By Bill Bonner
The show goes on!
We are watching the destruction of an empire. All empires must go away sometime. They are natural things. And nature puts a time bomb in everything she creates.
The US empire is doomed. Just like all the others that went before it. It is doomed by nature herself – condemned by the gods to blow up and die.
None of this should be surprising to you, dear reader. We’ve seen this movie before. Hundreds of empires have come and gone. We know how this movie ends. More or less.
What we know for sure is that the US is going broke. There is hardly any other plausible outcome. We’ve gone over the numbers so often we don’t need to repeat them.
Yes, it is true that the feds could still save themselves….if they had the will. They could cut taxes to a flat 10%…and spend only what they raised in tax revenue… That would do the trick from an economic point of view.
But it’s too late for that – politically. Empires have lives of their own. They go forward…expanding…spending…stretching…until, boom, they go too far. Empires do not back up.
Some merely go bankrupt. Others are defeated in war. All end disastrously.
Only one candidate favors rescuing the nation’s finances and pulling the empire back from disaster. Ron Paul. He is considered such an unelectable kook that the newspapers barely mention him. And the papers are right. He is unelectable. Because he is opposed by the zombies.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
World Without End: Why we can disregard the Mayan doomsday prophecy
One of the legacies of the world financial crisis is that it showed how absolutely clueless pundits, politicians, and financial planners can be about the direction we are heading in. This also explains our growing fascination with the mysterious Maya and their reputation for fathoming the distant future by reading the stars and the courses of the planets.
With the great vacuum of ignorance that enshrouds the future, it is not surprising that this long dead civilization with an astronomical bent has been sucked into the role of providing gnostic hints of what is to come. It was either that or Madame Zaza’s tea leaves.
According to a lot of breathless twats on the Discovery Channel, the Mayans saw something very important lined up for 2012, namely the end of their Grand Cycle, scheduled to end on the 21st of December this year. Depending on who you speak to this will precipitate either the end of the Universe in a cataclysm of fire, a new age with everyone being very nice to each other, or the election of Ron Paul as President of the United States.
But before we get carried away with the impending sense of momentous cosmic change, shouldn’t we pause to ask the all-important question, “Who the heck were the Maya?” just in case they turn out to be a bunch of jungle bums stoked up on fermented coconut juice rather than credible prognosticators of the end of humanity.
Like any semi-barbaric, non-European people, the Maya are nowadays talked about in the hushed reverential tones dictated by political correctness as one of the great civilizations, even though they lacked metal tools and wheels, and enjoyed a spot of human sacrifice.
Rather than evidence of their primitiveness, their lack of tools is often cited as proof of their civilizational superiority, as only a truly higher culture could have built pyramids with so little in the way of technology. In such encomiums little is said about the possibility that the threat of human sacrifice probably served as an extremely important motivator for the toolless masses.
Rather than evidence of their primitiveness, their lack of tools is often cited as proof of their civilizational superiority, as only a truly higher culture could have built pyramids with so little in the way of technology. In such encomiums little is said about the possibility that the threat of human sacrifice probably served as an extremely important motivator for the toolless masses.
The Uses of Economics Revealed
A Survey of the Labor Market for New Ph.D. Hires in Economics reports that:
Among fresh economics PhD's hired in 2010-2011, 62.4 % found jobs in academic institutions.
LOL
Or as John Kenneth Galbraith remarked:
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."
Or as John Kenneth Galbraith remarked:
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."
Monday, January 9, 2012
Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state: Part 3
Robert Henderson
Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3rd January. She will stand trial on two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court – Croydon Crown Court - on 17 February 2012.
The charge with “intent to cause fear” arises because a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, claims Miss West hit her left shoulder with a closed fist. This charge comes under section 31A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31). It carries a potential sentence on conviction on indictment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both”.
Anyone who has watched the video on YouTube will think the idea that she intended to cause fear when she was a white woman surrounded by hostile ethnic minorities laughable. The CPS are clearly playing the pc game by hitting her with the most severe charges possible. (The official line on what is a racially aggravated offence can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/).
Miss West has yet to plead, but the fact that she has opted for a Crown Court trial (which will mean the case is heard before a jury) rather than a hearing in a magistrates court strongly suggests she will plead not guilty ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/woman-accused-tram-race-rant). This is because she risks a heavier sentence in the Crown Court and it would make little sense to opt for the case to be heard in the Crown Court if she does not intend to plead not guilty. There is of course the danger that she may be intimidated into pleading guilty by the promise of a lighter sentence.
Her bail conditions are that “she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps at her home address and does not comment on the case.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046).
Bearing in mind that Miss West was remanded in custody against her will for “her own safety”, it does seem rather rum that the same court is insisting she stays in her own house when her address was read out in open court.
The ban on travel on the local tram system could be pretty penal. She has two small children and the tram system may be the only means she has of taking them with her when she has to leave her house.
Her blanket gagging so she cannot comment on the case is remarkable. Engaging in any of the following can breach the sub judice rules and constitute contempt of court:
1. obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
2. filming or recording within court buildings;
3. making payments to witnesses;
4. publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
5. reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;
6. mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
7. reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
8. breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
9. anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
10. revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences. (http://www.out-law.com/page-9742)
Only 4, 6, 7, 8 would seem to have any application in the context of banning her from commenting on the case. Number 9 might seem to have relevance, but by pleading one way or the other the outcome of a case is anticipated. It would be absurd if it applied to a defendant.
Nos 4,6, 7,8 could have been dealt with by banning those specific acts, although it is unlikely she would be in a position to do these things. For example, it is wildly improbable she could mount an organised campaign to influence proceedings. It is also true that cases can be discussed while a case is active in the context of a discussion of public affairs, for example, it would be acceptable to discuss Miss West’s case as part of an examination of how the justice system treats black on white offences compared with white on black offences.
