Saturday, 28 July 2012

We are using Keynesian economics but giving the money to the banks instead of the people

By Dark Politricks

I saw an interesting interview with Simon Jenkins on This Week last week in which he described how at the moment we are stuck in a liquidity trap and the only solution we have is to print more money in the hope it sorts out the dying victim e.g the UK. As he said:
"the government would be better off giving the billions of pounds it plans to pump into the UK economy to the public in the form of a Christmas bonus." "The columnist damned the government plan to get out of recession, claiming "it's fraud, it's a scam, it's a lie".
However as the Bank of England enters phases of printing money - or quantitative easing as they call it, Simon Jenkins believes that they are giving the money to the wrong people i.e the banks.

He believes that instead of increasing the deficit by the Bank of England buying bonds from the banks and paying interest and all the other funny business our economy actually behaves like we should instead be giving the money direct to the people to stimulate demand in the dead economy before we suffer a lost 20 years like Japan.

Keynesian, yes, but he believes that although printing money could eventually drive up inflation - which we are doing already by printing money to give to the banks.

We should instead be printing it and giving it directly to the citizens and tax payers of the UK. The same people who are now paying for the mistakes of the bankers.

He believes that by doing so it wouldn't be adding to the national debt or increasing the deficit as it wasn't money being borrowed but printed.

By doing this demand in the economy will be created as the people will use the money to buy goods and services which in turn would help businesses who will start to invest and grow for the future.

Whether you like the idea of not what we have at the moment is a case of the government taking tax payers money as well as printing and borrowing it to hand it over to the same banks who caused the financial collapse of 2008 in the hope that they will in turn use it to help businesses.

In fact what these banks are doing are using the money to shore up their empty vaults to meet Basel Capital requirements that they must hold a certain percentage of money in their bank. The fact that nearly all these banks have no money and it's just one big stack of cards waiting to fall down as soon as a country defaults and can't pay back Bank A, who in turn cannot pay back Bank B who in turn asks the government for another bail out is irrelevant.

Anyone who knows how money is created knows that it is created through debt and new money is created every-time someone takes a loan out. That money is then multiplied and leveraged beyond belief even though it doesn't physically exist apart from digits in a computer database.

If there was no debt there would be no money - simple.

It's all one big ponzi scheme anyhow as we all know by now which is run by banksters who launder money for Mexican drug cartels, wide boys who fix Libor interest rates, and interchangeable politicians / bankers who move from one job to the other and then back again.

All as if there was nothing wrong with a politician developing banking policy that helps push millions of Brits over the financial cliff and then go off and work in one of the banks they created policy for once they are finally voted out of office.

Simon believes the politicians and those that demand we must be austere wince at the idea of giving money directly to people as it seems somehow vulgar. As if giving billions of our tax pounds direct to the same people who caused the mess so that they can carry on giving themselves huge wages and bonuses isn't somehow!

So if we are already using a Keynesian economic policy that is being masked as an Austrian one through the use of the words austerity, the cutting of  public services, and all the other spending cuts that the millionaire front bench don't rely on then why don't we try to stimulate demand by giving the money to the people rather than the failed banks and businesses?

We could even tailor this arrangement so that it doesn't seem so "vulgar" by declaring that the money is a once off (or yearly) dividend to all tax payers who helped bail out the banks. 

Banks we basically own anyway. The money could be in the form of a special coupon or voucher that was only redeemable in this country (to stop people putting it in offshore bank accounts or saving it in UK bank accounts).

The voucher would be accepted in any UK based shop or business as legal tender and that company would then be able to redeem it for cash if they so wished from the Treasury by taking it to a bank or a special government office.

To stop people just turning up at banks and transferring the coupons to cash there would be a stipulation that only businesses could redeem the vouchers and only as long as they had a receipt showing the goods or services purchased with said voucher.

Other ways could be created to prevent fraudulent black markets transference we Brits are so good at.

