tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-349930142024-03-23T18:14:43.131+00:00Ranting StanIf you are looking for balanced, non-judgemental, politically correct opinion and comment - you are definitely in the wrong place!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1697125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-32565302512878388122012-02-02T13:03:00.003+00:002012-02-02T13:32:25.420+00:00Democracy or mob rule?Democracy is an overused word these days. That, in itself, would not be a bad thing if it were being used correctly, but the trouble is that it rarely is.<br /><br />There is a growing assumption - perpetuated by the mass media - that democracy is simply the will of a large group of people expressed in some collective form or another. This is a simplistic and inaccurate view and one which I most definitely disagree with.<br /><br />Worst of all these assumptions is the belief that if that will is expressed through some sort of election mechanism that is democracy.<br /><br />IT IS NOT!<br /><br />If it were then no one could deny the democratic credentials of the Soviet Union which had universal suffrage and held frequent elections - but every one knows the Soviet Union was far from democratic.<br /><br />This is because the pre-conditions that need to exist for democracy to exist simply were not there - and with out those pre-conditions there can be no democracy. Those pre-conditions are numerous and complicated (and difficult to explain), but the most obvious are the existence of a demos (a body of people with shared a shared history, culture, traditions and language), the existence of the institutions of democracy (rule of law, respect for authority and a transparent, fair justice system) and political pluralism (genuine choice of political ideology).<br /><br />For what it's worth, it is my belief that these conditions no longer exist in our country.<br /><br />Our demos has been undermined by mass immigration and the fact that non-British people can vote in our elections is an affront to the concept of democracy (they are not part of the British demos and therefore there participation in elections is anti-democratic).<br /><br />The institutions of democracy have been corrupted beyond recognition. The rule of law barely exists anymore, there is no respect for authority (hardly surprising as this is actively discouraged) and our justice system is neither transparent or fair.<br /><br />And there is no political pluralism. The main parties all subscribe to the progressive ideology with only minor detail differences and they combine to use the law and media to "lock out" any potential challenge to that hegemony to such an extent that other parties are unable to make any sort of headway in elections without spending an awful lot of money (which they do not have) or having the ear of some favourable media outlet (which very few get).<br /><br />Such has been the corruption of the concept of democracy that the recent "Arab Spring" was often set in terms of a democratic movement even though there is no evidence that this was the case. What happened in Egypt, Libya and other North African and Middle Eastern countries was not democracy in action but pure and simple mass disobedience - or, as we used to call it, mob rule.<br /><br />And the trouble with mob rule is that once people get a taste for it they tend to like it. People - regardless of their political persuasion or motivation - enjoy having power of some sort and the power provided by mob rule can be quite intoxicating.<br /><br />So the recent tragic events in Egypt come as no surprise to me. Whether it is a football match, a political march or religious persecution - once the mob realises it has the power it will tend to use it.<br /><br />But let us be clear about one other thing. Britain is no stranger to mob rule. Far from it - it was a commonplace event throughout the 20th century and continues today. Mob rule is used with and without governmental approval - the only real difference between us and what happened in Egypt is that we still retain the facade of the rule of law (but that is all it is) which does not exist in Egypt (or Libya or any of the other "Arab Spring" nations).<br /><br />I hope - probably against all reason - that we might one day realise that democracy might flourish once more in this country because, if it does, it will mean that we have restored the pre-conditions necessary for democracy to exist.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-87390114071554276872011-12-12T11:33:00.002+00:002011-12-12T11:56:46.803+00:00The pygmy mind of Nick CleggA few weeks ago I revealed that since officially retiring I've started working as a business coach. I'll be honest, I'm no business genius and most of what I tell people is common sense, but one of the most common obstacles I come up against is mindset.<br /><div><br /></div><div>People get very set in their ways - particularly if they've been doing the same thing for some time - but the worst mindset of all comes from those who won't do what I suggest because they don't believe they can.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I'm always telling my clients - if you think you can't then you probably won't.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's such a simple thing and, for the majority of my clients it sinks in pretty quickly. They understand that if their business is going to survive they have to start <i>thinking</i> their business can survive and doing the things that will achieve that.</div><div><br /></div><div>Which brings me to Nick Clegg.</div><div><br /></div><div>He claimed at the weekend that this country - without the EU - would become a "pygmy nation". I've no doubt that he believes that because Nick Clegg has a "pygmy mindset". He's not stupid - I'm sure he has a very high IQ - he just lacks the ability to think beyond his self-imposed boundaries.</div><div><br /></div><div>He honestly believes this country can not achieve great things. He sincerely believes that we are incapable of forging our own place in this world as an independent nation. He believes this because he has a small minded attitude.</div><div><br /></div><div>You don't need to be a great person to achieve great things - you just need the ability to have a great vision and the will and determination to see it through. Nick Clegg has none of these assets.</div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, anyone who believes - like Nick Clegg - that Britain is unable to make its way in the world as an independent nation also has a pygmy mind. They are the true "little Englander" - because they have little minds with little imagination.</div><div><br /></div><div>They are the people who are always making excuses and finding reasons NOT to do something. I come across them all the time in my work.</div><div><br /></div><div>Britain can survive in the big bad world as an independent nation. Not just survive - but thrive and achieve greatness once again. I'm not saying it is easy - it will take work, effort and time - but I have no doubt it can be achieved.