What does her general gagging tell us? Simple. The liberal elite are truly terrified that the politically correct house of cards they have built will be blown over if any of the vast resentment and anger at mass immigration and its consequences within the native British population is allowed into the public fold.
Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3rd January. She will stand trial on two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court – Croydon Crown Court - on 17 February 2012.
The charge with “intent to cause fear” arises because a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, claims Miss West hit her left shoulder with a closed fist. This charge comes under section 31A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31). It carries a potential sentence on conviction on indictment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both”.
Anyone who has watched the video on YouTube will think the idea that she intended to cause fear when she was a white woman surrounded by hostile ethnic minorities laughable. The CPS are clearly playing the pc game by hitting her with the most severe charges possible. (The official line on what is a racially aggravated offence can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/).
Miss West has yet to plead, but the fact that she has opted for a Crown Court trial (which will mean the case is heard before a jury) rather than a hearing in a magistrates court strongly suggests she will plead not guilty ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/woman-accused-tram-race-rant). This is because she risks a heavier sentence in the Crown Court and it would make little sense to opt for the case to be heard in the Crown Court if she does not intend to plead not guilty. There is of course the danger that she may be intimidated into pleading guilty by the promise of a lighter sentence.
Her bail conditions are that “she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps at her home address and does not comment on the case.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046).
Bearing in mind that Miss West was remanded in custody against her will for “her own safety”, it does seem rather rum that the same court is insisting she stays in her own house when her address was read out in open court.
The ban on travel on the local tram system could be pretty penal. She has two small children and the tram system may be the only means she has of taking them with her when she has to leave her house.
Her blanket gagging so she cannot comment on the case is remarkable. Engaging in any of the following can breach the sub judice rules and constitute contempt of court:
1. obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
2. filming or recording within court buildings;
3. making payments to witnesses;
4. publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
5. reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;
6. mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
7. reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
8. breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
9. anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
10. revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences. (http://www.out-law.com/page-9742)
Only 4, 6, 7, 8 would seem to have any application in the context of banning her from commenting on the case. Number 9 might seem to have relevance, but by pleading one way or the other the outcome of a case is anticipated. It would be absurd if it applied to a defendant.
Nos 4,6, 7,8 could have been dealt with by banning those specific acts, although it is unlikely she would be in a position to do these things. For example, it is wildly improbable she could mount an organised campaign to influence proceedings. It is also true that cases can be discussed while a case is active in the context of a discussion of public affairs, for example, it would be acceptable to discuss Miss West’s case as part of an examination of how the justice system treats black on white offences compared with white on black offences.
What does her general gagging tell us? Simple. The liberal elite are truly terrified that the politically correct house of cards they have built will be blown over if any of the vast resentment and anger at mass immigration and its consequences within the native British population is allowed into the public fold.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Christophobia”—The Prejudice That Barely Has A Name
January 8, 2012 at 12:56 am: As I write, in the New Hampshire GOP candidates’ Debate, Gingrich and Perry are attacking governmental assaults on Christianity to great applause.
The problem here is that there’s no vocabulary for discussing this issue.
The word “Christophobia” (meaning hatred, fear, and contempt for Christians and Christianity) was discussed by our Tom Piatak recently in his The War On Christmas After Ten Years.
But it’s a word that barely exists in the public consciousness—unlike racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or even Islamophobia.
Nevertheless, the thing itself obviously exists.
The word “Christophobia” (meaning hatred, fear, and contempt for Christians and Christianity) was discussed by our Tom Piatak recently in his The War On Christmas After Ten Years.
But it’s a word that barely exists in the public consciousness—unlike racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or even Islamophobia.
Nevertheless, the thing itself obviously exists.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Members of the US Congress Just Signed Their Own Arrest Warrants
By Naomi Wolf
I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.
They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.
I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.
They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.
Why the National Defense Authorization Act Now?
By Marti Hiken and Luke Hiken
Barack Obama just signed into law one of the most repressive and right-wing pieces of legislation ever passed in the history of the country: the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allows the military, a.k.a. the Pentagon, to determine who is a “terrorist” and to detain that person in prison, indefinitely, without trial, under its jurisdiction. It makes no difference whether the person is a U.S. citizen or a foreign “enemy combatant.”
The NDAA takes the civilian judicial system out of the equation regarding who is a “combatant” or “terrorist” and substitutes military command over every person inside or outside of the United States. By defining the entire U.S. as a battlefield, all the Pentagon needs to do, in order to exercise this power, is get the approval of the sitting president.
Historically in the U.S., questions of criminality were determined by civilian tribunals. The country has now yielded the principle of arrest, detainment, punishment, and imprisonment to executive privilege. This catapults American jurisprudence back into the reign of George the Third.
Barack Obama just signed into law one of the most repressive and right-wing pieces of legislation ever passed in the history of the country: the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allows the military, a.k.a. the Pentagon, to determine who is a “terrorist” and to detain that person in prison, indefinitely, without trial, under its jurisdiction. It makes no difference whether the person is a U.S. citizen or a foreign “enemy combatant.”
The NDAA takes the civilian judicial system out of the equation regarding who is a “combatant” or “terrorist” and substitutes military command over every person inside or outside of the United States. By defining the entire U.S. as a battlefield, all the Pentagon needs to do, in order to exercise this power, is get the approval of the sitting president.
