I have heard a lot, a great deal of labour propaganda about possible Keynesian solutions to the current economic woes. They believe the cuts are not only not essential but damaging as they will reduce the amount of money in circulation in the economy but because labour supporters are often ill read they do not put the argument so succinctly
The labour program of simply printing money or the so called programme of quantitative easing was solely target at the Keynesian ideals of increasing the supply of money in the economy. With this extra money the Bank brought Britain bonds (basically we printed fake money to by our own debt). Other nations also brought our bonds and we have to pay them for this and we also pay ourselves because we own our own bonds.
Anyway there our two upshots of this. One that the value of our bonds and the rate of interest on them our key to our long term survival and the value and interest charged on these bond is dependent of the confidence in our ability to repay our debts. Nothing more than this. It’s a delightful and complex cycle of debt and bound. Two all that money printed never reached the pockets of the public, as envisioned by Keynes but instead is floating in virtual banking vacuum doing nothing but service are incalculable debt and being virtual moved from faceless virtual bank to faceless virtual bank.
Both capitalism and Keynesian and even communism where developed well before the new virtual economy was born. In the days of Adam smith and Keynes and Marx capital or money was real. Only Keynes lived in an era when gold was not the deciding factor of the value of a currency and some could argue Keynes and Marx has enabled the move away from currency value being based on Gold or some actual physical resource to the value of a currency being based on largely baseless speculation and rumor. For those of you with short memories I remind you of the bankruptcy of Argentina caused largely by such baseless currency speculation.
Our economy has passed the point where the value of money is based on labor or Gold or even confidence, money now is meaningless collection of abstract numbers. Indeed the belief we have moved the economy beyond boom and bust is built upon the virtualization of money and of the movement of money being far more important than the money itself.
What is the value of one billion pounds, when it never truly existed, when no one ever used it or invested it? What is virtual monies true value?
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Alcohol
I do not drink alcohol and I do this for what I consider religious reasons. I am you see a Methodist and in particular a primitive Methodist. Some Christian and Methodist scholars argue that my opposition to Alcohol is not biblical (Jesus turned water into wine after all) but cultural. That the founders of the primitive Methodist church were anti-alcohol and thus my religious views are in fact cultural.
I would argue that there are anti alcohol quotes in the bible but this piece is not about the theology of alcohol. There are those who also see temperance (look it up) is anti social, that by pursing temperance we are being anti social. Indeed I have often been excluded in both my private and public life because of my veracious commitment to temperance.
They may be right. I can easily see why a man who refused to drink would not be welcome in a business deal celebrated by Champaign (its only one glass after all). Or who the sober man would not be welcomed or join in with the intoxicated revellers. There is I assure you something terrible liberating by being so anti social, so refusing to something so fundamental to our society.
No let’s say the stat suddenly came over with some prejudice against Methodist because some Methodist extremist bored someone to death (let’s face it that the only way a Methodist is ever going to harm anyone). Could they not argue that outlawing temperance is for the social good? Could they not dig up umpteen biblical scholars to testify it’s not religious its cultural and then get business leaders and social commentators to argue that temperance is anti social?
No. Well that’s what they’re doing with the Burkha. Merely because we do not or do something ourselves does not mean we have the right to force other to do it. Merely because something make you uncomfortable or make you look unsociable it no reason to force behavioural change. Not more could the state make me drink even that one glass, will the state force Muslims for forsake the Burkha.
I would argue that there are anti alcohol quotes in the bible but this piece is not about the theology of alcohol. There are those who also see temperance (look it up) is anti social, that by pursing temperance we are being anti social. Indeed I have often been excluded in both my private and public life because of my veracious commitment to temperance.
They may be right. I can easily see why a man who refused to drink would not be welcome in a business deal celebrated by Champaign (its only one glass after all). Or who the sober man would not be welcomed or join in with the intoxicated revellers. There is I assure you something terrible liberating by being so anti social, so refusing to something so fundamental to our society.
