Russell Taylor: Lefties, your work here is done

The government wants the long-term jobless to do community work or lose their benefits. This is the latest part of the government’s plan to get the unemployed used to a working environment, to develop their skills and to enable them to give something back in exchange for the hand-outs they receive. Personally, I can’t see much wrong with this. It might not be the ideal solution to joblessness, but it beats giving people unconditional access to taxpayers’ cash.

Unsurprisingly, lefties are up in arms, describing these schemes as ‘slave labour’. Apparently, there is no difference between someone being asked to work for their benefits and an African peasant being snatched from his village and pressed into service on a cotton plantation in the Deep South. This is Roots for the welfare generation. Or maybe that should be Loots, in recognition of how benefits claimants get their money: by picking taxpayers’ pockets.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not without sympathy for the jobless. I spent nine months on the dole myself as a young man and have no objection to helping those who have fallen on hard times. Nonetheless, the unemployed are a net drain on society, so it only seems only fair that they make themselves useful, if they can. Welfare-to-work schemes aren’t legalised slavery and the Left knows it. As usual, their reasons for opposing them are far more self-serving.

Leftists like their pet victims to be helpless, blameless and utterly dependent on their largesse, in order to wring the maximum feel-good value from them. Metaphorically, they want to prop the unemployed up in bed, give them a nice cup of tea, and tell them to rest up until they feel ready to face the world again. No pressure. Take as long as you like. This isn’t real compassion, because someone who gives a damn about others wants them to live fulfilling, independent lives. It’s more like Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy, where caregivers deliberately keep others in a state of dependency to feed their own pathological need to feel kind and attentive. When the Tories tell able-bodied layabouts to start pulling their weight, it does two things to lefties. On the one hand, it enables them to play David to the Right’s Goliath, which pleases them like nothing else. On the other, it threatens their little game and makes a mockery of their faux concern. Either way, they have an excuse for making a lot of noise.

In the Magic Kingdom of the liberal imagination, people are paid to do whatever takes their fancy – be it noodling away in academia, shouting orders at proles, or sitting on their arses all day. The unemployed are living out the socialist dream of getting something for nothing, and the Left don’t appreciate their bubble being burst. The supersized state is the guarantor of this other Eden, and the Left takes any right-wing interference with its autonomy, or with the lives of its leisured inhabitants, as an act of war.

Liberals like to cry their crocodile tears over those who can’t find work for love nor money, and bemoan the inability of the Tories to create full employment. Well, my sorrowful lefty friends, it was you who screwed the economy, destroyed jobs with the minimum wage, overregulated employers, then encouraged immigrants to take whatever jobs were left in the ruins. It was you who vandalised our schools, leaving young people ill-equipped for a working environment. It was you who helped millions of people get pointless degrees that left them unable to find jobs commensurate with their ‘talents’. And it was you who created the welfare system that discourages people from joining the workforce and stunts the growth of the productive sector with its expense. I’d say we could do without your suggestions. You’ve done more than enough already.

47 comments on “Russell Taylor: Lefties, your work here is done

  1. Lord Lunatic
    October 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    Agree with the gist of this article. The government is now paradoxically in the position of trying to encourage the jobless into work at the same time as having to comply with European law, welcoming half of Eastern Europe here to compete for those very same jobs.

  2. silverminer
    October 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    It’s not unreasonable to say (to the able bodied) that you get 6 months unemployment benefit then you have a choice of either employment, training or education. Failing that you do full time community work if you want to retain your benefit.

    • kevinsmith2013
      October 13, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

      Personally, I believe three months is more than enough time for someone to try and find themeselves and the state supports them during that time, a handup, not a handout.

      After that time, if those (able bodied) individuals wish to continue receiving charity from taxpayers (or loans in reality) then they must give something back, something like 30 hours a week.

      Jobs could be created in either the public sector, or in the private sector. Councils could be offered assistants to clear rubbish, clean streets, clean graffiti, and other less demeaning roles, fully funded by the state.

      The private sector could be encouraged to take on additional staff, trainee’s or apprentices they may not otherwise be able to afford. Once an individual is trained up, then that company may be able to offer them a job, which would be the ideal outcome.

      The other option of course would be going back into education or vocational training.

      Sitting on your arse all day, scrounging off the state should not be an option. If people refuse to work, or take up any of these options then their benefits should get halved the first week they redfuse, halved again the next week, and then stopped completely in the third week. Their benefits would then stop until they start working (no back pay), also have them evicted from their state funded homes if applicable. We have been too soft for too long in this country and look where its getting us? This admittedly harsh policy would force people to start taking responsibility for themselves.