Historically in the U.S., questions of criminality were determined by civilian tribunals. The country has now yielded the principle of arrest, detainment, punishment, and imprisonment to executive privilege. This catapults American jurisprudence back into the reign of George the Third.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
David Cameron THE LEGAL Terrorist By Taxi Driver
Political Incorrectness Warning:
Not Suitable for Bankers, Zionists, NeoCons, or Other Wankers
As the fraudulence of liberal democracy, a form of government spread chiefly by the likes of alleged Nazi Jew, George Soros and the various foundations and color revolutions that he supports, the phone bugger, Rupert Murdoch and his stable of pornographic, religious and supposedly serious news publications and broadcast outlets, and by US/NATO carpet bombing of countries rich in oil and gas or with territory suitable for oil and gas pipelines and oil export terminals, there seems little that the citizen can do other than make rude noises to detract from the dignity of the thieves, frauds and psychopaths who stand atop the manure pile.
Harmless though such childish behavior no doubt is, an end to it will surely soon be made, either by legal prohibition or by the simple expedient of designating those foolish simpletons carried away by the fun of it as "enemy combatants" to be detained indefinitely without rights or trial.
So, let us enjoy making rude noises while we can:
Video link via http://govermentterrorism.blogspot.com/
Not Suitable for Bankers, Zionists, NeoCons, or Other Wankers
As the fraudulence of liberal democracy, a form of government spread chiefly by the likes of alleged Nazi Jew, George Soros and the various foundations and color revolutions that he supports, the phone bugger, Rupert Murdoch and his stable of pornographic, religious and supposedly serious news publications and broadcast outlets, and by US/NATO carpet bombing of countries rich in oil and gas or with territory suitable for oil and gas pipelines and oil export terminals, there seems little that the citizen can do other than make rude noises to detract from the dignity of the thieves, frauds and psychopaths who stand atop the manure pile.
Harmless though such childish behavior no doubt is, an end to it will surely soon be made, either by legal prohibition or by the simple expedient of designating those foolish simpletons carried away by the fun of it as "enemy combatants" to be detained indefinitely without rights or trial.
So, let us enjoy making rude noises while we can:
Video link via http://govermentterrorism.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Euro: A Weapon of Economic Mass Disruption
By CanSpeccy
As if the peoples of Europe weren't already sufficiently screwed, seventeen European states joined the Euro currency union in 1999.
This was a disaster in waiting dreamt up by, among others, Edward Heath (U.K. Prime Minister, 1970–74), who could also claim responsibility for establishing the politically correct view on mass immigration to Britain by kicking Sir Cyril Osborne out of the Conservative Party caucus for stating that Britain was a white country for white people and by firing Enoch Powell from the cabinet for warning about the peril of civil strife if mass immigration continued.
Heath who, in 1971, took Britain into the European Economic Community under the false claim that it was a free trade association not a proto-political union, advocated a common European currency because, in trading with Europeans, he asserted, it would save the trivial inconvenience of changing one's money.
Fortunately, for Britain, Heath's Conservative successors rejected membership in the Eurozone, and Tony Blair feared to arouse the anger of the electorate by reversing their decision.
The countries entering the Eurozone did so without provision for fiscal union or any other basis for adapting their widely differing economies to dynamic shifts in relative performance.
As a consequence, the Eurozone constitutes a potent mechanism for economic destabilization. Here's why. All nations engage in foreign trade, not merely to obtain commodities or industrial products that they lack, but to enjoy a diversity of goods and services beyond the basic necessities that they are unable to produce economically for themselves.
Thus, America, for example, which produces perfectly acceptable California wine, imports wine that is rarely superior to the Californian product from France and Spain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, Chile and Peru among many other countries. Likewise, Canada, with more trees than any nation save Russia and Brazil, nevertheless imports American Christmas trees and wooden power poles.
To purchase from abroad one must first buy a foreign currency. The price of one currency in terms of another is largely a matter of supply and demand, which means that a country that becomes increasing competitive in international trade will see its currency appreciate in value against other currencies, thereby checking exports and encouraging imports. Conversely, a country that loses competitiveness will see its currency fall in value relative to that of others, thereby checking imports and boosting exports.
Although there are complications as, for example, when a country hoards foreign currency, or engages in the export or import of substantial quantities of investment capital, the effect of such actions are ironed out in due course.
However, if countries join together in a currency union, there is no mechanism to adjust imports and exports on a country-by-country basis so that exports and imports of each country roughly balance. On the contrary, the use of a common currency creates an instability leading to runaway economic distortion resulting in the disintegration and collapse of the least competitive economies and the accelerated expansion of the most competitive economies.
For example, when the international competitiveness of one country in the currency union declines, it tends to lower the exchange value of the common currency, which in turn stimulates the exports of the strongest members of the union, while reducing its imports.
Conversely, the success of the most competitive countries in raising exports and limiting imports tends to raise the exchange value of the common currency, which in turn depresses the already poor export performance of the least internationally competitive members of the union, while increasing their imports.
This means that a currency union guarantees an exchange rate that is too low for the most competitive member states and too high for the least competitive member states, and this unavoidable mispricing of the currency leads to runaway economic growth and falling unemployment for the the most competitive members of the union at the cost of declining output and rising unemployment for the least competitive members of the union.
This is precisely what is happening within the Eurozone now. Germany and several other North European states are growing fast as the southern Eurozone states, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain see their economies contract, their government revenues shrink and their public debt explode.
The problem could be solved through the creation of a fiscal union which would permit tax revenue to be siphoned from the strong economies to cover welfare costs or to increase investment in the weak economies. This is what happens within most national jurisdictions, but it is a fairly stupid solution, and in the context of the Eurozone, it is naturally uncongenial to the Germans and other prospering members of the union who believe that inhabitants of the less prosperous states need to work harder and earn less.
Another solution would be for the unemployed in Greece or Spain to migrate to Germany or Netherlands where employment opportunities are more abundant. But due to language barriers (not every European is multilingual, and few indeed speak Hungarian, Slovenian, Slovak, Bulgarian or Romanian) and generous unemployment pay and cultural factors, ready internal labor mobility is not a feature of the Eurozone, as the current unemployment statistics bear out. In Spain, unemployment now stands at 22.9%, whereas in Germany unemployment is at a "record low" of 6.8%.
