The death of capitalism?

Politicians are frequently criticised for having pre-packaged opinions on every subject under the sun, so it’s a refreshing change to take stick for not having expressed a view on a current issue.
 
A recipient of my newsletter is upset that I haven’t written about the global financial crisis.  More than that: he insists that I should drop everything to campaign on the issue.  I should write articles, call public meetings, go out on the street.  This is an interesting idea, but what would I actually say at such public meetings?  My failure to act, he says, is proof that I don’t take it seriously.  But of course I do indeed have opinions on the issue.  I believe that the financial crisis is a very serious threat to our prosperity.  I think the US administration is right to consider a substantial bail-out, but I also think that House Republicans are right to urge that other solutions, including an insurance guarantee scheme, should at least be considered.
 
I believe that US public opinion is wrong to regard the proposed bail-out as a tax-payers’ bung to rich bankers, or a freebie for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.  If the US economy goes pear-shaped, Main Street will suffer most as jobs are lost and banks fail.
 
The media are stuffed with news reports and opinion pieces on the subject, and while of course I have my own opinions, I don’t believe I have much that is new or original to add to the debate, which is why I haven’t written about it (until now).  Some are saying it is the end of capitalism.  That of course is nonsense.  As long as people instinctively believe in their natural right to own property, and a consequent right to trade property, there will be capitalism.  As Winston Churchill didn’t quite say, capitalism is the worst way we know of organising an economy — apart from all the other ways.  Over the last century, we’ve seen all the other ways tried out, and they manifestly lead to greater disasters than our current problems.
 
Others are calling for Draconian new regulation of the banks.  This advice should be approached with caution.  We are all too familiar with the dangers of knee-jerk reactions.  We have seen the dangerous dogs act and the post-Dunblane gun laws.  Closer to the financial world, we have seen in America the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002.  This was a well-meant attempt to clean up Corporate America, but it is widely seen not only to have failed, but to have done huge damage to the US, and indeed to have driven capital markets off-shore — to the great advantage of London.  Excessive bank regulation could damage the City of London, could make it much less attractive to invest in the UK, and much more difficult for UK companies and citizens to borrow the money they need.  We should also apportion blame to Gordon Brown’s show-case reorganisation of financial oversight, between the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA.  His initiative has failed at the first serious challenge, and it can be credibly argued that if the Bank of England had retained full responsibility for banking supervision, it would have acted earlier over suspect mortgages and derivatives.
 
Of course we need to look at bonuses in the financial sector, so that they incentivise long-term prosperity, not short-term deals (and note that Richard Fuld, the Chairman of the failed bank Lehman Brothers, actually lost much of his personal fortune which was tied up in the bank’s shares and share options).  We also need to look at the capital ratios and lending practices of banks.  These are issues that shareholders are likely to address anyway, without new regulation.
 
Looking more broadly at threats to our prosperity, I personally believe that serious as the financial crisis is, there is an even greater threat to Britain, and that is the question of energy security.  On current energy policies, and especially with the Labour government’s over-reliance on wind power, we could see rolling black-outs in a few years’ time.  We could see the lights go out.  This is an issue where I do indeed feel that I have something important to add to the debate, which is why I have written articles, organised public meetings, and published a DVD about it.  I prefer to concentrate on issues which are not only important, but where I have a genuine contribution to make.  For a copy of my DVD, “Straight Talking on Climate Change”, send a pre-addressed A5 envelope to me at 9 Prospect Court, Courteenhall Road, Blisworth, Northamptonshire, NN7 3DG.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Credit Crunch and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to The death of capitalism?

  1. John Morton says:

    Mr Helmer

    Your comments here demonstrate that you don’t know the slightest thing about global finance, or about the scale of the collapse that is now underway in the financial system.

    How dare you blame the American public for their outrage over this proposal from a bunch of greedy bankers who have bankrupted themselves, and all of us, with their crazy antics.

    Make no mistake – this is a bailout, and it is a bailout that will destroy the US dollar and economy if it is rammed through over all opposition.

    Even now, we are getting reports of Army units being deployed to suppress opposition to this treason by the Bush administration.

    If you side with the fascist bankers on this, your name will go down in history as a man who supported the destruction of the United States.

  2. Roger Helmer says:

    With resepct, John, I’m afraid it’s YOU who demonstrate your ignorance about global finance. Don’t you know what happened in the thirties? If we allow banks to fail in a general financial meltdown, we’ll be back there. No one is trying to bail out bankers (very few of whom, if any, are fascist). We are trying to prevent a massive depression and huge unemployment. That is why ordinary people with jobs, mortgages and pensions should be glad of the Paulsen plan.

  3. John Morton says:

    Helmer

    I work in the bloody finance industry, and you are a pen pushing fool, so don’t tell me what I do and do not know about this subject.