No let’s say the stat suddenly came over with some prejudice against Methodist because some Methodist extremist bored someone to death (let’s face it that the only way a Methodist is ever going to harm anyone). Could they not argue that outlawing temperance is for the social good? Could they not dig up umpteen biblical scholars to testify it’s not religious its cultural and then get business leaders and social commentators to argue that temperance is anti social?
No. Well that’s what they’re doing with the Burkha. Merely because we do not or do something ourselves does not mean we have the right to force other to do it. Merely because something make you uncomfortable or make you look unsociable it no reason to force behavioural change. Not more could the state make me drink even that one glass, will the state force Muslims for forsake the Burkha.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Philip Hollobone & section 28
I am thankful of very few things but one of them is that I was not alive or at least political engaged when my beloved party brought in section 28. Yes a Tory talking about section 28, shocking ain’t it. I am not well read enough about section 28 and its good and bad to make a comment on the section itself but I am to comment on its effect.
Section 28 became a byword for Tory intolerance, it earmarked the parties moral parentalisum and the parties server discomfort with (I would argue sex in general) and homosexual in particular. It made use look horrible old fashion at best and bigoted at worse. It lost us a generation of progressive supporters and still stigmatise the party to this very day.
So what you may ask does this have to do with are dear Philip Hollobone and his moves to ban all face covering and the burka or niqab in particular?
They are the continuation of the same conservative need to parentalist moral policies. We have or Mr. Holobone has come to believe that to cover one face is immoral and anti social act. That merely to cover one lips is to seen as an act akin to revolution. He of course whittlers on about women’s rights and about the importance of lips in communications but really this is a moral crusade.
The burka or niqab is the most obvious mark of religious difference of belief in Islam and in an un-western way of behaving (well its not that un-western, we had dress laws for before). Some see the un-western as a rejection of our moral order and our social norms and thus there moral duty to forbid and ban it. The support of the ban is forcing the immoral actor to act moral, just as we tried to do with section 28.
Just as was the case with section 28 all this will achieved is outward hostility toward the party from that section of the population whose actions we have controlled and eventually the party looking outdated and bigoted. The Islamic community offer great potential to the conservative party, they are entrepreneurial, individualist, law abiding and social conservative and with some engagement probably Tory voters.
Why upset them with a policy that goes against Britain’s hard taught lesion on the state interfering with religion and which will in the end backfire on us and do irreparable harm. Why support a policy which is just anti-iambic dressed in security and women rights (a very odd combination). Why have another section 28 moment when we could ignore the call from those who want the state to act as God and bring the party truly into the modern era.
Section 28 became a byword for Tory intolerance, it earmarked the parties moral parentalisum and the parties server discomfort with (I would argue sex in general) and homosexual in particular. It made use look horrible old fashion at best and bigoted at worse. It lost us a generation of progressive supporters and still stigmatise the party to this very day.
So what you may ask does this have to do with are dear Philip Hollobone and his moves to ban all face covering and the burka or niqab in particular?
They are the continuation of the same conservative need to parentalist moral policies. We have or Mr. Holobone has come to believe that to cover one face is immoral and anti social act. That merely to cover one lips is to seen as an act akin to revolution. He of course whittlers on about women’s rights and about the importance of lips in communications but really this is a moral crusade.
The burka or niqab is the most obvious mark of religious difference of belief in Islam and in an un-western way of behaving (well its not that un-western, we had dress laws for before). Some see the un-western as a rejection of our moral order and our social norms and thus there moral duty to forbid and ban it. The support of the ban is forcing the immoral actor to act moral, just as we tried to do with section 28.
Just as was the case with section 28 all this will achieved is outward hostility toward the party from that section of the population whose actions we have controlled and eventually the party looking outdated and bigoted. The Islamic community offer great potential to the conservative party, they are entrepreneurial, individualist, law abiding and social conservative and with some engagement probably Tory voters.
