The Occupiers need to play the system at it’s own game #OWS
A question needs to be asked to all the people who have recently taken it upon themselves to occupy public places in vague protests which judging by their locations we have to guess is dismay at the conduct of banks.
That question was asked by a commenter on a post on AVC.com:
Why do you protest against the thousands of individuals and organizations that are legally taking advantage of the system, rather than protesting (at) the SOURCE which is the system itself?
I took it that the commenter meant that the best way to protest the system is to join the democratic queue like everyone else including the racists have done. Lord knows democracy is not perfect, but there is no denying that it does afford a platform and a voice to people with a cause. You have to applaud what organisations like the Green Party in the UK have done in turning themselves from a community initiative into a political party with an actual seat in Parliament. Maybe it is because that struggle is long and hard that our modern day slackers do not turn to democracy, but more likely it is the fact that however well meaning their wishes are, there just aren't enough people who identify with whatever it is they are protesting.
Yo man, I'm actually a revolutionary. I made my money selling placard paper in the great protests of 2011. I had to put on a small margin to enable expansion and accidentally became stinking rich.
I don't know but I'd guess that most people do not think that things are so broken that wholesale changes are required. I believe the cost of living has been rising faster than income and with the lack of job creation opportunities to make a decent living are less than they were five years ago. If most people are honest we'd realise that opportunities are less than five years ago rather than actually being non-existent. And that dip in opportunities is something that most would also agree is a short-term blip in an otherwise longer-term improvement in the life chances of all people on Earth.
I don't know for sure but I am willing to bet that a poor kid born in 2015 will be better off than a poor kid born in 2000.
Another commenter points out quite rightly that the real problem is..
... the default position for NOT working hard is very different for the rich than the poor. A poor kid who doesn't work hard, is fucked. A rich kid who doesn't work hard, not so much.
(But) Yes, if you work hard, you can succeed.
The same commenter goes on to say that what we should strive for is that all people start from a level playing field. In other words equality. I don't buy that. People can never be equal. It's a fact of life.
Even as an ardent supporter of capitalism I admire the thinking behind Socialism and Communism. However I just don't think it would work on any macro-level better than capitalism.
In the end too many people get bogged down in worrying about the state of things without looking at it in perspective. Most times if we look at the recent trends you'll actually discover that things are getting better. That's the only thing I personally worry about. Things are fucked up right now, but are they getting better?
War is so last century
Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr
Colonel Gaddafi died today and I am mourning.
I don't mourn for Gaddafi. I mourn for my brothers who are deceived by the self serving leaders of countries that have failed time and again to peacefully resolve conflicts. Even those conflicts which have nothing to do with them.
This however has never stopped our hypocrites giving out peace prizes nor has it stopped their cohorts accepting them; all whilst draped in the cloak of democracy.
Eleven years in and the 21st century is already littered with wars. Some people think we have fewer dictators alive today, but we'll only know that for sure in twenty years time! After all how can society ever be truly democratic when the powers that be continually show us that the best way to get power and keep it is to fight for it?
Fight dirty. And enjoy it while it lasts. That advice applies as much to Robert Mugabe as it does to Barack Obama or David Cameron.
If FIFA ever had any credibility they would have lost it today
It is a sad indictment of FIFA when the English FA are standing up for ethics, integrity and values whilst the British contingent of journalists are standing up for honesty and decency.
No where more than on these pages is the English media elevated to the post of laughing stock that they so richly deserve. Today, as FIFA re-elected President Sepp Blatter using single name ballot sheets that might as well have been brown envelopes, they can rest easy knowing that there's still plenty of scum out there on which they can shine their tabloid torches.
Well at least we should have a good view of Sepp's coronation.
What Spiderman’s uncle could teach Obama about leadership.
"The time for our leadership is now. Even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership, our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more just." The words of Barack Obama on his state visit to the United Kingdom.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in that quote is President Obama effectively saying that only Britain and America can lead the world? If not us then who, kind of thing?
Well I'm going to clarify something for Mr Obama. I don't believe that people are necessarily mad that we're stuck with these two countries as leaders, we're more mad about them being hypocritical, blinkered and only out to serve their own interests without a hint of fairness. These are flaws that are fairly common, however you wouldn't expect someone who cries out to be a global leader to be like that. China and Russia might probably produce worse global leaders, however you don't see them trying to throw their weight around politically in an effort to be in involved with each and everything outside of their regions.
