Italian Left Lurch

Twenty five percent of the vote in Italy went to a party that want an exit from the EU and a return of the Lira. The Monetary Madness continues apace. When a country could inflate away its debts and then revalue again after it had cleared its path back to being an attractive place to spread into some of ones’ investment risks. As part of a common currency they can not con each other in this way – they have to borrow to cover the shortfalls that stem from corruption in the political class. Italy has rejected austerity but the 25% is not a protest vote. It is a game changer. It is a kick in the face of the EU. It may be fatal.

However, if the PIGS were to leave the EU, they could form their own trading bloc – one hopes they call it SPIG rather than PIGS or GIPS or the less pronounceable IGPS – they would then be able to inflate their way out of their primary problem, together.  And then they could then rejoin the EU as a block and create economic treaty zones, consider an example set of economic zones:

  • Central EU (Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg),
  • South EU (SPIG),
  • Eastern EU (on or adjoining the Eastern border),
  • Northern EU (Scandinavia, Denmark, Holland, UK)

Each part of the EU has an exchange rate balancer, so if they want to devalue, they can by negotiating revaluation elsewhere.  The four zones have floating exchange rate mechanisms with each other relative to capital value.  So any shift of liquidity between the zones has its economic effect.

Monetary conditions are created by a mechanism like the trading of bonds (not cash) between the Super Governments – here are a group of talented long range analysts can set the degree of valuation (this model may in effect be five currencies), the democratically preferred flavour of financial control and regulation levels that at least disallow fantastic risks with people’s pensions that maybe once paid off but now wear away at value.  Perhaps Super Governments have no other function.

Each bloc contributes to a common currency pool and sells bonds to it to maintain an economic state of relativity.  However something like that may or may not work it should be understood that the awareness of very different political system is required.

Europe without a central federal body probably leads to too many demands for regulation being imposed in the wrong markets as well as the more significant, in body count at least, the absence of regulations that would have prevented disasters evaporating vast tracts of wealth in an instant.  Such an ephemeral quality wealth can turn out to be. Protecting it irrationally may backfire.

The central purpose is to introduce long range capital increases where they are needed. The absence of any Government led stimulus or infrastructure corrections that long range planning needs to consider in its calculation of growth.  You can squeeze an orange once, but a healthy tree means more future oranges and you better have the infrastructure to squeeze them.    

“a far less great Britain struggling with a mere percentage of its economy left yet more people to employ and an inability of the state to collect fair taxes”

The apparent Tory creed of demanding tax fairness, while protecting the tax avoiders who support them, will seem shallow as the record shows a far less great Britain struggling with a mere percentage of its economy left yet more people to employ and an inability of the state to collect fair taxes means it stubbornly refuses to finance progress. Italy may serve to push the EU into progress and reform the lumbering beast.

The US Election

The US Election has started.

It promises to be a close one, many pundits refer to the Bush-Gore clincher decided by the Supreme Court as a possible model for how this one should turn out. Let’s hope not.

A decisive election would have a more positive effect on America. If Obama wins, as the world hopes, the US should continue to expand its economy based on debt funding. If Romney wins, I expect the US will contract its economy as his weird economics take hold. Romney has promised growth and lower taxes in what sounds like a wish list of ideals for the wealthy. America is dominated by a middle class that I think will tend to believe Obama but are troubled by the actions of the Democrats when they controlled the House of Representatives in the first half of the Obama presidency – failing to take advantage of their power.

Regardless, Obama should win. His policies guarantee little, but Romney’s aggressive words against Russia could inspire fear.

We predict Obama will win.

Clinton and Bush

Bill Clinton and George Bush reveal their friendship when they appear together on TV. So it seems, at least. Perhaps they will cause world peace together but something is odd about this caucus of ex presidents. It is as though Clinton has embraced the devil vs the rehabilitation of Bush. The presidential campaign costs 3 billion dollars and yet this could swing voters, but which way is anyone’s guess. It is democracy in a bottle, diplomatic sages warning the next generation of bucks about to debate with each other.

Comment in the Guardian

Cameron’s coalition: a government with ominous intent
20 September 2012 12:59PM

We, the voters, must remember that we did not vote for the policies of this government. They were thought up after the election as a result of a coalition that only forwards the aims of the Tories, policies that were not in their manifesto.

You have to remember that they were only just ahead of Gordon Brown’s Labour party in the election when according to their own propaganda any other party should have won by a landslide. Even with Lib Dem support the coalition’s majority was slender.

The real problem is the overall quality of political leadership is not inspiring. Leading the country into economic decline is not something that the electorate can believe in.

Guardian Article

Link to comment

Break the coalition

Contrary to the propaganda at the last election, it ain’t the spending that is causing the deficits. It is the other side of the ledger. Taxes collected by the Government are failing due to company losses. The recession was caused by money being ripped out of the economy by derivatives gone wrong, the government reaction is to reduce government spending, and now they weep at the consequent collapse in demand?

They are not thinking it through. They need to take their current efficiencies and spend a little on economic incentives that replace the demand by making the private economy sound. They are miles away from being able to recover the private sector so, as most hands off economist driven Conservative governments (GW Bush for example) do, they start a war to get that spending demand going.

The Liberal Democrats are not happy with their end of the bargain. They have to break this coalition.

