Saturday, July 11, 2009

[you bastards] manouevering us to serfdom

Yeah, right.

Obama's 'considering' bailing out small businesses. Considering. And who suddenly put this brilliant idea into his head? And why now, after the goose is well and truly cooked in America? Why not when it had a chance of making some difference?

The effort would represent a striking shift from the rescue program's original mandate, since it would direct billions of bailout dollars toward a plan that aims more at saving jobs than at righting the financial system. Some economists estimate that small businesses, defined as firms with fewer than 500 workers, employ most of the country's workforce.

Look, you moron [or very clever cynic or stool pigeon for the very clever cynics – Them], you don't run down a nation, then bail out the architects of its continued misery and then think you might inject some funds into compensating small businesses for their losses.

Or as Bob G quotes, over at his place:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." [Albert Einstein]

The way you do it is to change, in the first place, long ago, the tax codes to advantage small businesses and entrepeneurs, introduce incentives to start up and create a climate which is positive to business, in particular small and medium business, the engine room of the nation and the giver of work to millions.

Anyone with half a brain knows you create conditions conducive to business flourishing and to the flow of unencumbered money.

Calvin Coolidge once said that the business of government is business. Why can't you and Brown get that into your heads? Why couldn't the Neocons on their multi-billion dollar forays into other people's wars get that?

Charity begins at home.

Meanwhile, in the UK, John McDonnell MP has written [hat tip Cherie]:

... In the last major economic depression in the 1930s, a Labour government fell because it decided that the cure for the latest crisis of capitalism was to cut public spending - in particular, to cut benefits to the unemployed.

A Labour prime minister and his main ministerial allies accepted wholeheartedly the economic orthodoxy of the time that public expenditure had to be reined in to stabilise the markets.

Working people, living at best on subsistence incomes but more often on the edge of destitution, were told that the country couldn't afford to pay them decent wages, house them, educate their children or treat their sick.

Labour ministers who stayed in office in the national government were applauded by their Conservative colleagues and the press for their statesmanship in telling their working-class supporters that they had to accept wage cuts and longer hours for the sake of the economy. These ministers were lauded for their patriotism in putting the interests of the country before the interests of their class.

The consequence of this acquiescence by a Labour government was a level of unemployment that impoverished millions of people in Britain and many millions more across the globe.

Over the last three months the same consensus has emerged across the three main political parties and within the mainstream media. In the interests of the country, wages must be cut, working hours increased, public expenditure must be massively reduced and there has even been a call to increase the retirement age to 70.

In effect the difference between the parties is not the direction of political travel but the depth and speed of cutting wages and public spending ...

For a start, this is not a crisis of capitalism, not in the least.

It is a crisis of an inept government, beholden to powers who wish for this situation to exist. Many pundits have shown enough evidence of the Morgans et al over there with their tactic of creating a melting pot and making a killing, a tactic so well known that when Goldman Sachs was tasked with it, they quickly trotted out their standard defence without actually questioning why the question would have been asked in the first place.

The arrogant always make small slips in the end.

Similarly, over here, can anyone seriously doubt that the EU is waiting to pounce, after October 10th, with its 'rescue packages'? The whole notion of letting a thing get so bad that people are seriously suffering up and down the nation and then cynically exploiting that, 'Them', to achieve your political ends is a one way ticket to hell once your miserable lives have been snuffed out.

You knew Brown was a total non-comp, a wood-duck who'd sell off the nation's gold and rob its pension funds and that pretty boy Blair was a 'how high?' man whenever you said, 'Jump!'

Effing cuts are what you've manoeuvred us towards, haven't you? The next step in the drama and you've let the feeders out to the press so they can take up the call. That's what this has all been about – manoeuvering as many of us as possible on to the dole, snuffing out any incentive in this country, nay, making it well-nigh impossible to create any new business and you've backed that up with stealth taxes like Land value and VAT etc.

You bastards, with your Gordon Brown grins.

Oh yes, we can see where this one's going. Who gets cut? NHS services to those who can least afford it. People excised from the dole which you put them onto in the first place with your plethora of constricted tick boxes and worthless NVQs and cards you must have to even apply for a job.