A further possibility would be the adoption of a process whereby wage rates are adjusted country by country at regular intervals to reflect changes in national unemployment rates. Thus, where unemployment is high, all wages and benefits would be adjusted downward in accordance with an appropriate formula. Conversely, where unemployment is low, wages would be adjusted upward in accordance with the same formula. The result would be to balance competitiveness and employment rates in all countries.
And the formula could be extended within nations to even out regional differences in employment. Thus those in regions of high unemployment would have the option of accepting work at below national average wages or moving to a more prosperous region.
Although this is a perfectly viable scheme for which I readily accept public acknowledgment, it is presumably beyond the intellectual grasp of most bureaucrats and politicians and is unlikely, therefore, to receive acceptance in less than a hundred years.
In the meantime, one can expect continued buggering around that makes the leadership of Europe look increasingly incompetent.
Perhaps the result will be the withdrawal from the Eurozone by those countries most adversely affected. Greece, apparently, is already threatening: give us 130 billion Euros or we split. This could be the prelude to a return to the happy days of independent, democratic, self-governing European nations, each with its own currency, but joined in a free trade association and a mutual defense and non-aggression pact.
Throw in a consultative committee of heads of state operating under the motto "Independence Forever", or just "Never Again", and it might work.
See also:
What's Wrong With Europe and What Needs to Be Done About It
As if the peoples of Europe weren't already sufficiently screwed, seventeen European states joined the Euro currency union in 1999.
This was a disaster in waiting dreamt up by, among others, Edward Heath (U.K. Prime Minister, 1970–74), who could also claim responsibility for establishing the politically correct view on mass immigration to Britain by kicking Sir Cyril Osborne out of the Conservative Party caucus for stating that Britain was a white country for white people and by firing Enoch Powell from the cabinet for warning about the peril of civil strife if mass immigration continued.
Heath who, in 1971, took Britain into the European Economic Community under the false claim that it was a free trade association not a proto-political union, advocated a common European currency because, in trading with Europeans, he asserted, it would save the trivial inconvenience of changing one's money.
Fortunately, for Britain, Heath's Conservative successors rejected membership in the Eurozone, and Tony Blair feared to arouse the anger of the electorate by reversing their decision.
The countries entering the Eurozone did so without provision for fiscal union or any other basis for adapting their widely differing economies to dynamic shifts in relative performance.
As a consequence, the Eurozone constitutes a potent mechanism for economic destabilization. Here's why. All nations engage in foreign trade, not merely to obtain commodities or industrial products that they lack, but to enjoy a diversity of goods and services beyond the basic necessities that they are unable to produce economically for themselves.
Thus, America, for example, which produces perfectly acceptable California wine, imports wine that is rarely superior to the Californian product from France and Spain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, Chile and Peru among many other countries. Likewise, Canada, with more trees than any nation save Russia and Brazil, nevertheless imports American Christmas trees and wooden power poles.
To purchase from abroad one must first buy a foreign currency. The price of one currency in terms of another is largely a matter of supply and demand, which means that a country that becomes increasing competitive in international trade will see its currency appreciate in value against other currencies, thereby checking exports and encouraging imports. Conversely, a country that loses competitiveness will see its currency fall in value relative to that of others, thereby checking imports and boosting exports.
Although there are complications as, for example, when a country hoards foreign currency, or engages in the export or import of substantial quantities of investment capital, the effect of such actions are ironed out in due course.
However, if countries join together in a currency union, there is no mechanism to adjust imports and exports on a country-by-country basis so that exports and imports of each country roughly balance. On the contrary, the use of a common currency creates an instability leading to runaway economic distortion resulting in the disintegration and collapse of the least competitive economies and the accelerated expansion of the most competitive economies.
For example, when the international competitiveness of one country in the currency union declines, it tends to lower the exchange value of the common currency, which in turn stimulates the exports of the strongest members of the union, while reducing its imports.
Conversely, the success of the most competitive countries in raising exports and limiting imports tends to raise the exchange value of the common currency, which in turn depresses the already poor export performance of the least internationally competitive members of the union, while increasing their imports.
This means that a currency union guarantees an exchange rate that is too low for the most competitive member states and too high for the least competitive member states, and this unavoidable mispricing of the currency leads to runaway economic growth and falling unemployment for the the most competitive members of the union at the cost of declining output and rising unemployment for the least competitive members of the union.
This is precisely what is happening within the Eurozone now. Germany and several other North European states are growing fast as the southern Eurozone states, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain see their economies contract, their government revenues shrink and their public debt explode.
The problem could be solved through the creation of a fiscal union which would permit tax revenue to be siphoned from the strong economies to cover welfare costs or to increase investment in the weak economies. This is what happens within most national jurisdictions, but it is a fairly stupid solution, and in the context of the Eurozone, it is naturally uncongenial to the Germans and other prospering members of the union who believe that inhabitants of the less prosperous states need to work harder and earn less.
Another solution would be for the unemployed in Greece or Spain to migrate to Germany or Netherlands where employment opportunities are more abundant. But due to language barriers (not every European is multilingual, and few indeed speak Hungarian, Slovenian, Slovak, Bulgarian or Romanian) and generous unemployment pay and cultural factors, ready internal labor mobility is not a feature of the Eurozone, as the current unemployment statistics bear out. In Spain, unemployment now stands at 22.9%, whereas in Germany unemployment is at a "record low" of 6.8%.
A further possibility would be the adoption of a process whereby wage rates are adjusted country by country at regular intervals to reflect changes in national unemployment rates. Thus, where unemployment is high, all wages and benefits would be adjusted downward in accordance with an appropriate formula. Conversely, where unemployment is low, wages would be adjusted upward in accordance with the same formula. The result would be to balance competitiveness and employment rates in all countries.