– Comment on Guardian article
Coalition ‘most unlikely’ to meet key economic goals by next election
27 August 2012 11:59AM

Link to comment (please recommend if you agree)

Politics

The need for people to assert their ideas and own the consequences is invested in monumental sculpture as the preservation of memory is the stamp on history. Deep in our inner-child the need to be ahead of others can assert itself, core beliefs lead to a sense of oneness with a tradition of thinking. There is no fundamental reason that today’s left-right paradigm will be remotely similar to that fifty years on.

There is no guarantee that any of the many parties of Western democracies will be the same as they are now. Politics is a system of pools of clout and passages through which diplomatic pressure may be asserted.

Our model is like that of the herd animal – we create a flow to go with and democratically decide to lurch one way or another. In the current UK lurch, we have a Conservative-Liberal coalition. And lets abbreviate their gormless flight into obscurity with the epithet ConDem. Mainly as DemCon sounds like some video game marketing label and that would amount to mis-representation.

See also – Politics – Disturbing Trends history

Tax Avoidance

The UK Prime Minister David Cameron takes time to criticise entertainer Jimmy Carr for putting £3.3N through a tax shelter scheme – one that may yet be undone. Carr made headlines as he has satirised the banks and tax avoidance as a comedian.

At least Jimmy Carr creates laughter. Perhaps he will make a big charitable donation so we can forgive him.

Mr Cameron convinces that he puts his panic, preference and public image ahead of any constructive logic, attacking an individual from his office, really. His job is not to be a whip wielding critic of those following the laws he is making a fuss about – it is simply his job to write viable new laws so that inherent unfairness in the system being used even by the likes of Mr Carr is prevented fairly. Takes a steady hand, and a cool head.

It is great that Mr Carr has donated his public profile in protest at so many others getting away with it and maybe he will pay his dues ultimately but is hardly a reason for the Government to pull laws out of a straw hat. Depopulating the HMRC says it all, really.

This is grandstanding at its most inept.

The meaning of authority

Authority dictates that which we socially agree must be accepted as a condition of freedom. We elect those who make the laws that authority is dictated to, if we elect a government that changes those laws then a different set of people may be marginalised. The current financial crisis is an inexcusable threat to progress and it is entirely due to a systemic corruption of the mechanisms of the system itself.

The indecisive democracy practised in Europe makes change occur in a different way than it does in the more rapidly decisive preference voting systems that expand the power to “vote against” a candidate by those who are not completely sure but certain they did not want one of the leading candidates. I can not advocate FPP however, but that is also produces a decisive result swiftly, it is a method of voting that is then able to change government and importantly give Government a continuity and direction. I say importantly – meaning that the lack of an ability to run things without new rules being made – is an important distinction between Government having authority and the state having authority. The rules are only being made by a Government when one is rightfully recognised as representing the will of the people. And look at their choices. People want a government that is not tied to the whim of the fanciful investor. They want a stable entity that will look after their pensions and provide purpose and ability to the young people who may otherwise be overlooked in a market driven economy if forced by it into menial tasks.

The British Conservative Liberal coalition attacked education and health as their way to save the UK from financial collapse and another financial institute is reduced by 13 billion dollars overnight due to action on the derivatives market (2 billion in actual loses) followed by share market reaction (far more lost in capital value, but that’s life).

Meantime Greece is having to democratically consider if being a slave economy in the Euro is preferable to breaking away from it and becoming measured purely on its own merits (maybe that would be a tougher but a more rewarding environment) as Governments in Europe continue to bail out banks that have run foul of the improbable mathematics of the derivatives market.

It allows speculative destruction of common wealth. The hoarding of it by individuals and hedge funds which strip the banks bare at any available opportunity. Why are we democratically deciding to fund these vipers?

Democratic Evolution

The French Republic is democratic – like the Republic of India – meaning it has a large number of candidates standing for a multitude of views dictating self rule.

The English First Past the Post democratic method mean that the only way to be elected is to form a massive party to represents a trends of ideas – usually a serving one side of a dichotomy; which has evolved two vastly powerful parties that shun independent views to allow for domination by class – a pendulum swing between capital and labour – gradually alternating directions.

Asserting that the benefit of the populations’ final authority defeating a developing trend or the abuse of power or a developing ineffectualness of the best that one or the other of these schools of thinking can produce. When one is in power, the other is preparing a new batch of leaders.

Another form of government is the selective capitalism of China hardly benefiting a vast population of traditional self-sustaining farming. Ironically, it has evolved an extreme aristocracy – a bubbling caldron of capitalist ideals inside a massive feudal population that feeds itself.

The weakness that the traditional Westminster based Western Governments, (USA and UK) have is this modernist limited duality. If one side of the argument is correct, then every other is (with contempt) to be assumed incorrect. Limiting the potential for adaptation.

Proportional representation is a method that includes new voices into the management of the affairs of a country. The reason we maintain countries per se is that allows us to organise in different ways. War can be made a thing of the past by recognising that it is not race or even territory that makes wealth – all those are is the imposition of rule over people. Wealth is a measure of accumulated activity versus need.

We experiment to experience different forms of governance. Traditions are a part of this but without change and variety our national barriers remain economic barriers. War is the imposition of another system upon a population. It is bound to eventually fail as assimilation is a false objective – as we adapt to environments by necessity – that we adapt to ideology is not as efficacious in producing the spectrum of social norms – as is the necessity of getting on with those who live around you.

War imposes brute force and eradication. Democracy can evolve a stronger form of government.