      Don’t agree with just cutting benefits as they have, the levels are wrong absolutely, but in most families it will be children who will suffer. Some unemployed parents will not appreciate that they should reduce their alcohol intake, cigarettes and cancel their sky subscriptions if their benefits are cut, if thats what is needed to keep food on the table.

      Welfare living/dependency creates so much that is wrong, which is why it MUST be changed.oblems, not the unemployed themselves, just some have taken advantage.

      • kevinsmith2013
        October 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

        Last sentence should have read:

        Successive governments have created the problems, not the unemployed themselves, just some have taken advantage.

        Not sure what happened there, note to self must proof read before posting.

      • kevinsmith2013
        October 13, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

        Not suggesting this be the end goal, by any measure, this would be the starting point. Welfare should only be for the needy and the deserving, and maybe to some extent as a safety net for those who fall on hard times, possibly through no fault of their own.

        If we must continue to spend money we don’t have (aka borrow), and it seems we must, then it would at least be better spent on infrastructure projects (not HS2) that would really benefit the nation, as opposed to bank bailouts for example. Creating jobs in construction and manufacturing, taking people off welfare, creating more tax revenues. I suggest these only as alternatives under the pardigm we currently have, as being better than the existing welfare system we have. Under our existing tripartite LibLabCon system it would be an improvement, not a preferred solution. In a better world only corporations would get taxed, or at most only an indirect sales tax on luxury goods.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

        I’m not sure how things work in merry ol’ England, but we ended “welfare as we know it” under the Clinton administration with a Republican congress headed by Newt Gingrich.

        Before Clinton/Gingrich, welfare got way out of hand. Black welfare mothers were getting pregnant as a career, because the check went up with every new baby, and there was zero incentive to get work.

        The Clinton/Gingrich compromise wrote a work requirement into the law. Today we have something called the “Earned Income Tax Credit”. This is a supplement to those with a low paying job. To get it you have to be working and filing a tax return.

        Unemployment insurance is generally for people in better jobs. The employers pay a regular insurance premium to build up a fund to assist workers who are laid off or otherwise lose their job through no fault of their own. I think the tax payers supplement this fund, but I’m not positive.

        The extraordinary unemployment numbers over the last 10 years and the difficulty finding work has forced us to extend unemployment benefits a couple of times.

        Some people have been diligently searching for work for over a year now.

  3. Marvin Edwards
    October 12, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

    I believe the pilgrims were correct to insist that everyone who could work would work or they wouldn’t eat. The problem today is that we have a surplus of labor, leaving a large portion with no job prospects.

    The flip side is that everyone who is willing to work gets to eat.

    I don’t know that all the BS about what “lefties” think and feel is very helpful. Either you can make a case for a given policy or you can’t. I think that both sides would want votes from the other side to achieve a successful.

    Back under Clinton, welfare reform became bipartisan when those intending to be helpful realized it was not really helping to pay welfare mothers to make a career of having babies,

    Job losses were caused by factories chasing the lowest wages, moving from north to south, then to Japan, Mexico, China, and India. It will still be a while until wages in other countries are high enough to allow us to compete for those jobs again.

    In the meantime, if we have useful work that needs to be done, like repairing and beefing up our infrastructure, or developing new technologies and energy sources, then it makes sense to fund this work through government.

    • Russell Taylor
      October 12, 2013 at 9:51 pm #

      Marvin, the reason I bang on about lefties and their motives is precisely because rational arguments about which system is best are of no interest to them. If we all wanted the same thing, we’d agree on a great many ideas and policies. But since we don’t, we don’t.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 12, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

        Well, gee, I thought we both wanted the abundance of goods and services that follow from free market competition and sensible rules of commerce.

        What is it that you want, only wealth for one person?

    • Russell Taylor
      October 12, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

      And by the way, I refute the idea that developing new technology is the work of government.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 12, 2013 at 10:40 pm #

        New technology is stimulated by government programs (NIH, NASA, DARPA) as well as by private entrepreneurship.

        It’s like the commercials say: AND is better than OR.

    • Anthem
      October 12, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

      Fund this work though government? And how do you think government acquires the funds with which to fund such work? Jesus man, are you even capable of adding 2 + 2?

      People like you really do make me bang my head against the wall.

      There’s TONS of work to be done right here in the country and there are many people who could do the work. The work is never done.

      The problem is that governmental interference has made it unattractive to take on such work.

