I don't know when, exactly, using briefcases fell out of fashion, but I suspect it was sometime around the arrival of the cheap laptop computer. However, if you're not carting a laptop around with you then a briefcase is still a very useful way to transport documents, notes and even sandwiches.
And if you're in the sort of job where the documents you carry may be rather sensitive and important then there is even more reason for keeping them secure and out of sight. Especially, if you're in government.
What is up with these people? Are they so worried about looking "out of touch" that they prefer to wander around clutching confidential papers in their hand in front of TV cameras and reporters rather than risk being seen with a briefcase?
It's not as if they don't have lackeys they could hand the briefcase to if they can't handle the indignity of being seen with anything so practical - and it's not as if the government don't make these things available to them.
Or is it because they are simply careless?
The only reason they get caught like this - even after others have been caught making exactly the same mistake - is because they are careless. And if they are careless with something as simple as putting confidential papers out of sight, then you can bet they are every bit as careless with the way they draft legislation, form policy and spend our money.
It's a sound bet that anyone who can not take care with the simplest of things can not be trusted to take care of complex things and things that are important. That is, I am afraid to say, the plain and simple truth about our political class today.
Not only are they obsessed with style and appearance over substance and ability, they are incompetent and incapable.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The real cause of the riots must never be revealed
I've not written anything about the riots since they began for various reasons. First of all, I've been very very busy with my work for a couple of weeks - a little too busy if the truth be told. When I started doing this it was only supposed to be a part time "hobby" sort of business, but for the last couple of weeks I've been working 18 hours a day every day. Some hobby!
The other reason I've not written anything about it is that I've pretty much said all I have to say about it on previous posts - I can't be bothered to post links - the riots are something I've been expecting and predicting for some time and came as no surprise to me.
What is clear to me, though and is something of a revelation is that the media, for a brief time, seemed to come to the same conclusions as me in that the riots were not caused by "deprivation" or any of the other poster children of the left, but simply by the absence of morality and decency.
That realisation was brief, though. In the last few days I've read more and more comment articles in sources as diverse as the Telegraph and Guardian making the usual claims about poverty, lack of opportunity and other social grievances.
It's all codswallop - but predictable codswallop. It's predictable because to admit that the underlying cause of the riots was anything but the usual suspects is to admit that everything the liberal progressives believe in is completely wrong.
That applies to David Cameron, the bulk of the Tory party and the majority of the journalists who work in the mainstream media as much as it does to the Toynbees and Milibands of this world.
So the liberals will do some hand wringing, have a couple of inquiries and will manage to draw the wrong conclusions once again.
They have to - otherwise their very reason for existing will cease.
The other reason I've not written anything about it is that I've pretty much said all I have to say about it on previous posts - I can't be bothered to post links - the riots are something I've been expecting and predicting for some time and came as no surprise to me.
What is clear to me, though and is something of a revelation is that the media, for a brief time, seemed to come to the same conclusions as me in that the riots were not caused by "deprivation" or any of the other poster children of the left, but simply by the absence of morality and decency.
That realisation was brief, though. In the last few days I've read more and more comment articles in sources as diverse as the Telegraph and Guardian making the usual claims about poverty, lack of opportunity and other social grievances.
It's all codswallop - but predictable codswallop. It's predictable because to admit that the underlying cause of the riots was anything but the usual suspects is to admit that everything the liberal progressives believe in is completely wrong.
That applies to David Cameron, the bulk of the Tory party and the majority of the journalists who work in the mainstream media as much as it does to the Toynbees and Milibands of this world.
So the liberals will do some hand wringing, have a couple of inquiries and will manage to draw the wrong conclusions once again.
They have to - otherwise their very reason for existing will cease.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Why globalisation fails
Once again I see people blaming the current economic crisis on capitalism and failing to attribute culpability to the real culprit in this ongoing disaster - globalisation.
Why is it all down to globalisation? Well - to explain that I first need to explain what capitalism is and isn't.
Capitalism is an economic model - not a political ideology - whereas globalisation is an extension of capitalism into a political ideology.
The fundamental basis of capitalism is speculation. In a national context this is manageable because a nation has the authority and ability to enforce that authority.
The principle of globalisation as a political ideology is to circumvent national borders and, thus, national laws - as such it is, in its rawest form, an anarchic ideology.
When we last allowed globalisation to take root - just around the end of WW1 - it was in a raw form and was, consequently, very anarchic. The end result came inside 15 years and was the Great Depression.
This time around we tried to contain the anarchy with a number of transnational institutions which are supposed to impose some sort of control on the anarchic nature of globalisation (which is why globalisation is beloved by the new left - it gives them an excuse to create world governing authorities without the need for the inconvenience of democracy and elections).
But as anyone who knows capitalism will tell you, one of the features of capitalism is boom and bust. When capitalism is employed in a national context those booms are modest and the busts manageable and containable.
However, when you take capitalism global and remove the constraints that capitalism in a national context can apply, the effects are amplified significantly - the booms are massive but the busts spectacular.
It lasted longer than it did in the early 20th century, but still blew itself out inside 25 years.
