This story is just a fascinating look at the utter contempt the police force hold for the general public. A senior policemen Jim Torbet was arrested and on bail for stealing wine at an M & S store in Shoreham on Sea has now committed suicide. His superior officer gave him a glowing reference on his apparent behaviour as an exemplary policeman...
...."Mr Torbet’s death was announced to colleagues by Chief Constable Richards, who described him as a “popular and valued member of our team. Jim had given many years of loyal and dedicated service to Sussex Police, and in recent years has served as Detective Chief Inspector in the Professional Standards Department”....
Jim isn't a thief surly, not with a record like that?
Criticisms by leading members of the community such as a local headmaster have even called for an enquiry into why the case was taking so long?
...."Jim was a man of the utmost integrity and I don’t understand how in a country which prides itself on people being innocent until proven guilty, a man’s details were allowed to be released without him being charged. I am so incensed by this. The thought of him stealing a bottle of wine just doesn’t seem possible. If the police were going to charge him, why has it taken so long? “This was a simple, straightforward shoplifting matter that is normally dealt with by way of a fixed penalty fine or in court relatively quickly."...
That's because he was a policeman and an inspector at that you stupid little man... he was hardly likely to walk away with a small fine and a slap on the wrist... He was the bloody detective cheif inspector of professional standards... Grief it's bad enough when the kids are dumb, but not the headmmasters as well, please...
Can anyone imagine some little scrot from the local estate getting this kind of praise for their dilligent behaviour?
Now, if our most exemplary of policeman are stealing bottles of wine, what is our average copper up to?
Pass me the wine please!...
However, he draws an excellent analogy here regarding the process of production and world peace. Voluntary solutions are the only ones that really work.
A major criticism of libertarian thought is that it is all doom and gloom and that it cannot accept compromise of any sort. That it is an all or nothing mantra espoused by a dank and less than cheerful minority. Now I can agree that indeed there are those within Libertarian circles that seem to be wracked by fury and bluster that to the average man would naturally seem quite irrational and indeed somewhat unproductive. However, I can clearly understand the frustration of the Libertarian in a world for which is gathering moss on any kind of revolutionary ideas or philosophical thought. Freedom is clearly a concept that has improved our lot, as this has been clearly shown by the wealth of nations within Europe and the US. The free market has brought with it many freedoms to our lives unthought-of in our parent’s day, let alone our grandparents. One can only imagine the world our children could inhabit with true freedom.
Peter Stark (US senator)
However, it is clear that we are not really free in the very real sense of free. Yes we are freer than most Chinese, Muslim or African people are. We are indeed much freer than our ancestors were. But just because we are freer than at any other time in our history does not mean that we are actually free. The word ‘freedom’ is used in the vernacular by all democratic govt’s. They have stolen its meaning so as to reinforce the idea that govt, taxation and the use of force are all arcane to us. As one can see from the interview that Jan has with this US senator, we see them become visibly angered by his questioning of the govt’s moral veracity. Clearly these questions hit nerves most of us wouldn’t dare touch. In this case Peter Stark tells Jan, ‘get the fuck out of here, or I’ll throw you out the window’. Clearly a violent statement made by someone reacting irrationally to a line of reasonable questioning. It clearly illustrates the tight hold that the state has on the minds of the majority.
So can we call this freedom then? Well as I said earlier, it may well be freedom compared to women in Muslim countries looking for equality. It may well be freedom compared to an African trying to feed his family or a Chinese man writing his blog. However our freedom is not real freedom, because real freedom would not use force against us. Real freedom would be to volunteer to pay your taxes without threat of fines, prison and violence if you so decided not to. Real freedom would be to choose your children’s education. Real freedom would be to choose your health provider. Real freedom would be to choose where you lived and not be confined by imaginary borders created by the state.
I understand that these thoughts create a sense of fear in most people. The reaction of the senator was a clear example of this. We have been told for so long that it is only the state that can manage our affairs and no one else. We somehow bestow meaningless virtue upon our politicians and public servants as if they do everything out of altruist desire alone. Govt is very similar to the comforting warm feeling people experience when they imagine a God that loves them. To challenge these thoughts is bound to create anxiety and uncertainty within most individuals. Therefore it is only natural for them to feel fear once this lie has been exposed.
I often ponder whether politicians are as unaware of the states use of violent threat. Is it possible that even our leaders have sedated themselves from its reality? Perhaps this is just me trying to make sense of what I consider to be such an obvious flaw in our system. However, I think they are only too aware of this threat as they feel a constant need to sugar coat everything with generalisations and hyperbole. Their constant use of rhetoric is a clear example of the smoke and mirrors politicians like to employ as a means to less constraint on their eventual decision making. Let’s face it, whenever has a politician made any real sense?