Wasn't it Spiderman's uncle Ben Parker who gave us a famous quote about having great responsibility if you had great power? Someone ought to get Obama and Cameron the DVD. One thing is for sure, if the world was (improbably) going to be more peaceful, prosperous and just; America and Britain wouldn't have had much to do with it given their track record.
Re-writing history
The UK needs electoral reform, but AV isn’t the answer
In an electoral system where the two biggest parties have around 66% of the votes, but more than 90% of the parliamentary seats, it is very hard to argue that there is fairness.
On the other hand the United Kingdom has a constituency based parliamentary system in which Members are elected to represent specific areas and "to consider and propose new laws" on behalf of their constituents. I believe that is a very good thing. In any democracy there needs to be a connection between the Parliament and the people it governs. MPs can fulfil that role very well. In theory. Therefore, if a politician gets the most votes in his constituency why should we add up all the votes of the losing parties and pretend that they represent one united faction? That also seems unfair.
In my opinion there are two major problems with the UK electoral system which have resulted in the disconnection between the spread of votes and the number of seats a party can win.
- The first problem is that the British Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people, but instead comes from the party with the most seats in Parliament (or a coalition thereof).
- The second is that politics everywhere is increasingly polarised. All over the world it seems that for many voters any sensible policy from the opposing party is no longer seen as such, and even media outlets are just as divided as us the electorate. Civil wars are fewer, but hatred between political parties seems to be on the increase and no conduct is too low to stoop to.
There are many reasons for this polarisation most of which I won't go into today, in case I lose you on the rant at hand. The main issue with polarisation is that it normally happens on a national scale over national issues and thus if one is voting for a local MP based on a national issue, there is a natural disconnect.
There are people whose votes change from time to time. Pollsters call them undecided voters, politicians call them the middle ground and I call them Liberal Democrats. Voters in the middle ground do seem to be more susceptible single issue politics and un-due influence from the (polarised) media.
The Alternative Vote system may solve some of the problems that result in polarisation, however it doesn't solve the problem of UK voters having no direct say in who the leader of the country is. That in my opinion is the major reason for our own polarisation.
The UK has had a succesion of PMs who have been acting increasingly Presidential. Even opposing parties campaign on the false premise of 'letting in' so and so into Number 10. This was most apparent during Tony Blair's time and may even revert back if David Cameron wins the next election outright. For example there was a time when opinion polls showed that the Labour Party would win many more votes if Tony Blair was not their leader. Mr Blair had simply run his course and probably overstayed his welcome. Being that a voter only has one vote with which he 'thinks' he could elect the leader of the country and also his local MP I'd guess that there are many times when they would have wished they had two votes. One to elect a Prime Minister and another to elect an MP.
It might seem like I'm calling for the Monarchy to be abolished in a week in which the future King of the United Kingdom got married, but that is not the case. I just think that it's time the country moved on and was able to call to account their leader in a separate election from their local representative. I'm pretty sure that the Queen could still occupy the ceremonial position she does now if it makes people feel better.
I believe that the USA has 'too much' democracy and is stuck in an endless cycles of elections in which it's much harder to do good than to wreck havoc. However as it is the UK has too few elections and is stuck in an endless cycle of trying to align their local and national issues with one vote.
Frustration on Freecycle
Yes son, it is the thought that counts. But your mom would appreciate an expensive thought much more!
Like most people who go through a lot of stuff, when I heard of the idea behind Freecycle, I thought it was brilliant. Advertise any stuff you wouldn't mind giving away for free, or post a request for stuff you're looking for and anyone can offer you their own unwanted but useful items.
I signed up about a year ago after moving home because I fell into both camps. I wanted to be a giver but I could also use some stuff that I didn't need to buy brand new. Well today I'm cancelling all my subscriptions because in a year, I haven't completed one freecycle either in responding to a wanted ad or when I've wanted to pick up the stuff advertised by others.
