For a start, David Blanchflower is a Labour troll and this is borne out in the article on his call to ditch Brown. On top of that, he’s a BofE troll as well and therefore anything he says needs to be treated with suspicion.
Now what he’s doing, at the end of the former link, is to take a position diametrically opposite to that of the Tories on how to come out of the recession [natch] but put another way, it is pitting one line of economic thinking against another.
Which holds water? What do economists say on this? Do they know? Do they know anything but theory? I’m not an economist but I am a historian and a critical one at that. So what did 1929-37 teach?
Blanchflower says “you don’t cut public spending in a recession”. How do you economists feel about that? How does one first get production going again, providing jobs and then tackling debt? Articles like this, defending recession spending do not help – they draw red herrings across the trail.
The central factor, the bottom line, is that no western economy came out of the recession/depression by itself. Wiki is wildly inaccurate in saying that the Australian economy just “slowly recovered”. No it didn’t.
There was a world war, in case anyone’s forgotten and it was only after the devastation of that and the war machine kept people above the breadline for that time, in a socialized way, that the PTB finally allowed a period of recovery.
Don’t turn your nose up at this statement. FDR induced much of the trouble himself and then engineered the solution to it. The X factor – his charisma, did the rest with a bewildered people who were looking for a messiah figure at that time, Hoover being cast as the stool pigeon, poor sod.
Recession, crash, depression, war, recovery – that’s the formula.
Is it any accident that there is so much military activity keeping the pot boiling around the world? I ask a simple question – if you took all military interference from any government, all destabilizing foreign agencies, such as the CIA, out of the equation, if you dismantled the CBs, what situation would you have?
You’d have a series of micro- economies which would find their own level and trade unfettered; the Arabs, al Quaeda etc. would then have to actually come to our shores to cause their trouble and in a prosperous economy, free of cycles of boom and bust [there’d be no one to engineer these now], foreign viruses would not get much of a look in and would be more easily handled.
However, we’re not in an ideal world and the agents of destabilization have us in their grip. Look no further than the Fed, BofE and the ECB, with the BIS, IMF and WB behind them. That’s where the problem begins and their risible incompetence – I charge that they are not incompetent in the least but most aware of where the sub-prime and hedge business would lead, is going nicely along the laid out path.
The people are softened up, the riots in the streets will be next year or the year after and the 2012 I wrote about in 2006 on this blog, over and over, which occasioned ScotsToryB to ask me to explain myself, will finally come about. It has unfolded the way it was always going to and still … still … no one in the economic community is prepared to concede that they are following a flawed science, one which has a large measure of undue influence attached to it in the form of the CBs and the robber barons who are within and also backing them.
I’m no guru or soothsayer – the writing was on the wall in October 2006 in the FOMC report – it was as clear as day what was going down.
So no, we’re not coming out of this one without a reason. For what reason would production begin again? The change of government is a good start, to reverse the policies inimical to growth but the crippling debt, worse than anything before in the UK, is going to sap the early beginnings of the power of recovery.
Last depression, at micro-level, there were unemployed but this time there is personal debt in the thousands of pounds and dollars, an abandoned social charter which was based on the family and decency [more or less] in our dealings with others [witness the parliamentary expenses scandal] and we are a bereft society in just about every tick box.
Step in War to bring us all together again, let the plucky grit of the nation show through, let the flags be waved, let us wipe out the flower of our manhood once more [all those ASBOs who’ve been created and whom everyone think s need a “bit of discipline”] and at the end of that time, FDR’s “happy days are here again” can ring out in the streets. People can then remember the conflict fondly, with nostalgia, at all the annual memorial gatherings for the dead and destroyed, in perpetuity.
The only fly in the ointment is that it needn’t have happened in the first place – neither the recession, the war or the recovery – it was all entirely unnecessary.
Who will the war be between? Well, the EU bloc will be one side. That’s what they’re hellbent on getting going first. Nations will fall away, a hardcore perverted empire will remain and away they’ll go. Who’ll be the enemy? The Muslim nations? The U.S./U.K./Israel axis? Who knows – it’s irrelevant.
The main thing for the globalists is the Great Work of Ages.