No, the freedom I dream of is a freedom to not be dictated to by individuals or a collective thereof that tells me to do what they say, not as they do. Real freedom is possible and indeed so are real ethics alike. But only without the mechanism that allows us to be manipulated, cajoled and frightened into subservience, which in turn allows this corruption to seep within the consciousness of us all. For too long the instrument of govt have been convincing us that ethics can only come from statehood and dogmatic acquiescence to it. It’s like saying we must support Everton football club and no other, come what may, however better the other sides maybe. The state is seared within us from childhood. We are told to take sides and indeed to praise all things state like. These ideas are permeated within us from a young age, whether by school, parenting or media, as a means to making us willing slaves that accept our plight as being for the greater good.
So when George Bush talks about freedom he understands only to clearly the need and desire each of us has have for such a notion. However, he goes about defacing its true meaning by expecting us to live within the confines of freedom under a benevolent dictator. However, it is unclear how long people can live within the twilight of religion and statehood. Indeed, I have no doubt that it will change at some good time in the future. Whether I'm here to see it or not, mankind has always striven for freedom and freedom is what he will get when he is good and ready for it.
Fairness is often a word banded around by politicians, particularly by those in the Labour party, but they are not exclusive to its use, it’s often known as ‘social justice’ too. Indeed it’s a word that appeals to the ‘fair minded’ within society. Indeed, it even allows us to encompass an ethical dimension to our lives, where we might feel one is lacking. But what is ‘fairness’ considered to be by our politicians? Well, they would consider that paying your taxes was fair, in that you give part of your labour to them that are less fortunate than yourself. In other words to remove some of your wealth to give to them that are less well off would be a fair exchange of wealth in their eyes.
However, this fairness is quite obscure when you consider that for them on low incomes are indeed taxed as heavily in real terms as those on higher incomes. Indeed even an annual salary of £10,000 brings a tax bill of £1,293.00 with it. However, a person earning £66,000 per year pays £21,175.20 in taxes. Of course the £44,000 or so that remains will buy this person a whole lot more than the £8.700 that is left on the lesser earnings. One only has to live in the real world to discover that £10,000 will not buy you very much over a year. So can it be fair that this individual pays any tax on this income at all? According to social justice policy this person must live a relatively frugal existence, renting no more than a bed sit and still pay £1,293 per year towards someone less well off than themselves, because that is fair.
However, is there really anything fair about taxation in reality, even for the rich? It is clear that politicians accrue some moral aspect to the fairness of wealth redistribution. They make out that this is a very real way in which we can provide equality amongst society. However, they always omit the way in which this wealth is redistributed of course. Of course, to most of us taxation is quite benign. Council tax perhaps raises the most eyebrows, partly because it’s seen as having little to do with a person’s ability to pay and based principally on the property they happen to rent or buy. For the most part, tax is seen as a skim on our earnings or purchases, for which the majority is left intact or the purchase still seems affordable. However, the methods by which these taxes are extracted are far from ethical in reality. To them that pay their taxes directly or those that collect VAT receipts will tell you. There are a series of threats, fines and coercion that are employed by government organisations unlike any other. They are afforded many more legal processes in forcibly extracting their due at ANY cost. These include imprisonment as well as violence too, ultimately including death if we dare to resist their coercion further.
Ok, for the most part death is a rare event in tax evasion, including imprisonment, hardly surprising really. But it’s quite clear that the government needs to use such threats to make sure we pay our taxes. So where does this stand with their principled pursuit of wealth redistribution then? Indeed it would appear that we have reached the smoke and mirrors that government so like to employ on these occasions. Having so swiftly convinced us that we have a moral duty to help our fellow man, that our wealth is immorally extracted from us by the fear of force. Can we safely say now that wealth redistribution in this manner has any kind of ethical dimension to it?
Of course not, but regrettably this is the great unmentionable within society, having sedated ourselves so completely from its corruption. We are so seduced by seemingly sensible reasoning, whilst confused by its threat of violence. This is why the enslaved can scoff so easily at the slave who speaks out. We all fear the threat of violence from the state whether we like it or not. To ignore it is one thing, but to support it, well, is to have lost all moral judgement completely. As for fairness one can clearly see that in its current state, that social justice is neither fair nor just.