    The Paulson bailout is classic FASCISM. When insiders corrupt government by having trillions of dollars of worthless financial paper offloaded onto taxpayers is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Giving unlimited power to the Treasury Secretary to conduct these asset purchases is a violation of the United States Constitution, and WILL NOT WORK ANYWAY, as will be demonstrated over the coming months.

    As I have told you repeatedly, the only solution to this crisis is re-organization in bankruptcy, under Federal constitutional law, of the bankrupt financial system.

    The alternative is a rapid descent into a dark age and global chaos.

  4. Andy Terry says:

    “I work in the bloody finance industry” – Hardly something to brag about at the moment is it?

  5. John Morton says:

    Populists Back Ron Paul’s Plan To Kill the Fed

    American Free Press
    Sunday, Oct 5, 2008

    The trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout plan negotiated by the White House and Congress has reinvigorated the debate about Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (HR 2755), which was introduced into Congress in June 2007.

    In the halls of Congress, legislators have yet to bring Paul’s bill to the floor. It is currently languishing in the House Committee on Financial Services.

    However, there has been a great deal of discussion about this landmark legislation on the Internet and in the alternative press. Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has even made abolishing the Fed one of the top planks in his platform.

    Paul’s measure, as it is now, would kill the Federal Reserve Act and would then phase out the Federal Reserve one year after the bill becomes law.

    (Article continues below)

    The Federal Reserve Act, passed by Congress in 1913, laid the foundation for the creation of a privately owned and controlled central bank and gave private bankers the power to control the nation’s money supply.

    Nearly 100 years later, the role the central bank has played in the financial scandal has been widely reported in the mainstream. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, once heralded as “the maestro,” has been feeling the heat for supporting the deregulation of financial institutions and flooding markets with cheap dollars.

    U.S. News & World Report had a recent commentary titled “From Enron to the Financial Crisis, With Alan Greenspan in Between” excoriating Greenspan, who as the nation’s top banker, repeatedly downplayed the risks associated with derivatives even after the collapse of Enron in 2002.

    On September 27, The New York Times also hit Greenspan for his failure to watch over and regulate greedy banks. To its credit, the Times also blasted Congress for dismantling important safeguards, including the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept commercial and investment banks at a safe distance.

    “Now we know that an entire ‘shadow banking system’ has grown up,” wrote the Times, “without rules or transparency, but with the ability to topple the financial system itself.”

    Even the cable news shows are getting in on the game. NBC’s cable news show interviewed well-known investor Jim Rogers, who made a fortune betting on commodities markets.

    “How much money does the Federal Reserve have?” asked Rogers. “I know they can run their printing presses forever, but that is not good for the world. Inflation is not good for the world. A collapsing currency is not good for the world. It means worse recession in the end. . . . I would abolish the Federal Reserve.”

    Neo-conservative talk show host Glenn Beck has also assailed the Federal Reserve for its role in the financial crisis. On September 15, Beck had a lively debate about who exactly owns the Federal Reserve.

    “The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with the government,” said Beck. “It’s a separate, global banking system. . . . And when everyone was meeting with our Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson, I thought to myself: ‘Who the hell is representing us, the American people?”

    Ron Paul financial advisor Paul Schiff responded: “The Fed got us into this mess. It drives me crazy to see Alan Greenspan on television talking about this ‘100 year flood,’ like the events that are taking place today are random and have nothing to do with his monetary policy. He blew up the bubble, and now it’s burst.”

    Wall Street Journal editorial writer Steven Moore added: “And by the way, who elected Ben Bernanke? Who elected Alan Greenspan?”

    Now is the time for Americans to fan the flames. Call your congressman and two senators and ask them to support Paul’s bill, which would abolish the Fed. There can be no end to these manufactured financial crises until the government gets rid of the Fed and replaces it with honest, debt-free money.

  6. John Morton says:

    Franklin said “A Republic If You Can Keep It;” We Didn’t

    By John Hoefle

    October 4, 2008

    Benjamin Franklin famously remarked that the Founding Fathers had given us “a republic, if you can keep it,” and the actions of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress have answered Franklin with a resounding “no!” Virtually everything about the bailout bill, from its name to the reasons given for passing it, was a lie. The “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” is a travesty of justice, an act of economic incompetence, and a slap in the face to the American people and the Constitution.

    This bill was a complete sellout of the American people, and of the principles upon which this nation was founded. What it does, is give billions of dollars–and eventually trillions of dollars–of money to the same global financial networks which have destroyed the industrial and productive capacity of the U.S. economy, so that they can continue that destruction. It would have been better had the government done nothing. Instead, they gave the nation away to the thieves.

    Un-Constitutional

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That is the Preamble to our Constitution, which establishes the principles upon which our government was created, and it is the law; any act by the government which violates those principles is illegal, and that includes the bailout.

