Why the Conservatives lost its libertarian vote

Tim Montgomerie's thought-provoking article suggests that the Conservatives simply do not understand we libertarians.

A crucial point that most writers and politicians fail to realise or acknowledge is that Tim's "A.N.T.I."s tend to be self-reliant, responsible, principled and inherently fair-minded. They also tend to be libertarian in outlook.

We (ANTIs) noticed a long time ago that the 'mainstream' political parties have their own hidden agendas - one of them being their pro-EU stance. The deceit that is propaganda, was easily discovered via the simple mechanism of matching words with deeds. We discovered mismatches across the board.

Time and again, we have heard politicos make promises or assertions only to execute complete reversals at some later stage. This wouldn't be so bad if such reversals weren't accompanied by clever spin / vague language that can mean anything they want it to mean, at any time.

So often have we caught them out in lies that it is inconceivable that we might ever believe another word they say. Consequently, we watch, predict - and are most often proved right.

So I see no point in Cameron & Co trying to find out how to press our buttons, because he and his political buddies have now been denied access to them. Permanent exclusion, if you will. They have not earned our trust or our support.

The West's populace has been hoodwinked into accepting that globalisation, in the form of anti-protectionism, is a "good thing" and notice that Tim use the term "nationalist" almost as though nationalism were some sort of aberration - old-fashioned or somehow small-minded and backward. I wonder how many people have critically thought through these issues.

ANTIs tend not to believe that globalisation is a "good thing".

Just as immigration from poorer nations tends to level down salaries in the UK while making the standard of living more expensive (more demand), letting in cheap goods from developing countries makes our goods too expensive to produce. So, we lose our factories to the developing countries. And we give them our aid money as well?

Globalisation is the goal of the mult-national corporations, which have spearheaded these moves and have greatly profited from them, at our expense. For instance, via bank bailouts, body scanners, flu vaccines, cheap labour (intra-company transfers being the latest such scam) - etc.

In the old days, we effectively dealt with these issues - mainly affecting the in lower and middle incomers - via immigration controls and tariffs. Politicos have been weakening these reasonable devices as fast as the [hoodwinked] electorate allowed.

Global treaties (to which the electorate has not consented to subscribe) have become the primary means by which sovereignty of nations (and the democratic processes therein) is gradually destroyed, along with borders. Globalisation is killing the middle classes by savaging their culture and their disposable incomes. And as the EU has demonstrated, greased palms work wonderfully well as a means of 'helping' politicians to transfer their loyalties from their own people to the control structures that 'own' the globalisation treaties. (E.g., UN, WTO, WHO, ... etc).

By weakening the democratic process, globalisation chips away at our civil liberties, despite what Cameron & Co would have us believe.

Run Upon the Bankers

The bold encroachers on the deep
Gain by degrees huge tracts of land,
Till Neptune, with one general sweep,
Turns all again to barren strand.

The multitude's capricious pranks
Are said to represent the seas,
Breaking the bankers and the banks,
Resume their own whene'er they please.

Money, the life-blood of the nation,
Corrupts and stagnates in the veins,
Unless a proper circulation
Its motion and its heat maintains.

Because 'tis lordly not to pay,
Quakers and aldermen in state,
Like peers, have levees every day
Of duns attending at their gate.

We want our money on the nail;
The banker's ruin'd if he pays:
They seem to act an ancient tale;
The birds are met to strip the jays.

"Riches," the wisest monarch sings,
"Make pinions for themselves to fly;"
They fly like bats on parchment wings,
And geese their silver plumes supply.

No money left for squandering heirs!
Bills turn the lenders into debtors:
The wish of Nero now is theirs,
"That they had never known their letters."

Conceive the works of midnight hags,
Tormenting fools behind their backs:
Thus bankers, o'er their bills and bags,
Sit squeezing images of wax.

Conceive the whole enchantment broke;
The witches left in open air,
With power no more than other folk,
Exposed with all their magic ware.

So powerful are a banker's bills,
Where creditors demand their due;
They break up counters, doors, and tills,
And leave the empty chests in view.

Thus when an earthquake lets in light
Upon the god of gold and hell,
Unable to endure the sight,
He hides within his darkest cell.

As when a conjurer takes a lease
From Satan for a term of years,
The tenant's in a dismal case,
Whene'er the bloody bond appears.

A baited banker thus desponds,
From his own hand foresees his fall,
They have his soul, who have his bonds;
'Tis like the writing on the wall.

How will the caitiff wretch be scared,
When first he finds himself awake
At the last trumpet, unprepared,
And all his grand account to make!

For in that universal call,
Few bankers will to heaven be mounters;
They'll cry, "Ye shops, upon us fall!
Conceal and cover us, ye counters!"

When other hands the scales shall hold,
And they, in men's and angels' sight
Produced with all their bills and gold,
"Weigh'd in the balance and found light!"

Jonathan Swift

Hat tip: Con Home

Professor says Lisbon Treaty CAN be repealed

Well there's something to cheer us up!