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am equally certain that as long as we have people governing this country who THINK we can not do this then we never will.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the government thinks we can't - we probably won't.</div><div><br /></div><div>What can we do?</div><div><br /></div><div>We need to get rid of the Nick Clegg "pygmy" attitude. </div><div><br /></div><div>Change the mindset - change the government.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-32486238787793241862011-12-07T12:21:00.002+00:002011-12-07T12:48:04.922+00:00Le grand stitch-upWith the kind of breath-taking arrogance that only the French and Germans are capable of, those arch-conspirators Sarkozy and Merkel announce they've agreed a new EU treaty.<div><br /></div><div>It's not an agenda for the upcoming summit meeting; it's not up for negotiation; it's not even open to discussion - France and Germany have decided and everyone else has to accept it whether they like it or not.</div><div><br /></div><div>'Scuse me? I thought the EU was made up of 27 nations, not two. </div><div><br /></div><div>What on earth makes Sarkozy and Merkel think they can dictate terms to everyone else?</div><div><br /></div><div>Well - <a href="http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2011/11/day-democracy-died.html">this</a> for a start.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, those of us who actually bothered to look into the thing have known for years that the EU was not intended to be democratic - just to merely assume a veneer of democracy - and that it was a tool to enable France and Germany to dominate Europe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whenever there has been an enlargement, we've been told this will help to dilute French and German influence. Of course, it did nothing of the sort - and was never likely to. The French and the Germans get together, they decide and then they work out how to implement their decisions using the EU framework.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is how the EU works and has always worked. The difference now is that they're not even pretending it is anything else.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thatcher realised this too late. Cameron is about to find out.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even while Britain was fighting a war and our people suffering and dying to free his country from the tyranny of the Nazi jackboot, Charles De Gaulle sat in London and contemplated with relish the day when France and Germany would combine to take down the "Anglo-Saxons".</div><div><div><br /></div><div>The EU is no longer pretending to be democratic and the French and Germans are no longer hiding the fact that they make the decisions and everyone else has to accept them.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>How much more evidence do you need?</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-86552998298252950402011-11-04T08:37:00.003+00:002011-11-04T09:02:50.844+00:00No time for bloggingI've just noticed that yesterday's post was my first since the end of August.<br /><br />I suspect that many people may have assumed I'd given up blogging again, but this really wasn't the case. There are two main reasons why I've not posted since August.<br /><br />First of all, I've pretty much said all I need to say about the current economic and political crisis gripping Britain and the west. I think it's fair to say that it has, thus far, unfolded pretty much as I predicted, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.<br /><br />Because the other reason I haven't posted is that I have been so busy.<br /><br />As you know - if you read this blog - I don't like to divulge too much detail about what I do now. I officially retired in March, but opted to start my own business soon after following several requests from friends.<br /><br />Well, this business has snowballed. What started off as a hobby helping out a couple of mates has turned into a full time, 12 hours a day occupation. I do "business coaching" - helping start ups and struggling businesses to survive and grow.<br /><br />It's very hard work, but very rewarding - in more than one sense - but I really wish it wasn't necessary.<br /><br />The trouble is - so many people are losing their jobs and deciding to start their own business I have more work than I can handle. I don't advertise or market my services at all - all my clients have come through recommendations, but because I have so much work, I have very little time for blogging.<br /><br />But don't get the idea that I've given up. I haven't. When I have something to say I'll still say it - as long as I can find the time to write and post it.<br /><br />I don't plan to do business coaching for ever. As long as I'm being asked to help and as long as I have the time and enthusiasm to help I'll do what I can - but I don't see it being a long term thing.<br /><br />Ranting Stan is alive and well - just too bloody busy!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-59487346484328569692011-11-03T18:39:00.002+00:002011-11-03T18:58:50.752+00:00The day democracy diedThe 3rd November 2011.<br /><br />Remember that date - because it is the date when the principle of democracy died in Europe.<br /><br />Anyone who has read this blog in the past will know what I think of the EU - and that I have been warning about its anti-democratic nature for some years - but even I didn't expect the EU to behave in the way it just has.<br /><br />That the leaders of some EU nations were so prepared to so completely ride roughshod over the democratic will of another nation is not new. To do it so brazenly and so openly is flabbergasting.<br /><br />And yet - even as this happens, our media ignore what this means.<br /><br />They see with their own eyes how the knife in the shape of a "bail out" is wielded by the killers - Sarkozy and Merkel - and thrust into the victim. They watch as the knife is plunged into the beating heart of the democracy and their only concern is that the knife is unharmed.<br /><br />Incredible. This is truly a day of infamy. A day which, in years to come and in the history books of the future, will be remembered as the day the EU finally did away with any pretence of democracy.<br /><br />And the biggest irony of all is that the democracy was killed off in the nation which gave birth to the idea over 2000 years ago.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-24100102453104452672011-08-30T16:41:00.003+01:002011-08-30T16:57:06.444+01:00For God's sake, buy a briefcase!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.
<br />
<br />And if you're in the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8731143/Minister-accidentally-reveals-Afghanistan-documents.html">sort of job</a> 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.
<br />
<br />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?
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Or is it because they are simply careless?