Also we could have a "double the value" scheme in which if  the holder of the coupon bought goods made in the UK (not in China with a made in UK sticker on it!) then they would get the item, good or service at a discount. This would help stimulate the UK manufacturing industry.

Obviously this would only apply to tax payers and not people on the dole or those who have no intention of ever working.

Different sizes of voucher would be created just like paper money so that change could be given in other vouchers and there would be a "use by" date of one year to ensure it was spent within a certain time frame. It would basically exist like a dual currency alongside the existing fiat one we call the pound.

You might not like the idea or the theory for many reasons including it's Keynesian nature but we are already in a double dip recession with no hope of growth on the horizon and a growing national debt due to all the dole money having to be paid out to the public service workers the Tory/Lib Dem coalition have sacked.

If they somehow expected the private sector just to zoom in and suck up all these workers they were poorly mistaken.

Our chancellor George Osborne has failed in what he set out to do - grow the economy and cut the debt so we need some kind of plan.

Giving money to the banks has failed so why not give it to those of us who have basically saved the country anyway?

If 20 million or so people all spending a few billion pounds in the UK economy this year doesn't help it grow at all then we are truly screwed. It's only an idea but one which few people seem willing to consider.

Friday, 27 July 2012

The 2012 London Olympics start off with protests by Critical Mass protests

By Dark Politricks

As the 4 hour opening London 2012 Olympic ceremony opened tonight the media was concentrated on the display of England's history being played out in the Olympic stadium rather than the mass protests being held around London.

As Danny Boyle the director of Trainspotting delivered a history of England from the "green and pleasant land" to the industrial revolution. Which included historical as well as fictional characters including Mr Bean and James Bond who "parachuted" down to the arena along with Queen from a helicopter as British musicians played tunes from punk to dubstep and Rave to Grime to the crowd. 

Music most people outside of the UK had probably never heard of but which apparently showed off our sense of culture and Art which has replaced our once huge Empire after the 2nd World War.

However as the TV viewers were fixed to the screen and watching giant chimneys rise from the ground and clouds rain on the ground, volunteer dancers and actors playing their parts in the history of Britain and much more there were actually mass protests being held around London.

The protests used the hashtag #Criticalmass on Twitter and delivered messages about Police brutality as the cyclists protested the blocking of roads and cycle lanes within central London so that they could be used by Olympic dignitaries only as "fast tracks".


Apparently during the London Olympics it is more important that David Beckham can reach the worlds biggest McDonalds in super fast time whilst the rest of London's population are stuck in traffic jams.

From Russia Today:
Critical Mass is a cycling event typically held on the last Friday of every month all around the world.
Earlier there have been calls on the Internet to stage the London ride on July 27 as an anti-Olympics protest. Scuffles occurred near the Olympic Stadium on the outskirts of the Olympic Park with participants saying they were being “kettled”.
Some witnesses said police pushed the cyclists aside to get David Beckham through traffic. 
A witness video uploaded to YouTube allegedly showed police assaulting and pepper-spraying a disabled man on a tricycle who was later arrested.



.


The Police told ITV News that a number of protesters were arrested under section 12 of the Public Order Act after cyclists taking part in the Critical Mass bike ride broke the conditions of their protest in Central London.

 

Critical Mass Protests in Londong

A large number of arrest were made

Police steal cyclists bikes on busses

According to some reports at least 50 people have been detained and their bicycles loaded onto special buses parked nearby to be taken god knows where.

The Metropolitan Police have also used Pepper Spray on a number of protesters as well as arresting a large number of them including the disabled and the elderly.

However the media were silent on these protests on the main channels as the BBC turned their main channel into an Olympic love fest all night long which only finished after midnight, with Paul McCartney singing on a piano to the packed arena.

The London Police kept the public informed about the protests and the likelihood of arrest through the use of Twitter and Tweeted a number of messages warning the public about the likelihood of arrest if they turned up.

They also used the hashtag #criticalmass and some of their messages are below.