And the formula could be extended within nations to even out regional differences in employment. Thus those in regions of high unemployment would have the option of accepting work at below national average wages or moving to a more prosperous region.
Although this is a perfectly viable scheme for which I readily accept public acknowledgment, it is presumably beyond the intellectual grasp of most bureaucrats and politicians and is unlikely, therefore, to receive acceptance in less than a hundred years.
In the meantime, one can expect continued buggering around that makes the leadership of Europe look increasingly incompetent.
Perhaps the result will be the withdrawal from the Eurozone by those countries most adversely affected. Greece, apparently, is already threatening: give us 130 billion Euros or we split. This could be the prelude to a return to the happy days of independent, democratic, self-governing European nations, each with its own currency, but joined in a free trade association and a mutual defense and non-aggression pact.
Throw in a consultative committee of heads of state operating under the motto "Independence Forever", or just "Never Again", and it might work.
See also:
What's Wrong With Europe and What Needs to Be Done About It
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
What's Wrong With Europe and What Needs to Be Done About It
By CanSpeccy
Europe has three key problems, debt, unemployment and immigration, all of which derive from the 1994 GATT agreement, which opened the way for global wage arbitrage and unrestricted free trade.
Off-shoring of jobs drove up unemployment and welfare costs, while driving down tax revenues, thus creating public sector deficits.
Cheap imports of both goods and services kept inflation low even as interest rates were reduced to counter deflation. Cheap credit created a Ponzi economy in which credit drove asset prices, mainly houses, and asset prices drove credit demand.
As with all Ponzi schemes, the trajectory of growth in debt and asset prices reached its apogee and set off a vicious cycle of declining prices and debt default which destroyed bank capital, squeezed consumption and drove unemployment even higher.
Mass immigration is just another aspect of wage arbitrage: bringing the cheap labor in, rather than sending the work out.
As Cambridge University economics Professor Ha-Joon Chang explained (1):
Let me say that again: European governments deliberately pursue immigration policies that displace their own people from gainful employment by importing people from elsewhere who are more competitive than the least productive members of the indigenous workforce.
And let those "tolerant" middle-class liberals living in leafy white suburbs, who love diversity and call Emma West a racist remember, it could be their job next, for if it pays to rob the lowest paid of the opportunity to work, how much more profitable would it be to do the same to university professors, engineers, doctors, and most public sector employees.
Understanding this last point might go a long way toward pricking the bubble of political correctness that so distorts perception and prevents intelligent discussion of European immigration policies.
But how are European states handling the triple crisis of debt, unemployment and mass immigration?
With the usual combination of stupidity, short-sightedness and brutality that characterizes "liberal" democracies fronting for globalist corporate oligarchs.
With declining revenues and the need for bank bailouts to avoid economic chaos, government deficits have massively increased, taxes have been raised, welfare benefits cut, the unemployed left to r(i)ot, and mass immigration, both legal and illegal, facilitated to drive wages even lower.
The net result?
A reduction in GDP, living standards, and workforce skills and the progressive destruction of the racial and cultural identity of the European peoples.
What should the European states do instead?
There are only two ways to deal with debt.
One is to quit borrowing, spend less, work harder, create a surplus and repay the loan.
The other is to borrow from Peter to pay off Paul, while ripping off all your creditors with haircuts, payment in debased coin, or outright default.
Sloughing off the debt by money printing and negotiating haircuts is already in progress. It will leave Europe poorer, demoralized and internationally less competitive.
The route to repayment requires two things.
First, massive cuts in government spending to liberate resources to repay debts. Program cuts should focus on reducing the size of the public sector, bringing public sector wages back in line with private sector wages and eliminating benefits for the the middle and upper classes such as grants for higher education, and subsidies for windmills that don't work just when you need the juice.
Second, getting the unemployed off the dole and into jobs where they contribute to the creation of wealth and acquire skills that enhance their productivity and hence market worth.
Th problem of unemployment cannot be solved as long as (a) welfare pays as well or better than the minimum wage, (b) the wage an employer must pay exceeds the value -- in a globalized market -- of the available labor, and (c) the state permits mass legal and illegal immigration of those who will displace the least competitive indigenous citizens from the workforce.
To make the unemployed worth employing at a living wage will require a wage subsidy scheme such as I've discussed elsewhere.
Briefly, employers would compete for subsidies through a public auction in which the higher the winning bids, the lower the subsidies.
Such a scheme, in the absence of mass immigration, would make virtually every able-bodied adult employable and would gives employers a level playing field upon which to compete internationally.
The cost of a wage subsidy scheme will be largely offset by the savings in welfare spending (including the indirect costs of unemployment such as elevated rates of crime, prison incarceration, and mental illness) that will result from bringing tens of millions of Europeans back into the workforce. It will also increase GDP, as off-shored work is brought home; improve the balance of payments through import substitution; increase corporate profits and hence government revenue; enhance workforce skills; create the surpluses necessary for the repayment of both private and public debt; and not of least importance, end the genocidal program of mass immigration to among the most crowded nations on Earth.
(1)Ha-Joon Chang. Things they don't tell you about capitalism. Bloomsbury Press. 2010.
See also:
The Euro: A Weapon of Economic Mass Disruption
Europe has three key problems, debt, unemployment and immigration, all of which derive from the 1994 GATT agreement, which opened the way for global wage arbitrage and unrestricted free trade.
Off-shoring of jobs drove up unemployment and welfare costs, while driving down tax revenues, thus creating public sector deficits.
Cheap imports of both goods and services kept inflation low even as interest rates were reduced to counter deflation. Cheap credit created a Ponzi economy in which credit drove asset prices, mainly houses, and asset prices drove credit demand.