    Consider the ramifications of this abominable “stabilization act.” First, it seeks to bail out the very financial system which has destroyed our economy, impoverished most of our people, and would create a virtual bankers’ dictatorship within our government. Second, it would impose upon this impoverished population a heavy tax to support this bailout of international financial institutions, a tax that the people cannot pay. Third, it will lead inevitably to a level of hyperinflation of the sort that destroyed Weimar Germany in 1923, destroying the value of our currency and wiping out what is left of our economy. Fourth, in blowing up the dollar, it will also destroy the global economic system based upon the dollar, wreaking havoc far beyond our borders.

    This law was passed and signed over the vehement objections of the American people, who had made it clear to Congress that the bill should be rejected. The idiots who did this added insult to injury by claiming that they did it for “Main Street,” for “the American People,” but they really did it for the financial parasites who own them. They did it for the bankers of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, and the British Empire.

    Incompetent

    This law would more properly be called the New Dark Age Act of 2008, because that is what it will bring. From the standpoint of the economy, the law merely allows “Hjalmar Hank” Paulson and his successors to transfer unpayable debts from the books of the banks to the books of the U.S. Government, and thus to the taxpayer. It does nothing, absolutely noting, to deal with the reasons why the debt cannot be paid, and in truth merely adds more debt to the economy, leaving it worse off than before.

    The fundamental problem with our economy is that it no longer produces enough wealth to support our population. We have been operating below economic break-even for four decades, since the 1968-1971 period, our productivity declining and our debt growing to compensate for the wealth no longer produced. As our industrial capacity was shut down–as dictated by the financiers we have just bailed out–the living standards of the majority of our population has declined, while the income of a small portion of our population has soared. The “general Welfare” of the population as a whole has declined significantly, at an accelerating rate, while a small sliver of our population has gotten incredibly rich.

    What the financiers have been doing is transforming our economy from a modern scientific marvel into one more resembling the imperial “lords and peasants” model, in which the elite feed off the rest of us. Such an economy is based upon looting others, not upon production, and thus must increase its looting to survive. The bailout is that kind of looting. The plantation owners are broke, and cracking the whip on the slaves.

    Since the financial system died last year, the major western central banks have pumped more than $5 trillion in cash loans into the banking system, and over $3 trillion of that has come from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The number of emergency lending facilities has proliferated as the losses spread through the financial institutions, as huge amounts of money were pumped into banks and thrifts, investment banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, insurance giant A.I.G., the asset-backed commercial paper market, and the money-mutual market funds. None of this has worked, and banks in the U.S. and Europe are failing at a growing rate, as the losses spread. They are trying to bail out a bottomless pit, and it isn’t working; this bailout will not be any different.

    What We Need

    The Founding Fathers understood that progress of mankind depends upon human creativity; the minds of the people are humanity’s most precious asset, and therefore the people must be protected and nurtured. This is the opposite of the oligarchic model, which treats people as cattle.

    This concept of humanity, and of economics, is at the heart of Lyndon LaRouche’s economic recovery plan. Above all else, the general Welfare of the people must be protected, which means making sure that people have homes, productive jobs, proper education, health care and other essentials of life.

    The financiers, and the politicians who serve them believe, and would have us believe, that it is their money that is the engine which drives the economy. If we go bankrupt, they insist, the economy will die, so protecting us is paramount. That argument was used to pass the bailout, but it is a total fraud.

    The truth is that the financiers are the fleas feeding off the dog, parasites who feed off the economy and the population. They built a huge speculative bubble, treating the mountain of unpayable debts they created as assets to be securitized, leveraged and traded until this scam collapsed. Good riddance.

    We must return to American System economics, putting our money into rebuilding our productive base and raising the standards of living of our population, creating the conditions to develop the minds of our children to the fullest, so that they may make the breakthroughs which will lead humanity into a bright future.

    With the bailout will come savage austerity, as infrastructure and essential societal functions are cut to pay back the trillions of dollars of loans, and the disintegration of civilization itself which will follow a hyperinflationary blowout. Unless we reverse this course, we will descend into a new Dark Age.

    Educate Your Emotions

    Many people are enraged at what the government has done, but being mad is not enough, as the oligarchs are quite skilled at channeling popular rage into dead ends. What people have to do is educate themselves on the principles embodied in the Constitution, and on the principles of real economics. You must know what must be done, and not get sidetracked by the attempts to play upon your emotions. This is not a game, and the cost of failure is too high for us not to succeed.

    One good place to begin is by making sure that none of the Representatives and Senators who voted for this travesty are re-elected in the upcoming election. That’s not enough, but it will send a useful message to Washington that the will of the people should not be ignored.

    johnhoefle@larouchepub.com

  7. John Morton says:

    Andy

    I am not bragging about anything, other than having predicted this crisis several years ago and the fact that I have been fighting with every penny and spare moment that I have, to prepare for the solutions that are now absolutely necessary if we are going to survive this crisis.

    What’s your excuse?