Professor Anthony Bradley, Research Fellow, Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford, a witness to the HoC European Scrutiny Committee today*, says that he believes that the Lisbon Treaty CAN be repealed.

Clearly, here's a man who understand Constitutional and International law.

And clearly, Cameron was either lying, or was misguided - neither of which is terribly encouraging.

Still, this gives eurosceptics the ammo we need and I hope readers of this blog will spread the word widely!

The Committee proceedings (which needs a few seconds to load fully):
Annoyingly, the videos are set to autoplay ...



Witnesses

1. Professor Trevor Allan, Professor of Public Law and Jurisprudence, Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, and Professor Anthony Bradley, Research Fellow, Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford
2. Professor Adam Tomkins, Chair of Public Law, University of Glasgow

* Under discussion was the European Union Bill 2010-11 (with explanatory notes HERE).

Update:  Here's Monday's EU Scrutiny Committee meeting (22 Nov):



Witnesses

1. Professor Paul Craig, Professor in English Law, St John’s College, Oxford
2. Professor Trevor Hartley, London School of Economics

Nigel Farage attacks EU Parliament's unfairness over Bloom

German MEP Shultz feels free to call eurosceptics Nazis, but tries to have Godfrey Bloom thrown out of the EP for returning the compliment.

When Bloom refused to leave, Nigel Farage is called to speak and as usual, lays into the EP for favouring europhiles over eurosceptics, regardless of the rules.



... another incarnation:



And here's a clip of insults spewed forth by the europhiles - none of whom were chastised by the EP President for their inflamatory remarks:



Related:

• It's fine to call Euroscepts Nazis, but woe betide them if they return the insult - Dan Hannan

Nigel Farage lambasts EU for preventing Irish election

I didn't see or hear any gasps from commentators in the spineless MSM about why it might possible be deemed appropriate for Van Rompuy and Co to tell Ireland that they can't have an election until they accept the EU's imposed budget.

Fortunately, Nigel Farage has the b*lls to do so.

Bank Run 2010: Starve the Beast

Since Karen Tostado began her civil disobedience (via withdrawal of custom) campaign, people have begun to realise that we are in this global mess because of bankers and politicos, that our voices don't count, and that the best way to rid the world of their unholy, undemocratic system is to Starve the Beast, thus:

• stop buying from corporations;
• remove your funds from global financial institutions;
• pay cash, wherever possible;
• stop using credit cards and pay down debt;

The new Bank Run 2010 campaign, inspired by Eric Cantona, has just shot this important cause into the mainstream, where it should spread quickly. 

Here it is:

Dear media, 

For a short time, the international press reported    the call for a bankrun that we launched on Facebook to invite all those who wish to follow us to withdraw their money from their accounts on the  7th of December, 2010.

Since the publication of our call, people around the world mobilized to translate the text into their language to recreate the event in their country, to promote our initiative by all possible means and invite their contacts to do the same. Our call has met with a success that we did not dare to hope for. We are very happy about it and thanks to the personal investment of all those who, like us, want to enjoy a healthy banking system, equitable, affordable and accountable, we hope that over the weeks we can convince enough people in the world to finally be heard by our respective Governments.

For clarification purposes, we do not speak on behalf of any political party or from any labour union or religion. Our action is a civic involvement that keeps its distance from any form of hate or conspiracy theories that could be made on behalf of our movement, by others during their interventions on any areas of discussion, which is beyond our control. We only speak for ourselves and for no other organisations. We do not seek to harm anyone in particular. It's towards a corrupt, criminal and deadly system that we decided to oppose, as far as our ability our determination and respect for the law are concerned.

Why have we launched this action?

First of all, we wanted to raise public awareness on the functioning of the monetary system.

The overwhelming majority of holders of a bank accounts, savings accounts or even a pension plan, are unaware the way money is created or what the banks are doing with the money that 'they are given. They know nothing about the principle of money as debt. They do not know the reality behind words like "asset bubbles", "Treasury bills", "Hedge Funds" or "securitization". Hence the media in general make little effort to inform in an objective, transparent and accessible way to all. The only thing the public really understands is that most major financial crimes and insider trading remain mostly unpunished, but they are the first to pay the consequences.

Not only do we deplore how many questions posed by ordinary citizens on the economic situation remain without clear answers in your columns, but we also regret your lack of zeal in denouncing the measures that have allowed the global economic situation get to the point where it is today: a situation that has bought our heads of states and Governments to their knees before the rating agencies, trembling with fear at the idea that our currencies are deteriorating. 

Our politicians can't meet both the interests of financial markets and those of its citizens. So, it is time to remind them who they were elected to serve.

Strikes and demonstrations are no longer useful because whatever we do, we are not heard. And whatever they do, we are not consulted. So we decided to hit the system at its core - THE BANKING SYSTEM

Are we aware of the economic consequences that would result from the success of our action?

We are especially aware of the consequences that the deregulated and uncontrollable global financial system will have on our jobs, our health, our education, our pensions, our industries, our environment, our future, our dignity, the dignity of the citizens of countries that the system has enslaved by debt that they will never be able to repay to better appropriate their resources. This is the fate that awaits people if we in the West do not take ourselves in hand.