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Not only are they obsessed with style and appearance over substance and ability, they are incompetent and incapable.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-12955296865054177292011-08-16T10:00:00.005+01:002011-08-16T10:19:44.416+01:00The real cause of the riots must never be revealedI'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!
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />So the liberals will do some hand wringing, have a couple of inquiries and will manage to draw the wrong conclusions once again.
<br />
<br />They have to - otherwise their very reason for existing will cease.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-24040742621271118732011-08-06T09:36:00.002+01:002011-08-06T10:09:58.584+01:00Why globalisation failsOnce 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.<br /><br />Why is it all down to globalisation? Well - to explain that I first need to explain what capitalism is and isn't.<br /><br />Capitalism is an economic model - not a political ideology - whereas globalisation is an extension of capitalism into a political ideology.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It lasted longer than it did in the early 20th century, but still blew itself out inside 25 years.<br />This is why globalisation fails and why it will always fail.<br /><br />Globalisation is not capitalism - it is the extension of capitalism into an ideology.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It is not controllable - it is anarchic and self-feeding.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Nationalism is not a bad thing - extremism is.<br /><br />And extreme globalism is every bit as bad as extreme nationalism.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-40417403709566450582011-08-05T15:19:00.003+01:002011-08-05T15:58:55.836+01:00The masters of deceptionA few days back I <a href="http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-bbc-past-isnt-just-another-country.html">wrote</a> about how the BBC (and other media outlets) have a tendency to distort the past to suit their particular world view.<br /><br />However, it's a practice which is not <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2022650/ALEX-BRUMMER-An-alarming-echo-1930s-slump.html">restricted</a> to just media.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</span><br /><br />This is a common view amongst economists - and totally incorrect.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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".<br /><br />It was only when nationalism and protectionism became common place again that the economies of the world started to recover - from around 1933 onwards.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Secondly you had credit deregulation and expansion.<br /><br />Thirdly you had a similar attempt at "free trade" and business without borders.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Just ask yourself this - who do they work for?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-11999787025369325182011-08-04T08:54:00.002+01:002011-08-04T19:29:28.979+01:00The Perfect StormI've been warning about this for some years now, but we really do seem to be moving towards the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8680521/Global-recession-fears-as-stock-markets-tumble-to-nine-month-low.html">end game </a>for western economic dominance now as concerns about the US economy lead to massive falls in stock markets around the world.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-85508240504120572082011-07-24T22:16:00.004+01:002011-07-24T23:02:41.791+01:00To the BBC, the past isn't just another country - it's a whole new realityThe fifties were a little before my time, but even so I have a reasonable grasp of what they were like because, growing up in the nineteen sixties, my little corner of Slough was pretty much the same as it was in the decade before.<br /><br />So I remember enough to understand what <a href="http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/07/the-bbc-cant-recreate-1956-because-it-loves-our-selfish-grasping-present-too-much.html">Peter Hitchens</a> is driving regarding the Beeb's latest attempt to rewrite history with their new drama "The Hour".<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">"They really did speak in those strangled accents, and in complete sentences. That is because they thought differently, had grown up with different experiences from those we know. Everyone over 25 could remember the war. Men really were courteous to women, and women – including educated women – genuinely expected to get married and have children and saw nothing wrong in that. The men wore blue or grey suits (often shabby) and knotted their ties tightly."</span><br /><br />Of course, Slough was overwhelmingly working class so there wasn't so much of those "strangled accents", but the curious (and rarely heard these days), south Bucks accent that was a sort of cross between West London and West Country - an accent which I'm told I still have (though it doesn't sound like an accent to me!). Apart from that and that the men of Slough, for some reason, seemed to have a preference for brown suits or sports jackets, I pretty much recognise all of what Mr Hitchens describes.<br /><br />Mr Hitchens ponders why the BBC get the era so wrong in their production - and, indeed, of other recreations of recent times gone by. He comes to the following conclusion.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">"The BBC cannot recreate 1956 because it loves the present day too much, and is afraid to admit that anything about the past might have been better."</span><br /><br />Well, that is one possible (and plausible) explanation, but I think it goes much deeper than that.<br /><br />You see, I believe the BBC - and most progressive liberal institutions and supporters - don't love the present day at all. Oh, there are things that they - and I - love about the present day, but they are all technological advancements that would have happened regardless of whether we went all social liberal or stayed socially conservative.<br /><br />But, they know that by virtually every measure of societal progress things have got much much worse. Crime is rampant, education is broken, the economy is collapsing, community spirit has been torn apart, unemployment is a curse, we're physically sicker and mentally more fragile.<br /><br />These things can not be hidden. Everyone can see these things with their own eyes and make their onw judgements about the state of society today - it's shattered.<br /><br />But what they can not do, unless they are over fifty years old at least, is remember what it was like before social liberalism. So, the BBC decides to tell them what it was like through these sort of revisionist dramas. It's not that the BBC loves the present so much - it's because they hate the fact that past society was so much better.