Are you going to remove the single mothers who see the dole as the way forward in this new Britain? Are you hell. Are you going to excise the chavs? Ha ha. You're going to excise the bourgeoisie who've been made redundant, aren’t you? Those who've committed the grievous sin of actually saving for their future, those who've played by the rules in the mistaken belief that their government would also do so, those who have equity in their homes and are penalized for it, those who'd hoped to have had a pension fund when they retired.

These are the ones you are targetting, under the guise of compassion. And why? Because you want to snuff out the middle class, the engine room of the capitalist society, meaning the free society. All that will remain is you at the top, doling out to the serfs down below who, by the next generation, will have known no other lifestyle but that of a welfare dependent.

You bastards. You're not going to get away with it.


  1. I don't know why they wouldn't get away with it, James. They have been making steady progress for two hundred years, and we still don't know who or what the 'they' are. To contradict something, we must know something.

    But the 'they' know very well who they are and what they are doing. The hell of it is, and wise in their own conceit, they do not anticipate what calamity their dreams will in truth bring them.

    'They' are not Sachs and Morgan and Enron, signs of rot, but work closer to the rot of custom. They may be easily identified in that they always are true internationalist, their hopes grounded in universalism and uniformity. They see nations as representing only conflict and undertainty; patriotism, a product of poor education.

    Burke decreibed them tremendously well-
    'You began ill, because you began by despising everything that belonged to you. Respecting your forefathers, you would have been taught to respect yourselves. Compute your gains: see what is got by those extravagant and presumptious speculations which have taught your leaders to despise all their predecessors, and all their contemporaries, and even to despise themselves, until the moment in which they became truly despicable. By following those false lights, France has brought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings. France has bought poverty by crime. France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might protitute her virtue.'

    These intellectuals are drawn to, and now control, education, mass information, and governmental administration. They come in and out of the power of elective office, but in truth do their best work in their permanent institutions while conservatives keep the ship steady for them. Reagan followed disfunction, Thatcher followed disfuntion, and the "liberal" state was righted and grew ever more dominant. We cannot afford to win any more turns at this game.

    You are saying they will not get away with it. I would say they have our number, and we have not ever measured theirs. It may become necessary for them to lose another match, but that does not alter the game; it is part of it.
    I would like to change the game.

  2. That's a mighty good argument, xlbrl and your conclusion was one I shared until something Wolfie said stayed in my mind.

    He said I ascribed too much omnipotence and ability to Them, without taking into account their penchant for ambitious infighting, their natural administrative incompetence [because they're so into the power side of things] and the native cunning of the serf's mind which appears to be brainwashed by them but isn't and when the collapse comes, it will be sudden.

    Now I don't insist on this and it's a mental predisposition on my part to prefer the hope rather than the tragedy. You may well be right though.

    What I'm sure of is that this is their best chance yet [their last being in the late 90s] and yet it is also our best chance too, not least through the instant communicative ability of the internet [which, admittedly, they've just demonstrated they can summarily shut down].

    Surely we do need to bring this situation to people's attention anyway, even if they pooh-pooh it.

  3. "I would like to change the game"

    So would I.

    And there is a way, and it would partly involve wolfies ideas, and partly other ideas I've seen demonstrated.

  4. I am inclined to agree with Wolfie's analysis there.

    It is the reason I do some of the things I do.

    There is a pattern over the years and we are at one of the crossroads.

  5. This is one of those times I am eager to be wrong, and never more willing to learn.

    Optimism is a quality so great that it might be considered a virtue, and perhaps the highest virtue after courage. It speaks so much about the quality of a person, and is something that is always absent in the left--as is happiness. Burke had it, and Tocqueville, even through their laments. So I would not attempt to talk you out of what I have not acheived myself.

    'They' have solved their administrative incompetence, however accidentaly, by having conservatives do the work of making the state functional, and they even feel free to complain about the job that is done at the same time. It is the conservative's goal to make things work properly; he labors as cheerfully as Tom Sawyer painting fences for Huck Finn.