As with all Ponzi schemes, the trajectory of growth in debt and asset prices reached its apogee and set off a vicious cycle of declining prices and debt default which destroyed bank capital, squeezed consumption and drove unemployment even higher.
Mass immigration is just another aspect of wage arbitrage: bringing the cheap labor in, rather than sending the work out.
As Cambridge University economics Professor Ha-Joon Chang explained (1):
If there were free migration, most workers in rich countries could be, and would be, replaced by workers from poor countries.What that means is that immigration creates unemployment among the indigenous population.
Let me say that again: European governments deliberately pursue immigration policies that displace their own people from gainful employment by importing people from elsewhere who are more competitive than the least productive members of the indigenous workforce.
And let those "tolerant" middle-class liberals living in leafy white suburbs, who love diversity and call Emma West a racist remember, it could be their job next, for if it pays to rob the lowest paid of the opportunity to work, how much more profitable would it be to do the same to university professors, engineers, doctors, and most public sector employees.
Understanding this last point might go a long way toward pricking the bubble of political correctness that so distorts perception and prevents intelligent discussion of European immigration policies.
But how are European states handling the triple crisis of debt, unemployment and mass immigration?
With the usual combination of stupidity, short-sightedness and brutality that characterizes "liberal" democracies fronting for globalist corporate oligarchs.
With declining revenues and the need for bank bailouts to avoid economic chaos, government deficits have massively increased, taxes have been raised, welfare benefits cut, the unemployed left to r(i)ot, and mass immigration, both legal and illegal, facilitated to drive wages even lower.
The net result?
A reduction in GDP, living standards, and workforce skills and the progressive destruction of the racial and cultural identity of the European peoples.
What should the European states do instead?
There are only two ways to deal with debt.
One is to quit borrowing, spend less, work harder, create a surplus and repay the loan.
The other is to borrow from Peter to pay off Paul, while ripping off all your creditors with haircuts, payment in debased coin, or outright default.
Sloughing off the debt by money printing and negotiating haircuts is already in progress. It will leave Europe poorer, demoralized and internationally less competitive.
The route to repayment requires two things.
First, massive cuts in government spending to liberate resources to repay debts. Program cuts should focus on reducing the size of the public sector, bringing public sector wages back in line with private sector wages and eliminating benefits for the the middle and upper classes such as grants for higher education, and subsidies for windmills that don't work just when you need the juice.
Second, getting the unemployed off the dole and into jobs where they contribute to the creation of wealth and acquire skills that enhance their productivity and hence market worth.
Th problem of unemployment cannot be solved as long as (a) welfare pays as well or better than the minimum wage, (b) the wage an employer must pay exceeds the value -- in a globalized market -- of the available labor, and (c) the state permits mass legal and illegal immigration of those who will displace the least competitive indigenous citizens from the workforce.
To make the unemployed worth employing at a living wage will require a wage subsidy scheme such as I've discussed elsewhere.
Briefly, employers would compete for subsidies through a public auction in which the higher the winning bids, the lower the subsidies.
Such a scheme, in the absence of mass immigration, would make virtually every able-bodied adult employable and would gives employers a level playing field upon which to compete internationally.
The cost of a wage subsidy scheme will be largely offset by the savings in welfare spending (including the indirect costs of unemployment such as elevated rates of crime, prison incarceration, and mental illness) that will result from bringing tens of millions of Europeans back into the workforce. It will also increase GDP, as off-shored work is brought home; improve the balance of payments through import substitution; increase corporate profits and hence government revenue; enhance workforce skills; create the surpluses necessary for the repayment of both private and public debt; and not of least importance, end the genocidal program of mass immigration to among the most crowded nations on Earth.
(1)Ha-Joon Chang. Things they don't tell you about capitalism. Bloomsbury Press. 2010.
See also:
The Euro: A Weapon of Economic Mass Disruption
Monday, January 2, 2012
Per ardua ad astra: Why not?
By CanSpeccy
A post over at Tallbloke's Talkshop argues that we need global governance to restrict hydrocarbon energy use if we are to avoid civilizational collapse when supplies of hydrocarbon fuels abruptly run out.
The idea makes a change from the "if we don't stop burning so much oil we'll all die an 'orrible death from global warming" argument for the Global Soviet Socialist Republic, but seems hardly more convincing.
Of interest, though, is the argument in an article to which the author links, which states:
But wait, is it really inconceivable that we could harness the sun's entire output of energy?
Not to the visionaries:
Absolutely. In theory, anyhow. A means proposed by the legendary mathematician, Freeman Dyson, would be to build a sphere surrounding the sun, which would intercept every emitted photon and converts its energy to human use.
Let us abhore global governance, but instead "boldly go where no man has gone before": each small group in its own independent, self-governing, hollowed-out solar-powered asteroid.
Escher Dyson Sphere |
The idea makes a change from the "if we don't stop burning so much oil we'll all die an 'orrible death from global warming" argument for the Global Soviet Socialist Republic, but seems hardly more convincing.
Of interest, though, is the argument in an article to which the author links, which states:
No matter what the technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun within 1400 years.In other words, so we are to assume, our present course of ever increasing energy use is totally unsustainable.
But wait, is it really inconceivable that we could harness the sun's entire output of energy?
Not to the visionaries:
When we physicists look at outer space for alien life," says Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics at City of New York University, "we don't look for little green men, we look for Type I, Type II and Type III civilizations. A Type I civilization has harnessed it's planetary power ... A Type II civilization is stellar ... they get their energy directly from their mother star. Eventually, they exhaust the power of a star and they go galactic" (i.e., become Type III)So could we evolve in a mere 1400 years to the point of going galactic, of evolving from a Type I to a mature Type II civilization?
