Thursday, 10 May 2012
The Recession 1: Too Far Too Fast
Since the UK governing coalition was formed in 2010, the economical debate has centred around less spending VS more spending.
One side of the commons wants controlled austerity, whereas the other wants to keep borrowing to boost growth while risking the loss of our credit rating, which could lead to emergency austerity (and/or inflation), as currently being experienced by Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal.
Nobody likes cuts. Taxpayers in the private sector who have paid into the social system all their working lives, now find out that the services they have paid for will be cut, and public sector workers are hit with a combination of job losses, pay freezes and reduced pensions.
So far the debate has been presented to the public as a straight choice between the Coalition cuts agenda and the Labour anti-cuts agenda. But is there a secret third option? Is there really no way of balancing the budget without austerity measures.
This blog argues that it is possible to balance the budget without austerity and it is possible to boost growth without excessive spending.
Nobody likes cuts. Taxpayers in the private sector who have paid into the social system all their working lives, now find out that the services they have paid for will be cut, and public sector workers are hit with a combination of job losses, pay freezes and reduced pensions.
So far the debate has been presented to the public as a straight choice between the Coalition cuts agenda and the Labour anti-cuts agenda. But is there a secret third option? Is there really no way of balancing the budget without austerity measures.
This blog argues that it is possible to balance the budget without austerity and it is possible to boost growth without excessive spending.
Labels:
Banks,
Barroso,
Big Government,
Economics,
Ed Balls,
European Union EU,
Financial Crisis,
Gordon Brown,
House of Commons,
Kirchner,
Labour,
Lagarde,
Recession,
Ron Paul
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
The New Fascism And The Big Taboo
The inspiration for this post comes from a quote allegedly spoken by Winton Churchill – the fascism of the future will come under the banner of anti-fascism.
The phrase was used by Tommy Robinson, the lead spokesman for the English Defence League (EDL) - an anti-Islam protest group, on a recent BBC debate show. He used the phrase in response to a comment about the violent behaviour of ‘anti-fascism’ protestors. Whether or not Churchill actually said this quote is unclear, but it is known that he made a public statement criticising Islam.
The debate on The Big Questions was: Are we too complacent about the far right? (video below)
This post discusses the meaning of the word 'complacent' in this question, and if we, as a country, are taking the right approach to this problem.
Monday, 2 April 2012
The Fear Of Nationalism And The Price Of Socialism
The amount of government spending continues to rise and more rises are forecast for the future (page 86 here) yet our domestic services are under austerity; the demands of government have increased to give us masses of new rules and regulations; the state intervenes in our day to day lives on a massive scale, and many local decisions are overridden by distant authorities.
These trends have been accompanied with rising social tensions at home and in foreign relations around the world.
Living standards are coming down and people are looking for others to blame. Social and racial tensions are on the rise. Rioting took place on a massive scale in London and Athens and other several other European cities last year. The last few years have seen the appearance of anti-Islamisation marches, home grown terrorists, and twice as many people voting for fascist parties. Tensions have risen between various European nations and between the west and the east, most notably with Iran.
What forces can we attribute to our nation’s shift towards ever more government? And should we be worried?
Is the civil unrest on our streets and our lack of social cohesion a result of this political move to the left? What can we learn from history?
What changes do we need to make, as a country, in order to unite our people and preserve the peace? Could it already be too late?
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Why George Galloway’s Win Is Good For Politics
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Honour And The BBC
A recent BBC Panorama programme about ‘honour killing’ in the UK, focused on murders committed in order to avenge ashamed families or in order to prevent further shame being brought upon them. Below is a link to the video.
Throughout the programme the narrator fails to mention that this phenomenon is almost exclusively from the Muslim community.Even when the news report was published here on the BBC, the article does not once use the word ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’.
In some Islamic countries, what we call 'honour killings' are actually legal, and in many homes in the UK, women are oppressed, forced to dress and behave in certain ways, or even imprisoned or physically abused, in order to uphold these same religious laws.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Democracy In The 21st Century 2: Radical Optimism
The internet has transformed the way we talk, the way we message, the way we learn, the way we shop, and the way we do business, and it will change many more things in our lifetime.