My biggest frustration is that all the stuff is always taken. That's not a bad thing in itself of course. However, I only get to know that an item has been taken AFTER I have clicked on a posting, been forced to log into the site, and then filled out a message to the advertiser. Only when I've clicked send does the system tell me that the item is no longer available! Well, if they knew that the item isn't available, why am I forced to jump through all the hoops just to find that out?
There are other annoyances too, like
- the huge number of 'freeloaders' who seem to use the site as a source of free stock to sell-on. A scan down the wanted ads can be disheartening, though there are of course some genuine people.
- the huge number of emails you get (mostly of said wanted items) even when you're only getting a digest of site activity. Invariably when you come to click on an ad, the item will be taken, thus rendering all those notifications useless.
- The broken nature of the website. You can't freely move from one group to another without signing up and logging in to each group. Groups are based on area you see, but of course most people are near enough to 2 or 3 groups and to want to join them all. There's no free movement in freecycle, because the tech is really quite outdated.
- The fussy posters on the wanted ads. I've responded to some wanted ads only to be told that my item is not exactly what the poster is looking for. Ah, dude I'm offering you something that would suit your needs and is in good condition, for free and you still wanna be fussy about it? Man, whip your card out and go to a store!
- (Updated) People are also pointing out that it's very common for someone not to turn up and collect items they have requested. I guess the fact that items are free, means that people can't be bothered really!
It does make you wonder whether this is more reinforcement for the idea that freemarkets (pun intended) are able to solve society's problems better than some of these utopian ideals. There are certainly a lot of moderators as a result of the disenguonous swamping the genuine. Ironically the moderator involvement on Freecycle only serves to put off the genuine people. It's as far removed as you can get from Laissez-faire, but it still lacks the order of a highly structured, social utopia which I think was being aimed for.
Even as an ardent capitalist, I still like the idea of social utopia, but I just don't think it would work on any sort of big level. However I would have thought it would work in doing something as simple as redistributing unwanted goods. For me that hasn't turned out to be the case, and I'll be cancelling my subscription today. So long freecycle.
Propaganda, counter-propaganda and the cost of war on Gaddafi
With all the reporting that has been going on you'd think that Colonel Gaddafi is the only one who has been cranking the propaganda machine.
A few hours after enforcement of the 'no-fly zone' started with the bombing of Libyan positions that are not controlled by the rebels, it was reported that each cruise missile cost £500,000. By the second night a hundred had been fired. Mostly by the Americans, but I'm sure you get the illustration if you're doing the math by now.
Being that I'm sad enough to have my alarm clock tuned into BBC Radio 4 permanently, this morning I woke up to reports that George Osborne and the UK government were playing down the cost of this war to the UK tax payer and claiming that it would be no more than the low tens of millions. An hour later a spin doctor was duly dispatched onto The Today programme and tried to explain away this absurdly low figure whilst putting in the obligatory fast talk, in-lieu of small print. A double glazing sales man would have been proud.
So why was the forecast so low? It turns out that the missiles being used in Libya are part of the Royal Navy's stock and had already been purchased prior to the Middle Eastern revolutions. It's a shame to say that the presenter didn't then fire back the obvious question that popped into my head i.e.
Are those missiles not going to be replaced at some point, presumably for invading yet another former 'ally' in an oil rich country? And if they are going to be replaced, why is that cost not going to be added to the cost of this war?
Military think-tank/creative accounting department
Obama to seek Bush advice for Egypt crisis
There once was a time when we all thought that Barack Obama was the luckiest man alive, however nowadays you'd have to say that not even the turn-meister Nick Clegg would swap places with Mr Obama.
Such is his luck that barely had he got a bounce in approval ratings following his handling of the Tucson shooting and his delivery in the State of The Union, than the Egyptian citizens came and spoiled it all. Obama and the US' policy towards Egypt and their autocratic President of 30 years has been a case of "better the devil you know". Like all such relationships it has only been comfortable when both parties have a weapon at hand.
However that strategy has been coming in for much criticism over the past few days, with Mr Obama and Hilary Clinton not quite calling for Hosni Mubarak to stand down but to deliver more freedom, refrain from violence and other ambigious statements somewhat supporting the Egyptian Man On The Street.