Metpoliceevents?size=bigger Participants must not enter any part of the ORN #criticalmass #protest


 FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


Metpoliceevents?size=bigger Participants must remain south of the River Thames at all times during the times stated                               #criticalmass #protest
 FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


Metpoliceevents?size=bigger Participants must keep moving on the procession route unless stopped or directed by police or due to traffic signals #criticalmass #protest FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


Just another sign that when it comes to big money and sponsors versus civil rights and the right to protest the citizen is always bottom of the list.

Sunday, 22 July 2012

Please call Obama a Dictator not a Socialist!

By Dark Politricks - Is President Obama really a Communist or is he more of a dictator?

A quick lesson to all the people out there who keep calling Obama a Communist or a Socialist and interchanging these words with the word Liberal.

For me it really gets on my tits as its basic use of language and although I only went to a mere English comprehensive I do know the difference between these 3 words.

You only have to read a dictionary to see that the three sociological concepts are totally different from each other and that in no-way whatsoever is Obama leading America down a path to Communism.

If anything, since George W Bush - and if you really want to delve down the rabbit hole and talk about the FED, the 2 national banks before it, the assassinations of the Presidents who abolished those banks. The UK support for Southern states in the war of independence and the very little time it took from the first US President and the founding fathers to break many of the promises and declarations they had created in the constitution - then you can go back much earlier.

However it seems since Bush at least you have been on a road to fascism and dictatorship rather than communism and Obama is only following the one party line you have in the USA rather than making meaningful changes. You need look no further than all the things that have happened since 9.11 ( a coup-d'etat ) to see this:
  • The PATRIOT ACT brought in although many US politicians didn't even bother reading it amidst a climate of fear and staged Anthrax attacks to push those against it to support it.
  • Also don't forget the Orwellian nature of the name here.  Anyone who didn't support the PATRIOT ACT was called un-patriotic although the act itself brought in emergency laws which Americans are still living under.
  • The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which allows the US President to detain US citizens without trial on his say so alone.
  • Over a decade of war against an "idea" and enemy that will and can never be beaten.
  • Lost liberties (too many to count).
  • The ending of habeas corpus.
  • Torture and black hole prisons everywhere.
  • Extraordinary renditions
  • Sweeping wiretaps.
  • A militarised police force
  • Drones flying the US skies
  • TSA grope or virtual strip searches at airports ensuring a loss in tourism trade at the very least.
  • A "big brother at school like" tool to be used to take out another countries enemies i.e Israel.
  • A loss of moral standing in the world.
  • Most of all it has shown the one-sidedness of your political system.
Whether Republican or Democrat the same policies remain in place whoever wins the election. Continual war, loss of liberty, ambivalence to the constitution and Bill of Rights, bail outs to Wall St and friends of the politicians i.e crony capitalism, subservience to overseas masters and the targeted assassination of people on the say so of the leader of the country.

If that is not dictatorship I don't know what is.

So lets check what these words that are banded about on late night talk shows actually mean.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

Dictatorship
  • government by a dictator:
  • the effects of forty years of dictatorship
  • [count noun] a country governed by a dictator.
  • absolute authority in any sphere.
Communsim A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. Socialism
  • A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
  • A policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
  • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
  • The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.
Liberal
  • Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
  • Liberal views towards divorce.
  • Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
  • Liberal citizenship laws.
  • (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:
  • A liberal democratic state
  • relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party:
  • the Liberal leader
  • Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
Now although many Fox News presenters and their guests and many others like to call Obama a communist and compare what he is doing to the European socialists you need to understand that even in countries within Europe that have "socialist" parties like the UK used to with Old Labour they are not really true socialist countries.

Here in the UK since Tony Blair managed to turn the Labour party into a "3rd way" party we have little if no choice at the election box between proper alternatives in the same way as Americans don't.

As they say the Democratic party in the USA is the 2nd most conservative party in the world.