  8. Andy Terry says:

    Didn’t know I needed an excuse as I’m not putting myself forward as expert on this one. Good luck in helping us all to survive, but I think we will be OK without the assistance!

  9. Roger Helmer says:

    I love it that someone working in the finance industry can dismiss others as “pen-pushers”. You may like to know, John, that before I got into politics I had a proper job for over thirty years — trading internationally and generating wealth. I do know a little bit about the real world.

  10. John Morton says:

    And how does that real world look to you this morning Roger?

    You are running out of time to do what I have told you to do, or we are all going to hell together.

    Have you got the balls to admit that I am right?

  11. John Morton says:

    Andy

    As you are about to discover, you will not be “alright”.

    The system you have been living in for thirty years is DISINTEGRATING.

    If you want to get an idea of what life will be like here in a very short time from now under present policies, take a look at Zimbabwe.

  12. Roger Helmer says:

    John, I’m very flattered at the idea that I and I alone can save the world. But I don’t believe it to be the case. We’re certainly in for a tough time for a couple of years, but I’m prepared to bet that in ten years time this crisis will be history. There are regular crises and recessions in capitalist economies, but capitalism delivers wealth over the long term that no other system can come close to.

  13. Donald Sweeting says:

    In response to comments by John Morton October 5, 2008 as extracted below, I say to you sir you are a bafoon masquerading as a thing of intelligence and I am insulted to read your drivel …

    “What the financiers have been doing is transforming our economy from a modern scientific marvel into one more resembling the imperial “lords and peasants” model, in which the elite feed off the rest of us. Such an economy is based upon looting others, not upon production, and thus must increase its looting to survive. The bailout is that kind of looting. The plantation owners are broke, and cracking the whip on the slaves.”

    “The Founding Fathers understood that progress of mankind depends upon human creativity; the minds of the people are humanity’s most precious asset, and therefore the people must be protected and nurtured. This is the opposite of the oligarchic model, which treats people as cattle.”

    You find no quams in referencing your comments to that which has very little bearing on what Roger was trying to get at in the first place then I have none about putting you in your place by pointing out that you are on the wrong side of history in this argument.

    “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”—Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention, March, 1775.

    For everything there is a season, and the so called scientific marvel that built Most European colonial economies and the Americas for that matter from the 16th through the 19th century were dependent on enslaved African labor for their survival some may say that the time of reconing has come.

    Now that there appears to be a crisis which may have an impact on the world’s economic survival you have the unmitigated gall to call on this comparison and trivialise matters…. my fellow North Americans may at some distant point in the future only being asked to tighten their belts around their ovesized tummies a bit.

    So we will have to skip a meal or two while the rest of the world catches its breath but there are not 3 milloin deaths in the middle passage required to achieve this economic marvel as you call it.

    TO use your own trivilisation of the slavery analagy, Each plantation economy was part of a larger national and international political economy. The cotton plantation economy, for instance, was generally seen as part of the regional economy of the American South. By the 1830s, “cotton was king” indeed in the South.

    It was also king in the United States, which was competing for economic leadership in the global political economy. Plantation-grown cotton was the foundation of the antebellum southern economy.

    Take a chill pill and get real sir… as your language is quite upsetting… and things are never that bad nor will they be unless scaremongerers like you remain unchecked..

  14. Donald Sweeting says:

    Furthermore Mr Morton……

    The value of the investments slaveholders held in their slaves was often used to secure loans to purchase additional land or slaves. Slaves were also used to pay off outstanding debts. When calculating the value of estates, the estimated value of each slave was included. This became the source of tax revenue for local and state governments. Taxes were also levied on slave transactions. So when you care to make future comparisons you must argue on the affirmative as you do not have credibility to argue on the sanctity of the great western financial institutions.

    As for the U.S. Constitution, that document incorporated a feature that made enslaved Africans political capital—to the benefit of southern states. The so-called three-fifths compromise allowed the southern states to count their slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating states’ representation in the U.S. Congress. Thus the balance of power between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states turned, in part, on the three-fifths presence of enslaved Africans in the census. So you see the political machinery has changed little in two hundred years.

    Slaveholders were taxed on the same three-fifths principle, and no taxes paid on slaves supported the national treasury. In sum, the slavery system in the United States was a national system that touched the very core of its economic and political life. There remains a small sector of the population of the United States Of America who have bourne the burden of the worlds economic greed for centuries, but they paid with their lives and their blood… All we are being asked to do in the current crisis is to consume less. How is that going to bring our world to an end?

    Excerpted from Jubilee: the Emergence of African-American Culture by the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.

  15. John Morton says:

    Donald

    What a pile of unadulterated drivel.

    I am telling you from the horses mouth that the banking system is collapsing and you want to debate slavery?

    Give me a break!

    Suggest you check the news headlines and pull your head out of your backside.