We are aware of the role this system plays in the prosperity of industrial empires whose interests depend on armed conflicts, diseases, food shortages and poverty prevailing in the countries that provide labour and natural resources at minimal cost. We are aware that this system will never have anything to gain from a world of peace and prosperity and that continuing to entrust our hard and honestly earned money to this sick system, we make ourselves accomplices of its thefts, for its crimes, its wars and the misery war generates.

What do we want?

We, the citizens of the 21st century, heirs of generations who have sacrificed so that we may live free and dignified, demand the creation of a CITIZENS BANK- serving citizens, a bank that would put our money away from speculative fever, free of all financial bubbles designed to burst one day, free of operations that transform our loans & assets and use our debt to buy other assets.

We want banks that lend only the wealth they have. Banks that help small and medium enterprises to relocate jobs;  bank lending at zero rate. (*) Banks that support projects that benefit citizens rather than the "market". Banks where we can deposit our money, which will then create a peaceful conscience within ourselves. Banks we will not have to be worry about. Banks whose success will sound the death knell of the merchants of death, disease and slavery. On the ruins of the old system, we want to build a banking system that will no longer sacrifice more human dignity on the altar of profit.

We, the people have finally been awakened by poverty and despair afflicting the most vulnerable among us - pensioners, welfare recipients or working poor - and is now threatening what remains of the middle class & entrepreneurs. Even these are exploited as milking cows, and we now simply want the cancellation of the public debts generated by the sick system that we no longer want. We do not want our taxes, our efforts, our resources to continue to feed this bottomless pit. We want to regain the power to coin money and free ourselves from the guidelines imposed on us by the European Union, which was built against the consent of the majority of people consulted by referendum, not to mention those whose country of origin have no organized popular consultation. 

(*) What the Islamic banks to successfully achieve by refusing usury for religious reasons, we can do for civic reasons.

To conclude

We draw your attention to the fact that even if we manage to relocate jobs, advanced technologies and machines have replaced human labour in a growing number of areas. They can produce more, faster, cheaper, and for these reasons, they create fear to those who wonder how they will earn their living tomorrow. This is unfortunate because since the invention of the wheel, technology is meant to improve the living conditions of mankind. If progress was meant to serve citizens rather than serve the market, we could make a quantum leap in technology development today paralyzed by special interest groups that are the primary beneficiaries of this system.

We already have the knowledge to free humanity of its needs in fossil and nuclear fuels and to produce and deliver drinking water throughout the planet at a lower cost, to produce fruits and vegetables, from ice fields to the desert. Poverty only exists on our planet because of the lack of political will of industrialized countries, subject to market forces. Pollution and waste of resources are the sad consequences of this obsolete system which we must put an end to. 

We, the inheritors of chaos, we have a world to rebuild. A world where work is no longer seen as slavery, and lack of work as a tragedy because we have been able to rethink how mankind of tomorrow will ensure its survival, education, well-being and old age.

We invite all those who want to follow us on this path - including you, dear journalists - to overcome their fears of the unknown and to lay the foundation stone for the construction of the system that will replace the current one, which with or without us, will eventually collapse when it has taken everything from us. We prefer not to wait until it arrives, or even worse, if in order to save the economy a new war would be declared.

We thank the footballer Eric Cantona for having instilled the idea that we have taken literally. The die is cast. Time will tell whether we were right. (07/11/2010)

Géraldine Feuillien
41, screenwriter
Belgium

Yann Sarfati

24, Actor, Director

France

Ex-MPs: how Britain was duped into joining the 'Common Market'

Thanks to James Goldsmith, we were spared the financial death throes that Eurozone members such as Ireland are now experiencing. We can only hope that the Euro is shredded by the markets, to force deadly fissures to appear in the EU façade and 'community'.

If Ireland takes IMF cash, it will largely be under the thumb of Britain - the country whose embrace it could not wait to excape as it rushed to the bosom of the EU.

If Ireland takes Merkel's (expropriation) of EU cash, then it can expect to lose its sovereignty to the EU. And, I meant to add, would be forced to raise its corporation tax and thereby reduce its competitiveness.

If Ireland does a deal with Britain, it will be even more firmly yoked to Britain than it ever was - this time, via the serfdom which accompanies unpayable debt.

What a a fine mess they've made. If only they'd listed to us and not signed that blasted treaty.

In 2008, before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Eric Deakins, MP for Walthamstow West 1970-74, MP for Walthamstow 1974-87, and junior minister for Trade (1974-76) and the DHSS (1976-79) in Labour governments under Wilson and Callaghan respectively, witnessed and have spoken out against the dishonesty exhibited by a succession of leaders in committing Britain to the European Project.

Described are the aims of the Treaty of Rome, and how in subsequent years the process of integration into a European political entity has gradually been forced through, against the wishes and without the knowledge of the majority of British people.

Little by little, we are being roped in by the EU, aided and abetted by their new best friends, Cameron and Hague, who know a thing or two about twisting language to sound like the truth, so to disguise a cleverly crafted lie.