When we vote we don't get to vote on things that really matter like:
  • If the surveillance police state would be rolled back or dismantled completely.
  • If the money wasted on nuclear bombs and million pound planes and boats would be better spent educating people so we can live in a true meritocracy.
  • Whether drugs should be legalised.
  • Whether bankers should end up in jail when they ruin the worlds economy, fix Libor interest rates, launder money for Mexican drug cartels and terrorists as they have been proven to be doing continually.
  • Whether lobbyists should be banned and political parties funded by tax payers.
  • Whether we should pull our troops out of all the many war zones they are in and have a say in any future war that wastes millions, maims and kills thousands, and creates enemies for us to continually fight in the future.
  • Whether we can pull out of the failed European project altogether or even join the Euro (for those numb-nuts that want to)
No we get to vote on things like.
  • Who will cut the deficit a little bit faster or slower.
  • Who "might" give us a vote on our staying in Europe (it doesn't actually matter as whoever wins always breaks this promise!)
  • Will VAT / Sales tax go up a couple percent or not or income tax margins down or up a percent or two.
  • Whether we slash 20% or 15% out of every ministry and public sector organisation - putting thousands on the dole and creating more deficit to pay back due to dole money.
  • How much of the country should go from working in public sector jobs, paying taxes, paying for their families and homes and put them on the dole, increasing the national debt because the "private sector will rush in and fill the hole" - proved wrong so far Georgey boy!
  • How much tongue should be put up the arse of the current US President just so we can say we are "special buddies" and all that crap.
So there is no real choice in elections and we are truly voting for our favourite colour or who we would go down the pub with for a beer.

All pure pony.

What I don't get in America is the talk of "entitlements" as if you would rather your taxes are spent shooting $500,000 missiles into mud huts in Somalia rather than being set aside to pay for you in old age.

Or for when you lose your job due to a bankster company or Republican candidate off-shoring it to India or China. Then the banks come and re-posses your home and you have no-one to help you but the state and you then realise that you should of voted for your taxes to be spent on community welfare not on overseas imperialism.

All you want is some help to stay housed, clothed and fed.

Why would you call that money you have given to the government an "entitlement" when it is paid back to you in negative terms?

Yes you are entitled to it as you have paid for it. Saving for a rainy day and all that.

Yes there are those people who haven't worked for generations. Lived off the dole and food stamps and couldn't get a job even if they wanted one because of the poor school they went to.

That is a different question and one which the richest country in the world should be able to solve without having such a disparity between the poor and middle class and the very rich.

Study after study shows that in countries (call them socialist if you want) where the gap between poorest and richest is narrowest there is more productivity and more general happiness in the population.


What is more important - that you pack as many boxes for your boss in the day and work yourself into an early grave or achieving some modicum of happiness in this short life we have?

Do you really want to live fighting against some belief system or theory you heard Glenn Beck talk about. Following his chalk board drawings which always lead up to the same leftist groups as evil puppet masters controlling the world.


Believe it or not there are two sides to the story and George Soros doesn't lie behind all of the left as their ultimate controller just as the Koch Brothers don't lie behind the right.

However as I wrote in a recent last essay once you have met Maslows hierarchy of needs and have all the money you could possibly wish for.

The only thing left to do with it is either spend it altruistically helping people or attempt to gain power by supporting politicans who will have to pay you back once they are elected.

So next time you call the President a Communist or a Socialist remember that they are different meanings from the word Liberal and not interchangeable. 


Plus to us overseas viewers will look at you as if you are an idiot for saying it.

Call him a fascist, call him illiberal and a warmonger but the American nation is as far away from Communist North Korea as the moon is from Earth.

Whether you chose to believe in the definition of the word or not a Liberal believes in free markets, freedom of choice, small government and of course social reform.

If we didn't have social reform we would still be chucking our human waste out into the middle of the street and dying of bubonic plague, whilst the rich held slaves as property and the poor had to send their children off to work as chimney sweeps just to earn a living.

Certain countries in this world still behave like this - it is not pleasant. You can believe it or not but there are good reasons for not wanting to stay in the 17th century.

Sunday, 15 July 2012

Do you get a balanced view of the Syrian conflict?