The funny thing is that people are lining up to criticize Obama for not using stronger words and action meanwhile forgetting that only 2 years ago there was such a forthright American President who most of them absolutely detested by the end of his tenure. Make no mistake George W. Bush always liked to call a spade a spade, even going so far as to call a diamond a spade; just to uphold his straight-talking reputation. Had he been in power now, it's fair to conclude based on past outrage that we would all be in uproar at Bush's means and methods of exporting democracy.
It's a tough job being a leader, but one thing I think is better in this situation is for those in power to be realistic and wait to see which way the chips are going to fall. At this moment though severely weakened and discredited Mubarak may well hang-on. On the other hand the people could manage to overthrow Mubarak and where would a President who has been in support of him stand then?
It's totally understandable Mr Obama being cagey on this one. Or as it was called before Wikileaks, appearing to be diplomatic. Even a guy on the prowl for loose pickings in a pub at closing time knows not to put all his chips on one lass. Things are never as black and white as George W. Bush always had us believe. Remember the good vs evil BS he spouted for so long he was beginning to sound more like an arch-angel than a President?
In my book it's better to be a realist than an idealist; especially when the stakes are so high.
Karl Rove's biggest challenge was to present Mr Bush as a 'realistic idealist'.
Economics 101 – Your currency must work for us!
A few rules apply in the world of currency exchange rates. And if the current furore over China's currency (the Renminbi) is anything to go by, no rule is more important than the one outlined below.
When the western world wants to buy loads of cheap commodities (and goods) from your country to satisfy demand fuelled by (toxic) credit; then your currency is probably over-valued.
If the western world no longer wants your country's cheap goods competing against their expensively produced alternatives; then your currency is probably under-valued!
It's a very simple concept which China and the Yuan have found themselves on both ends of in the space of a few years. Well as much as any wannabe super-power, intent on pushing it's weight around can be in the wrong end of something!
Labour’s dismal housing record highlights their failures
The British Labour party has been in power for 13 years now during which they've done some good things, a lot of bad things and some terrible things. In my mind housing is where they really screwed up because it ensured that the Labour's economic, social and immigration records are arguably poorer than they would have been. In this context when I say housing I'm talking about housing their citizens and giving those who need a lift the ability to house themselves. That last bit relates to the housing market.
For those who don't know I'm not a Labour supporter but I'll try to be as objective as possible. In fact I started this blog because I more anti-media than anything else. I feel that balanced reporting is important and at Stunted By Reality I try to discuss my interests in a balanced way. But, that's for another post.
The housing issue has been going through my mind for some weeks now and the news today that house prices have risen 10.5% in the last year is what finally prompted me to write this. Personally I feel that the housing market is linked to many things and has effects outside of its sector one of which is the economy as a whole. As far as I can see the credit crunch really came about because of the rate at which people where borrowing money to buy houses. In the US it seems that an artificial boom was created on the back of money being made available to people who were riskier than normal. Sub-prime borrowers. In short there was too much money chasing too few customers. In the UK it was because of the fact that UK house prices had risen way too much over the time that Labour had been in power to the extent that a lot of people borrowing money had a higher risk profile than before.
For example in 1997 when Labour came to power the average person would need to borrow about 2.5 times their salary to be able to buy the average UK house. By 2008 when the housing bubble burst average UK income was £38,302 with the average house costing £197,000. That is 5.1 times the average person's salary; a huge increase by any measure. Effectively, even the average buyer was bordering on being a sub-prime borrower! This, as I recall is when people started taking out 40 year mortgages. 40 years to pay back the mortgage on your house! Imagine that. People buying in the early 2000s used to be able to take out 25 year mortgages. Within 5 years just to afford a mortgage you had to stretch it to 40 years, or else you couldn't afford it. That's sub-prime for you folks.
A lot of people (egged on by the government of course) blame the banks for the credit crunch, but I'm not one of them. I blame the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Moreover I blame the government who didn't create the market conditions so that people could afford to buy a house. Of course the banks were implicit in that they then packaged these loans into bunches of hundreds of thousands and sold them onto each other knowing that there were now increased risks that people would default. However there came a time when no bank knew which other bank had the dirtiest mortgage customers; and because banks lend to each other more than they do to us, they became concerned amongst themselves. That concern resulted in banks NOT lending to each other and there was an impasse during which Northern Rock amongst others couldn't borrow money. They of course had to get it from somewhere so they asked the government. Correct me if I'm wrong but in laymen's terms that's what happened except of course they used complicated financial instruments to do all this.