    Hayek has formed up my thinking, from a collection of disorganized thought, to a somber and organized recollection of them. He saw all civilization to be formed through the renunciation of instinct; but an atavistic longing after the life of the noble savage to be the main source of the collectivist tradition. So instinct is on their side, and that is a formidable side.

    'The conflict between what men instinctively like and the learned rules of conduct that enabled them to expand is perhaps the major theme of civilization.
    Our instincts, and the rules and traditions that have survived cultural evolution and serve to restrain those instincts, are in conflict.

    Hayek agreed with your, and Wolfie's, lack of respct of such people--
    'The real bearers of constructivist rationalism and socialism tend to be the so-called intellectuals who are the second had dealers in ideas: teachers, journalist, and media representatives who, having absorbed rumors in the corridors of science, appoint themselves represtatives of modern thought.'

    But they require much less than we do. They have instinct on their side, and we have the invisible hand; which is...invisible. Good luck with that, eh?

    What really concerns me is the terrible quality of our political bench. What we badly need is an "The Idiot's Complete Guide to Civilization" for the layman and the politician. With a simple and clear understanding, a minority of people might then accomplish great things. Otherwise, one of my old souls long ago described our lament: We are dismayed when even disaster cannot cure of us our faults.

  6. The thing is, we're much of a muchness in what we'd like to see come back.

    The enemy controls all the preselections and the chance of a good man or woman coming up through the ranks to be PM or Pres is zero. They'll be corrupted along the way.

    The enemy know this and have a "good man or woman" waiting in the wings for when all has gone to wrack and ruin. Then hey presto, instant Messiah.

    Obama was supposed to be one of those.

    How to beat these bstds at their own game is the thing. Really, the only way is for the nation to demand constantly a certain type of person at the top and when the enemy present their Messiah as that person, he or she would need to be debunked quickly.

    It will be quite messy overcoming them to get the right person in charge who will then get other people in charge and so on. So many false accusations, so much angst would be poured on that happening because it would wreck all their best laid plans and they have the weaponry and forces, e.g. FEMA, police, parmilitaries, to enforce their way.

    It will be messy.

  7. Power corrupts. Short-term mandates, devolved and strictly-limited powers and a huge increase in grassroots democracy/voter involvement might help. Otherwise, I fear a re-run of the '30s is already underway.
    And, dismayingly, it's all 'business as usual', everywhere - golden opportunities for root-and-branch reform (parliament, banking system) being missed in favour of a return to 'normal'. Which, in effect, means the same people holding onto power - which is where we came in on this topic.
    Desperately depressing.

  8. Phidelm - I agree with you but how can we, the people, get these things into place and make the elected officials do as they're supposed to do?

  9. Very strong words, James, however, they are entirely justified.

    The middle classes are the engine room of any economy. They are not rich, but they are generally comfortable. They are the risk takers, the people who put in long hours to achieve what they do. Labour is not interested in these people. Tony Blair was, perhaps for electoral reasons, but I also think he understood their value to Britain. John Prescott, in his autobiography, makes many references to Blair as a social democrat, not a Labour man. I guess this is true too, as if he had been a Labour man in the mould of Prescott, he would have embarked on nationalisation, with all the inefficiancies and higher taxes that result in such policies.

    Britain is facing a watershed moment. Just as we needed to break the mould in the 1970s, we need to break the mould now.

  10. James, I disagree at the most fundamental level. How to beat these bastards at their own game is not the thing. The thing is to remove their game entirely, or to be prepared to submit entirely; it is their game and they relish playing it, which we do not, never will, and never should.

    Reading the fine classical-liberal English bloggers forces me to realize there is a single, but vast, difference bewteen UK and US conservatives who are of the same ideals. In America, the Founders understood, and throroughly believed, that the only way to control government was to control its size and scope. "It's a republic, if you can keep it." We lost that in a major blow eighty years ago, and have been living on the leavings of tradition since. Until now.

    But for you, Burke already described in the eighteenth century that the parties were only the gamesters, and government keeps the tables, which is always the winner. It does not seem to be part of your tradition to consider that the problem goes that deep. A certain Justice Jackson, who also presided at Nuremberg, held the old American view that it was not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error, but the function of the citizen to keep the governmnt from falling into error. I do not quite see that in UK among learned conservatives, who often instruct me on other points.