By Dark Politricks

Compare and contrast the coverage given by the Western media to the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.

This morning on the BBC News channel they are reporting again that the Syrian Army - loyal to President Assad has been bombarding the homes of rebel fighters including those of the free Syrian Army and other insurgents in Tremseh.

Whilst their internet coverage is a little more even handed it still leans towards the US position of a massacre and the US government is parroting Syrian rebel reports that around 220 people were massacred labeling Syria's leaders murderers even though other western media is even reporting the attack as a "lopsided" attack by the army against the home of insurgents and what would we would call terrorists if they lived in Gaza, Iran or Afghanistan.

A statement by the U.N. mission who have returned to Tremseh today said:
"The attack on Tremseh appeared targeted at specific groups and houses, mainly of army defectors and activists," the spokesman for the U.N. observer mission to Syria said in an emailed statement.
"A wide range of weapons were used, including artillery, mortars and small arms."
Opposition activists say government forces killed about 220 people in the village. U.N. observers said they had found a burned school and fire-damaged houses.
The state media in the UK (and I haven't seen US coverage but I guess it's the same) are reporting this attack in Tremseh as if the word of opposition fighters was God and as if the Assad regime was bombing the homes of innocent people and killing them for fun.

Lest no-one think I support President Assad I don't.

I don't support any dictator unlike the USA/UK/French axis of war that seem to pick and chose their fights not on "human rights" as they like to sell it to the dumbed down public but whether or not the dictator is "their man" or "helpful" to their foreign policy objectives.

If the Axis of war had a fair and balanced foreign policy they would be attacking Israel, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses and attacks on protesters in the same manner as they have attacked Libya, forced an army coup in Egypt and are carefully planning for war with Iran by funding, aiding and training the rebels that are fighting the Assad regime. All roads lead to Iran as awakened people say at the moment.

The hypocrisy of our mainstream news coverage is that if Assad were "our man" like Saddam Hussein was in the 80's before we turned on him and bin Laden was in the Soviet war in Afghanistan then there wouldn't be so much news coverage of these attacks in Syria.

However unlike Afghanistan in which another insurgency is going on - one in which we are fighting not supporting. Where segments of the population in Afghanistan e.g the Taliban have decided to fight against the US/UK occupation, the corrupt puppet leader they installed to rule over them e.g the major of Kabul Hamid Karzai.

This is the US installed leader who has helped increase the amount of opium produced from almost zero in 2000 when the Taliban last ruled the country to the massive amounts produced now.

The Taliban admittedly ruled the country brutally in Western eyes, but in the eyes of a lot of Afghans they brought law and order after a time of unruliness. They actually punished corruption and other criminal acts (admittedly brutally in our standards) that are carrying on unabated under the US/Karzai rule.

Plus they almost wiped out the lucrative drug production calling it Un-Islamic as you can see by the chart above where the amount of opium dropped when they were in power. For reasons why drug production seems to increase whenever there is war and instability please read the four part series on my site titled "CIA Involvement in Drug Smuggling Parts 1 to 4".

The main contradiction between our coverage of the Syrian civil war and other news channels that don't have a western bias like Russia Today or Press TV is that when the US attack the homes of insurgents with drones and missile attacks in Afghanistan and innocent children, women and non combatants are killed they are considered legitimate and just casualties of war - or "collateral damage" as we like to call it. Often this massacre of innocents  is somehow covered up or ignored by our media.

However in Syria where Assad is fighting an influx of Western and Saudi backed terrorists, insurgents, the Free Syrian Army and of course al-Qaeda (why are again fighting on the same side as our mortal enemy again?) these collateral damages are called massacres and the western TV media laps up the stories of unverifiable bloggers and citizens as if they were truth itself.