      Companies don’t just look abroad for the labour because the hourly rate is cheaper, it’s because the whole package is cheaper. It would surely be more convenient to employ people who lived within a stone’s throw of the company’s headquarters?

      Ask yourself WHY it is cheaper to employ people from other countries. Look at their governmental systems. Ask why their countries are shit-holes.

      Look very, very carefully because make no mistake about it – we’re headed in the same direction.

      • Rocco
        October 12, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

        Anthem, I think you’re gonna be banging your head against the wall for a long, long time, mate. This guy’s a fucking idiot. Click his name and read his blog – hopeless, man, hopeless!

        Also – and I doubt any Bogpaper regulars need this spelling out, but just in case – if it really didn’t matter how money was spent, only that it was spent, then we should all become thieves and robbers.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 12:21 am #

        Michigan tried to keep the Electrolux factory by eliminating state taxes and unions concessions to cut pay in half, but they couldn’t beat the $1.67 wage in Juarez, Mexico (see “A Governor’s Story” by Jennifer Granholm).

        Did you miss that? $1.67 per hour. That is the most significant factor that led to job losses. Even after Bush cut tax rates, the USA kept bleeding jobs to other countries.

        It’s ain’t the taxes, it’s the wages.

        And if there’s “TONS” of work to be done, then who wants it done bad enough to pay for it? Private enterprise has no interest in working for free.

        “Ask yourself WHY it is cheaper to employ people from other countries. Look at their governmental systems. Ask why their countries are shit-holes.”

        In China they are moving workers from the farms to the city factories, They undercut our prices by housing workers in dormitories. They don’t waste money on an EPA, so they have trouble breathing the smog that we cleared up years ago.

        In China the government actively supports their entrepreneurs and build factories to draw American businesses.

        The bad news is that China is actually doing what Kruschev promised to do with the Soviet Union: bury us. China now owns a couple trillion of our 17 trillion national debt.

        So, if you actually want to deal with the real world, then you better start dealing with it and cut the BS.

  4. Simon Roberts
    October 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

    This is just the government trying to wrestle with the problems caused by the very existance of unemployment payments and their current unpopularity with the tax-paying electorate.

    Their solution betrays both that they are socialists at heart (the existance of the benefit is never questioned) and that their lack of understanding of economics (how many will be put out of work because they cannot compete with the free labour now being supplied by the government).

    It’s just another example of how entrenched muddled, statist thinking is in our society. No-one asks whether it is the role of government to be providing for the unemployed in the first place. The solution to a problem borne of interventionism is to introduce another, even more interventionist policy.

    The whole system shows no understanding of its inherent problems, much less any willingness on the part of politicians to countenance any solution that would involve reducing their power.

    I don’t even believe that they are doing it deliberately. I’ve had two contacts with my local MP (Fallon) recently which have led me to the conclusion that these people just don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to understand the issues, much less the solutions.

  5. Rocco
    October 12, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    Russell, if I can make a small criticism. It’s not quite true to say the unemployed are a drain on society. (And just a heads up, there will be anarchism in what follows) 😉

    The State is the drain on society. In the absence of the State a chap’s being unemployed doesn’t have to inconvenience anybody but him. Only when the State introduces redistributive taxation does it neccessarily concern society. Therefore, we must direct our arguments against the State.

    This is easier to see when we consider those interventions in the market that the State is so keen on (the ones you mention in the piece). As you know, these hold back job creation and, in the case of minimum wage laws, outlaw job creation. It is the State that creates unemployment.

    Neither will it do to criticise the jobless for preferring to remain unemployed if the only work they can find pays less than the dole. The State has created a different incentive structure than would otherwise exist. If it’s more profitable to remain unemployed than to work, then it becomes irrational to work. This is the evil of the Welfare State. The unemployed haven’t created this perverse incentive structure – the State has.

    • Marvin Edwards
      October 12, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

      The state is not a drain on the economy so long as it spends all the money it takes in. This is especially true for unemployment insurance, where the recipient pretty much has to spend everything he receives.

      Normally, the state does not intervene in the market except to secure individual rights that the market may be trampling. Things like child labor, workplace safety, keeping lead out of paint, preventing Thalidomide from being prescribed to expectant mothers, preventing investors from being defrauded, etc.

      • Rocco
        October 12, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

        Yeah, bro, when I said “economy” , I meant the real one in the real world, not your fantasy keynesian one that exists in your mind.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 12, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

        LOL! It’s not about me. It’s not about you. It’s about the meat on the table.