Why upset them with a policy that goes against Britain’s hard taught lesion on the state interfering with religion and which will in the end backfire on us and do irreparable harm. Why support a policy which is just anti-iambic dressed in security and women rights (a very odd combination). Why have another section 28 moment when we could ignore the call from those who want the state to act as God and bring the party truly into the modern era.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Lost at sea
Having read Mr Cleggs wittering on the government’s vague commitments to restoring liberty and decreasing the deficit I began to worry. I was worried that the collation had no end goal, no sole purpose and no ideal society.
Now I know the idea of ideological politics has waned in this age of collation, co-operation and Capitalist supremacy. We are taught and duly believe a lie. This lie is that ideological polices are blind and that any policy based on an ideology is bad. This was the new labour lie and the new collation has carried in on.
Yes ideology should not dominate a government but can anyone realistically say that the personality driven policies of new labour supposed the ideologically driven policies of the pre and post war governments. Examples: universal health care, pensions and even the extension of rationing.
You may disagree with the ideology and these policies but at least your disagreeing with a coherent set of ideas, at least your opposing an ideal a vision of how the world could be. Not just disagreeing with a certain person or personality.
Now the coalition has replaced “sofa” or personality politics with cabinet policy there seems to be a lack. Sure they agree on reducing the deficit (I doubt they truly agree on how) and they are all vaguely libertarian (well the central players are) but this is not a coherent plan for government. The worst result of this lack of a coherent plan can be seen by ring fencing the NHS.
If they were truly believer in smaller government they would have hung the consequences and opposed such a ring fence and if they where truly pro NHS they would have increased (far beyond what they have) the budget. But no, they under massive popular pressure concocted the half measure we have now.
My fear is that the legacy of this coalition will be the disappearance of the deficit (no mean feat) but also five years of vaguely pro libertarian policies inter mixed with popular authoritarian policies (i.e. the call for the ban on the Burkha, democracy village and the face book debacle).
Without a strong idea and thus strong commitment to a certain sets of idea and a certain place they want society to be (fairer, more liberated, more moral, Christian, Muslim ect) this coalition government is doomed to move nowhere.
Now I know the idea of ideological politics has waned in this age of collation, co-operation and Capitalist supremacy. We are taught and duly believe a lie. This lie is that ideological polices are blind and that any policy based on an ideology is bad. This was the new labour lie and the new collation has carried in on.
Yes ideology should not dominate a government but can anyone realistically say that the personality driven policies of new labour supposed the ideologically driven policies of the pre and post war governments. Examples: universal health care, pensions and even the extension of rationing.
You may disagree with the ideology and these policies but at least your disagreeing with a coherent set of ideas, at least your opposing an ideal a vision of how the world could be. Not just disagreeing with a certain person or personality.
Now the coalition has replaced “sofa” or personality politics with cabinet policy there seems to be a lack. Sure they agree on reducing the deficit (I doubt they truly agree on how) and they are all vaguely libertarian (well the central players are) but this is not a coherent plan for government. The worst result of this lack of a coherent plan can be seen by ring fencing the NHS.
If they were truly believer in smaller government they would have hung the consequences and opposed such a ring fence and if they where truly pro NHS they would have increased (far beyond what they have) the budget. But no, they under massive popular pressure concocted the half measure we have now.
My fear is that the legacy of this coalition will be the disappearance of the deficit (no mean feat) but also five years of vaguely pro libertarian policies inter mixed with popular authoritarian policies (i.e. the call for the ban on the Burkha, democracy village and the face book debacle).
Without a strong idea and thus strong commitment to a certain sets of idea and a certain place they want society to be (fairer, more liberated, more moral, Christian, Muslim ect) this coalition government is doomed to move nowhere.
Whatever you do the least of my brother you do unto me
Often people ask me what if I somehow discovered that there was no life after death, would I turn my back on Christ teaching and Christianities guiding principles and I have always replied simply. Even if there were no heaven, even if there was no eternal reward for the good would still choose to try to be good.
To me being good, caring for others, and the other guiding principles that Christ proclaimed are good in-and-of-themselves. What I mean by this is even without any reward I would still choose to be good and kind to others because as humans it is are earthly duty to try to improve the world we live in. It is up to us weather we live in a good and kind community.
