prevailing mainstream consensus (that same prevailing mainstream consensus who didn't see this coming when it was staring anyone of the Austrian persuasion in the face for years), it was - FACT - too much monetary, fiscal and regulatory government intervention which caused the "Great"Depression. Emphasis on "Great". In that FDR greatly deepened, entrenched, and generally worsened the crisis. That is FACT.
But just to prove my point, and because I'm too lazy to produce any of my own stats, I'll give you some nuggets of solid statistical fact from Robert Murphy's new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal".
One prevailing nonsense totally taken apart by Murphy is that of Hoover as Free-Market-Do-Nothinger, following whose tenure Roosevelt had to come in and fix everything.
The only way this little story could be any further from the truth would be if Hoover was also secretly an Egyptian woman and Roosevelt a closet sufferer of syphilis. Here are the FACTS (Factually Accurate Cunting Truths, Shitheads!):
"Hoover's response to the stock market crash was an enormous increase in government spending, with the budget exploding by 42 percent over his first two years … it is true that Hoover blinked and tried to tame the unprecedented (at the time) peacetime deficits. But this was only after the "stimulus" approach failed horribly."
Stimulus in the 1930's: FAIL
Stimulus today: WILL ALSO FAIL.
Because the approach fundamentally does not work. In fact, the government is the most inefficient "spender" in society. Spending can stimulate growth if consumers want to spend, but they will only spend at the level they are comfortable with, and on what they think is best for them - and they're a damn sight clearer on what is the best, most efficient way to spend their money than the government is with their - no, sorry, our - money. And by taking our money and spending it on the utter shit they do - do I need FACTS to back up that assertion, I mean we see it literally every single day, on every hare-brained half-baked initiative and authoritarian scheme - they take from the productive parts of the economy and give it to the unproductive. The same way that in the bailouts, they give to the unproductive and implicitly take from the productive.
Another FACT, this time countering monetarist misconceptions:
"So we see that immediately following the stock market crash, the Fed began flooding the market with liquidity and in fact brought its rates down to record lows…. If the ostensible cause of the Great Depression — the one factor that set it apart from all previous depressions — was the Fed's unwillingness to provide sufficient liquidity, then how could it possibly be that the Fed's record rate cuts proved inadequate to solve "the problem?" "
Record low interest rates and excess liquidity in the 1930's: FAIL.
Stands to reason that those policies repeated to combat this depression will, also, FAIL
Are there any historical successes in dealing with a depression, then? Is there any hope *sob sob*.
Why, yes, little Helm's Deep boy, there is always hope. Enjoy these couple of FACTS:
"In the Austrian view, depressions come about because expansion of bank credit results in malinvestments. Because these need to be liquidated, the government should follow a "do nothing" policy that allows the market to return to normal conditions. When this policy was followed, recovery from depression took no more than a few years, in the 1873 depression, in contrast to the total failure to recover during the New Deal. The results were even better in the 1920–1921 depression, when both Wilson and Harding slashed government spending: "the 1920–1921 depression was so short-lived that most Americans today are unaware of its existence." (p. 71)"
But sadly, one can't help but think that this solution is not one which is around any nearby corner. It's far more likely that something like this is around the bend:
"Ordering the public to turn over its gold — under penalty of a $10,000 fine and up to ten years in prison — was a clear-cut robbery."
That was Roosevelt's gold policy. Seeing as Roosevelt is Obama's historical bumchum, and Gordon Brown is his present-day bumchum, I may renege on buying an ounce of gold when my trust fund comes through in September. What thieving bastards (they will probably be).
So, basically, to sum up, either the Keynesians are right, and the only problem with the various attempts at stimuli in the 1930's was that they weren't enough (a theory with absolutely no basis in reality or history), or we're all f*cked.
Which is it?
H/T David Gordon at Mises blog.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
What makes you "right" to lead, Gordon?
Via DK, I see our Home Secretary is doing her clenched-teeth best to stand behind the Gorgon:
"Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has become the latest cabinet minister to come to Gordon Brown's defence, amid continuing speculation about his leadership.
She said he was "right" for the country..."
Nothing bugs me more than these sort of inane comments. We are supposed to live in a democracy - therefore the only person "right" for leading this country is whoever we say is.
And seeing as the Gorgon has NEVER received any democratic mandate to govern in the prime ministerial capacity, and seeing as every opinion poll cements clearer and clearer that the public has practically zero confidence in him, he is, quite evidently, NOT right for the country.
And, personally, that Jacqui Smith says he is "right" merely confirms, for the billionth time, that he is not.
Gorgon, call an election. End this humiliating farce. Currently the leading petition on YOUR website, beating the nearest opposition by over 20,000 signatures, is the one calling for your resignation. If you don't have the decency to do that, then, at the very least, call an election. Don't give us another year of this. Don't bring this country to a total of THREE YEARS under your unmandated government's corrupt, deaf, shallow, ludicrously incompetent and utterly embarrassing rule.
Don't.
"Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has become the latest cabinet minister to come to Gordon Brown's defence, amid continuing speculation about his leadership.
She said he was "right" for the country..."
Nothing bugs me more than these sort of inane comments. We are supposed to live in a democracy - therefore the only person "right" for leading this country is whoever we say is.
And seeing as the Gorgon has NEVER received any democratic mandate to govern in the prime ministerial capacity, and seeing as every opinion poll cements clearer and clearer that the public has practically zero confidence in him, he is, quite evidently, NOT right for the country.
And, personally, that Jacqui Smith says he is "right" merely confirms, for the billionth time, that he is not.
Gorgon, call an election. End this humiliating farce. Currently the leading petition on YOUR website, beating the nearest opposition by over 20,000 signatures, is the one calling for your resignation. If you don't have the decency to do that, then, at the very least, call an election. Don't give us another year of this. Don't bring this country to a total of THREE YEARS under your unmandated government's corrupt, deaf, shallow, ludicrously incompetent and utterly embarrassing rule.
Don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