  16. John Morton says:

    John

    I am not trying to overthrow capitalism, but to re-educate you as to what capitalism is.

    Our current system is not a capitalist system, it is a MONETARIST system.

    Now that the hyperinflationary global bubble of funny money derivatives is exploding and destroying our banking and financial system, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

  17. Donald Sweeting says:

    My Dear John Morton

    The laws of debate merely requires a proposal of an idea to be resolved. You do not seem to quite grasp the idea of an affirmative argument and are in fact a bully. While you preach your doomsday fantasies, drawing references to the most shameful period in recent human history it is entirely within my right to correct the eronious paralells that you drew to what is happening in today’s global economic climate.

    I merely pointed out that The Great American Economic model that you so strongly believe we should return to is indemically flawed at its very core and you cannot use this argument as the salvation of the little people because its very foundation was built on the blood of so many of them. How is that not a valid premise for a rebutal?

    “There is a saying that if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen… Also if you do not know a man call him mister.”

    You have spouted accusations and insults on Roger’s blog suggesting that some how he is personally responsible for this farce and has insulted the American people by expressing what was clearly an opinion on this global matter. In doing so you have trespassed into an area that I suggest you have no authority to tread. Use you sense man you are exposed on too many fronts in this argument and are in danger of being discovered as a fraud.

    Of course you realise that you are are also suggesting that we should believe everything that is reported on the news and this of course is what should form policies in the halls of political power is it not? Wrong political party M8…..

    If you must resort to insults to get your point across then I suggest you consign your debates to a pub where equally beligerant fools can react accordingly.

    As for the proximity of my head to my posterior, you are the one working in the financial sector who is more likely to be talking SH*T you or I?

  18. Colin says:

    Locally, I use the phrase “value for people not value for money”. I think that implies we have a monetarist system whereby human beings are inconvenient cost heads. The Old Testament prophets railed against putting money into a bag with holes three thousand years ago. There is nothing in the Bible against capitalism per se, but there is against abuse of fellow humans

  19. Donald Sweeting says:

    Roger

    Moving back to you original premise in the statement which began this thread of debate, you quoted Winston Churchill

    “capitalism is the worst way we know of organising an economy — apart from all the other ways. Over the last century, we’ve seen all the other ways tried out, and they manifestly lead to greater disasters than our current problems.”

    Apart from his blatant disregard for any opinion other than his own, what if John Morton is right and this is the beginning of the end of life as we know it? Is there another way forward for our capitalist society other than throwing our hands up and screaming like mad lunitics in a chicken little like way that the sky is falling?

    Is Compassionate Capitalism the Cure? It certainly is not a new concept…

    If you were a fly on the wall of a board meeting in any given business sector, you are more than likely to find corporate social responsibility on the list of the CEO’s agenda . It is probably typed in blocked capitals, in bold italics, and underlined. Twice. But for some businesses, social interest isn’t just this year’s annual target… Co-op springs to mind, when it comes to a sense of community. As does The Body Shop in terms of environmental considerations. – By Stuart Lauchlan, news and analysis editor http://www.mycustomer.com

    How in your opinion does this view stack up to the idea of Compassionate Conservativism as assocated with the Cameron project? As you are obviously aware compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that conservatism and compassion complement each other, particularly in opposition to common conservative party platform planks such as advocating laissez-faire economic policies.

    In the USA compassionate conservatives might see their social problems, such as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments.

    Some left-wing critics of George W. Bush have criticized the phrase “compassionate conservatism” as simply sugarcoating, an empty phrase to make traditional conservatism sound more appealing to moderate voters. Liberal commentator Joe Conason, noting Bush’s policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that “so far, being a ‘compassionate conservative’ appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative.” Similarly, former President Bill Clinton described the message of compassionate conservatism as: “I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can’t.”

    Conversely, the policy has also been attacked from the right: commentator Herman Cain criticized compassionate conservatism as leading to the Bush administration’s increased government spending, saying that it “completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism,” and “alienated the party’s conservative base,” noting Bush policies such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which increased the size of the Medicare program by around $500 billion.[16]

    Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg has written that compassionate conservatism as implemented by George W. Bush differs markedly from the theoretical policy concept. He wrote: “…most conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan to attract swing voters.

    Unlike the U.S. counterpart, the UK form is unassociated with Christianity and instead incorporates many social democratic, liberal and environmental concepts into conservatism, while playing down traditionalist focuses on family breakdown, opposition to immigration, and monarchism. The ‘And’ theory of conservatism’ is a political neologism coined in 2000s Conservativism for the notion of “holistic” policy bringing together traditional Conservativism with some aspects of Liberalism (Right-libertarianism), combining policies like low taxation with traditionally Liberal solutions to issues such as poverty and climate change.

    Is there really anything behind the curtain Roger?