If we do not make a stand, Britain will be in the Euro one day - or in an incarnation of it, the end game being complete political union under an unelected body of totalitarian technocrats, who will transform Britain into an ex-nation of serfs. Except for the politicos, of course, who will be rewarded handsomely.

The copyright of the video below is held by the Campaign for an Independent Britain.



Ht tip: UKIPWebmaster

Ex-Labour MPs Nigel Spearing and Eric Deakins tell of how the British people were duped. They were both Members of UK Parliament at the time of Britain's entry into the 'Common Market' and witnessed how it was pulled off.(7-video autoplay).



Hat tip: Free Britain Blog

Letter from Ireland

Dear Queen Lizzie and nice hair Dave,

Firstly, we have had the most wonderful time while you were on holidays. We fed the dog, put the washing on and cut the grass in the backyard. We thoroughly enjoyed being given such responsibility, and we feel like we have learned an awful lot from the experience. In short, we have most enjoyed our training programme. Although at 88 years long, it was perhaps a bit drawn out.

I suppose we have to own up to you - we had and accident while you were away. Like all good teenagers, when Mum and Dad went on holidays we had a party. I swear we only invited a few friends over for a game of cards and a few beers. However, our friends brought some of their friends, including some German bankers (and a few of our cousin bankers in the UK we didn't know) and some nut-job Americans named Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Ken Lewis, Bob Rubin, Dick Fuld and some other people we can't remember the names of. We thought they seemed like nice folks, but it turned out that they were horrible. They came to the party with weird substances we had never heard of before - things like CDOs, CDSs, ABSs, Ponzi finance (although they preferred to call it "structured finance", as apparently Ponzi is a term only used by pushers and the police) and over-night bank credit markets. They told us it was safe to take them and that it was just a little bit fun. We all took what the American bankers brought, thinking why not "give it the 'ol college try". We didn't know how narcotic the effect would be, and ended up getting a little too 'attached' to these financial 'fixes'.

Regrettably, the party got out of control. We tried our best to calm it down, and even called the police. This didn't help and by the time the police arrived the place was thrashed. We didn't intend for this to happen and spent many hours crying about the damage we had done and how disappointed you would be with us upon your return.

We have tried to clean the place up as best as possible. Some guys called Brian really got stuck into the clean up effort and we thought it best to let them at it. We couldn't have known they would try and cover the wine stains on the nice carpets with Dulux Matt Emulsion paint. None us know what they were thinking. They also seem to have thought that the best way to deal with the broken windows, ripped furniture and smashed collectibles was to burn the west wing of the house down and try to blame it on the Lehman brothers (some of the American bankers our friends brought). While trying to clean up the mess the horrible American and German bankers made, one of our friends, Anglo, had a seizure from taking to much credit and structured finance at the party. We tried to drive him to the hospital but one of the Brian's crashed the car into a wall on the way there - we're not too sure which one yet, but we think it was Brian Lenihan. It was written off, but Brian swears we can pay for it with our pocket money.

We hope you won't be too angry with us. We made a mistake and couldn't stop the party getting out of control. We have learned our lesson. The Germans also brought us to some fruity club called "The EU" while you were away. We now owe them money for running up a serious tab with them and they are threatening to hurt us if we don't pay. But we can't pay, we spent all the pocket money you left on stuff for the party. We are really, really sorry and will cut the grass for the next year as punishment. Please don't hate us, and please take us back. We didn't mean to ruin the place. Enclosed are the keys. Sorry about the mess.

Hugs and Kisses

Ireland

P.S. When the expensive sofas got ripped open, and some nutty German bankers pulled all the horse hair stuffing out, we tried to cut their hair so as to re-stuff the sofas. However, when we tried to do this, the French bullies, who hate us because we are friends with nice American multi-nationals, held us down and the nasty German bankers left us with some funky looking mullet haircuts. They are the ones who should have stupid looking mullets, not us, but the bullies are bigger than us so we couldn't do anything about it. We are very embarrassed by our new haircuts and are afraid to go out in public looking so stupid. Please don't be shocked when you see this, we didn't mean it, and we promise we will be on our best behaviour from now on.

Lifted, in its entirety, from munkimagik's terrific post.

Related:

• There is a way out for Ireland, and Britain should stand ready to offer it
• Greek rescue frays as Irish crisis drags on 
• How the EU plans to control Ireland 
• Ireland's peril is our peril too
• Ireland's crisis won't destroy the UK
• If you think the bank bailout was bad, wait until the mortgage defaults hit home
  

Trust

Gone are the days, so long ago now,
When trust in our Government held fast.
When true to their Oath and to their King,
Just a memory, from that long distant past.

Weak now are those in that place of trust,
Eagerly treacherous Treaties do sign,
For those that forbid the people a say,
Shout by hook or crook, ALL is mine.

But trust is such a gentle word,
It is fragile, needs loving tender care,
For once it is lost, it is forever out of reach,
To place again in their hands, no one dare

The belief in reliability, truth or strength
Is now misplaced for a while,
No confidence left for those in power.
For those deeds that are done are most vile.