So lets compare the two wars we are involved in the link being al-Qaeda e.g in Afghanistan we are supposedly fighting them whilst in Syria we are fighting alongside them - or arming, training and supporting them as we did in Libya.
  • We have two countries Syria and Afghanistan both fighting an insurgency against the ruling power.
  • Both insurgencies contain members of the general population as well as foreign terrorists and members of al-Qaeda.
  • One insurgency the West supports, the other it is fighting.
  • One government fighting the insurgency is considered a corrupt puppet with links to drug dealing brothers and other corrupt behaviour, the other is a dictator who is on the path to reform (admittedly slowly - who was praised in Western media not too long ago)
  • When innocent people are killed in one country they are called collateral damage or not reported on at all in the other it is called a massacre and the mainstream media goes crazy over it.
  • When terrorists and insurgents are killed by drones or night raids by special forces in one country their deaths are acclaimed as a success for the anti-government forces, whereas the deaths of insurgents in the other are reported as assassinations and targeted killings in the UN.
I am sure you can work out which is which.

Therefore the question is how far does our hypocrisy go and will you get your news from the tools of Western imperialism or try and get a balanced view on the subject first.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

How will voting for Mitt Romney help America?


By Dark Politricks

If you hate Obama - I agree with you.

He is a warmonger, a liar, a tool of the globalists and the banksters he continued to bailout after following in Bush's footsteps.

He has brought in laws that destroy Americans liberty like the NDAA, expanded the war on terror as well as numerous other things true Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or just decent people with morals shouldn't be happy with.

However if you are a Republican voter, a GOP supporting Mitt Romney lover then I have to ask - what do you think is going to change if he gets elected?

Are jobs suddenly going to come rushing back to the US shores?

He worked for a company that spent it's time off-shoring American jobs to foreign countries so why would he change his spots now.

Are the wars going to stop in Afghanistan, Pakistan (a supposed ally), Yemen, Somalia and all the other places we probably don't even know about?

No of course not - the GOP are strong on defence and that means lots of money wasted firing million dollar missiles into mud huts and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the hope of getting one jihadist from a drone. All the while creating future enemies for the military industrial complex to continue sucking money out of US taxpayers pockets in years to come.

Are the banksters who ruined the economy under Bush and previous administrations going to be punished and end up in jail?

No of course not - they haven't done under Obama and Romney is probably more in the pocket of Wall St than his rival. I don't hold up hope of seeing the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in a court anytime soon.

Are the lost liberties destroyed under the PATRIOT ACT, the NDAA, the Executive Orders, the Signing Letters, the death squads and all the other laws rushed through after 9.11 and then carried on by Obama going to be repealed by Romney?

I don't think so.

If he was a true lover of the constitution he would rip up those laws, return the USA to a non emergency powers state and return habeas corpus.

He would close Gitmo and try any terrorists they currently have that actually have evidence pointing their way. He would stop targeted killings by drones and try and restore some moral standing in the world for the country that was once a beacon of liberty and freedom.

There is a reason everyone laughs when US UN officials accuse the Syrian government of targeted killings. None of this will happen under Romney in fact even more tax payers money will be wasted creating the terrorists of the future.

So the wars won't stop, liberty will continue to be destroyed getting the USA ready for it's next stage as a Chinese labour shop with no worker rights, health care and lengthy prison sentences on the say so of any official with a grudge against you.

So then I ask again what will change if Mitt Romney is actually elected?


Please tell me what you think in this quiz on Romney's chances of becoming President of America.

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Would we have had the financial crisis if women ran banks?


By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans "The Big Picture" on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech - abbreviated here:
"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it coultn't be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring - as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy - the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom's main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940's, to 70% during the 1970's and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn't seem to work too well it seems.

Historical US Tax Rates


The 1950's were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what - the richest few percent (those job creators) didn't up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari's and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism - a hunger for power.
Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren't.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to "buy" the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.
These ultra rich are not "wealth generators" or "altruistic job creators" for if they were they would say to themselves:
"Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spolit entitled brats who probably won't do a day's work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian Philantrophists and I don't mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country."
"Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans."
No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes "ultimate power" you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the "This Week" programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the "alpha male" culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought...