From a UK perspective the main reason I blame the government in this is because they could have done a lot more before the housing bubble burst to avoid the sub-prime mess. They could have done things differently after the bubble burst too, but they didn't. Here's what they could have done;
1. Increase the threshold of stamp duty.
Stamp duty is a tax payable on all house purchases in the UK provided that they go above a certain value. That value is set by the government and it works on "slab" basis, so percentages apply to the whole of the purchase price in a defined band. For example, a house priced at £250,000 would attract a tax of £2,500, but one of £250,001 would be liable to tax of £7,500. The result is that duty has a hugely distorting effect on the market, because a house is very difficult to sell at prices just above each threshold, for example, £255,000. The UK government could have used this to control house prices more than they used it to line their pockets. In 2002 when house prices went up 25% in one year, it should have been abundantly clear to Labour that it was now necessary to do something about stamp duty. The threshold remained at £60,000 yet house prices were now well over a £110,000. Meaning that even first-time buyers would have to fork out stamp-duty in addition to a deposit. Setting the threshold higher (at just below the average price) would have actually resulted in some house prices being brought down to take advantage of the new level.
2. Build more houses
The market and by extension the government really just didn't build enough houses. At the time we knew that a lot was being done, but it just wasn't enough. I applaud John Prescott's efforts in Hull, Stoke and other places, but a lot more needed to be done. Beautiful though Britain may be there are huge areas of dereliction not just in Stoke and Hull. London, Manchester, Birmingham all have acres and roads of dereliction that would have been good for redevelopment. An increased supply of houses would have resulted in a decrease in prices. The old supply and demand thing. Ironically this is one of the reasons that US house prices fell thereby triggering the credit crunch. But I'm being selfish here and only discussing the UK market. If the American market screwed some buyers after supply increased, too bad. A house is an investment. Buyers MUST be told that prices can go up as well as down and the best thing to do is to be in it for the long run and make sure you can afford your repayments.
3. Sell council houses
This is a practise that for some reason Labour did not embrace even though you'd have thought it was mostly their constituents. Margaret Thatcher was a big proponent of this in the '80s and I have to say I'm with her. I just don't see the point in not encouraging people in social housing to buy the home they leave in. I know that house ownership is not the be all and end all of life. So long as you have an affordable place you can call home that you can raise a family from I should think that should be good for most people. Germany has lower ownership rates than most countries and they are doing ok.
However, council houses though they are no longer built still make up a big part of the UK housing stock. Releasing some of that to the occupants and using the proceeds to build more would help increase the supply of houses for sale. This ties in with point 2 above. Councils have huge economies of scale and would be able to build and sell properties just as cheaply as house builders whilst still doing some good. They would be able to make money off properties. Crucially getting the social balance right so that yobs do not eventually take over new estates would be of utmost importance.
Overall these are all things that I think Labour failed to get right, which in my opinion led directly to the credit crunch affecting the UK the way it did. It's also ironic that one of the major issues of the upcoming election is immigration and as I heard one commentator say yesterday "Immigration is a proxy for Labour's failings in the economy, crime and housing. People love a scape-goat." You've got to admit that there's none better than the immigrant who takes someone's job, robs their kid and lives in a council home that they could have occupied. That this is not the case especially when it comes to the economy and housing is neither here nor there. The UK government would rather it was 'the immigrant wot did it' than the good man Mr Brown.
After the crisis began I felt that the government should have let the banks fail and only made sure that customers got their money back. I also believe that sub-prime borrowers should not have been rescued from their bad mortgage deals because if repossessions went up, houses prices would go down.
As it is we haven't had a proper correction in house prices and we're still sitting on a bubble. I believe the bubble didn't really burst. Some air was let out and now (horror of all horrors) we're starting to pump the bubble up again. No-one apart from the banks got burnt so borrowers are still looking to borrow more than they can afford. And now we hear that the politicians are planning to force the banks to lend. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not what the banks were doing before the politicians let it all get out of control?