Each five years in a ‘position of trust’,
An honour bestowed to cherish,
These most precious Islands of ours
That so many in the saving, did perish.

Never again will the people believe
Any word by an MP, friend or foe,
The people will only trust in themselves,
For it is they that hold the future you know.

Is it the government's business to make us happy?

The government wants to measure our happiness.

Why might that be?

If it seeks to measure happiness, it follows that it seeks to make us happy should it discover that we are not happy.  Yes?

The Soviets and the Nazis sought to keep the people happy and/or docile (whether via water fluoridation or propaganda) to forestall their desire to revolt.

Notably, the American Constitution codifies the right of the people to secure their own happiness.

What makes this government believe, apart from its desire for control, that it has any business spending our taxpayer money on finding out what makes us happy or making us happy?

If it believes that we are better able to spend our own money, surely it would believe that we are better able to make ourselves happy.

The government should just leave us alone and mind its own g*ddamned business!

Keynsians and 'expert' economists: How wrong can they be?

Roger Bootle (and his ilk), who failed to predict the financial crisis, believes that the rocketing price of gold can't last.

He goes on to suggest that advocates of gold are "conspiracy theorists", lauds the junk fiat 'currency' we're using, and asserts that the gold standard Britain was on was bad for the economy.

Should Bootle deign to look at a chart of government debt over centuries, he might notice that ever since the US and UK ditched the gold standard, government indebtedness increased exponentially as the value of their currencies decreased in relation to gold.




Why does he think that might be? Could it be that it is impossible to inflate a currency which is based on gold? Hmmm?

Unlike Bootle, Peter Schiff, Austrian Economist, predicted the financial crisis, and was ridiculed in 2006/7 by 'experts' such as Bootle. What I wouldn't give to see them eat their words.

Is John Redwood a eurosceptic?

John Redwood purports to be in favour of democracy and sound money. But is he?

He admits to being a consultant to the financial wing of the economy ... but do we know which wing that might be? Might it be the bankers? Do we know?

In response to his post, I posited:

The people have far less power to lobby the government than do corporations. Perversely, multi-national corporations have more power over national governments than local, which means that the globalist agenda marches forward, while the democratic deficit increases.

The populace hardly gets the opportunity to “throw the bums out”, when manifesto pledges are worthless and can be ignored at will, and when all parties subscribe to the same policies, regardless of whether the electorate supports such policies.

Notable mention: EU referendum.

Again, I ask why we pay interest on money created out of thin air. Were the government to issue its own currency, independent of any bank, no interest would need to be paid to any banks and the money supply could be controlled by [elected] Parliament – not the executive.

Why on earth do we not do this?

Is JR a eurosceptic, dry conservative, or is he playing games?

Roger Helmer's view of Cameron's 'Euroscepticism'

I believe we have the makings of a significant eurosceptic revolt. Helmer has supported the government as far as he could, but it appears that he, too, has found that the end of his tether is nigh.

He and other eurosceptics need our support. We can and should sustain them, because not ony do they speak our truths, but they stick their necks out to do so.

Please distribute Helmer's views widely, and support him in his efforts.

Campaign to end Fractional Reserve Banking - funny money

A significant point in history happened at about 1.30pm on 17th September 2010.

Douglas Carswell MP announced a bill that would end fractional reserve banking. It's produced below in full (directly from Hansard), with some explanatory comments in [brackets]. Bolding added for emphasis.

The bill passed to a second reading, which will be held on Friday 19th November 2010. Mark your calendars.



"Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): I beg to move,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for connected purposes.

[Demand deposits are bank account deposits that can be withdrawn on demand - you don't need to give any notice before demanding your money back, for example.]

"Who owns the money in your bank account? That small question has profound implications. According to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs—but it is not. Money deposited in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than 200 years, legally the property of the bank, rather than the account holder. Were any hon. Members to deposit £100 at their bank this afternoon or, rather improbably, if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was to manage to do so on any Member’s behalf, the bank would then be free to lend on approximately £97 of it. Even under the new capital ratio requirements, the bank could lend on more than 90% of what one deposited. Indeed, bank A could then lend on £97 of the initial £100 deposit to another bank—bank B—which could then lend on 97% of the value. The lending would go round and round until, as we saw at the height of the credit boom, for every £1 deposited banks would have piled up more than £40-worth of accumulated credit of one form or another.

"Banks enjoy a form of legal privilege extended to no other area of business that I am aware of—it is a form of legal privilege. I am sure that some hon. Members, in full compliance with IPSA rules, may have rented a flat, and they do not need me, or indeed IPSA, to explain that having done so they are, in general, not allowed to sub-let it to someone else. Anyone who tried to do that would find that their landlord would most likely eject them. So why are banks allowed to sub-let people’s money many times over without their consent?

"My Bill would give account holders legal ownership of their deposits, unless they indicated otherwise when opening the account. In other words, there would henceforth be two categories of bank account: deposit-taking accounts for investment purposes, and deposit-taking accounts for storage purposes.