This is why globalisation fails and why it will always fail.
Globalisation is not capitalism - it is the extension of capitalism into an ideology.
Globalisation is not sustainable - it is subject to the same cycles as capitalism, but because those cycles are so significantly amplified the busts are too painful to make the booms worthwhile.
It is not controllable - it is anarchic and self-feeding.
Until we understand that the economic failure we are seeing today is a failure of globalisation and NOT a failure of capitalism then we will not understand what needs to be done to recover from it. What is more, if we do not recognise where the problem lies we will see a resurgence of the extreme left just as we did post WW1 and that will give rise to a resurgence of the extreme right - just as we saw in the lead up to WW2.
What is needed is a return to nationalism before the extremes of either political wing can take root. Nationalism has a dirty name thanks to the ongoing smears of the left and the "useful fools" in the unthinking media - but we should never forget that Britain and the USA were once proud and very nationalist countries when they defended the world against Nazism.
Nationalism is not a bad thing - extremism is.
And extreme globalism is every bit as bad as extreme nationalism.
Why is it all down to globalisation? Well - to explain that I first need to explain what capitalism is and isn't.
Capitalism is an economic model - not a political ideology - whereas globalisation is an extension of capitalism into a political ideology.
The fundamental basis of capitalism is speculation. In a national context this is manageable because a nation has the authority and ability to enforce that authority.
The principle of globalisation as a political ideology is to circumvent national borders and, thus, national laws - as such it is, in its rawest form, an anarchic ideology.
When we last allowed globalisation to take root - just around the end of WW1 - it was in a raw form and was, consequently, very anarchic. The end result came inside 15 years and was the Great Depression.
This time around we tried to contain the anarchy with a number of transnational institutions which are supposed to impose some sort of control on the anarchic nature of globalisation (which is why globalisation is beloved by the new left - it gives them an excuse to create world governing authorities without the need for the inconvenience of democracy and elections).
But as anyone who knows capitalism will tell you, one of the features of capitalism is boom and bust. When capitalism is employed in a national context those booms are modest and the busts manageable and containable.
However, when you take capitalism global and remove the constraints that capitalism in a national context can apply, the effects are amplified significantly - the booms are massive but the busts spectacular.
It lasted longer than it did in the early 20th century, but still blew itself out inside 25 years.
This is why globalisation fails and why it will always fail.
Globalisation is not capitalism - it is the extension of capitalism into an ideology.
Globalisation is not sustainable - it is subject to the same cycles as capitalism, but because those cycles are so significantly amplified the busts are too painful to make the booms worthwhile.
It is not controllable - it is anarchic and self-feeding.
Until we understand that the economic failure we are seeing today is a failure of globalisation and NOT a failure of capitalism then we will not understand what needs to be done to recover from it. What is more, if we do not recognise where the problem lies we will see a resurgence of the extreme left just as we did post WW1 and that will give rise to a resurgence of the extreme right - just as we saw in the lead up to WW2.
What is needed is a return to nationalism before the extremes of either political wing can take root. Nationalism has a dirty name thanks to the ongoing smears of the left and the "useful fools" in the unthinking media - but we should never forget that Britain and the USA were once proud and very nationalist countries when they defended the world against Nazism.
Nationalism is not a bad thing - extremism is.
And extreme globalism is every bit as bad as extreme nationalism.
Friday, August 05, 2011
The masters of deception
A few days back I wrote about how the BBC (and other media outlets) have a tendency to distort the past to suit their particular world view.
However, it's a practice which is not restricted to just media.
As was the case in the 1930s, when economic nationalism in the shape of protectionism brought the global economy to a shuddering halt, nations are starting to take measures to look after themselves at the expense of others.
This is a common view amongst economists - and totally incorrect.
Nationalism only started to become prominent AFTER the global economy came to a "shuddering halt" in the late 1920's and it was another 4 or 5 years of following the same failed economic policies that led up the crisis before protectionism started to be used as a standard instrument by just about all governments (including the US and our own).
It's also worth noting that those countries which had resisted the globalisation that took place after World War 1 and had remained staunch protectionist nationalists - such as France - were relatively unscathed by the global economy grinding to a "shuddering halt".
It was only when nationalism and protectionism became common place again that the economies of the world started to recover - from around 1933 onwards.
It's also worth noting that the conditions that brought about the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression are almost exactly the same as now.
First of all you had a new technology that vastly improved global communication (the telephone back then - the Internet today) and made it possible to instantly conduct business over vast distances.
Secondly you had credit deregulation and expansion.
Thirdly you had a similar attempt at "free trade" and business without borders.
In other words, the period after the Great War up until the Great Depression was the first attempt at globalisation in the 20th century. It failed then just as it is failing now.
It will always fail because the basic principle behind it is fatally flawed - i.e. its principle driving force is short term gain for a few people rather than long term stability for the vast majority.
So why is this incorrect and damaging view that nationalism and protectionism is dangerous and globalisation good common amongst economists? Why do they ignore the facts of the Great Depression and put forward a totally distorted view of those times?
Just ask yourself this - who do they work for?