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Why Julian Assange should be granted asylum by Ecuador

By Dark Politricks

This episode of "The World Tomorrow" is the final show in the Russia Today series of interviews Julian Assange has been carrying out over the last couple of months.

He has interviewed everyone from Presidents, revolutionary leaders from the Arab Spring and Occupy Movement to intellectuals and "terrorist" leaders and if you have missed any of the shows you can watch them on my main site darkpolitricks.com/tag/the-world-tomorrow/

Lets all cross our fingers and hope Ecuador gives Julian Assange political asylum.

Rafael Correa, the President of that Ecuador was one of Julian's interviewees and the two seemed to get on really well so he may have more than an average chance of gaining asylum.

Add to this relationship the leftist group of Southern American nations, of which Ecuador is one, dislike of American Imperialism as they see it and they may just give him asylum to stick two fingers up to the empire.

However even if he and President Rafael Correa aren't the best of buddies there are many reasons why any country should give Julian Assange asylum including:
  • The USA uses Torture - a breach of international law
  • US prisons are hell holes full of male rape, drugs, violence and murder. Julian would not last very long in a US high security prison.
  • The USA executes people for certain crimes. We don't do that in Europe. We have a modicum of human rights even though they are being constantly downgraded as I speak.
  • The USA has thrown away the rule book and has decided it and it alone can be the arbitrary decider of which country is "moral" whilst attacking those it dislikes. There is no other reason why it sucks the cock of Saudi Arabia one of the most repressive and backward regimes in the world, selling it weaponry and buying it's oil whilst it boycotts Iranian oil, attacks Syria for defending it's own country from al-Qaeda terrorists and attacks China for human rights violations whilst carrying out many of the same violations itself.
  • The US military have basically tortured a US soldier Bradley Manning to get information on Julian Assange so that he can be tried under their espionage act. Something that doesn't apply to him seeing that he is not an American citizen or was in the US when the documents were obtained.
  • Julian Assange is a whistle blower that has broken many stories that the US should be protecting him for doing so. Under their own legal system whistle blowers are supposed to be accorded protection but this attack on Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and other whistle blowers shows this to be nothing more than fiction. WikiLeaks has shown the US military at it's worst - massacring Iraqi civilians, releasing documents that shows the USA has no regard for international treaties by it's desire to bug UN delegates as well as many other documents that show the USA's duplicity and illegality in world affairs.
  • The USA is using all the political pressure it can to ensure Julian Assange ends up in an orange jumpsuit. I hope he doesn't.
  • It is a shocking indictment on the West - supposed upholder of human rights and liberty that the only places that Julian Assange can get asylum are South American leftist countries like Ecuador or Venezuela or even maybe Cuba
Why is it that no European country that supposedly stands for liberty, free speech and the rule of law has offered Julian asylum? 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Russia or China offered it to him as well as the Americans response to it. I only hope that they grow a pair and do so along with many other western countries.
As for the "The World Tomorrow" show on Russia Today this is the last show in the series.

In show ten Julian Assange speaks to the leader of the Malaysian opposition - Anwar Ibrahim. As a rising internal rival to the former Prime Minister Mahathir, Anwar was imprisoned for 5 years after being smeared with sex allegations including sodomy.

As a result of a popular campaign in 2004, his conviction was overturned and he was released from prison.

In 2008, he was again targeted for sex crimes allegations, he won the case earlier this year.

With elections looming with Anwar tipped to win, he has now been charged with unauthorised assembly. If found convicted, he will be prevented from running. Julian Assange talks to him about how he has survived and what he sees as the future of Asia and the West.

 

If you've missed the previous episodes, you can always watch them on my main site www.darkpolitricks.com under the tag "The World Tomorrow" or you can visit Julian's own site for the TV show at http://assange.RT.com.

Whether you love him, hate him, think he's a useful idiot or an Israeli tool you should respect Julian's right to free speech and the fact he has blown the whistle on a number of major American atrocities and international crimes. For that he should not be punished but applauded.