Freeman Dyson |
A Dyson sphere (or shell as it appeared in the original paper) is a hypothetical megastructure originally described by Freeman Dyson. Such a "sphere" would be a system of orbiting solar power satellites meant to completely encompass a star and capture most or all of its energy output. Dyson speculated that such structures would be the logical consequence of the long-term survival and escalating energy needs of a technological civilization, and proposed that searching for evidence of the existence of such structures might lead to the detection of advanced intelligent extraterrestrial life. (Maveric Universe Wiki)So why not?
Let us abhore global governance, but instead "boldly go where no man has gone before": each small group in its own independent, self-governing, hollowed-out solar-powered asteroid.
Friday, December 30, 2011
What won't happen in 2012, let's hope
By CanSpeccy
This is the time of year when some otherwise sensible people offer a prediction as to how the World's economy will unfold during the forthcoming year. Such forecasts are perfectly harmless and perfectly useless because the evolution of the economy depends on events that cannot be predicted with the requisite accuracy.
For example, the Atlantic Island of La Palma, just off the northwest coast of Africa, periodically sheds a few trillion tons of congealed lava into the ocean setting off a tsunami of such destructiveness as to make the 2011 Japan tsunami look like a ripple on the surface of a puddle.
Such a wave, according to a BBC report would be
And that's not all that Americans have to worry about.
There's Yellowstone, the World's largest volcano. If that blows, it's basically all over for the US economy -- half the country would be buried in ash. And that would mean collapse of the Chinese since they'd have no one to print the money to buy all their stuff.
China itself could be the source of economic disturbance no less catastrophic. A place where people and pigs, fish and poultry live in close proximity and in huge numbers, China is where a hitherto insignificant virus may at this moment be switching hosts to cause a global pandemic that rivals the black death in global reach, lethality and economic impact.
China, though, may not represent the greatest threat as a source of the next pandemic. Dutch scientists have just reverse engineered bird flu to make it spread through the air. Let loose it could wipe out most of the World's population, which would certainly mean a hit to global GDP.
"It only took a small number of mutations to change the avian flu virus," said one of the scientists concerned.
But the chances of any of the above happening in 2012 is probably less than even, although a small to medium-sized nuclear war, starting in the Middle East seems far from improbable. More likely, though, we'll get through with nothing much worse than the complete bankruptcy of half a dozen countries and the disappearance of most if not all of your pension and mine.
This is the time of year when some otherwise sensible people offer a prediction as to how the World's economy will unfold during the forthcoming year. Such forecasts are perfectly harmless and perfectly useless because the evolution of the economy depends on events that cannot be predicted with the requisite accuracy.
Image source |
Such a wave, according to a BBC report would be
...far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times. It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean.So there go your New York mega banks and with them the global financial system.
Area of the US under ash after an eruption of the Yellowstone mega-volcano. |
There's Yellowstone, the World's largest volcano. If that blows, it's basically all over for the US economy -- half the country would be buried in ash. And that would mean collapse of the Chinese since they'd have no one to print the money to buy all their stuff.
China itself could be the source of economic disturbance no less catastrophic. A place where people and pigs, fish and poultry live in close proximity and in huge numbers, China is where a hitherto insignificant virus may at this moment be switching hosts to cause a global pandemic that rivals the black death in global reach, lethality and economic impact.
Plague victims, Martigues, France. |
"It only took a small number of mutations to change the avian flu virus," said one of the scientists concerned.
We have discovered that this is indeed possible, and more easily than previously thought. In the laboratory, it was possible to change H5N1 into an aerosol-transmissible virus that can easily be rapidly spread through the air.Oh, well done, chaps. The planet may be rid of this pesky creature Homo sapiens sooner than the most radical ecopolyptic environmentalist could hope.
But the chances of any of the above happening in 2012 is probably less than even, although a small to medium-sized nuclear war, starting in the Middle East seems far from improbable. More likely, though, we'll get through with nothing much worse than the complete bankruptcy of half a dozen countries and the disappearance of most if not all of your pension and mine.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The World Economy in 2012
Clark and Dawe: World Economy Collapse explained in 3 minutes
John Ross: China's pivotal role in the world economy in 2012
James Petras: A Doomsday View of 2012
The Government Can - By Tim Hawkins
John Ward: The EU debt crisis; Poppa Piccolino’s cash concertina hits the highnotes
Mish: 2012 Predictions; 2011 Year in Review with Max Keiser
Aangirfan: The Economy in 2012
Max Keiser and With Steve Keen: the UK’s 950% Debt to GDP (From 14.00 On)
And from Nostradamus:
John Ross: China's pivotal role in the world economy in 2012
James Petras: A Doomsday View of 2012
The Government Can - By Tim Hawkins
John Ward: The EU debt crisis; Poppa Piccolino’s cash concertina hits the highnotes
Mish: 2012 Predictions; 2011 Year in Review with Max Keiser
Aangirfan: The Economy in 2012
Max Keiser and With Steve Keen: the UK’s 950% Debt to GDP (From 14.00 On)
And from Nostradamus:
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Cool Climate Links
Steve McIntyre: How U. East Anglia handles a Freedom of Information Request
Roger Tattersall: Climate realism: Tallbloke style
R. Neukom et al.: The Southern Hemisphere medieval warm period
Roger Tattersall: Climate realism: Tallbloke style
R. Neukom et al.: The Southern Hemisphere medieval warm period
... mean summer temperatures between 900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology. After 1350, we reconstruct a sharp transition to colder conditions, which last until approximately 1700. The summers in the eighteenth century are relatively warm with a subsequent cold relapse peaking around 1850. In the twentieth century, summer temperatures reach conditions similar to earlier warm periods. The winter temperatures in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were mostly below the twentieth century average.Tony Brown: The long, slow thaw?
A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental record in the world- to today. It would be a notable coincidence if the warming started at the exact point that this record began. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.