However, it's a practice which is not restricted to just media.
As was the case in the 1930s, when economic nationalism in the shape of protectionism brought the global economy to a shuddering halt, nations are starting to take measures to look after themselves at the expense of others.
This is a common view amongst economists - and totally incorrect.
Nationalism only started to become prominent AFTER the global economy came to a "shuddering halt" in the late 1920's and it was another 4 or 5 years of following the same failed economic policies that led up the crisis before protectionism started to be used as a standard instrument by just about all governments (including the US and our own).
It's also worth noting that those countries which had resisted the globalisation that took place after World War 1 and had remained staunch protectionist nationalists - such as France - were relatively unscathed by the global economy grinding to a "shuddering halt".
It was only when nationalism and protectionism became common place again that the economies of the world started to recover - from around 1933 onwards.
It's also worth noting that the conditions that brought about the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression are almost exactly the same as now.
First of all you had a new technology that vastly improved global communication (the telephone back then - the Internet today) and made it possible to instantly conduct business over vast distances.
Secondly you had credit deregulation and expansion.
Thirdly you had a similar attempt at "free trade" and business without borders.
In other words, the period after the Great War up until the Great Depression was the first attempt at globalisation in the 20th century. It failed then just as it is failing now.
It will always fail because the basic principle behind it is fatally flawed - i.e. its principle driving force is short term gain for a few people rather than long term stability for the vast majority.
So why is this incorrect and damaging view that nationalism and protectionism is dangerous and globalisation good common amongst economists? Why do they ignore the facts of the Great Depression and put forward a totally distorted view of those times?
Just ask yourself this - who do they work for?
Thursday, August 04, 2011
The Perfect Storm
I've been warning about this for some years now, but we really do seem to be moving towards the end game for western economic dominance now as concerns about the US economy lead to massive falls in stock markets around the world.
Anyone who has read this blog for a while will know that I don't have a lot of faith in the idea of using the stock markets as a reliable economic indicator - but what they are good for is getting an idea of the confidence in the prognostications of various politicians, chancellors and economists. And the confidence in those people seem to be pretty low.
I'm not surprised. After the murmurings of social scientists I place the meanderings of economists as one of the least trustworthy areas of "expertise" there is. The trouble with economists - similar to social scientists - is that they can never give a straight answer to a straight question.
If you ask an aeronautical engineer if an aeroplane design will fly he will tell you yes or no. If you ask an electronic engineer whether a design for a new circuit board will do what it is supposed to he will tell you yes or no. If you ask an economist if an economic plan will work you will get a maybe.
That wouldn't be so bad if they admitted that their "science" - just like social science - isn't really science at all. It's just guesswork based on assumptions none of which are certain or proven. They try to convince us that there is some sort of proper theory behind all their gibberish with macroeconomics this and microeconomics that - but there isn't. It is all bullshit.
When Maggie Thatcher came to power she understood that the best "economists" in the country weren't working at the major investment banks - they were the humble housewives of Britain. People who understood that if you spend more than you earn you will end up with debt and that debt was something to be avoided as much as possible.
But since the early nineties we've thrown the simple economics of the housewife into the rubbish bin and fallen for the charms of snake oil salesman masquerading as knowledgeable people - but their theories were flawed. Very flawed.
What started off as a Greek tragedy rapidly became an Irish joke and now seems to be spreading into an Italian comedy - but the ultimate result will be, I believe, the end of the American dream and that will have an impact on the whole of western democratic society.
Anyone who has read this blog for a while will know that I don't have a lot of faith in the idea of using the stock markets as a reliable economic indicator - but what they are good for is getting an idea of the confidence in the prognostications of various politicians, chancellors and economists. And the confidence in those people seem to be pretty low.
I'm not surprised. After the murmurings of social scientists I place the meanderings of economists as one of the least trustworthy areas of "expertise" there is. The trouble with economists - similar to social scientists - is that they can never give a straight answer to a straight question.
If you ask an aeronautical engineer if an aeroplane design will fly he will tell you yes or no. If you ask an electronic engineer whether a design for a new circuit board will do what it is supposed to he will tell you yes or no. If you ask an economist if an economic plan will work you will get a maybe.
That wouldn't be so bad if they admitted that their "science" - just like social science - isn't really science at all. It's just guesswork based on assumptions none of which are certain or proven. They try to convince us that there is some sort of proper theory behind all their gibberish with macroeconomics this and microeconomics that - but there isn't. It is all bullshit.
When Maggie Thatcher came to power she understood that the best "economists" in the country weren't working at the major investment banks - they were the humble housewives of Britain. People who understood that if you spend more than you earn you will end up with debt and that debt was something to be avoided as much as possible.
But since the early nineties we've thrown the simple economics of the housewife into the rubbish bin and fallen for the charms of snake oil salesman masquerading as knowledgeable people - but their theories were flawed. Very flawed.
What started off as a Greek tragedy rapidly became an Irish joke and now seems to be spreading into an Italian comedy - but the ultimate result will be, I believe, the end of the American dream and that will have an impact on the whole of western democratic society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)