One way out

At my place, Moggsy picked up on:

“The stumbling block, the sticking point is always that the left looks at the social benefit and the right looks at the cost.”

… and rightly adds:

The problem is that the left thinks there is this money tree that never runs out – until it does.

… to which I began a reply but realized it needed to be a post:

To refine it even further, the left take the view – what the heck does it cost? If it’s going to relieve pain and suffering, then just do it – do you lack compassion?

And whilst I still have those feelings inside, it is tempered now – perhaps age did it – with the realization that it has to be paid for from somewhere. Most of my centre-right or shall we say the curmudgeonly libertarian/tea partyish/UKIPish/working man/middle-class friends [if I might call them that] who frequent many of our blogs and can’t stand PCism in its many forms – they might look askance at what I’m about to say and might think “closet leftist” after all.

The left might rightly counter, on the issue of “the wealth” that national debt is a scam anyway, a bizarre figure no one really understands, the same rules don’t apply to nations as to us.

In this they’re right – those banks should have gone down – five American banks were effectively bankrupt two Januaries ago – and the profligacy of the govt, benefits scams for MPs etc. should have had them all out on their ear. Top echelons of the civil service should have been cleaned out long ago, dues to the EU for no return except escalation – all of these things show that the nation does not play by the same rules.

If it had been us, we’d have been in deep do-dos by now. So some debt figure of trillions in the U.S., whilst it’s very much a genuine figure in some ways, pointing to profligacy and an economic view which does not believe in staying within one’s means – the figure is meaningless in the context of the lending bodies scamming it from the taxpayer via the govt in the first place.

It’s not unlike a bank selling my house over my head to pay debts. I pop up and say it has no right to do that – it was my asset. It would counter by saying that it lent to me anyway and has equity and I say it only has depositor’s and indirectly, taxpayer’s money, apart from what it illegitimately created out of thin air.

So the degree of equity is everything and in the case of nations, that equity is 100% taxpayer.

Govt counters and says that re-election gives us mandate to disburse of those funds as they see fit. Yes, but not to change the rules. Those U.S. banks went down and were bankrupt. The Fed simply said: “No they didn’t.”

The rules were waived. We, as individuals can’t do that and hope to stay solvent or out of prison and here’s the govt pretending nations operate the same way. BS.

It’s artificial and as a justification for austerity policies on us which don’t apply to the upper echelons, it is illegitimate. So I don’t buy when they say 500 billion debt or whatever – certainly not as a justification for austerity. This is debt to bodies which scammed us in the first place, via our govts, e.g. the IMF, EU.

Plus the govt can print money to cover itself. I know in real terms it can’t and have not lost my marbles economically – that’s no way to run an economy, if it needs “running” anyway, by the way. Better govt butts out and allows a truly free market within anti-trust and legal parameters for business, e.g. consumer protection. Anti-trust measures would hold more water if they were applied to the monopolies but they’re not. Graft is the way.

Then we get into British tickbox/HR-strangled management which has to be some of the worst in the world [see Chuckles on that]. Even if it was free, would most of those stay afloat in the world economy? If the coalmines went down – was it not for the reason of market forces?

On the other hand, where’s our manufacturing base? Who wants our products? Then again, is that so important when we can sell internally? Maybe the world doesn’t want them any more but we still might within our country if they were priced right. If we sold a car, the Albion, say, and it was pretty basic but not a bad car overall, for £7000 new and its foreign equivalent was £21000, then it’s a no-brainer for most people.

And why shouldn’t it sell for that? Look at the NMW. Firms say they can’t afford a price like that for tax reasons and employee compliance debt to the firm and they’re right again – the govt taxes firms back to the stone age, all to pay debts it should never have in the first place.

This is where the left and we part ways. The left says those poor people on the dole should be paid for by the taxpayer – they can’t find work if it ain’t there. It’s certainly not there as relating to our skill sets.

It is there if we had new skills but not to us – only to the brave new world inductees.

As it’s now mainly service industry and IT – intangibles full of BS, instead of something actually produced – then it is no better than any other worldwide firm, whereas Sheffield Steel really was something and employed people legitimately.

So we come full circle – we must be producing something of value, e.g. our ale, our cheeses, BAS, for example – something the world wants. Cambridge exams in education – wanted all over the world – now that’s something we can sell. That’s where the nation must be looking and govt should immediately drop taxation on businesses which show signs of being solvent that way.

What’s wrong with a Companies House which determines such things? The Australians do it.

And that’s where the employment comes from and that’s where prosperity returns from by degrees, disposable income we no longer squirrel away is spent and not on credit. Banks issue debit cards, not credit. House prices crash and start over with what people can afford – formula 3-5 times combined yearly gross for a family.

So, if NMW for both partners gives £11 000, then base home costs £33-55000, with 10% deposit by the couple. Mortgage moratorium for two years to the tune of the amount the banks created out of thin air in the previous two years. Deposit protection within that period via govt.

Building schemes for an encroachment on the greenbelts within set geographical limits – there is an expanded population whether we like it or not and homes are hens’ teeth. The council scam of approval stopped.

Tax concessions for relocating to the north-east and north-west. Good rail service, unified and policed for scamming customers.

As for inheritance, hands off – what people have is what they have during this moratorium. Get your greedy, beady eyes off that, Clegg. Death duties slashed, all taxes slashed, people breathe again, people spend again and not on the never-never. Debit, not credit cards.

Stuff what the rest of the world is doing. With our new, low-cost alternative cars [not green monstrosities by the way], other manufactures, the world will start buying again – market forces.

Which gets back to what Moggsy said about the left and the money tree. Major changes of the kind above are needed – incentive changes, not draconian ways [a la Tories] and no money tree [a la Labour and LibDems], in the Big 3 tag team act. Just plain incentives to set up and sell.

And councils. Oh yes, councils. How to get the Common Purpose bstds out? How to stop them investing profits on our council taxes in Iceland or whatever? Why TF are there no public meetings about the council in your area? The corruption, the embezzlement? We’re our own worst enemies.

So there is a way out but then again, have the people now become so dumbed down and narrativized that they can’t see this way out? Or so demoralized that they don’t give a yelp?

Left, right – labels. The issues are living within our means, prices matching incomes.

3 comments for “One way out

  1. Voice of Reason
    September 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    Some of the simple problems:

    1. We keep breeding worldwide, and jobs are not increasing at the same rate as people.
    2. Manufacturing jobs are becoming more mechanized and efficient (see 1.) At least, until the resources run out.
    3. Our economic models do not allow for any sensible way to disburse that additional income from productivity throughout a society to ensure stability. That’s why we use the government.

  2. September 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    N3 needs thinking about in particular.

  3. September 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    If the Austrian School had been running the show, prices would have kept falling from the industrial revolution onwards. Constantly injecting new ‘money’ into circulation only benefits lending banks during the ensuing boom. The rest of us suffer from inflation.

    And to think that Austrian economics are portrayed as ‘right wing’, implying ‘for the rich’. The least well off would benefit the most from falling prices.

Comments are closed.