<br /><br />No matter how much of a shiny gloss you put on the present, it is impossible to hide the fact that the country is on the verge of societal as well as economic collapse. The BBC have been trying for donkeys years to tell us how great this time is, but even they no longer believe it.<br /><br />So, when you can't hide the present, it's much easier to change the past - and that is what they do.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-44599619614434320142011-07-23T11:05:00.002+01:002011-07-23T11:29:11.630+01:00A cautious returnAfter a few months away from blogging I'm about to tip my toes back in once again.<br /><br />Before I delve into giving my personal opinions on the various issues of the day, I'd just like to give a quick update on what I've been up to since I stopped blogging.<br /><br />Although I officially retired from employed work in March, I've been very busy over the last few months with voluntary work - but I've also been involved in doing various jobs for friends and former business colleagues which has led me to start up my own business.<br /><br />It's more of a hobby than anything else, but as people were willing to pay me to do it I thought I may as well make it official. It won't make me a millionaire, but it does mean I can afford to give my kids and myself the odd treat now and again.<br /><br />For those interested, Mrs Stan is now back in the family home and more or less recovered back to her old self. It's been a long haul and it's by no means over, but we're delighted to have her back. She has a new job away from the various influences that caused her to have her breakdown and is much more settled and happy.<br /><br />The kids have blossomed. They are now very well balanced and emotionally stable teenagers (well - emotionally stable FOR teenagers), both are very happy and doing very well at school and I am immensely proud of them both.<br /><br />For those who remember the tale of my old Alfa being written off - I have a new car. It's modern, silver, well equipped and very capable - but it is as bland and characterless as all modern cars.<br /><br />Other than that, not much has happened - except that I have put on two stone since I retired. Hardly surprising as I used to cycle the 10 miles to the office two or three times a week, but haven't touched a bike since.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-81670865522043864432011-02-28T12:15:00.002+00:002011-02-28T12:33:49.530+00:00Deferred gratificationAfter almost five years of blogging I have decided to bring Ranting Stan to a conclusion and this will be my last post.<br /><br />Following Mrs Stan's breakdown and the demands, stress and strain of looking after two teenage boys on my own I made the decision late last year to take early retirement - even though I'm not yet in my mid-fifties. Today is my final day of the work and later this afternoon I will hand in the assorted accoutrement of employment and walk out of the office a free and very happy man.<br /><br />The house is all paid for (I made the final payment last October - eight years early), I have been prudent and careful with savings and I have followed my father's advice all my life to avoid debt. Consequently, I'm in a position now where I no longer need to work to maintain our lifestyle - although I'm sure I will do something even if it is just to continue my voluntary work.<br /><br />I confess that I feel a little guilty that I'm doing this at a time when so many others in Britain are facing hardship and a collapse in their living standards. All I can say is that I hope I am wrong in my forecast that we are about to enter a prolonged period of economic turmoil and decline that will match and possibly surpass that of the Great Depression - however, I see no reason to change my assessment.<br /><br />My advice to anyone who wants to listen is to follow the model I have followed all my life - don't be tempted by easy credit and the prospect of shiny new things. Look after your money, save what you can, only spend what you have to and never, ever build up any debt apart from a mortgage which you can not pay off within one month.<br /><br />If you do this while you are young enough then you will be able to look forward to an early and comfortable retirement too. It's called deferred gratification and is much underestimated.<br /><br />I thank you all for taking the time to read and comment on my musings over the last five years and wish you all good health, wealth and happiness.<br /><br />Thank you and goodbye.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-76662282503094242542011-02-23T09:35:00.002+00:002011-02-23T10:09:00.139+00:00Al Beeb's prioritiesOnce upon a time - when Britain was still a sane country and the BBC was still a British broadcasting company - the news bulletins would always begin with home news. It didn't matter what was going on in the rest of the world, the news always followed the same pattern - home news, foreign news, sport, weather.<br /><br />There was only one thing that could shift the priority and that was when some far flung country was struck by a catastrophic natural disaster - floods, hurricanes, volcano or earthquake. No matter what else was going on at home, a natural disaster was always the lead story.<br /><br />How things have changed. Such is the BBC's interest and fascination in all matters relating to events in the various despotic Moslem states that even a devastating earthquake in New Zealand couldn't distract them from their coverage of events in Libya - even though nobody really has a clue what is going on there.<br /><br />Let's be honest about this. Libya is a dump of a country whose only connection to Britain is that their government likes to fund and equip terrorists hell bent on causing us harm. New Zealand is a member of the Commonwealth with our Queen as their head of state, a government and legal system based on that of Britain and peopled by people who are very much like us in every respect.<br /><br />But the BBC decided that Libya was more important?<br /><br />Why? How on earth can they have come to the decision to put the events of Libya ahead of the disaster in Christchurch - there isn't even a comparison! You can be sure there were high level discussions about which story should lead the main news - and the winner was the story about the Moslem terrorist haven not the country which is so much like our own.<br /><br />It demonstrates the priorities of Al Beeb perfectly. In their world, the Moslems must always be given priority.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-20130756255714400172011-02-22T08:44:00.002+00:002011-02-22T08:55:53.403+00:00Census-shipThere have been suggestions that this years census will be the last due to the cost incurred.<br /><br />Now, granted that £500 million is a lot to find while we're making "cuts", but given that the census only takes place once every ten years then in the grand scheme of things it is a drop in the ocean. Are the government really suggesting that we won't be able to afford it in the future? Perhaps they are - in which case they seem to share my view that this "recession" is going to be a little more serious than most think.