    The health of a society may be seen in the lack of need for an exceptional leader. We are now very unhealthy. Tocqueville observed that great men shrank while society was not in periods of war or revolution because the public shunned them. I am only saying to you that if the time comes that great leaders, as were Thatcher and Reagan, again rise, it must not be to right the ship, but to entirely change direction. That is what we have no clear book on, but rather only a great collection, too difficult by far to digest. We are unwise not to see we are in fact living the true legacy of Thatcher and Reagan; they righted the socialist ship with civilized principles. The two don't mix for long, and sewage rises to the top.

  11. I agree with xlbrl that we are living the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan.

  12. We live in an ocean of legacy.

    Madoff Two, the next of hundreds.

  13. No, Cherie, you can't jsut ignore the rest of it and selectively quote that little bit. It's staring you in the face that Brown has crippled this economy and offloading it onto a different party does not cut it.

    This is a crisis of socialism.

  14. Sometimes I feel like I am part of a wagon train.

    All the wagons are drawn up in a circle and it is getting steadily smaller and smaller as (mixing metaphors) the sharks get closer and closer...

  15. I don't agree James, going back for a long time the signs were there that the government was bankrupt (or going on the path that way). It isn't just one government, it has been slowly happening through several governments.

    You need to drop the label socialism unless you want to put that label on everyone who has been in power.

    My friends and I (left wing & right wing) have talked about this for many many years! The signs were always there!

  16. Moggs - good metaphors to mix.

    Cherie - the socialists had twelve years to right the ship if that was so - the country was not bankrupt or in debt for two generations at that point but did Blair/Brown do anything to alter that for the material better?

    They created tickbox unemployment, removed incentives for industry to start up, created a vast unemployment drain and made so many fundamental errors like selling off 400 metric tonnes of gold for nothing and investing in schemes which went bottom up.

    Tell me - do you honestly think Brown has done anything positive for the country? Name one thing. My friend put that to a Labour man recently and he could not come up with one thing.

    Of course your friends will all agree with you in the movement because they're in the movement.

    But that doesn't alter the state of Britain these twelve years which, if we accept your assurance that it was all Maggie's fault, should have been remedied, shouldn't it?

  17. Drop the label socialist...

    James remember the us and the them?

    That is what it is really all about!

    You are way off the mark with my TU friends, Gordon does not have any of their values they do not support him.

    Read my previous comment on who I discussed this with (left and right wing People).

    I didn't say it was all Maggie's fault. I just said you need to look back over the years and see what has progressively being happening.

    I base this not on any movement or political thought but from the way I have seen it working from the inside.

  18. Cherie, this is Labour's attempt to shift the blame.

    The country was not bankrupt for two generations at that point and didn't have the vast dole receivers and defaulting businesses with no incentive for any new business to set up which we now have.

    Black Wednesday and all the philandering were black marks but don't forget that after 1992, the country came back under Major's stewardship and he handed Britain over to Blair in reasonably good nick.

    If we accept your thesis that it was all Maggie's fault and the debt was already there, then why didn't they fix those problems? They've had twelve years to do it.

    Instead, they've created disillusion and gloom which were reflected in the last election results, have criminalized large numbers of people through 3000 new laws, have let Health and Safety run amok and have put us into a totalitarian state or do you think ID cards are a good thing?

    I'm aware that the believers in the movement think all is well and that any problems came from the Tories but unfortunately, the electorate as a whole does not share that view.

    If you'd like a catalogue of Labour blunders, there's a site called Burning Our Money, with a blogger called Wat Tyler. It goes into great detail.

  19. James my dear, you haven't really read all the comments I have made.

    You are just angry at what is happening now, so am I.

    I am not blaming any one person, any government or any political party. I just see a chain of events that has been happening over a number of years. There are some quite key events over those years that have got us to where we are today.

    I see you have put a label on me too, I think much wider than that!

    I can see what the problem is. What we need to do is find a way to try and fix it.

  20. Hey Don't forget the raids on pensions and was it tax changes related to that?

    I bet there would not be anything like the pensions hole there is if brown had not created it.


Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.