Deeper still I refuse the idea, absolutely, of doing good in expectation that anything good will be bestowed on the giver. If you believe something is good, something is right, and then you must act accordingly, no matter how much you suffer. I believe its good to be kind and to help people; though I fairly infrequently receive direct aid via this belief I still follow it for I believe its the right thing to do and to do the right thing is always right.
Yes I know that the argument is tautological but think about this: Imagine a world where evil was victorious, where good deeds where only punished and those who chose the path of good where reduced to second class citizens. In such a world would doing good not still be the right thing to do, would those who believed that goodness still had a place even here have no choice but to make their stand.
I argues that even if every good deed cost me a thousand time the good it did for other the cost would still be worthy of payment, for we are called to be better then animals, better then self serving individuals, better, even, then those around us. It is my view that goodness is not contextual; you are not good just because you are not as evil as your neighbour but because you place your self at the service of others because you care and assist others, even at a great cost to yourself.
We must thank the lord for heaven and for sending Christ to open its doors but we should never act just to impress Christ but because we know that Goodness is the gift and the purpose of our heavenly father. So even if goodness had no earthly reward it would still be good because it pleases our heavenly farther and even if there was no heavenly father goodness would still be valued as a prized fragment of what makes humanity human.
To me being good, caring for others, and the other guiding principles that Christ proclaimed are good in-and-of-themselves. What I mean by this is even without any reward I would still choose to be good and kind to others because as humans it is are earthly duty to try to improve the world we live in. It is up to us weather we live in a good and kind community.
Deeper still I refuse the idea, absolutely, of doing good in expectation that anything good will be bestowed on the giver. If you believe something is good, something is right, and then you must act accordingly, no matter how much you suffer. I believe its good to be kind and to help people; though I fairly infrequently receive direct aid via this belief I still follow it for I believe its the right thing to do and to do the right thing is always right.
Yes I know that the argument is tautological but think about this: Imagine a world where evil was victorious, where good deeds where only punished and those who chose the path of good where reduced to second class citizens. In such a world would doing good not still be the right thing to do, would those who believed that goodness still had a place even here have no choice but to make their stand.
I argues that even if every good deed cost me a thousand time the good it did for other the cost would still be worthy of payment, for we are called to be better then animals, better then self serving individuals, better, even, then those around us. It is my view that goodness is not contextual; you are not good just because you are not as evil as your neighbour but because you place your self at the service of others because you care and assist others, even at a great cost to yourself.
We must thank the lord for heaven and for sending Christ to open its doors but we should never act just to impress Christ but because we know that Goodness is the gift and the purpose of our heavenly father. So even if goodness had no earthly reward it would still be good because it pleases our heavenly farther and even if there was no heavenly father goodness would still be valued as a prized fragment of what makes humanity human.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
A prayer for the congo victims
Lord, you made this world so beautiful and bountiful but your creation has spread upon the glob like an infection, every hungery, ever greedy, ever destorying and these insane lust have cost mqany human lives.
Far from the lands of my people, far beyond where I have ever travelled there lies the pain and lost my own greeds and lust have cause. Far from my room lies the damaged and injured.
I can notembrace them lord though I have harmed them. So Lord in your might, so Lord in your power embrace the lost and injured. Take the souls of those wo have died, hold them tight unto you. Rebuild them save3 them, redeem them Lord.
I beg you to show the victims of your creations falings the mercy in heaven that there own brothers failed to show them in this life. I beg you also in the name of your own son jesus to show us that mercy which we have failed to show the least among us
Far from the lands of my people, far beyond where I have ever travelled there lies the pain and lost my own greeds and lust have cause. Far from my room lies the damaged and injured.
I can notembrace them lord though I have harmed them. So Lord in your might, so Lord in your power embrace the lost and injured. Take the souls of those wo have died, hold them tight unto you. Rebuild them save3 them, redeem them Lord.
I beg you to show the victims of your creations falings the mercy in heaven that there own brothers failed to show them in this life. I beg you also in the name of your own son jesus to show us that mercy which we have failed to show the least among us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)