<br /><br />However, I don't believe they really believe that. The Tories are signed up to the globalisation fantasy that we in Britain can maintain our high debt, high salary, high living standards based on an economy that is primarily geared to buying stuff and producing nothing.<br /><br />And under that fantasy they expect us to be living the high life again within a year or two - and that this will continue unabated for the rest of eternity or until global warming consumes us in a fiery hell/watery grave/frozen tomb/dusty disaster (delete as appropriate) whichever comes first.<br /><br />I suspect the real reason they want to stop doing the census is something else.<br /><br />Because the fact is that in ten years time it will be impossible to hide the fact that the policies of successive governments over the last 30 years have changed the racial and religious makeup of Britain forever.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-41240176637223404232011-02-21T10:26:00.002+00:002011-02-21T10:35:40.085+00:00The spread of infantilismI'm sure Katherine Dewar is a very pleasant young girl from a lovely family - and I think her design for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee is quite charming and naively endearing - but am I alone in thinking that it really is not suitable to be the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8336605/Queens-official-2012-Diamond-Jubilee-emblem-chosen.html">official design</a> for such an event?<br /><br />I've been saying for years that the way our society is becoming so childish bothers me, but I could at least console myself that the royal family managed to retain a degree of adult dignity and gravitas - with the exception of the self-indulgent and very childish Duchess of York. Now it seems even the Queen has succumbed to the rampant infantilism that is infecting our nation.<br /><br />Let's all just grow up, start behaving like adults and leave childish things to children.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-17657828519939967942011-02-17T16:02:00.002+00:002011-02-17T16:34:04.540+00:00Being a conservative and not a ConservativeOn of the frustrations of being a conservative is that as soon as you tell anyone that you are a conservative they immediately make all sorts of assumptions about you - and they are usually wrong.<br /><br />Among the most frustrating of those are that you -<br /><br />- don't believe in workers rights or improving their working conditions<br />- think that every service or business should be privately owned/run<br />- have a slavish devotion to the free market/free trade<br />- disagree with state intervention<br />- always vote Tory<br /><br />Absolutely none of these are true in my case and I suspect it is the same for millions of conservatives up and down the country.<br /><br />For starters, conservatives can be left and right of the political spectrum - I know that my political opinions cross the divide in many areas, but just because I think that, for instance, some services and businesses are best owned and run by the state doesn't make me any less a conservative and certainly doesn't make me a rabid Trotskyite. Be honest, does anyone think, for example, that our armed forces would be better owned and run as a private enterprise?<br /><br />Sure, I'm certain there a good number of wannabe despots and revolutionaries who think that having their own private army would be a good thing, but the majority of us accept that when it comes to the defence of our nation then perhaps it's right to leave that to the government.<br /><br />The truth is that most of us are conservatives - in some way or another. Very few of us apply the idea of radicalism to our own lives. We buy conservative cars in conservative colours, wear conservative clothes and are conservative in our taste.<br /><br />So why then do we suddenly think that radicalism is a good thing with politics when it is something that we shun from our lives in virtually every other respect? Where does this obsession with "change" come from when so few of us want to apply change to our everyday lives?<br /><br />If radicalism and change is such a good thing - why are so many people content to stay in the same job for years and, if they do change jobs, stay in the same industry doing basically the same thing? Why aren't people who advocate radical change prepared to quit their jobs - whatever it is - and start doing something entirely different?<br /><br />The answer is obvious - they are conservative. They prefer to stick with what they know because what they know works and pays. Yes, sometimes taking a massive risk, chucking in your job and starting something completely new and different pays off - but most of the time it doesn't.<br /><br />You know that if you find a particular career path that sticking to it will bring gradual improvements to your life. Sometimes you will make a modest change by trying a different employer, but it will still be basically the same thing and it is a change you can make without too much risk to the progress of your career. The same principle applies to national and political progress.<br /><br />This is why I am a conservative and why I am proud to say I am a conservative - because I know that it works. Being a conservative means understanding the simple point that real progress is made by small, modest, incremental changes to tried and trusted methods rather than radical changes and leaps into the unknown.<br /><br />I know that - and I suspect that 90% of people who claim they are "progressives" know that too.<br /><br />And yet they think that somehow it is different when it comes to politics.<br /><br />Weird.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-21627214605963603042011-02-14T08:58:00.003+00:002011-02-14T09:26:29.725+00:00Marriage and the "Big Society"The title of this post was going to be something along the lines of "flogging a dead horse" - but given the events at Newbury racecourse this weekend I decided against it. However, as David Cameron tries to revive his grand plan for "The Big Society" it would have been rather apt.<br /><br />To be honest, I never quite understood this "Big Society" idea - I think the overall concept of a big society is right, but I think Mr Cameron's idea of how it would work, was at best, misguided and, at worst, deluded.<br /><br />Mr Cameron seemed to think that as cuts to council provided services took effect, volunteer groups would step in to take over. In a way, he is right - they will - but it will be existing voluntary and charity groups that do this and with little or no extra resources.<br /><br />The idea that tax paying citizens will accept the idea that they are expected to both provide the funds for a service through taxation AND do the work themselves is, as I said, misguided. Unless they see an appreciable drop in what they are paying the council then why would they be happy about dipping once more into the dwindling funds in their pockets to provide the service they already pay the council to provide?