  20. John Morton says:

    Dear Donald

    Since you are an “expert” on “the rules of debate”, you should first stick to the point of the argument, which at the present time is whether or not we have a solvent banking system (which clearly we DO NOT).

    I am more than happy to debate you any time any where on the subject of the United States Constitution and historical mission, which you have attacked and slandered here on the basis of typical foolish revisionist populisms.

    Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that I am right whether you like it or not, and we therefore MUST find a solution to this crisis that does not involve global fascism, as is currently envisaged by the people destroying this country from the TOP DOWN.

    As it so happens, the only nation on this planet with the power to enact the reforms that are now required is the United States of America, means of reorganization in bankruptcy of the international floating exchange rate financial system, and replacement of that system with a new fixed exchange rate system.

    I suggest that you watch the following if you want to understand the scale of this crash:

    http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/10/12/larouchepac-weekly-update-october-11-2008.html

  21. Donald Sweeting says:

    Mr. Morton
    As I suggested to you before if you do not know a man call him mister. And as I gave you no leave to call me familiar then please heed that advice in your future responses. Language is a dangerous thing and once you release words from your lips (or your keyboard) they cannot be easily taken back and could be extremely damaging or cause offense.

    You are correct in your statement that in the rules of debate you should stick to the initial point that is the subject of your great argument of salvation for us all, again you should heed your own advice. The correction to your inflammatory remarks was in your use of very specific language on a public website set up by a very hard working European Parliamentarian that could seem offensive to the rest of the world as it certainly was to me.

    Be aware that your 1st amendment rights may not transcend the pond in this regard, as it does not take into account the various sensitivities of other people reading it who are governed by International Law or their own bill of rights. As for my freedom to draw reference to historically documented evidence which is also publicly available on the web, I care very little for your attempt to brand me as revisionary or attempt to trivialize or dismiss what I am saying to you.

    I’m quite surprised that you did not go further to use the words like revolutionist, communist or something even more sinister as in the recent presidential race. Must you attack everything you do not understand? Or are you the ultimate font of all knowledge… Do you ever concede a point even if you are wrong?

    “The plantation owners are broke, and cracking the whip on the slaves……. This concept of humanity, and of economics………… The Founding Fathers understood that progress of mankind depends upon human creativity………. This is the opposite of the oligarchic model, which treats people as cattle………..”

    Which bit of this do you not understand? What could have been observed as a valid argument with many merits in respect to the global melt down (which you seem to have an awful lot of inside information on) was spoiled for me by the above contradictory historical references or does that not matter to you… Let it go, learn from it and move on.

    As for your more recent points:
    ” Since you are an “expert” on “the rules of debate”, you should first stick to the point of the argument, which at the present time is whether or not we have a solvent banking system (which clearly we DO NOT).”

    Unlike yourself SIR, I am an expert on nothing but a student of everything? I am committed to lifelong learning and if I do not know what I am talking about I go away and learn more about it before preferring an opinion. I have read quite a few of Rogers’s blogs without ever commenting in the past, but I must say to you sir I felt moved to do so in your case. I am a firm believer in the saying “remain quiet and let others think you a fool or open your mouth and confirm it”

    You also said..
    ” I am more than happy to debate you any time any where on the subject of the United States Constitution and historical mission, which you have attacked and slandered here on the basis of typical foolish revisionist populisms.”

    Just in case you were wondering you are already engaged in that debate and not doing a very good job of it. Far from being typical I also believe that if we do not know our history we are doomed to repeat it… While you seem to revere and idolize every word that proceeded out of the mouth of the founding fathers, I do not view it as an attack on the US Constitution to draw references to the hypocrisy of your comments in their very defense.

    Historical fact: Some of those gentle folk “the founding fathers” originally escaped from tyrany and debenture in Lincolnshire (Part of Rogers’s current Constituency in Europe) Some of my ancestors were descended from that group of original Virginians. Others in my ancestry were part of the group of those who paid for our current lifestyles of decadence and excess with their lives in what used to be the Global Economy of the day…

    Am I slandering my own ancestry, or am I questioning your modern day spin on this very old problem? I am purposely not arguing your point regarding the state of the global economy because I am no expert in the matter as you purport to be. But even I know that these things are cyclical and if you are our best hope for salvation then we truly are DOOMED!!!!!!

  22. Donald Sweeting says:

    Mr. Morton

    As I suggested to you before if you do not know a man call him mister. And as I gave you no leave to call me familiar then please heed that advice in your future responses. Language is a dangerous thing and once you release words from your lips (or your keyboard) they cannot be easily taken back and could be extremely damaging or cause offense.

    You are correct in your statement that in the rules of debate you should stick to the initial point that is the subject of your great argument of salvation for us all, again you should heed your own advice. The correction to your inflammatory remarks was in your use of very specific language on a public website set up by a very hard working European Parliamentarian that could seem offensive to the rest of the world as it certainly was to me.

