Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Whoever wins, Britain loses

Whoever wins the next election, the people of Britain will lose. As election time approaches, that much is obvious. The real choice is minimal. There is no proper thinking going on, not just in parliament but nor the think tanks or universities either. Basic concepts in economics such as Ricardo's Law of Rent are hardly talked about and certainly not understood, because to do so would lead on to conclusions that are political dynamite.

Why should this be? How about this for an explanation? Seen from a Scandinavian perspective - the idea came to me while I was sitting on a Gothenberg tram - this hypothesis makes more than a bit of sense.

"The country is run by and for the benefit of a mostly hereditary elite, with the aid of their recruited mandarins. One technique is to capture the opposition, so it does not matter who gets elected.

"This elite has always conceded just enough to keep the "peasants" from revolting. From that perspective, the post war socialist reforms, which were hatched during the war, were a response to the real and present threat of revolution. Once it was clear that communism was on its inevitable path to collapse, they could let things revert.

"The present technique is to exercise tight control on what can be talked about, keep people drunk, drugged-up and stupid, through relaxed alcohol legislation, anti-drugs laws that are a fig-leaf, and rotten schools and universities offering degrees of decreasing quality and increasing triviality."

If this is the case, then one day they could miscalculate but it is not going to happen any time soon.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...