<br /><br />It just didn't make sense to me.<br /><br />Worse still, though, is that Cameron seems to completely misunderstand how society works.<br /><br />Society is not some top down imposition from the government - it begins with a small group of people with a shared interest in achieving something that improves their lives in some respect. As more and more of these small groups of people begin to recognise that they share a common interest with other small groups of people that "society" grows - what starts in one house spreads to a whole street and then a neighbourhood and then the town and, ultimately, across the nation.<br /><br />That is how society works and it starts in one place and one place only - the traditional family.<br /><br />The traditional, stable family unit is the building block of any functioning society which is why, in every civilization that has ever existed regardless of its origins, marriage between a man and a woman has been the most obvious, single common factor.<br /><br />And we live in a country where that traditional family has been undermined and marginalised for decades by the actions, laws and aims of successive governments - Labour and Tory - without exception.<br /><br />This is the point Mr Cameron's "Big Society" misses completely. Until he has done something to rectify the growing problem of family breakdown and the increasing marginalisation of the traditional family then his "Big Society" ain't ever going to work.<br /><br />And to suppose otherwise is simply deluded.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-12584383463562732282011-02-11T08:30:00.003+00:002011-02-11T08:42:26.033+00:00Intent and purposeI understand that the government's new "Freedom Bill" will, amongst other things, ban car clamping on private land. I'm all in favour of that, but also think they should go further and just ban car clamping.<br /><br />I mean - clamping a car defies all logic.<br /><br />If a car is parked somewhere it shouldn't be then that must mean that by being there it is causing an obstruction - whether that is blocking a private resident's parking bay or the traffic flow through a town centre - so to disable the vehicle in such a way that it can not be moved and thus prolong the obstruction strikes me as self-defeating.<br /><br />Unless, of course, the point of parking restrictions and regulation is not to keep motorists and pedestrians safe, but to raise revenue?<br /><br />Answers on a postcard to Nick, Clegg c/o 10 Downing Street.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-71033334640420690892011-02-03T14:34:00.003+00:002011-02-03T15:01:38.486+00:00Right and properHave you ever watched those property shows so beloved of daytime TV? In some of them you'll find some couple who want to move to some particular spot such as the Cotswolds and live in a typical Cotswold village. They'll talk about how they want the "traditional" village pub, village community and shops and so on.<br /><br />The presenter then takes them around 3 or 4 typically Cotswold properties and the couple moan "this isn't what we're really looking for" before going on to explain they wanted something more modern and contemporary.<br /><br />Duh! What did they expect to find in a typical Cotswold village?<br /><br />In some of these shows you'll then find some over indulged couple who decide to build their dream home in just such a beauty spot - thus erecting a grotesque concrete and glass carbuncle that looks more out of place than Harriet Harman at an English Defence League meeting.<br /><br />Although I have no idea what sort of property he lives in, I suspect that Peter Oborne is a little like those people judging by his latest <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100074414/if-youre-looking-for-islamophobia-try-the-comments-under-my-article-about-baroness-warsi/">ramblings</a> in The Telegraph.<br /><br />Mr Oborne, like those people who build monstrous carbuncles in the heart of English countryside or expect to find the latest Wimpey "CopyCat" red brick mock Tudor mansion in the centre of a Cotswold stone village as he seems to think that the environment should adapt to the demands of the newcomer rather than vice versa.<br /><br />What Mr Oborne - and his kindred spirits in the liberal media - fails to grasp is that if you change the environment you spoil the very thing that made that environment attractive to those incomers in the first place. You can not have a typical Cotswold village if you allow people to build what they want, where they want it.<br /><br />Similarly, you can not have a modern, liberal (traditional - not progressive) western democracy and give concessions to Islamic demands. They are totally incompatible - and this is the point which Mr Oborne refuses to grasp.<br /><br />Like any other immigrants, Moslems were welcome to come to Britain as long as they understood that they had to adapt to this country and not expect it to adapt it to them. Once they started coming here in floods rather than dribs and drabs then that changed the whole dynamic and now they expect - not want, expect - us to change to suit them.<br /><br />Mr Oborne dismisses this lazily as "Islamophobia" which it most certainly isn't - it is a rational response to unreasonable demands made by a group of people who were allowed into this country by a government who never asked us if that was what we wanted.<br /><br />Well, we don't want it and to tell those who do to get lost is not "Islamophobia" - it is the only sensible thing to do. Just as the incumbents of a Cotswold village will fight tooth and nail to prevent a newcomer changing their village for ever then so the people of England are telling the Moslems newcomers that if they want to live here they adapt themselves AND their religion to suit our culture, our landscape and our traditions.<br /><br />If we allow them to change it then we will lose the very thing that made it so attractive in the first place - but more than that, we will lose something that our fathers and grandfathers fought and died to preserve and which our ancestors spent a thousand years building.<br /><br />Wanting to prevent that is not irrational - it is the only proper response.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-34282442165868923202011-01-28T12:49:00.002+00:002011-01-28T12:58:23.682+00:00When reality doesn't make good TVThe BBC is coming in for some <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351053/BBC-council-cuts-film-20-dogs-foul-street-services-benefit.html">criticism</a> following reports that they employed a dozen dog owners to walk up and down a street and encourage their animals to foul the pavement.<br /><br />It's a stunt to promote a new series about how the public sector cuts affect an ordinary suburban street. In the series, the street residents lose services such as waste collection, street lighting and access to libraries.