Failing banks? Why not let them fail?
The best joke I’ve heard recently is ‘what’s the difference between the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and bankers? Some people still have a bit of sympathy for the IRA’.
British capitalism is currently in a very
sorry state, meanwhile, thousands of people in the
UK, and
Ireland are feeling the pain of this crisis.
The policy of bailing out financial institutions with state funds does not appear to be working - indeed, it seems to be
making matters far worse. On the surface, it also looks as if we are witnessing the rise of
‘state capitalism’, with unprecedented levels of state intervention in the economy. There must be a better way to run the economic affairs of a nation? The Nobel prize economist,
Joseph Stiglizt admitted to
The Daily Telegraph that there was a solid argument for letting bad banks go to the wall - and why not? The billions we would save in ‘bailouts’ could be used, as Stiglizt argued, to rebuild the ‘skeletons of the old banks to build a healthier structure’.
Stiglizt is not alone in thinking that governments would be much better placed to deal with the problem of a failed bank - if only the authorities would declare these banks insolvent. The respected American economist
James Galbraith, bemoans the fact that some $9.7 trillion of state funds is being thrown at banking institutions who's assets and 'securities contain, on the face of it, misrepresentation or fraud in the files'. Indeed, I agree with Galbraith's sentiments - why should the public hand over trillions of dollars, or billions of pounds, for assets, as Galbraith argues,'which nobody, no outside investor doing due diligence on behalf of a client for whom they have some responsibility, would touch'?
That money could be used instead in investments in the
real economy - as opposed to propping up discredited and bankrupted banks and financial institutions. It's a real shame that the current debate on the economic crisis is being led by a political elite who are failing to take any responsibilities. The authorities new mantra seems to be
'we have no desire to takeover banks' - if that really is the case, why bother to bail them out when they go bust then?
Labels: Capitalism, New Labour
Britain: the world's first 'Supernanny' state
These day's, the modern British government's relations with its electorate is more like the way parents deal with wayward teenagers. A New Labour analyst pretty much confirmed this last year when they told
The Guardian newspaper that the government; 'are like parents dealing with teenagers, who are unwilling to be controlled but not ready to take responsibility for their lives'.
If that doesn't sum up the way the government views the public, the Prime Minister will make it official
today. According to the children's minister Beverley Hughes, the well-being of our kids are at risk unless the government deploys an army of supernannies for the benefit of parents. It makes you wonder how British society has managed to survive for so long without the help of New Labour's parenting experts. In the past, governments used to see the role of bringing up children as strictly a private matter - not any more. The tendency to interfere in private matters seems to be the driving motivational force for the government these days.
Apparently, Tony Blair did try to rubbish those who argued that the creation of a
National Academy for Parenting Practitioner, was another form of state interfering and nannying - of course, the PM was right, Britain isn't a 'nanny state', it's more what
The Times (London) would call a
'Supernanny state'. Britain is fast becoming a state that apparently knows what's best for you and me, and woe betide any fool who has the temerity not to sing
government approved nursery rhymes to their babies.
Labels: Micro-management, New Labour
'War' on climate change? Looks just as 'bogus' as the 'war on terror'
According to
Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, the British state is now apparently 'at war' over climate change, just like back 'in 1939'. The ex-minister added that 'I think we are at war over climate change and I think we [New Labour] can lead the country'. In case we didn't quite understand what Meacher was saying, he noted that global warming was a challenge to the very 'future of the human species on the planet'. Ok, message received.
Is Meacher really calling for the re-militarisation of our society, with his ideal image of WWII and wartime rationing? Even back then in 1930s, wartime rationing was only achievable by terrifying the British public into believing that Britain was about to be invaded, hence the need for militarising society and
austerity measures.
More to the point, Meacher's bogus call to arms against climate change is totally unconvincing - the idea that the future of the whole of humanity somehow hangs in the balance because of climate change, is risible. This is not science speaking, Meacher's doom and gloom predictions are based on pure speculation.
Meacher once took the British government to task for its role in the
bogus 'war on terror'. He bemoaned the fact that Britain had launched a full-scale war against Iraq based solely on dodgy information about WMD. Yet, Meacher's theories about the 'end of humanity' are just as 'bogus' as the original reasons why Britain went to war with Iraq. Indeed, Meacher’s theory has failed a basic test, Karl Popper's test of
falsifiability. Meacher's dire warning says far more about him, than it does about the future of humanity.
Labels: Environmental austerity, Environmental determinism, New Labour
The best joke I’ve heard recently is ‘what’s the difference between the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and bankers? Some people still have a bit of sympathy for the IRA’.