[This is the system recommended by proposals such as Irving Fisher's 100% Money solution and the modern full reserve banking proposal available at www.BankofEnglandAct.co.uk]

"Banks would remain at liberty to lend on money deposited in the investment accounts, but not on money deposited in the storage accounts. As such, the idea is not a million miles away from the idea of 100% gilt-backed storage accounts proposed by other hon. Members and the Governor of the Bank of England.

[Mervyn King is broadly in favour of ending fractional reserve banking, even if he hasn't said so in those exact words.]

"My Bill is not just a consumer-protection measure; it also aims to remove a curious legal exemption for banks that has profound implications on the whole economy. Precisely because they are able to treat one’s deposit as an investment in a giant credit pyramid, banks are able to conjure up credit. In most industries, when demand rises businesses produce more in response. The legal privilege extended to banks prevents that basic market mechanism from working, with disastrous consequences.

"As I shall explain, if the market mechanism worked as it should, once demand for credit started to increase in an economy, banks would raise the price of credit—interest rates—in order to encourage more savings. More folk would save as a result, as rates rose. That would allow banks to extend credit in proportion to savings. Were banks like any other business, they would find that when demand for what they supply lets rip, they would be constrained in their ability to supply credit by the pricing mechanism. That is, alas, not the case with our system of fractional reserve banking. Able to treat people’s money as their own, banks can carry on lending against it, without necessarily raising the price of credit. The pricing mechanism does not rein in the growth in credit as it should. Unrestrained by the pricing mechanism, we therefore get credit bubbles. To satisfy runaway demand for credit, banks produce great candy-floss piles of the stuff. The sugar rush feels great for a while, but that sugar-rush credit creates an expansion in capacity in the economy that is not backed by real savings. It is not justified in terms of someone else’s deferred consumption, so the credit boom creates unsustainable over-consumption.

"Policy makers, not least in this Chamber, regardless of who has been in office, have had to face the unenviable choice between letting the edifice of crony capitalism come crashing down, with calamitous consequences for the rest of us, or printing more real money to shore up this Ponzi scheme—and the people who built it—and in doing so devalue our currency to keep the pyramid afloat.

"Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.

"The Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that is not so. Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit backed by savings. In other words, it would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the cliché of our day, sustainable.

"Ministers have spoken of their lofty ambition to rebalance the economy from one based on consumption to one founded on producing things. A good place to begin might be to allow a law that permits storage bank accounts that do not permit banks to mass-produce phoney credit in a way that ultimately favours consumers and debtors over those who create wealth. With honest money, instead of being the nation of indebted consumers that we have become, Britons might become again the producers and savers we once were.

"With a choice between the new storage accounts and investment accounts, no longer would private individuals find themselves co-opted as unwilling—and indeed unaware—investors in madcap deals through credit instruments that few even of the banks’ own boards seem to understand."

Join the campaign!

Climate Change end-game in sight?

As we approach the first anniversary of the disclosure of the 'climategate' emails, we are already entering the end-game of the greatest scientific scam of all time.

In the words of Judith Curry, " A year ago you were top of the world. How have things been going for you lately?".

'Climategate' was undoubtedly the tipping point . The general public may not understand greenhouse gas theory but they certainly know deception when they see it.

Then came the Copenhagen Conference; fifty days to save the world, we were told.

Do you remember that polar bear sculpted from ice which was supposed to melt as the conference proceeded to symbolically demonstrate that global warming was real? Well, unfortunately for the sculptor, this coincided with the coldest winter for 30 years and so the poor polar bear managed to survive as a monument to the stupidity of the warmist movement.

As the greatest scientific scandal of all time unwinds, the task now is to find a way to prevent this 'stampede behaviour' from ever happening again in the name of science.We have allowed science education and the capability for critical thinking to drop below a critical level. Future generations will be amazed that their 21st century ancestors could have been so stupid.

Hat tip: poster Bomber the Cat

Quote of the day

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel-Prize-winning economist

Geert Wilders' trial and the BBC's hate campaign

Geert Wilders' trial has been dissolved and he may be retried by a different judge, or the charges against him might be dropped altogether.

Needless to say, the BBC isn't too happy about that. If anyone is responsible for engendering hate, it is surely the BBC.

Perhaps the government can challenge the BBC's hegemony next year by levelling charges of inciting hate.

Nah. It doesn't have the balls.

How libertarians can capture hearts and minds

Dr Sean Gabb*, libertarian thinker extraordinaire, explains how we libertarians can capture the hearts and minds of the public, via the media, in the same way that the left did in the previous century.

He argues that the left spawned brilliant thinkers - prolific authors, playwrites, movie and television producers who made and won the socialist argument in the public's mind, without even talking about politics.

He explains why libertarians have captured the blogosphere and how we can make the internet work for us.

Our opportunities are here and now, which is precisely why the left is attempting to shut down the internet and free speech.



* Dr Sean Gabb, Libertarian Alliance

Internet freedom threat: Who is behind it?

The Libertarian Alliance conference, held in London from 30th - 31st October, hosted speaker Malcolm Hutty, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange - one of the top libertarian thinkers on the Internet and the ways in which it is under threat. I.e., who poses the threat(s) and why.