<br /><br />To be honest, I have some sympathy with the BBC. My sources tell me that they originally tried just removing the plethora of "services" provided by the council which aren't deemed essential - lesbian outreach workers, climate change oordinators, youth offending teams, street scene directors, health and safety inspectors, safety camera partnerships, asylum seekers support, translation facilities and so on - but it didn't make good TV.<br /><br />No one noticed these services had gone.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-23493025429371422032011-01-27T11:47:00.002+00:002011-01-27T12:35:31.540+00:00Slaying the beastsBack in the nineteen seventies, Britain was a country with a strong manufacturing sector that dominated our economy. Unfortunately, we also had very powerful unions and this created serious problems for the various governments of the time. The power of the unions meant that management - particularly the weak management in nationalised industries - were unable to bring in new technology or working practices that would improve productivity and/or quality.<br /><br />This resulted in that decade being marked by over the top demands for pay rises, shorter hours, longer holidays and frequent, prolonged and very damaging strikes in all sectors of manufacturing/production. The nationalised industries and the power of the unions represented a beast created by Labour policy which the Tories under Thatcher, on coming to power in 1979, were determined to slay.<br /><br />They had a plan and slay it they did. Unfortunately, in killing the beast of too powerful unions and nationalised industry, they also struck the coup de grace for manufacturing/production. This was not accidental - as I said, the Tories had a plan.<br /><br />Their plan was to switch Britain from a manufacturing/production led economy to a service based economy - and financial services in particular. It was the perfect solution - a stable, conservative industry, solid and dependable with little or no union ties. A loose monetary policy followed allowing an expansion of easy credit and the de-regulation of the financial services industry. The "Big Bang" of 1986 led to a huge expansion of this industry, the rise of the "yuppie" yelling "buy, buy" into his brick of a mobile phone and the "greed is good" generation.<br /><br />Pretty soon Britain had moved from a primarily manufacturing based economy to a service based economy - the Labour beast of trade union power was dead and the future looked rosy. Unfortunately, there was a flaw to the plan. A service based economy requires something to service and the market in Britain is very very limited for such services. Take out a huge chunk of that market - in the shape of productive industry - and the service industry will have to look elsewhere for business if it is to expand and meet the demands asked of it.<br /><br />Never fear - something came along that enabled this expansion. The rise of interconnected computer technology and, in particular, the Internet. This meant that financial transactions could be conducted from anywhere to anywhere. You didn't need to be in Hong Kong to buy a business in Hong Kong. Globalisation was born - again.<br /><br />The trouble was, it was hard to compete against the massive foreign financial companies in a global market. So British financial industries had to become bigger and more powerful - so they started gobbling up one another and then started to gobble up whatever they could abroad - and, unfortunately for us, it also meant that foreign companies could equally gobble up our companies.<br /><br />This had the opposite effect from that intended. Instead of making the industry more competitive it made it less so. Instead of there being hundreds of banks and building societies to entrust your money to there were less and less as more and more were taken over by the giants of the industry.<br /><br />Ultimately, in slaying the Labour beast of trade union power, the Tories had created one of their own - bank power. Only this was even more powerful, more demanding and even less controllable. While the unions only had power in Britain, the banks had tentacles that reached all over the world - it was impossible to impose regulation on an industry which could just decamp to another part of the world where the regulation was less stringent and yet still retain its influence and share of the market in the UK.<br /><br />The solid, conservative, safe and dependable industry that had been the basis for their creation had turned into a ravenous, insatiable monster incapable of self-restraint and increasingly demanding as it became aware of its own awesome power.<br /><br />The upshot of all this is that the beast created by the Tory Party has wreaked even more devastation and harm on Britain than that of the Labour Party. What is more, the Labour Party were utterly in awe of the beast; afraid to confront it and unable to slay it - and that task has now fallen to the Tory Party.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.”</span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein#cite_note-2"><span></span></a><br /><br />The Frankenstein Tories must slay the monster they created.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-47640184750578368432011-01-26T08:39:00.002+00:002011-01-26T08:59:10.109+00:00A perfect stormI must say that I found it quite amusing to listen to the boy George reacting to the news that GDP had shrunk by half a percent and blaming it all on "bad weather". He may or may not be right about whether it was the coldest December on record that caused GDP to dip so alarmingly, but it was his use of metaphors that I found amusing - "we're not going to let bad weather blow us off course" he said.<br /><br />I'm sure the boy thought he was being terribly clever when he said that and, judging by the smug look on his face, it appears that he did indeed think that - but as an analogy he was horribly wrong. You see, as any sailor will tell you, when you get bad weather the last thing you want to do is fight against it. It's much easier and safer to ride out a storm and then return to your course when the weather eases than it is to keep a smashed and broken vessel afloat let alone going in the right direction. So, what you do is you run with the weather and you let it blow you off course - or you find a safe harbour and take shelter.<br /><br />I don't know if what Osborne and the coalition are doing is the right way to get us out of our economic predicament, but my gut feeling is that it will not help. The problems with our economy run far deeper than the structural deficit - in fact, I think that is merely a minor distraction from the real problem which is that we are a nation addicted to debt, living on credit and with no real way of paying off what we owe.<br /><br />The coalition - along with the Labour party - have no plans to address the real problems with our economy. Yes, I do mean they have none - zero, not a single idea. The only plan they have is to reduce how much more they spend than they raise through tax - reduce it, not eradicate it. In other words, their only idea is to put a little less on the national credit card each month, but they still plan to spend more than they - we - can afford.