It’s interesting to see that the knives are out for capitalists once again, just as soon as the economy takes a nose dive. We see the Mirror attempting a psychological stoning of Lehman Brothers boss Dick Fuld (aka the gorilla) for the perceived notion that he and his ilk alone are responsible for the recent economic downturn.
What I find amazing in all this, is how the govt manages to deflect all negative attention away from itself. The media pours scorn on banks that made money over the years, exclaiming a lack of moral virtue in their work life. High-class prostitutes, expensive cars, drunken holidays and cocaine snorting were apparently the order of the day. These are all accusations that may be true of some, but I’m quite sure not all. However, this kind of generalising really does give the govt plenty of leverage when it comes to its own error making. They can also add a rather tasty moral dimension to their otherwise pompous answer to economic meltdown. Bush’s comments regarding Wall Street, ‘they just got drunk’, are symptomatic of media reporting that never asks pertinent questions of its govt, whichever colour they are. There is an overwhelming consensus that the banks are to blame, and that govt must bail them out where it can. No one seems to link theses bail out schemes with the causes of the original crisis. In any normal free market practice these banks would just go under or other banks would just pick them up. But as I will explain, the banking industry has not been playing by free market rules for some time now and these bail out schemes are a tacit acceptance of this.
Now I’m not saying that the banking sector has not made miscalculations, but let’s piece the puzzle a bit further here. The first thing is, WHY have interest rates remained so low for so long now? I mean they have barely budged within a margin of 4% at an all time low of 3.5% and a high of 7.5% since the last economic meltdown 18 years ago, which peaked at 15% in October 1989. With all the bullshit made about the independence of the Bank of England, being able to set interest rates at market level back in 1997. This was seen as Gordon Browns piece de resistance back when he was highly thought of. However it is clear by now that old Gordo has had a good hand in making sure those interest rates have remained low ever since. It’s a joke to consider the interest rates since 1997 have been anything BUT at market levels. Now I’m no skilled economist (although this is quickly changing), but clearly the govt has been slowly but surely increasing the money supply so as to give plenty of cash liquidity to lenders. This was all but admitted to recently, after the govt decided to throw 50 billion pounds into the UK markets as a means to staving off perceived financial horrors regarding mortgages. The terror of 1989 were clearly all to fresh in the minds of senior politicians. The Americans of course are doing the same, it certainly seems to be in the zeitgeist, that and nationalising financial institutions as well. All this from two countries that have thrived and become incredibly wealthy from the free market and supposedly ridiculed communism as an ideal.
Anyway with all this extra cash swimming around the market, banks were basically able to lend more and more money thanks to govt IOU’s that had been artificially created for the market. Accordingly there was an almost limitless supply of the stuff, particularly in the US. So as these institutions got richer and richer, lending more and more cash, they were clearly finding that the normal market for lending was drying up. They now needed to try and lend money to those that in general most financial institutions wouldn’t normally touch with a barge pole. Now as mad as this may seem and banks were indeed stupid to seek this kind of business. But it’s not like a business can just grind to a halt. A business always requires growth, it is unable to stand still within a market that is booming, even if that boom has been artificially created. If one bank stopped these dangerous practices, then the others would just grab the market share. Clearly it was a classic case of catch 22 for them in the know. To downsize their lending to the genuinely trustworthy and limit access with high interest to them that were risky would have meant the heads of most banking CEO’s. What fool would decide to call a halt to this nonsense as a means to jeopardising their own career? The real blame of course rests on the shoulders of the likes of Alan Greenspan and his cronies down at the Federal Reserve; they developed this idea of creating liquidity to the markets by using govt bonds and taxes. Juxtapose this with the latest bail out schemes adopted by many western govt's and we begin to see where the fetid hand of doom is coming from. We also see the bail outs being used on them institutions that behaved most badly, thus rewarding bad behaviour against those that rightly held back.
If you're confused I don't blame you, however I won’t bore you with economic statistics that require a degree in the subject, so I will get back to my original point. Now the Mirrors article about Dick Fuld may well have some validity as it appears he refused varying bids to buy Lehman Brothers only days earlier before they went bust, as a means to increasing its overall sales value. However, it's somewhat disingenuous to blame him entirely for the current crisis, he maybe a major pawn in this debacle, but he's by no means alone in its cause. The fact is these bankers climbed into bed with govt's throughout the world and ignored all the normal free market practices that govern the borrowing and lending of money. But they were enabled in all this by the greediest entity of them all, that being the state of course. This is why you see the current bail out schemes. This is the govt having created the liquidity artificially to boost the market now trying to recover the market by even more artificial means. In all of this it becomes terribly complicated for the laymen to understand fully, so it's easier to blame the bankers of course.