He sees it as his job to anticipate government and corporate action which will impinge on internet freedom and liberty, generally.

Here, he gives us the benefit of his wisdom.

New search engine - 'Google-killer'

'Google-killer' Blekko might just be the search engine I've been waiting for. It's hugely customisable and provides valuable stats facilities - on any site of your choosing! It allows you to filter out the dross and finely tune your search criteria.

Cancerous government

Another terrific comment in the DT by Buda Nevey on the subject of Ireland's economic demise and its causes. I love that man!

Time is running out for Western prosperity. Our Governments have meddled in the business of wealth creation far too much and for far too long and their plans to continue doing so are jeopardising recovery. Fortunately, the opposite could be the case, if we choose to accept 'The Mission'.

What is my advice? Well if Governments showed more respect for private property, personal responsibility and contractual arrangements, by undertaking a radical simplification and reduction of taxes and interference in our lives, businesses and households would regain the confidence of adjusting their budgets and investments for the longer-term and the stifling uncertainties and deadening hand produced by constant change and short-term political initiatives would no longer blight our progress. Does it ever occur to politicians that the steady drip-feed of statutes, budget changes, welfare changes and tax changes, every year, is deleterious to responsible household and business decision-making? I really do wonder. The unsettling expectation of government direction in every aspect of our lives has produced a damaging cultural servitude since the Common Law countries accepted general taxation and switched to industrial-scale law-making by Parliament, international bodies, regulatory quangos and now the micro-managing, centralising EU. Democracy has been no restraint on this steady drift, because governments and vested interests have always found a way of ignoring, bribing or subverting public opinion. Indeed government is a manufacturer of cancerous vested interests used to divide us as well as being one in its own right. Let me illustrate this evil of short-termism with one topical example. With all the recent shenanigans of government interference in pensions, who has any confidence that money put aside will be left untouched by future politicians? The answer to that question should have been given more serious thought, because the hole in pensions is just as important as the hole in our banks. The Government should introduce a referendum-lock on future pension arrangements to inspire some confidence.

What about the Euro in all this? Well, it's the same story. I am not a supporter of the Euro, but we should be honest enough to admit that it is not the name on a piece of paper, used as a promissory note, that we should be blaming for the woes in Ireland and elsewhere. The Pound is a federal currency for the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. No-one is presently proposing that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland introduce their own currencies in order to gain some illusory competitive advantage in devaluation with England. The Euro is a target for critcism, because it is the symbol and political instrument of those who wish to create a United Europe by stealth (why not do it openly) and to this end politicians have exacted a huge and distorting transfer of resources in mutual aid taxation and regulation since the inception of the Common Market and EMU. This comes in the form of membership fees, costing hundreds of billions over the last forty years, (did it ever occur to anyone that free trade shouldn't cost this much), such as regional aid, the CAP, Fisheries and infrastructure projects, the abuse of fiscal and monetary policy to support the ECU, (the SNAKE, shadowing the Deutschmark, the ERM, the Maastricht Criteria used by the PIIGS as cover for admission to the Euro, Brown selling gold reserves to buy Euros and political control of interest rates from the ECB). Add to that the cascading interference of politicans through all manner of regulations and petty bureaucracy (on top of national, regional and local political interference), is it surprising that the business and social environment no longer favours responsible behaviour or long-term subsidy-free investment or hard work, but encourages greed and dependence and short-term profit-taking and the attendant dishonesty of making a fast buck, welfare or expense claim, with risk and social costs priced into the system accordingly. Just to talk about it makes my head spin.

So step back from the Euro hysteria for a moment and you see that this is what happens with the federal Pound. Westminster uses mutual aid transfers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Investments are politicised with nationalisation, public expenditure transfers (think shipbuilding and defence contracts, for example) and public sector employment and direct grants in local taxation and regional and industrial aid and on and on it goes. The same is true even within England, with north-south transfers. We don't blame the Pound for this farce; this is the result of big government interference and it is equally misleading to blame any common currency, if it is used for its proper purpose. It should be just a common medium of exchange between private businesses and individuals, like a Visa transaction (why not let them manage it) and if politicians want to keep the Euro, they should respect this simple utility, stop using it for politicial ends and resile from the Stabilisation Fund. What we need is a Freedom Fund, one that will ease the transition to a low tax, small-State paradigm of doing business with government doing less. Efficiency drives are a temporary illusion.