    Be aware that your 1st amendment rights may not transcend the pond in this regard, as it does not take into account the various sensitivities of other people reading it who are governed by International Law or their own bill of rights. As for my freedom to draw reference to historically documented evidence which is also publicly available on the web, I care very little for your attempt to brand me as revisionary or attempt to trivialize or dismiss what I am saying to you.

    I’m quite surprised that you did not go further to use the words like revolutionist, communist or something even more sinister as in the recent presidential race. Must you attack everything you do not understand? Or are you the ultimate font of all knowledge… Do you ever concede a point even if you are wrong?

    “The plantation owners are broke, and cracking the whip on the slaves……. This concept of humanity, and of economics………… The Founding Fathers understood that progress of mankind depends upon human creativity………. This is the opposite of the oligarchic model, which treats people as cattle………..”

    Which bit of this do you not understand? What could have been observed as a valid argument with many merits in respect to the global melt down (which you seem to have an awful lot of inside information on) was spoiled for me by the above contradictory historical references or does that not matter to you… Let it go, learn from it and move on.

    As for your more recent points:
    ” Since you are an “expert” on “the rules of debate”, you should first stick to the point of the argument, which at the present time is whether or not we have a solvent banking system (which clearly we DO NOT).”

    Unlike yourself SIR, I am an expert on nothing but a student of everything? I am committed to lifelong learning and if I do not know what I am talking about I go away and learn more about it before preferring an opinion. I have read quite a few of Rogers’s blogs without ever commenting in the past, but I must say to you sir I felt moved to do so in your case. I am a firm believer in the saying “remain quiet and let others think you a fool or open your mouth and confirm it”

    You also said..
    ” I am more than happy to debate you any time any where on the subject of the United States Constitution and historical mission, which you have attacked and slandered here on the basis of typical foolish revisionist populisms.”

    Just in case you were wondering you are already engaged in that debate and not doing a very good job of it. Far from being typical I also believe that if we do not know our history we are doomed to repeat it… While you seem to revere and idolize every word that proceeded out of the mouth of the founding fathers, I do not view it as an attack on the US Constitution to draw references to the hypocrisy of your comments in their very defense.

    Historical fact: Some of those gentle folk “the founding fathers” originally escaped from tyrany and debenture in Lincolnshire (Part of Rogers’s current Constituency in Europe) Some of my ancestors were descended from that group of original Virginians. Others in my ancestry were part of the group of those who paid for our current lifestyles of decadence and excess with their lives in what used to be the Global Economy of the day…

    Am I slandering my own ancestry, or am I questioning your modern day spin on this very old problem? I am purposely not arguing your point regarding the state of the global economy because I am no expert in the matter as you purport to be. But even I know that these things are cyclical and if you are our best hope for salvation then we truly are DOOMED!!!!!!

  23. John Morton says:

    Dear Mr Sweeting

    Pretty soon you will understand what the cracking of the whip feels like, and the reality that you are indeed a slave to this system of globalization will hit you like a ton of bricks, or, as Orwell said “a boot smashing the face of humanity, forever”.

    In the meantime, your pathetic ad-hominem attacks are irrelevant to the topic at hand which you quite openly admit you know nothing about, so why do you not take your patronizing and ignorant self off and comment on a thread where you have something constructive and relevant to actually say?

  24. Donald Sweeting says:

    Thank you Mr Morton

    Finally you have done a thing that proves that you once had a modecomb of human decency about you. Please notice that no one else has bothered to respond to your tirade for a while.

    THat is probably because you have continued knocking ten bells out of everyone who comes onto this debate who does not agree with your view. Your insults and slurs on their very character or even questioning their patriotism even if they were not an American is infantile.

    Now how about YOU leave this thread because as one of Rogers’s constituents here in Lincolnshire I have some serious business to attend to in the next few days with his help if I get ever the opportunity to meet with him tomorrow night.

    It is my hope that when you leave, other people wil log back onto this thread with constructive observations that actually make sense. Perhaps those who are actually more interested in finding out how they… like me (the equivilent of Joe The Plumber in the UK) could possibly survive the doom and gloom that you and your pundits have been expouting as the global melt down of humanity itself.

    Again far be it from me to acknowledge your slant on what I actually represented here by twisting my comments where I say “I am not an expert on these matters but a student of everything” for I am just an actual Joe (a Student) who took offense to your languge not the situation of the global economy.

    Yes I am that JOE who is at risk of loosing his family home, the farm, 3000 acres of agricultural investent property in the Bahamas not to mention quite a few acres beach front development property as well….. So if your doomsday scenarion is correct and I sould be quite frightened and just bury my head in the sand and let you save the day.

    I dont need to know of your current day interpretation of the terms like “cracking the whip” which is embedded in your everyday language Mr Morton because you cant help yourself. The worst thing about it is that you seem to have convinced yourself that you have scored a valuable point which wins your feeble attempt at an argument and hoped that others shared your view.