So who loses out in the end? Well the very poor for starters of course. They are left paying higher prices for things such as food and energy via inflation. Mortgage lending rates are kept artificially low as a means to keeping an eye on tumbling house prices, thus allowing them with large mortgages to remain as homeowners, who realistically should have had to throw the towel in by now. This has had the net effect of increasing rents to astronomical levels within London at least, whilst first time buyers move into the rental market and those touch and go mortgaged Landlords manage to hold onto their properties by the skin of their teeth. Yes I know, this is the free market principle at work, but one can hardly see the free market being the cause. Markets don’t just go haywire over night as they can generally foresee future downturns in various markets months if not years ahead. No, it's only when that market has been artificially inflated that we see these spikes in market prices occur. The worst aspect of all this is that the govt has thrown the future taxpayer into the repayment of these bail outs. Yes, youre children no less. It has effectively promised bond owners the taxes of the next generation as a means to recovering markets that should have gone bust all on their own. Yes I can hear some of you exclaiming that it is still the free market that caused all this. All I can say to that, is go and learn some real economics and I'm not talking accountancy or family budgeting either. Businesses only increase prices if the commodities and costs involved in producing their product increases too. They don’t just decide to up the price out of pure greed, as there is always another business out there that will take the market share from them by offering lower prices. No, rest assured that your government has had its mucky paws in assuring your wealth depletion.
Well it appears that Russia is in sighting a new cold war front… Hmmn, as said by our own head prefect of the West, David Milliband… behind so much of the rhetoric of western govts within the last few days, it is clear who is in-sighting a new cold war and that is the west of course… For all of Russia’s (or Putin’s) errors, a cold war is the last thing on their agenda… I am not saying that they are without fault of course.. It is clearly a govt run by gangsters… Although the feigned morality of our own leaders can equally be seen as mafia like in itself, clearly the Russians have less reason to hide it…
Millibands insistence that we be ‘tough’ on Russia is a clear indicator that Britain would indeed like a confrontation with Russia… I doubt very much they have the stomach for a real fight, as nuclear weapons tend to grind those thoughts to pieces… However I can clearly see the West (or elements thereof) that would like to see fractures in the relationship take place… Enemies are great tools for politicians to engender support from the people… They may not like outright war, but a bogeyman is great fodder for terrifying your citizenry with…
I have to repeat that there is little difference betweens Russia’s involvement in South Ossetia than with our involvement in Kosovo… If it were the case that the Georgians were killing innocents in South Ossetia, then the moral distinction was clearly the same as that of our involvement in Kosovo… It would be disingenuous for politicians to say anything other than giving its full support to Russia in quelling the violence taking hold down there….
In all of Russia’s statements regarding Georgia they have not said once that they wanted to continue operations much beyond the boarders of South Ossetia. So clearly they have drawn lines in the sand, again not to dissimilar to that of us in Serbia.
However in all of this, I do not see either Russia or the west having any moral validity. Be that as it may, for the west to up the anti regarding this new cold war front, it is very clear to me who needs this cold war and it's not Russia…
I was driven to think about the absurd situation that most single people have in life regarding working. Most of us agree that we work out of a sheer need and desire for a better lifestyle. It’s a very good reason actually, born out of a need to have more things that make our lives more comfortable and tolerable.
However, ever since I can remember (1985 to be precise, when I left school) I was confronted by the thought that claiming benefits brought with it far more rewards than work could. In hindsight I was earning £35 per week, for which the average bed-sit rent was around £30 - £40 per week at the time. The dole was around £19 per week for under 18’s and if I were renting would have received full housing benefit to cover this cost on top. Earning £35 per week I would have had to pay 65 pence in every £1 I earned above £19 towards my rent. Therefore I would have had to pay £10.40 towards my rent leaving me with £24.60 of my then earnings to spend on as I pleased. A wapping £5.60 better off per week than being on the dole. I know, this was 1985, when a fiver bought a whole evening out on a Saturday night, but still, even my pea-sized brain at 16 had worked out, that working was indeed a waste of time. Fortunately, though I dabbled with unemployment for a year or so, I quickly became bored and decided work was perhaps a better way of improving my lot in the long run.