<br /><br />Unless and until we have a government which actually understands the fundamental flaws of our economy we will continue to be blown to pieces by a raging storm while we stay "on course". The trouble is, we're on course for oblivion and our government is demanding "full steam ahead".Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-87397046370813095152011-01-24T12:06:00.004+00:002011-01-24T12:34:51.123+00:00Childish thingsAm I the only person who thinks we should all just grow up?<br /><br />Because it seems to me that we are living in an increasingly infantilised society - just about everything going on in our country today seems to be dominated by childishness.<br /><br />I don't just mean politics - there has always been a somewhat childish aspect to that for as long as I can remember with their name calling, petty arguments about who said what and so on and so forth. It may seem more childish today because of the amount of coverage it gets and the presence of TV cameras in parliament, but I don't think it's ever really been that different.<br /><br />No, I mean childishness in wider society. It's apparent in architecture where elegance and grandeur has been replaced with brash flashiness. It's apparent in the names and logos of companies which have chosen to change their names from something solid and grown up - like Norwich Union - to some infantile made up word like Aviva (when I was a kid, Aviva was a car made by Vauxhall).<br /><br />It's apparent in the liveries of our trains, buses and airlines which have replaced muted, understated, conservative liveries with bright, garish primary colours much beloved of children and then daubed huge slogans all over them. It's apparent in the way we dress with fully grown adult and often middle aged men and women dressing like teenagers (there was a time when the young dressed like little adults - now it's the other way around - the middle aged dress like big kids).<br /><br />And it's apparent in the way we live our lives with men and women in their thirties still living with their parents and behaving like they were still 18. They drive around in £30,000 motor cars on never ending credit, splash thousands of pounds every year on two or three foreign holidays a year and spend their evenings wasting money in pubs and clubs, online gambling or playing computer games with like minded people all over the world - then they have the effrontery to complain that they can't afford to get on the housing ladder.<br /><br />Grow up! Stop wasting your money, save a deposit, find someone you love, get married and buy a bloody house of your own!<br /><br />Of course, it's all too easy to blame our national dependency culture for all this - and I am certain that there is an element of that to the problem of this infantile society. After all, children are dependent - and if they retain that dependency when they become adults then are likely to retain childish elements to their character - but I can't help wondering if our societal desertion of Christianity may have something to do with it as well.<br /><br />As St. Paul put it in a letter to the Corinthians "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." The fact that we don't do that anymore - instead we cling to our childhood long into adulthood - is perhaps why our society has become increasingly childish.<br /><br />It's time we all grew up.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993014.post-58309236540182035022011-01-23T16:20:00.004+00:002011-01-23T16:44:26.719+00:00Eggs in one basketIt's been fascinating listening to various economic experts and politicians discussing the "too big to fail" banking industry and deciding that the only way this can be addressed is by breaking them up in some way.<br /><br />There is nothing fascinating in what they say - just the way they reach their conclusions as if there is no other way.<br /><br />But there is.<br /><br />The first thing you need to ask yourself is why is the banking industry "too big to fail". There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the "banking industry" has become - by design - a huge part of our economic makeup. Since the nineteen eighties we have gone through a progressive and deliberate change from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy.<br /><br />Of course, we've always had a service contingent to our economy because a manufacturing based economy requires services, but the service sector was always secondary to manufacturing. It's also worth pointing out that the financial services sector of the service based economy is not the largest part of that sector either - that honour belongs to retail - but it was by far the largest "exporter".<br /><br />The second problem we have is that the "banking industry" is concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations who have been allowed to expand and crush competition. In other words, a substantial proportion of our economy is concentrated in the hands of a very few people. It's not really an industry at all - it is little short of an authorised cartel and only a few steps away from a total monopoly. I won't go into the detail of this right now, but all of this has happened not because of a lack of regulation, but because of a proliferation of regulation - it just happened to be the wrong sort of regulation.<br /><br />So, we have too big a part of our economy in the hands of too few people and that is why the banking sector is deemed "too big to fail" - we've not just put all our eggs into one basket we have chosen to chuck away the all the eggs that we didn't think we'd need until we only had a few left.<br /><br />The answer to the problem can not be solved by simply breaking up the banking industry. You will have more eggs, but they will still be in the same basket. The problem will still exist - the hope is that some of those eggs might survive any future crash, but that is far from guaranteed.<br /><br />The real solution to the problem has to be more fundamental than that. It requires redressing the balance of our economy so that no single sector dominates so utterly. The best way to do that is to make manufacturing the basis of our economy once more. Only by rebuilding our manufacturing and production sectors of the economy will we solve our problems. It will solve the problems of unemployment, the balance of trade, the structural deficit and the banks that are too big to fail.<br /><br />It won't stop inflation or boom and bust, but those are constituent parts of a capital based economy anyway - and as long as they are managed they aren't always a bad thing.<br /><br />Yet none of this occurs to the people who govern the country. They'll continue to keep putting all our eggs in the same basket and we'll still be the ones cleaning up the mess when they drop the lot.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0