Figure 1 CET from 1659-in the style of Hadley 1772
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
How the Liberal-Left Are Destroying Britain's National Identity
So this is what they've been doing for the past twelve years...
".....replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country's sense of its own identity."
"New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about "modernising" the nation's institutions."
"But the subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the unfortunate way they were treated by the host population." - Green Arrow
Hidden agenda
When the Labour control freaks came to power twelve years ago they had a secret agenda to destroy British identity and national pride, with Englishness as public enemy number one.
At the time of their election victory, anyone who suggested that Labour were setting out on a deliberate campaign of nation-wrecking would have been regarded as a loony conspiracy theorist. But recently overwhelming evidence has emerged showing that this was their intention all along.
Politically motivated attempt to radically change the country
The first revelation of their hidden agenda came from Andrew Neather, a former government adviser
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its core working class vote." - Telegraph
Secret policy paper proposed a cultural jihad against Britishness
Then, confirmation came from the release of the full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – released under Freedom of Information rules. It is political dynamite.
Genocide of the English
By Paul Weston
“A West which has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles”
Jean Raspail, 1982, The Camp Of The Saints
It is understandable that the vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate the indigenous population of England under the age of 40 to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.
Understandable, admittedly, but if these recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame, because their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect how could there be any other outcome than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what out socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?
“A West which has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles”
Jean Raspail, 1982, The Camp Of The Saints
It is understandable that the vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate the indigenous population of England under the age of 40 to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.
Understandable, admittedly, but if these recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame, because their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect how could there be any other outcome than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what out socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?
Almost Three-Quarters of Brits Consider Moving From Their Advanced Cultural Marxist Totalitarian Country
Source |
Reuters, May 10, 2010: Almost three-quarters of Britons have considered emigrating this year, with Australia as the most popular destination, according to a new survey.
The survey carried out by foreign exchange broker Currency UK found that 31 percent of respondents cited the poor state of the British economy as the reason for wanting to leave, while 23 percent blamed the lack of job prospects and 19 percent said they are worried about the outcome of last week's election.
"Our survey highlights that many Brits are concerned by the prospect of a hung Parliament and that the next four years will be dominated by huge tax rises, cuts in public service and inflation," Currency UK senior account manager Adrian Jacob said.
The numbers have dramatically risen compared to Currency UK's last survey on emigration in 2005, when only 25 percent of respondents said they had considered leaving Britain.
About one in 10 of the 1,029 people surveyed said that a change in the pace of life was the main reason they wanted to emigrate.
The survey also found that Canada was the next most popular destination after Australia, followed by the United States, New Zealand, Spain, France and Thailand.
(Reporting by Valle Aviles Pinedo, editing by Paul Casciato)
And What Is Racist About Objecting to the Genocide of Your Own People?
See any Brits, lately? (Image source) |
"A woman accused of launching a vile racist rant on a tram is to spend Christmas behind bars after she was remanded in custody for her own safety" reported Britain's Daily Mail.
But it's not just an accusation, according to You-Tube:
Racist London Tram Lady 2011 - Emma West of New Addington in Croydon - CAUGHT ON CAMERA!!!
The BBC deploys the same smear, but they're tricky about it:
Racist tram rant accused Emma West remanded after court hearing
See, they included the word "accused" but you get the idea, she's gotta be a white racial supremacist.
Then that stinker Nick Griffin (is he not of the security services?), steps in to associate Emma West, in the public mind, with his own toxic effluvium.
The Metro conveys the smear, while avoiding the risk of a libel suit by the use of inverted commas: Woman, 34, charged over 'racist rant' on My Tram Experience video.
The openly racist organization, Operation Black Vote, resorts to the same despicable legally permissible smear with its story:
Show ‘Emma the racist’ compassion
LOL. The settler colonists have no compunction when it comes to screwing a native.
Which prompts reproduction of the following article.
Emma West. Truth or Racial Harassment?
Green Arrow, The British Resistance: So they tracked down the Tram Lady, 34 year old Emma West for daring to speak the truth and stand up for British People in a public place, arrested her and held her on remand until she appears in Court sometime today. Did she attack someone after the camera stopped selectively filming?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Globalist Lies About Offshoring Jobs
The globalist lies about the British job market
Robert HendersonSource |
England Calling, November 19, 2011: One of the great lies of the modern liberal is that in developed countries such as Britain unskilled and low skilled jobs are a rapidly shrinking commodity. Daniel Knowles of the Daily Telegraph was at it on 17 November with Our greatest social problem: there are no jobs left for the dim (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100118217/our-greatest-social-problem-there-are-no-jobs-left-for-the-dim/). He tried to explain away Britain’s growing problem of youth unemployment by arguing that the less bright, less educated British youngsters of today are unemployed because “Robots and Chinese people have taken over the sorts of jobs that 16 year olds could get without any qualifications straight out of school and work in for a lifetime. The only jobs left for the under-educated, or often just the less academic, are in service industries: serving coffee, cleaning toilets, stacking shelves. These jobs are not the first rung on the ladder. There is no ladder; no one hopes to work in Pret a Manger for life.”
There are several interesting aspects of Knowles’ comment. First, he assumes that offshoring jobs to places like China is something which cannot be reversed and the practice carries no moral opprobrium. Second, he makes the assumption that everyone wants a career rather than just a secure job which allows them to live independently. Third, he makes no mention of the role mass immigration has played in creating unemployment amongst the young, something which can only be explained by Knowles being of the generation which has been brainwashed into pretending that the ill effects of immigration do not exist.
Knowles’ ideas about the young could be as readily applied to British workers of all ages if one accepts his interpretation of the state of the labour market. He is right on the superficial detail that less well-qualified Britons British workers are increasingly being left without unskilled and low-skilled work, but wrong in understanding of why this is and his implied assumption that Britain’s economic circumstances cannot be changed.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)