Now to the current situation, take an average earnings for
someone in London, say between £28,000 - £30,000. If you are one of
these people stuck in this wage bracket, you are no doubt the ones
suffering the most. Why, you may ask? Well at current rates a salary of
£30,000 is taxed at a rate of £7985.12 a year and at £28,000 a year at
£7325.24. This includes National Insurance payments as well, bless
them! If you don’t believe me, please check the figures out yourself, as the link directs you
.
Of course there is Council Tax to consider as well, which if we assume
them to be in band A (the cheapest) with a single person discount the
current charge is anywhere between £850 - £1,000 per year in most
London boroughs. I’m not even gonna go near sales tax, currently riding
at 17.5%, a nice little skim on our regular purchases, but kind of
abstract all the same, just the way these thieving cartels (govts) like
it of course.
In all this we see a continual drain on our monthly incomes from a filthy lying scum that produces nothing accept thievery upon the masses. As some great soul tunes best described us performed in the 60’s & 70’s, we are nothing but ‘money makers’ for these lazy arses (govt). Now of course one must juxtapose this against Tax Credits, an infamous method for which govt encourages parenthood. Tax Credits are undoubtedly the most difficult benefit to work out. Indeed it is variable depending on your own individual circumstances. Believe me when I say it took me a fair while to put these into some kind of financial perspective that the layman could understand. Let me first explain that you can claim a Tax Credit (with children mind) on as much as £58,000 per year, as much as £66,000 per year if the poor blighter is under one years old. Who in God’s name would consider asking for benefits earning £66,000 per year? With the current inflation rates and the knowledge I’ve gleamed thus far, I would definitely consider it now mind.
And this is what I mean. One would have hoped that having reached £66,000 per year gross earnings that you wouldn’t need to go cap in hand to the govt for a few extra crumbs. But given a govt that recognises a need to explain its very existence, a few crumbs may indeed provide them with sufficient justification. Given that on those earnings you would be paying £21,460.92 per year in tax and national insurance I would say a few crumbs were indeed wanting. So what do us wage earners decide given this financial conundrum we are faced with? We decide to have fewer kids at an older age. Decisions to marry or cohabit tend to be based on financial need alone, forgetting our personal needs and responsibilities towards these important relationships, particularly to that of children. Those of us that have worked hard and given ourselves beyond average earnings are punished with higher taxes to feed the so called poor, for whom do nothing and achieve very little and on the whole contribute nil to the rest of the world in the form of production. They tend to learn little or nothing about getting along with people, because there is no net gain for them in fostering good relationships with people, because there entitlement (benefits) give them all they require. Welfare is a cancer that eats away at people’s hopes and dreams and provides zilch to a person’s happiness and well-being.
On the flip side there are those, who are working themselves to death, so that they can provide a good life for themselves and their families, who are forced to work longer hours including the wife or Mother of their children. This means they must leave their children in childcare, often with individuals they haven’t had much opportunity to talk with and make a good judgement as to their character. It’s appalling that a couple earning £33,000 each per year are forced to hand over £8975.72 each per year in taxes. These are most definitely the net losers within our system. They will have to pay proportionately far more in taxes than they will ever receive in benefits and will be thanked all the less for it. They are told of course that they are wealthy and enjoying a life that is beyond the reach of the average person. However, since when did someone who has worked hard deserve to have a proportion of their income given to a couple who have no intention of improving their lives through their own labour? The moral distinction is clear, them that work hard are punished and them that sit around are rewarded for their ineptness and rewarded further by producing yet more children. Whereas a couple earning £33,000 per year each are expected to swallow the cost whole, of every child they produce thereafter. Which family is more likely to make the positive choice to bare more offspring in your opinion?
Another pernicious thing is regarding the area of social housing, otherwise known as Council housing or housing associations. On the whole the social sector of rentals is filled to brimming with the entitled, only some 8% of tenants are working full time and claiming no benefits at all. For the most part, these cheap subsidised rents have no effect on the incomes of the entitled. The only possible positive effect that these cheaper rents provide the tax payer is less tax being spent on housing benefit payments. Who gains from this of course? Govt does. Whilst the general tax payer swallows the cost of market value rents, the inept wallow in cheap housing, for which the govt gladly spends less of our money to waste on other pursuits. These cheaper rents would be an enormous boost to the productive, almost as good as a 30% drop in taxes. But no, social housing is there to provide a cheap housing stock for govt to give to the inept who will never climb out of their malaise, thus keeping govt costs down as much as possible.