The internet provides an abundance of choice and complete freedom of communication –
the ability to contact anyone in the world at any time at no cost.
Anyone with a computer can talk, buy, sell, and bank online with whomever they please. Everyone has access and instant choice between different vendors and different currencies at the click of a button. Anyone can create an online business and do business with people on the other side of the globe. Anyone can create online friendships and meet like-minded people, formulate groups and networks and consolidate public opinion. Anyone can create a web page and get their message heard; anyone with a camera phone can be a journalist; anyone can create a cause, a forum, a network, a movement, and make real changes. In other words, the internet enables real democracy.
Many say the West is in decline, but be best not to let these people scare you. Our belief in freedom, self determination and capitalism has given us a culture of creativity and innovation. This entrepreneurial nature, combined with the digital technology boom, will ensure that it is the west that pioneers the continued development of the free peoples of this planet; but we must be daring, and we must think positively.
There are ways of achieving more development AND more equality in our society, and they involve democratising certain public institutions in order to give equal rights to all who hold a stake in them. All of the issues that have led to the stagnation of the western economies can be solved with more democracy, and the internet makes this possible.
Monday, 5 March 2012
The Case For Withdrawal: Seven Economic Myths
| rompuy-barroso[i-rompuy-barroso] |
| Barroso and Van Rompuy |
Our EU leaders are committed to ‘jobs and growth,’ they say. This comes as a suprising choice of words, knowing that the bulk of the EU government’s achievements, be them industry, environmental and labour market regulations, agricultural and fishing policies, subsidies and aid, and proposals for tax harmonisation, each serve to reduce competitiveness and entrepreneurship, and stifle jobs and growth.
But they are not unintelligent people; just disillusioned. They have a genuine belief that political union between European nations will bring us prosperity, and have far too much invested in the project to see otherwise.
Here in the UK, there are also those that share this belief in progressivism, that the future will shun small unattached nations, and that by leaving the EU we would be economically disadvantaged. This post attempts to explain briefly why we should leave the EU, purely in economic terms, by dispelling some commonly held myths.
But they are not unintelligent people; just disillusioned. They have a genuine belief that political union between European nations will bring us prosperity, and have far too much invested in the project to see otherwise.
Here in the UK, there are also those that share this belief in progressivism, that the future will shun small unattached nations, and that by leaving the EU we would be economically disadvantaged. This post attempts to explain briefly why we should leave the EU, purely in economic terms, by dispelling some commonly held myths.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Going Through The Motions
Another referendum was announced today, much to the horror of the Brussels elite. As usual, such an event merits a special mention on Mighty Democracy.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
The Morals Of Capitalism
Capitalism has been the topic of much debate in recent times, and many disparaging remarks have caused politicians to call for all kinds of better capitalism, fairer capitalism, responsible capitalism and other such phrases. In order to put some sense and perspective to our current crisis it seems necessary to define capitalism and compare it to what we see in modern times in order to restore confidence in the word.
Those who do not busy themselves with such definitions tend probably to have a negative reaction to the word capitalism. The USA is generally regarded as the most capitalist country on Earth and this is contrasted to Communism, previously embodied in Soviet Russia and now most famously in China. We read of how China has delivered the fastest ever period of economic growth and how the economies of the west are stagnating. Recession looms in the west and many begin to doubt capitalism as a system that delivers economic prosperity in a fair and sustainable manner.
We have proven that capitalism works, economically that is, in that it is the most efficient way of fostering innovation and enriching a population with material wealth. All the great achievements in our history, in industry and technology, have come about not by government directed projects, but by individuals pursuing their own interests in a free society.
Critics of capitalism do not normally dispute this but instead tend to come at it from a moral standpoint, saying that the system does not deliver by some moral, ethical or spiritual measure, and that the inequalities it creates are not ‘fair.’ In order to understand why capitalism should be embraced, it is necessary to talk about what the word ‘fair’ actually means, and to understand that there has never been an alternative system proposed that adequately rewards everyone’s individual contribution to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)