    My dear sir, I too have horrific graphic images of history embedded in my head as well with words from that era such as “Lynching” Henry Lynch is reputed to also be a direct descendant of mine whose namesake actually coined the phrase.

    You have repeatedly attempted to decended this debate to a level of language which actually befits the lynch model…. this is one where every thread of hope that someone could have is surgically removed.

    Unfortunately it seems that Your Amewrican Dream has now gone tits up and although admittedly by your very own hands and your bitterness still shows. I reming you sir that this gives you no purchase on ground where you should by right of history should now be extremely fearful to tread.

    Goodbye Mr Morton and good luck in your presidential election choice, I await the next commentator who may make some attempt to provide myself and others like me with some modecomb of hope for the future of the world… one whre Mr John Morton is our only salvation…….

  25. Walter says:

    Donald Thanks for your contribution, I though I would never get a look in on this subject because of your ongoing spat with the man who would be The Saviour of the world.

    There is some good news for us Brits according to Richard Hunter, head of UK equities, Hargreaves Lansdown;

    “To begin with, there is a concerted effort on a number of fronts from many different countries to stem the current situation. Quite apart from the attempts at reinvigorating the global banking system, the September inflation figure in the UK of 5.2% is widely expected to mark a peak, which of course will be replicated elsewhere.

    This in turn will give some scope for interest rate cuts – again, despite its economic growth India also announced an interest rate cut this week for the first time in four years in an effort to maintain growth – and in some cases these could actually be quite aggressive.

    There is, however, a time lag for any interest rate moves to take effect in the real economy, particularly at a time when the “normal” banking system is struggling to find its way to some semblance of normality. Nonetheless, it is a clear attempt to assist the recovery of global economies.

    Furthermore – and perhaps just as pertinent at the current time – stock markets are discounting mechanisms, that is they are trying to anticipate future economic conditions, by (it is estimated) somewhere between six and twelve months. As such, the markets are more likely to begin to recover long before the real economies come out of the other side.

    And, if history is anything to go by, stock market recoveries tend to spring out of recessions such as the one we may just be entering – so that the earlier a recession can be called and dealt with, the earlier investors may benefit from a change in sentiment in the markets, even if the “real” world may be some time behind.

    Do you agree that this recession could be a god thing?

  26. Colin says:

    Messrs Morton and Sweeting might like to note that I feel talked down to when called “Mr Bricher”. I think it sounds much friendlier to use first names. Walter obviously agrees and I must respond to “Do you agree that this recession could be a god thing?”
    Faith is not simply a matter of worshipping the deity. It also provides a good structure for practical living. Like it or not, greed brings forth downfall. Whilst Faith is not in the remit of politics, many of its principles can be applied. Monetary policies may well be useful political tools equiring their own skills. Capitalism is fine, but greed can bring it down just as it can with socialism. Promoting personal prosperity encourage greed. I do not have detailed answers, but it is plain that promoting greed is disastrous

  27. Donald Sweeting says:

    Dear Walter and Colin

    First of all may I just say that today we have seen America make history and I believe that the conditions are now certainly ripe for change around the globe???? I have followed that report from Richard Hunter and I certainly agree that this recession is going to be good for some who will undoubtedly exploit the opportunities it brings but it will not be good for everyone.

    That report definitely seems like optimistic news, and I am on record by saying I am all for getting away from the doom and gloom so I will stick to that. However there is so much of it about that I cannot help feeling that it may be too little too late for quite a number of Roger’s constituents myself included. I speak of the regular everyday good people of middle England who are still fearful that they may fall through the cracks and loose everything they have worked so hard for. These are not the ones who would normally be considered candidates of the sub prime market but according to a survey conducted by The British Chambers this knee jerk reaction is at risk of destablising the entire apple cart.

    Secondly, as I said before I am no EXPERT (forgive me for the use of this pun but I was once told by a well respected American historian the word EXPERT when broken down should mean EX as in a HAS BEEN, and SPURT as in a DRIP under pressure…) Far from being an EXPERT I am just a regular “JOE” who has an opinion which I normally keep to myself unless it is requested or I am provoked.

    Every time I have met Roger he has made me believe that my opinion mattered to him and not just because I am one of his constituents. It was more in the interest of good manners and fair play that I (perhaps unreasonably) demanded my right to due deference. This may be of more cultural significance to EX colonial citizens like myself but certainly not intended as being talked down to so I do hope it has not offended anyone else on this blog.

    Finally, change has got to come and the American people have taken the lead and voiced their opinions resoundingly. Although my faith in the process and the mechanisms to achieve it has not yet been fully restored. As the US President elect alluded to in his acceptance speech “today’s historic events are not the change itself but only the beginning of the process.” I pray that he has the opportunity to bring about at least some of those pledges for all our sakes. Maybe it is he who can save the world….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s