      • Rocco
        October 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

        Suck my balls.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 12:03 am #

        Sorry, dude, but I can’t seem to find them.

      • Rocco
        October 13, 2013 at 12:08 am #

        Your mum could.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 12:34 am #

        She probably could, and she’s 93.

      • Rocco
        October 13, 2013 at 12:41 am #

        Nice comeback.

      • Simon Roberts
        October 13, 2013 at 2:13 am #

        “The state is not a drain on the economy so long as it spends all the money it takes in.”

        Assuming that you aren’t joking…

        No. This view assumes that the confiscation of wealth by the state has no detrimental effect on the willingness of the victim to produce.

        As the state confiscates more, the incentive to produce decreases. Only a civil servant would believe that someone who will have 50% of their output confiscated will be as productive as someone who has 10% confiscated.

        Also, everything that is run by the state is less efficient than a private sector equivalent. Less efficiency in consumption means wasted resources. Civil Servants do not spend other people’s money with the same rigour as people spending their own.

        Lastly, the very existance of a parasitic state acts as a drain on the economy. Bureaucracy reduces efficiency. Regulation stifles innovation. Taxation discourages entrepreneurial spirit.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 11:03 am #

        Ironically, it depends on whether the capitalist who wants to buy a yacht is acting rationally or ideologically.

        If he is acting rationally then he will produce more at the higher tax rate because it takes more work to accumulate the price of the yacht.

        If he is acting ideologically, then he’ll piss away the opportunity to own the yacht because he’s pissed at government.

        “everything that is run by the state is less efficient than a private sector equivalent”

        Popular myth. I’m pretty sure Medicare is run more efficiently than any private health insurance. I believe that one of the features of Obamacare is that private insurance admin costs are capped at 20% and some have refunded premiums already.

        “Civil Servants do not spend other people’s money with the same rigour as people spending their own.”

        There’s quite a bit of oversight in government operations, what with the GAO etc. So I’m not sure. It is probably true though that anyone with excess money is more likely to waste than those with scarcity. I suspect a lot of waste in the private sector as well.

  6. Baron
    October 12, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    ‘The best way to get people out of poverty’, said Benjamin Franklin, ‘is to make them uncomfortable in it’. Quite.

    The same applies to the majority of the unemployed. They feel no urgency to find a job, they know full well the society will provide. And jobs there are aplenty.

    Recently, Baron needed some work done on a sewage system (the house isn’t connected to the public sewer). Out of four individuals/firms that turn up three refused point blank. Too small a job. The one guy who didn’t say no, got the job charged over £700 (the cost of material – £120.50) for a day and a half work, more than £45 per hour, a top surgeon’s level of pay.

  7. silverminer
    October 12, 2013 at 7:29 pm #

    Be a good idea to turn the entire welfare system into a giant mutual separate from the State. Make it self funding out of higher NI (employees and self employed only, abolish employers contributions). There would then be a direct link between the cost and the benefits, i.e. it would be transparent. Issue some RPI linked bonds to fully fund the accumulated State Pension liabilities and deposit them into the mutual based on retirement at 70 (that would be a frightening exercise…).

    Then allow the under 20s to irreversibly opt out of the whole thing and never pay NI again but never qualify for any benefits (they would make whatever private provision they saw fit). Increase the opt out age by 2 years per annum. My guess is almost everyone will opt out and 25 years down the line there will just be a few pensioners left to pay.

    Be nice to waive a magic wand and make the whole thing disappear overnight but too many have been made dependent. What took the best part of 70 years to construct will take a few decades to wind down.

  8. therealguyfaux
    October 12, 2013 at 10:36 pm #

    Back in the Dark Ages (pre-WWII), when the competition was between National Socialism of the Third Reich variety and the “International” Socialism of the Soviet variety, and then again with the alleged free market system in the West, the US had an official unemployment rate of close to 25%, and the 75% working were none too secure in their jobs (as the situation is for small businesses in the US today, with Obamacare).

    Franklin Roosevelt bought into the whole infrastructure spending for economic stimulus, and started the Works Progress Administration (WPA, jocularly referred to as We Play Around), which essentially was a makework for a lot of those out of work. Many “worthwhile” projects (one might consider that the Tennessee Valley Authority, a series of dams on rivers in the South, providing flood control, hydropower, irrigation for farms and drinking water reservoirs for burgeoning cities might be a good thing) were undertaken, but much of the busywork was in fact pointless and it was politically parceled out– such pointless busywork is the genesis of the expression “boondoggle,” which was the name of a real product produced by a real project of the WPA.