It is not better government that we need, but less government. When are we going to learn this lesson?The politicians connived with central bankers in the creative accounting that allowed the PIIGS into the Euro. On the back of this creative accounting, bankers lent money to the PIIGS, which has spiralled into this doomed €440 billion 'rescue package' (yet more costly mutual aid for bankers, at the expense of taxpayers, deferring the inevitable). The politicians connived with central bankers in setting politicised interest rates, which fuelled the asset bubble bursting around us now. The politicians set the ever-changing tax and regulatory framework that has scared businesses, householders and banks to think short-term and take early and excessive profits and bonuses out of their immature investments (including homes) for fear of creeping taxation and inflation. The politicians have created a business and employment environment in which subsidy, fraud (think self-certified mortgages), tax avoidance (and evasion) and welfare dependence are abundant. Let us never forget that it was a politician (President Clinton) that legally compelled lending to 'sub-prime' borrowers in the US that helped trigger the present asset crisis. It was Greenspan, Brown and the ECB that set inflationary interest rates across the whole Western World after 9/11, adding more fuel to the flames in a cycle of personal, corporate and government debt-bingeing, which has seen money go to the Far East for crap Chinese exports and come back to us to be borrowed again and again (how they must be laughing). It was opportunistic politicians that exploited the Debt Bubble consequences of their short-termist bankers and businesses in order to swell the tax coffers for our bankrupt Ponzi welfare schemes and public spending. Is it any wonder that our economies are plagued by persistent fears of inflation when the governments and central bankers misuse the money supply and the risks and costs of short-term political interference have to be priced into the activities of every one of us? What ties all of these woes together is big government. The populist rush for more stringent banking regulation and political accountability is therefore misconceived. What we need is fewer politicians and central bankers and both doing a lot less interfering, but we do need more judges doing a lot more enforcement of contractual obligations to restore commercial integrity.

I had hoped when Enlargement admitted the new aspiring tigers of Eastern Europe, with their flat taxes and post-communist enthusiasm, that wiser counsels in the EU would give priority to an agenda of budget reduction, tax simplification and liberalisation, but they have neglected the foundations of wealth creation in their counter-productive pursuit of a political agenda and the tigers have been corrupted by the Grand Projet, EU largesse and imported bureaucracy. Pity.

I had hoped when the Debt Crisis started to unfold that the imperative for change and part of the trillions being applied to bandage the opening wounds would be used more imaginatively to ease the passage of big-State interference from our lives with dramatic tax and regulatory reform. Another opportunity so far missed.

I remain hopeful that the American Tea Party Movement will restore some semblance of fiscal and monetary rectitude to the most powerful beacon of freedom still left in the World and bring change to the socialist thinking of our own blinkered and short-termist politicians, but here in the UK, Cameron's Coalition appears to have bought into the travesty that led us here. How quickly he has shown himself to be a stupid and irresponsible leader (I didn't vote for him, I thought the omens of treachery were there all along).

Time is indeed running out and the lights are dimming on our democracy too, although our Eastern cousins should fare better. What makes this all so pointless and tragic is that the solutions really are within our grasp. Just to acknowledge them in a collective will of political leadership would be a radical boost to market sentiment (how about a G8 for freedom). The generations who will hopefully 'ease' us out of this mess, one way or another, deserve the truth and the process will be made much more fruitful and promising if we are going in the right direction.

Related:

• Nightmare scenario of Dutch referendum returns to haunt EU

Can the Tea Partiers remove the slime from Washington?

John Redwood is sort of on the right track, when it comes to the breath of fresh air that the Tea Party candidates will inject into the political scenery in Washington, following the drubbing that the Dems got in the mid-term elections.

But he seems to fall for the idea that government in Washington governs for the good of the people, in general - viz:

They are split over what kind of people Americans are, and what kind of society they wish to live in.

No. The fiscally incontinent big-government incumbents know exactly what kind of people the Americans are – they just don’t care.

They care nothing about the constitution, the rule of law or what’s ‘fair’. They care only about their boondoggles – having their palms greased by the corporations who buy influence.

Washington is a racket, run by criminals. Some contend that just as the Mafia morphed into lawyers, accountants and other professional types, to go legit, so they morphed from there into the political classes and financial industry maestros, most of the morass springing from Columbia and Chicago. This seems somewhat plausible.

Regardless, the political incumbents are bent as hell, with few exceptions. The modus operandus is to buy or bully. The EU’s MO is the same, as I’m sure you’ve realised.

So, unless the new intake manages to introduce fixed term limits of 4 to 5 years per politico, they will themselves be corrupted by the slime in Washington.

After all, this type of corruption has worked for the power brokers for centuries.

How US voting is rigged

Related:

• Election Day fraud found all over U.S.

Compromising principles for "security"

Paul Goodman writes an interesting piece at Con Home, although he seems to believe that we should give up a little of our freedom in order for the state to protect us.

He regards those who oppose that view as being "absolutists".

Absolutists?

Libertarians hold certain principles, based on logic and truth. When we begin to make exceptions to principles, those principle are compromised - frequently, for little more than political expediency or to "save costs". (E.g., the excuse for scrapping jury trials was expense).

Neither of these reasons or excuses is acceptable and the acceptance of these reasons by the body politic over past decades is what has landed us with the ridiculous, complicated, incoherent and contradictory clutch of laws that we now have on our statute books.

Politicians have become unpopular precisely because they have compromised their principles.

If holding true to one's principles is absolutism, then I'm proud to be an absolutist; it is not a dirty word, so let's not allow it to become one.

I do not believe it is necessary to give up a smidgeon of liberty in return for "security" offered by the state. If the state can't find suitable solutions to security issues, then it needs to try a bit harder.