I am not saying of course that all people that find themselves on welfare at some point in life are all inept. Of course, many people find that their career and earning potential dries up significantly at certain times in their lives. This is every more reason that when those who are at their most productive should be given the opportunity to save their earnings in perpetuity. Then, when they are in need, they can draw upon that rich vein of resource they were able to amass during their most productive years. Instead they are left to fend upon the arbitrary nature of govt generosity and how much they feel these individuals are entitled too at any given time. In the long run govt considers their value to be the same as that of someone claiming entitlements throughout their lives. Only those rich enough (the super rich) can easily disguise their resources so as to hold on to them better and not be left with bugger all when the less productive times arrive.
A fine singer that died recently... Issac Hayes was amongst its finest.. Apart from his brain dead Scientology nonsense... His voice was legendary, for which the world of music will be eternally grateful...
The latest stupidity regarding health and safety laws has emerged once again, as seen here in the Daily Mail. After saving a schoolgirl from a near drowning, the boat was immediately confiscated and impounded by health and safety executives. The reason being, was that the boat had required a hull inspection by a health & safety expert so as to pass it as fit for service.
Apparently there has been a serious breach of regulations and the incident and crew are now being investigated. One can only imagine the concern these crew-members and their families must be feeling right now, as this rather arbitrary organisation set up by government has got some rather sharp teeth.
Like much with government regulation we are for the most part blissfully unaware of how we may one day fall foul of it. There are rules for just about anything these days. It’s a surprise that we actually get through the day without breaking some of them in complete ignorance. However, this case clearly illustrates the inability of government to make a rational and indeed moral judgment correctly. If one is to break down the concerns regarding the danger this boat posed to anyone, there are perhaps 3 distinct areas we have to consider.
1 – The crew voluntarily decided to risk their own lives.
Not one of them was forced to go out on that boat, they decided on their own volition (something govt could consider when it points guns at people all the time).
2 - The only boat available was some 25 minutes away.
Which held the obvious risk of getting to this girl too late.
3 - The crew had paid to fix it and were only awaiting a clearence certificate.
With their great experience of boats they would have been left in no doubt that the risk was minimal at best.
Given all these circumstances one can safely assume that the crew made a valued and reasoned judgement to go and rescue this girl. They even asked for permission, for which transmission was lost (thank God).
Now I am sure that these guys will be ok, particular since they have the Daily Panic behind them (Daily Mail). These guys are unlikely to face any real recriminations for their actions, as the press would likely cause a stink stronger than Gordon Browns pants. However, this is not really my concern, my real concern is the one where anyone could find themselves in by complete accident. A story of perhaps lesser virtue may not have the benefits of press protection and could lead to the imprisonment, fining or lost reputation that this putrid organisation can and does inflict on any individual and entity it deems fit to remonstrate against.
The latest news regarding the inflation rate of 4.4% for the month of July is yet more evidence of Gordon Browns thievery since the debacle surrounding the Northern Rock bank bail out. Indeed more evidence of the govt pumping the money supply harder to provide the financial industry with a bigger cushion regarding the lending of money. These asinine robbers are now asking all employers to hold off the increasing of people’s wages as a means to holding this figure down further.
What infuriates me in all this is the govt gladly overspends in the good times and in the bad expects everyone else to swallow the bitter pill instead. Never has there been a more clearer need to throw the state system into the garbage than at this time. Never would they consider slashing tax to give the economy a boost like no other. Oh no, they cause the mess and they compound it yet further by inflicting inflation on us. These economic cycles are always filthy with grubby govt interference and the best of the financial industry know it. But will they admit it? Of course not, that would be career suicide wouldn’t it. No these economic arguments are left to a few fringe radicals from the Mises institute to complain and bluster about. And who has heard of them? A handful of economists and of course people who have worked out how these thieving cartels (govt’s) work. Apart from that, buggar all frankly.
Of course having been state educated the general populace these days can barely read and their only financial knowledge is limited to how big their overdraft is with the bank. In true govt fashion they blame global economics for the downturn. Indeed global, because all govts are at it, but they blame each other of course. Clever that.
Of course their pornographic waste is left for us the slaves to pick up, whilst they drive around in their chauffeured Jaguars and sip Chardonnay with heads of state pretending to be clever. Insisting that their non productive arses will indeed find answers some sunny day. Of course sunny days only arrive once the free market gets driven by some new productivity savings. I believe Windows 95 was the reason for the last economic recovery.
Frankly I’ve found the answer, and that’s to lock them all up in a cage (politicians) and dangle them in the middle of the ocean above shark infested waters and drop them in one at a time. The rest of the world could get along in blissful harmony, whilst the sharks get a fatty if not chewy treat.