    His justification was that a man (and it WAS mostly males) deserved the dignity of being paid a pay cheque every week, instead of a handout, and, considering the alternative, one of the European totalitarian systems, and the appeal they might have in America if nothing were done, he wasn’t going to let idle minds be the devils’ playgrounds.

    Assuming his belief in “dignity” was genuine, it is rather quaint when one hears it today. If he was being less than completely honest, as one might understandably suspect, he being a politician after all, one might see a more cynical view that in some ways resembles the old Max Miller-type joke, “For two quid, you’d think they’d get undressed!” (i.e., to get the dosh, you’re going to have to put some effort in, Bozo– and we damned well do need those dams!)

    Somewhere along the line, it all went Cloward-Piven (bloat the benefits system, and increase the number of recipients and the Leftie administrators and frontline staff– union workers, natch).
    The Left’s answer to, and the diametric-opposite evil-twin, if you like, of “going Galt” to bring about the end of a hated System, by drip-drip-drip.

    THAT’S what you’re up against.

    • Anthem
      October 12, 2013 at 11:08 pm #

      For an article I want to write on this subject, can anyone confirm or deny that Keynes said something along the lines that “the government could pay men to dig and fill holes all day; so long as the men got paid at the end of the week, the work didn’t matter”?

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 12:25 am #

        The only Keynes quote I have is the one at the end of the Boom and Bust video:

        “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” John Manard Keynes, “The General Theory”.

        “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” F. A. Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit”.

        http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/#disqus_thread

      • Simon Roberts
        October 13, 2013 at 1:57 am #

        Probably a better quote from Keynes is “I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago.”

      • Honey Badger
        October 13, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

        I think it may be Frederic Bastiat rather than Keynes. I’ve tried to find the quote but have drawn a blank. I’m still pretty sure it was him though.

      • Rocco
        October 13, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

        No, it’s not Bastiat, my friend. It’s Keynes, from General Theory. There’s a similar one about throwing bottles into the sea so that people can fish them out again. They’re meant to be witticisms apparently.

    • Marvin Edwards
      October 13, 2013 at 12:43 am #

      Ideally, you want to produce real value, whether through private or public spending. If the private sector has found all the labor they need overseas, and there are public projects that could benefit us all, then raise the taxes and put people to work doing something useful.

      Since the private sector is saving money on cheap overseas labor, their profits are growing. All accounts are that these companies and their owners have prospered during the recession and do not lack money for investment.

      The question is where can the money be put to good use? Right now it’s being invested in new factories overseas or perhaps growing more money on the stock exchange.

      If we need public works done, now is the time to put that money to good use.

  9. jdseanjd
    October 13, 2013 at 5:04 am #

    Left v Right, always Left v Right. Does divide & rule come to anyone’s mind?

    We are being ruled by the central banksters who own our dumb politicians through bribery and/or blackmail. This is the central problem. Our politicians are dumb because they’ve run this country at a deficit, (spending more than they bring in via tax revenues) for 30 of the last 34 years. This benefits the bankers who charge the govt (ie:us, the taxpayers) interest on the money the govt (ie, us, the taxpayers) has to borrow to settle that difference.

    This has built up a national debt of truly staggering size.

    Politicians are also dumb because they’ve not saved a penny of NI contributions over the years, they’ve spent the sodding lot. Like drunken sailors on shore leave. Not like sober & sensible chaps in charge of our peoples welfare & finances.
    This means that the huge public sector pensions costs coming down the road are completely unfunded, & therefore must come from current tax revenues.

    On a decreasing tax revenue base, this will soon be unaffordable. Our country is bankrupt. The only thing saving us (& the US) at the moment is that we have our own printing presses & can print (& thereby devalue) more currency each month. This is not sustainable.

    Capital has fled these shores to establish low labour cost factories in less well developed? nations. Labour here has voted itself more wages, holidays & benefits for less & less work. This is not sustainable.

    We need to get away from our central banking system using toilet paper fiat currency. Mervyn King has said that of all banking systems, we have the worst.

    Perhaps we need to get back to The Bradbury Pound we had in 1913 , as ukcolumn.org advocates.

    We certainly need to clean up our disgusting politicians, & make them accountable.

    & we argue over details of Left v Right? Really?

    • Russell Taylor
      October 13, 2013 at 6:06 am #

      While I agree that central banking is harmful and unnecessary, I would disagree that highlighting the differences between Left and Right is pointless.

      A lot of arguments about how the country should be run are made on the Left’s terms. For instance, when we talk about making our political class more honest and accountable, we’re tacitly accepting their importance and the scope of their power. And that’s a left-wing assumption. A right-wing approach would be to ask how we can make politicians redundant, but that question is rarely asked because the debate takes place on the Left’s terms.

      This why it’s important to understand the conflicting ambitions of Left and Right. Leftists will have you believe they are pragmatists, who are after the same things as the rest of us. They’re not. Their priorities and their assumptions are very different, and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 11:07 am #

        The difference being that we want everyone to prosper and you want only a few to prosper?

      • Russell Taylor
        October 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

        The difference being that we’ve worked out after a thousand failed socialist experiments that the Left’s attempts to share the wealth leaves everyone worse off. The refusal of leftists to accept this reality leads me to conclude that they would rather everyone be equally poor than unequally well-off. So much for compassion.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

        No one wants a centrally planned economy. And that is what “socialism” is. We saw the news reports of long lines in the Soviet Union to get daily necessities like toilet paper. And their shabby home construction. The fact is that socialism leads to a loss of both quality and quantity of goods.

        Capitalism, and especially free market completion, on the other hand, has produced an abundance and variety of goods and services for everyone.

        But, without law, capitalism also produces child labor, unsafe work conditions, the dismissal of injured workers, pollution of the air and water with hazardous discharges, etc.

        The idea is to minimize or eliminate unnecessary regulation while keeping the rules of commerce that ensure protection of the rights of workers, customers, and competitors.

        The problem on the right is that they confuse social programs with socialism. Even F. A. Hayek recognized the need for social insurance programs. And you don’t get more anti-socialism then Hayek.

      • jdseanjd
        October 14, 2013 at 6:29 am #

        I agree with you Russell that we must pay attention to the differences between Left & Right.

        What I am trying to get across is that there are more fundamental problems within our dysfunctional political/economic system.

        I see our politicians as short term thinking impediments to a free & stable society, who are bought & paid for by the far longer term thinking central banksters who have control of our vastly devalued fiat currency. Since the 1970s our British £ is now worth 7p, & since 1913, when the FED was established in the US, the American dollar is now worth about 3 cents. Govts happily rig the process of calculating inflation & lie to us about the inflation figure, & one only has to glance at fuel & food costs to realise they are lying.
        Meanwhile top civil servants?, BOE employees & politicians ensure that their salaries & pensions are (inflation proofed) index linked. There is no doubt that inflation erodes the value of savings & thereby the practice of saving itself, leading to a far less stable society.

        You can hardly get a fag paper between the Left & Right parties today, they are all in thrall to the bankrupt & despotic EU, which I see as the forerunner to the banksters dream of one world govt.

        I guess what I’m trying to say is that democracy as we know it has failed & we must focus on what is to replace it, IE how to get some intelligent long term thinking into our Govt.

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

        The good/bad news is that all institutions, private and public, are run by imperfect human beings like us. Most are probably well-meaning, but some are bad boys.

        So the problem is what can you replace it with. In a democracy, at least you have the opportunity to make things work better by holding people accountable.

        And no matter how much money someone has, he only gets one vote, the same as you or I.

    • silverminer
      October 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

      I can see why you might end up with a national debt if we were on a gold standard, or gold and silver were the currency. A government can’t print metal after all.

      However, in a fiat world, how the hell does a sovereign entity, who prints its own currency, end up having to borrow it back from a third party at interest?!

      There is some slight of hand going on here and it’s costing taxpayers £46billion a year in interest. That money is going directly into the pockets of private banking institutions.

      Surely, this has to be a fraud of monumental proportions. If not then someone please explain it to me!

      Bradbury Pound all the way (and start buying gold ASAP so we can eventually back it with bullion when the system gets remade and aren’t forced into a gold backed Euro).

      • Marvin Edwards
        October 13, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

        Back in the 70s, here in the colonies, we had runaway inflation around 12.5% a year. Workers demanded higher wages to keep up with rising prices, but, of course, all prices are wages (profit is the wage of the business owner), so it becomes a vicious circle. Therefore it is important to control the value of currency, otherwise nothing has a stable value at all.

      • Rocco
        October 13, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

        Blippy blippy blippy. Blippy blippy blippy blippy. Blippy blippy. Blippy blippy blippy blippy blippy blippy. Blippy. Blippy.

      • jdseanjd
        October 14, 2013 at 6:31 am #

        Spot on.

  10. Rocco
    October 13, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    Good old Even Hayek!

    No one could ever be a more committed advocate of the free market than Even Hayek.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: