SHsssSSSHHHHH

The BBC at work….legally obliged to be impartial…….and yet…..

‘According to Israeli government figures, 856,000 Jews fled Arab countries in four years after the state was created in 1948. Officials say they lost billions of dollars’ worth of property and assets. A new government campaign aims to raise awareness of their plight. More controversially it aims to equate it with that of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who lost their homes in Israel. It insists that both cases are part of the same core issue that must be addressed by any future peace talks. ‘

 

‘Controversial’? How is it in any way controversial except to someone who doesn’t want to diminish the Palestinian case?  And that’s surely not a BBC reporter..is it?

Ahh….that’s why…..

‘Among the requests from both sides in the conflict is that we should more frequently recount its history in our daily journalism. We do not think daily news journalists have the time in their reports to go into such a level of detail, not least as there are two versions of the history.

 

The BBC’s and the Truth.

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Daniel Nasaw’s Horrible History Lesson

Daniel Nasaw is one of the handful of Beeboids working the US beat who was actually born and raised here. In his latest feature for the BBC online Magazine, a “From Our Own Correspondent” segment, he visits a Civil War battle reenactment to use as a metaphor for a primary Narrative about the current state of US politics we hear across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting: an historic, extreme polarization.

Nasaw doesn’t so much get the basic relevant history bits of the Civil War wrong as he does the lesson which he’s trying to invent from it.

Antietam: Re-enacting a bloody 1862 US Civil War battle

(Audio “From Our Own Correspondent” version is here, beginning @17:18)

In addition to the morale-boosting effect for the North (it was a strategic draw, really but ended Gen. Lee’s push into Union territory), the Battle of Antietam is pretty legendary because of the carnage, so it’s a good choice for Nasaw to hold up as a symbol of how horrible the splitting of the nation was. Which becomes the problem, as we’ll soon see. First, a bit about the whole reenactment thing, which seems to baffle our not-so-humble correspondent as well as amuse him much in the way natives in exotic locations reenacting colorful tribal rituals amuse the tourists.

It really is a pretty big hobby, as Nasaw says. Lots of groups all around the country – even in places that weren’t remotely involved in the conflict – many with the same kind of enthusiasm and attention to detail as any historical hobbyist group. They can be as hardcore as any bunch of enthusiasts, and relaxed about it at the same time. They’re there mostly to have fun rather than declare their allegiance to any political ideology. Not that the history behind the game isn’t on some people’s minds in many cases.

Unlike Nasaw, who seems to have approached this event from another culture entirely, I’ve actually participated in one of these battle reenactments. As these things happen,  a friend of a friend knew someone involved with the local historical society who was putting on one of these battles. They needed bodies, so I jumped at the chance. Also unlike Nasaw, I had no ancestors involved in the Civil War, as mine didn’t even get to the US until more than almost 40 years after it was over. I ended up dressing for the Confederate (“Rebel”) side, simply because that’s where they needed bodies. I was supplied with a period costume of civilian clothing, not a uniform, as the South couldn’t always afford everything for their troops. This also struck home the fact that – as Nasaw points out but apparently doesn’t accept – many really did come out to fight for their homes and safety of their families more than for any political ideal, or to keep their right to own slaves.

We did a few minutes of actual drills from some period military book, and learned to load and fire the percussion muskets (all replicas, not rifled IIRC) used at the time. Having to stand there furiously attempting to reload after one shot while a wall of guns fired at me from the other side, and the next rank of my team running forwards into the volley to their next spot before taking their next shot, told me in about thirty seconds a whole lot more about why these battles were so bloody and not always conclusive than anything I’d ever read on the subject. It’s all a bit of a joke to Nasaw, but it can be a real lesson. As for who decides who dies when, naturally I asked the same thing he did, but didn’t take offense like he seemed to at being told that was a rookie question.  As it turned out, there were a few veterans in charge of each side who would just occasionally say, “You’re dead….now you can die….we need a couple people to die on this next volley,” and so on. Not a big deal.

Now for why Nasaw is wrong to use the Civil War for the message he wants to get across. First of all, the concern about States’ Rights goes back long before the Civil War, right back to the founding of the United States of America. It was a vital issue debated by the founders for years before and after independence. In fact, the Civil War wasn’t even the first time secession came into the picture. Of course, what’s going on here is that Nasaw is trying cast light on the polarized political situation we’re in today. We keep hearing from our media elites that the country is more divided, political discourse is more polarized than ever before. Mark Mardell likes to cite claims of grizzled veterans that we all used to get along so well, politicians were never so partisan, etc., as part of his proof that it’s never been this bad before. They’re all at it, really, because that’s the same Narrative we hear from the mainstream Left-leaning media in the US. And they’ve been doing it for some time, not just recently. It all started, we’re supposed to believe, when the US elected a black man as President. All those anti-Bush protests and the ChimpyMcBushitler posters and celebrities crying about Bush hating black people after Katrina, that wasn’t polarization, you see. It’s only when a Democrat President – particularly this One – doesn’t get His way that we’ve suddenly gone horribly wrong. For example:

March 2010, Mardell: Is US politics nastier than ever?

January 2011: Jonny Dymond ponders “the anger and polarisation apparent in today’s American polity” in regards to a mentally unstable person attempting to assassinate a Democrat politician and murdering a few people in the process

October 2011, Mardell: US ‘divided society’ protests spread (Oh, hang on, that was about their darling Occupiers’ class-war rhetoric, and no Beeboid was fretting about how they were polarizing politics)

August 2012: Paul Mason says the pick of Paul Ryan for VP has “polarized US politics”

September 2012, Justin Webb: What happened to America’s community spirit?

Andrew Marr’s upcoming special film about the four years of The Obamessiah’s reign will see him push the same Narrative.

I’m sure everyone has seen or heard other examples as well. So what’s the most obvious historical example of the US being divided? Exactly. Because subtlety isn’t a quality trait with media types bent on getting convincing you about their world view, Nasaw needs to spell out just how relevant this is to today’s situation. It’s where he delves into the issue of States’ Rights and slavery that he gets it wrong.

Long before Lincoln was elected, slavery was a known problem. In fact, while quite a few founders were slave owners, quite a few more were not, and even the top figures who owned slaves at the time knew it was a bad idea. However, there’s a significant economic dimension to the problem as well. Slavery was actually kind of dying out because the trade became less economically viable, but the arrival of the cotton gin kept it going long after its sell-by date, to the point where it was becoming massively difficult to shift the South’s economic engine away from it. The South would have had to diversify economically eventually, but it wasn’t going to happen any time soon. Nasaw, like so many who don’t actually understand the history, sees the Civil War as being exclusively about protecting slavery and the concept of States’ Rights as a smokescreen behind which to hide it. Although it’s watered down in the printed version, in the audio version Nasaw is more explicit about this (beginning @19:18:)

“That’s the familiar slogan wielded by Americans who want to whitewash the stain of slavery from the War’s glory.”

Well, yes and no. While it’s true that slavery was the key right which led to the secession, it’s not something that’s been a major issue from the start. There’s also the fact that many in the South have a particular cultural heritage they want to defend (this feeling might just be familiar to some of you, no?) which has precious little to do with slavery. That gets suppressed every time someone whacks them with the slavery cudgel, which leads to no small amount of resentment. Plus we mustn’t forget the trials of the Reconstruction, when much of the South was occupied militarily and politically by the North. In some places they tend to teach that era of history as if Gen. Sherman left only last week and the remains of buildings are still smoldering in the streets. That’s caused a scar on the regional psyche which goes far beyond a single issue. In short, there’s much, much more to the whole thing than slavery alone. But that muddles the issue, and gets in the way of the metaphor you’re meant to have jammed into your brains. It’s possible that Nasaw is simply unaware of all this, didn’t learn anything other than the standard liberal tropes (history being not only written by the victors but updated by future elites), and really does see it in the simplistic terms he lays out here due to ignorance and not just pure ideology. In “reporting” from this biased perspective, he’s denigrating millions of United Statesians.

Nasaw gets a Civil War expert to tell us that today’s debate goes all the way back to the War, it actually goes back much further. Of course a Civil War expert is going to focus on his area, and of course this makes it a nice red herring. It’s here where Nasaw starts to make some offensive parallels. His goal is to make a direct tie from today’s Tea Party protests and critics of ObamaCare to those desirous of keeping slavery going. He wants to show that it’s the same mentality, the same people, the same belief system. That’s how he sees it, and that’s the story he set out to tell.

I probably don’t need to point out how this also ties right in with the overall BBC Narrative that there is really no legitimate opposition to the President’s policies and that all those complaints are really driven by crypt0-racism, but reminders can be found here, here, here, and here.

While many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, many equally felt that it was wrong, and that it was something that would eventually have to go away. But more important than that specific issue is that, besides the North-South divide we know about today, there was also originally a kind of chasm between the wealthy Eastern States – industrial and mercantile Northeast, coastal trade cities, etc. – and the poorer, rural West. When I say “West”, however, I’m using it as defined at the end of the 18th Century. Back then, the western parts of Kentucky and Tennessee were a largely unexplored frontier. In other words, very rural, and not wealthy. Even in the country’s early years there was a kind of resentment from those States.

Added to this strain is the more obvious cultural division between the more industrial, mercantile North and the largely agrarian South. Different European heritages also played a part. A further cultural difference was that many in the Southern region looked to Republican Rome for an example of how things should work. This was fine for a largely agrarian nation, not so much for an increasingly urban and commerce-driven one. So there was an innate suspicion of too much central government power from the very start, and for a variety of reasons. Slavery was not the only causus belli.

In fact, the State of New York under Governor Clinton (not the guy from Parliament-Funkadelic, and no relation to the former President) threatened to secede back in 1788 because he felt the ratification of the very Constitution we’re talking about today actually went too far in curtailing his own State’s autonomy. That was all about finalizing borders and maintaining the independence of a country – a State with a capital “S”, which is why I tend to write it that way – which he had been enjoying until then. Like several other key figures, he accepted it once they added the Bill of Rights. Even more important was Clinton’s objection to the new Federal Government imposing a national tariff on foreign commerce, New York’s cash cow. In other words, very much like the kind of objection involving States’ Rights and the Federal Government’s ability to tax commerce we heard about ObamaCare in front of the Supreme Court. More secessionist noise was going on under President Jefferson a few years later for other reasons, which is partly why Clinton was brought in as his Vice President (Somebody ask Paul Mason about a VP pick polarizing the country, right?). Yet Nasaw wants you to focus exclusively on slavery when discussing the concept.

Basically, the Civil War was the culmination of all this stuff, which had been brewing for more than 75 years. The right of secession had long been accepted. The irony of the early instigators of the Revolution’s feelings of being slaves to the British Crown while owning slaves themselves wasn’t lost on them. They knew, but were for reasons best left to people much more intelligent and informed than I, ultimately incapable of sorting it out early on. Lessons hadn’t been learned well enough, the South became too economically dependent on free labor, a lot of people in power didn’t want to suddenly have hundreds of thousands of opposition voters appear on the scene all at once (like in Mississippi, for example, where blacks would have instantly outnumbered whites) and the rest is…well, you know.

But Nasaw doesn’t seem to know any of this. All he sees is a chance to equate slavery enthusiasts with people who oppose a Federal Government wanting to “reform healthcare systems”. The very term “reform” is loaded with positive connotations, a biased perspective on its own, although that’s a discussion for another time, and one we’ve had before anyway. Any opposition, then, to new powers of the Federal Government are similarly tainted. This stifles debate even before it begins. When a couple of the people he meets object, Nasaw sneers. He gives the game away when he asks those playing the Union side if they feel “morally superior” to the Rebels. It’s all black and white to him (no pun intended, although it’s pretty unavoidable).

If one is going to have an honest discussion about the origins of the States’ Rights debate, one has to go way past the Civil War, all the way back to the years before the founding of the country. The concept is entrenched in the US Constitution for a reason: it was vitally important to the founders, who had been debating the topic for years already. It’s about something far beyond a single issue, even one as culturally and morally important as slavery. To simply dismiss the whole thing by tainting it with support for slavery, full stop (subtext: You’re A Racist!), does a disservice to the audience, to the debate itself, and to the nation’s history.

I understand that no humble correspondent can be an expert on every subject, and it’s impossible to do in-depth research for every story. But this is a clear example of a reporter having a preconceived story he wants to tell, one that is exactly in line with the perspective put forth by nearly every other report on the subject, and really screwing with history to get his point across.

 

PS: Amusingly, Justin Rowlatt’s preceding segment about Las Vegas’ economic struggles gives you in a few seconds more information about the looming economic catastrophe in China than pretty much all other BBC reporting in the last few months put together. Unfortunately, though, he’s yet another Beeboid who see that the money has run out but is unable to grasp why that is.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The BBC Narrows Your Horizons

Peter Hitchens was invited to be a talking head on Flanders’ ‘Masters of Money’ programme on Marx.

Here is his take on it: 

He tells us his opinion of Marx….‘Marx turns out not to have been the prophet of Lenin and Stalin, who hated God, wanted absolute power and needed a pretext for seizing it, but to have been the prophet of the Canton sweatshop, the computer age and the sweeping away of national borders.’

 And then what Flanders is interested in….‘Alas, Miss Flanders’s programme  is much more about whether Marx has anything to say about the current banking crisis. In my view, the answer to that is a resounding ‘Nope’.

There’s also a silly failed joke about how a ‘Marxist Broadcasting Corporation’ would have reported the events of the last few years, which looks to me remarkably like what the BBC has actually been doing.

See for yourselves on Monday evening.’

 

Rather  pointless asking if Marx can teach us anything because even a child would recognise that Marxism is a busted flush….just as a child rapidly spots the flaws in religion.

 

And just as Flanders may seem to have avoided the wider implications of Marx and his intended violent revolution the BBC seem also to have done the same with the life of Jesus in Marr’s ‘History of The World’.  missing out his life and teachings.  Wonder if they will do the same for Muhammed or Hitler?

‘Cavalier’ Marr is accused of ignoring Jesus while honouring Buddhism in his BBC history of the world.

Christians say the BBC is guilty of ‘a glaring oversight’ for excluding Christ.

Eight-part series contains only a handful of references to Jesus. 

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Andrew Marr’s History Of The World is not a religious programme nor a history of religion. The series tells the story of the evolution of civilisation.’

 

Must be inconvenient that Western civilisation was built on the values derived from Christianity and the authority vested in the Church….never mind, ignore the teachings of the founder of the religion…..what have they got to do with it? 

 

‘Mr Marr said the programme had decided to begin its history of Christianity with St Paul as he had been crucial to the transformation of Christianity into a major religion.’


Bit like doing a history of the BBC and missing out Lord Reith….and only starting from when it ‘really took off’ in the TV age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

SEX CRIME COVER UP?

So, did the BBC cover up sex crimes allegedly carried out by Sir Jimmy Savile?

The BBC shelved a Newsnight investigation into allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused a teenage girl in his dressing room at Television Centre, it has emerged. The woman claimed that the presenter molested her when she was 14 or 15 after inviting her to recordings of Clunk Click, his 1970s BBC family show.

Newsnight tracked down several other women who claimed that Savile used his role on the programme to groom and abuse teenage girls. Reporters on the current affairs programme were also told of claims that two other celebrities, both still alive, sexually abused girls at Television Centre in the 1970s. The BBC had hoped to broadcast the Newsnight report in December, two months after Savile’s death, but bosses ordered that the investigation be dropped. Instead, the corporation screened two tribute programmes celebrating Savile’s lengthy BBC career as presenter of Jim’ll Fix It and Top of the Pops, and also as a Radio 1 DJ.

How’s about THAT then?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Unidentified Flanders’ Obbligato

Ever wondered where Flanders gets her more interesting ideas?

You know those whacky, just might work in  a month of sundays type ideas.

Here could be the answer……..The BBC’s favourite economist Paul Krugman lays it on the line…Not Plan B, or Z or X….but Plan UFO…..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzvMGuRXvs

 

Having watched the video can’t help thinking they’re here already.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

‘It seems to be JK Rowling week on the BBC.’

 

We’ve heard a lot about the Muslim sex gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere and the failure to act by any of those in authority due to concerns about race and culture.

Part of that was of course that the girls were white and working class….they didn’t count quite as much as the nice daughters of the social workers or policemen or media who looked on and who decided to turn a blind eye.

Here a whole class of people has been betrayed and abandoned…to protect the authorities from claims of racism but also the ethnic communities that the sex gangs come from…especially as it turns out that it was particularly white girls being picked on as the Muslims didn’t want to attack girls of their own faith.

The BBC (and other media) must have also played its part in hiding the truth…there must have been complicity with the police and social workers in agreeing what would and would not be reported.

It is remarkable that any of those journalists who ducked the issue and agreed to censorship can now hold their heads up without any shame or remorse.

Maybe those responsible will be brought out into the open in 23 years or so as with Hillsborough.

 

Their behaviour is of course in stark contrast to that normally at the BBC where working class ‘victims’ of government cuts and inaction are meat’n’veg to BBC anti-cuts agitators with always a ready welcome in a warm BBC studio if you have a tale to tell that paints a doom laden scenario of how ‘cuts’ are affecting you.

 

Have a look at this, an interview with J.K. Rowling about her new book ‘Casual Vacancy’….dealing with class warfare, drugs and teen sex.

Rowling states that the book is essentially about a girl named Krystal…and it is asking ‘What are we going to do about Krystal?’ (and girls like her).

Clearly ‘Krystal’ is from the same sort of background as the real victims in Rotherham and the book raises all sorts of questions about ‘society’ and of course Middle Class attitudes.

The BBC laps it up….apparently the Guardian and the BBC were given privileged access to the book…so work that out.

However, apart from the interviewer, James Runcie, being a good friend of Rowling, he is pretty keen to bring out all these social issues and start insinuating blame.

I mentioned that Rowling says the book is asking ‘what can be done to help girls like Krystal’…the BBC decided the main theme was something different.

The casual vacancy is a vacancy for a post on a local council…and the majority Tory council want to fill it with a likeminded soul…in order that they can change local boundaries and remove a troublesome council estate from their responsibilities. Boo hiss! Nasty Tories.

Now that is part of the book (and it is a fiction by a lefty writer) …but despite the title it is not its main theme according to the author. The BBC begs to differ.

 

 

Funny how caring the BBC can be about the white, working class drug addled girls whose knickers are kept up purely by the power of their elastic, when it suits the BBC’s own agenda.

 

But the really interesting point was made by Rowling in which she said she was fed up with the point scoring and soundbite culture of modern politics…which she blamed on the ‘beauty parade’ that is democracy.

True enough….politicians don’t explain themselves well enough….hence we get working class youngsters refusing to take up student loans because of the fear of ‘debt’….conveniently highlighted by the Today programme this morning, always ready to take the government to task on behalf of the working class!

But who is really to blame?

The media…it is the media that sets the agenda…it decides who gets airtime, how much airtime and on which subject…it then decides the questions, and decides the answers…in the editing suite…if it’s live they can interrupt and cut you off or bring in another guest to quash your point or to take up time.

Politicians have very little say in what they can get over to the public especially in the face of a hostile interview…however subtle that hostility is.

The BBC also fails in its duty to educate….always ready to stake out a student protest about tuition fees but less ready to spend valuable airtime on the basics of informing them about the fees.

Jonathan Aitken stated that the BBC were poisoning the well of democratic debate….he was right…even if he did his own bit towards that himself.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

THE GREAT THAW

 

From the BBC’s very own ‘Civilisation’ series by Kenneth Clark.

Seems that much has been conveniently forgotten since 1969 about the beneficial effects of a nice summer’s day (and it would seem about Christianity and the Church authority as well….keep watching)

 

The Great Thaw

There have been times in the history of mankind when the earth becomes warmer or more radioactive. I don’t put this forward as a scientific proposition but the fact remains that 3 or 4 times in history man has made a leap forward that would have been unthinkable under ordinary evolutionary conditions.

One such time was about 3000 BC when quite suddenly civilisation appeared…not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia but in the Indus valley, another was in the late 6th century BC and it was not only the miracle of Ionia and Greece, philosophy, science, art all reaching a point that wasn’t reached for another 2000 years, but also in India, a spiritual enlightenment that has perhaps never been equalled.

 And another was round about the year 1100, it seems to have effected the whole world, India, China, Byzantium, but it’s strongest and most dramatic effect was in Western Europe where it was most needed. It was like a Russian spring. In every branch of life, action, philosophy, organisation, technology there was an extraordinary outpouring of energy and an intensification of existence, popes, kings, emperors, bishops, scholars philosophers, saints, they were all larger than life, and incidents of history, our great heroic dramas or symbolic acts that still stir our hearts, the evidence of this heroic energy, this strength, confidence of will and intellect is still standing….[in the Cathedrals.]

 

Note the Medieval warm period and his assertion it affected the whole world.

Curious how that has all been forgotten by many scientists when cash handouts are in the offing for more research.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

AHMADINEJAD – JUST A REGULAR GAY..

A Biased BBC reader brings this to our attention…

“Take a listen to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/globalnews#playepisode3 especially at 4.00 mins in.  Lyse Douchet says that Ahmadinejad is “quite uncontroversial…quite Messianic…” as if that’s quite OK.  Does she realise the apocalyptic views behind his “being Messianic”? (Hint – he wants to wipe the country where another Messiah hailed from “off the face” of the Earth) Just imagine if the Archbishop of Canterbury were PM and did the same thing?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

‘Mrs Thatcher’s Favourite Economist’ Short Version

This is the short version of ‘Mrs Thatcher’s Favourite Economist’…a mere 3 pages instead of 12….having said that the programme was so packed full of things you could object to it had to be done.  However many may not want to read that much…..

Stephanie Flanders looks at the economic theories of three economists in the ‘Masters Of Money’.

Keynes, Hayek and Marx.

Why those three?

If she reduces the selection to them only one is left in her opinion who is ‘respectable’…conveniently the one her ex-boyfriends, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, look to for inspiration…..Keynes.

Hayek is presented in a negative light, an oddball extremist that only fellow oddball extremists would follow….Flanders tells us he was a favourite of Mrs Thatcher and therefore Flanders is saying Thatcher and her policies must be oddball and extreme.

Marx of course, no one can take seriously in the economic sense…..he is  used as an ideological inspiration for revolution and so produces wars, terror and tyranny if not economic prudence…and so is influential in that sense.

So that of course leaves Keynes, who is the harbinger of the bright and sunny uplands, of a prosperous future that means we can borrow what we like today because tomorrow we’re all going to be millionaires, you’ve got to speculate to accumulate, kushty.

Her programme on Keynes was upbeat and enthusiastic about him and his theory.

However she missed off that Roosevelt’s New Deal ruined the US economy in 1938 and she claimed Hoover was a ‘tax and cut’ man when he clearly wasn’t.

Flanders claimed Roosevelt built the Hoover Dam….clue is in the name!, and claimed it as a victory for Keynesianism (though no one listened to Keynes then)…‘A celebrated example of how to boost an economy…no more iconic example than the Hoover Dam.’ ….no figures to prove that….so nothing to do with Keynes or Roosevelt…good skills!

She claims the command economy of the war shows us how such planning, government control and massive investment can produce growth.

The war was a finite event the spending on which ended as soon as the war ended…unlike welfare or the NHS or policing etc. She never told us how the US paid off its massive war costs. High taxes might have something to do with it.

 

So Keynes is the chosen One…..however one ‘giant’ at least is missing from her modern pantheon of economic Masters….Milton Friedman.

“Mrs Thatcher’s favourite economist”

If as some suggest of Mrs Thatcher that …‘No one can seriously dispute that she mattered – more so than any other twentieth-century politician with the exception of Winston Churchill and , perhaps, Lloyd George.’ then surely her ‘favourite economist’ must merit a mention, a whole programme to himself?

Lady Thatcher said: “Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten. He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science.”

Over half a century, Mr Friedman, established himself as arguably the most influential economic thinker of his time. Over that post-war period, “Friedmanism supplanted Keynesianism as the dominant economic philosophy of the industrial world.”

“It’s hard to think of anyone who’s had more of a direct influence on social and economic policy in this generation,” Professor Allan H Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University.”

 

And look….

Milton Friedman, is now a hero of the Chinese Republic, not Marx, not Keynes:

‘On reaching retirement age in 1976, he joined Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and from there he continued to campaign for economic freedoms worldwide. This mission took him to China months before the Tiananmen Square massacres. As one observer recalled, the young Chinese “followed Milton around like he was a god”.’

 

and not only Friedman…..

Thatcher is now a hero in China…….

‘The former British Prime Minister is now being held up as an inspiration for future leaders of the People’s Republic of China…Professor Li Min, a lecturer at the institution, said when it came to crisis management Britain’s former prime minister was a model of behaviour.’

 

 

 

So Friedman totally eclipsed Hayek and has sidelined Keynes for decades…..and yet he is almost totally ignored by Flanders.

You can only conclude that is a political decision by Flanders…..Friedman was Thatcher’s favourite and the man who influenced her policies most….the policies that eventually brought stability and prosperity to Britain.

If Friedman is the ‘good’ economist embracing both the free market and some government ‘investment’ when necessary then Thatcher and her policies must have been ‘good’.

Not something perhaps Labour would like to hear the BBC endorsing? And so it doesn’t.

 

A continuous thread throughout the programme is that free markets and austerity bring Fascists in jackboots onto the streets….look at history again and it is Keynesian type economic stimulation which brought Hitler to power as the US ‘stimulated’ its economy and caused the Great Depression (Ben Bernanke…‘We did it!’)…..and now who is on the streets? The left wing agitators, the unions, the students……it’s not Hitler’s Stormtroopers, it’s Marxist revolutionaries.

And finally something odd:

As Flanders went on, apart from the expected upbeat cheerleading of a Keynesian approach to running the economy, I noticed something…I know that the Party conference season is upon us but as she talked I realised I’d heard or read much of the same lines she spouted as coming from Ed Miliband….is she just doing the warm up act for him?

She told us that Keynes saved capitalism from the capitalists, what is Miliband’s latest line? ‘I’m going to save Capitalism from itself’.

Another phrase that kept popping up…‘we’re all in this together’…..a Tory phrase that Miliband has tried to co-opt as his own recently…and now repeatedly echoed by Flanders.

Or Miliband’s ‘We want a market economy not a market society’…….Flanders told us a Keynesian policy was to suggest ‘If we can tame capitalism we can shape our destiny.’…also an echo of Miliband’s ‘predators and producers’ sound bite?

And of course Keynes is just Plan B with a moustache.

 

 

So to sum Flanders up….Keynes theory of spending massively to promote growth is good.

Austerity and Hayek can only bring fascism and war to our streets.

 

And Milton Friedman was….. who?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

“Mrs Thatcher’s Favourite Economist”

Hopes stoked for quicker recovery from recession as GDP fall is revised for the second time

This post is sort of apt in relation to the previous one on ‘No political  advertising in the UK’….the BBC has just engaged in one of its most blatant pro Labour, pro spending fluff pieces in the shape of Flanders’ Masters of Money.’

 

This is a long, long look at that series….it could have been longer as we haven’t seen the ‘Marx’ programme yet.

The BBC gives the nod and a wink to Keynes and Labour’s Plan B and here Flanders continues that tradition in cheerleading for Keynes as the harbinger of the bright sunny uplands whilst Hayek was presented as a vain, oddball extremist whose only fans are equally odd or extreme…Flanders says he was Thatcher’s guru of choice…. damning by association, in her opinion?

Was he?

“Mrs Thatcher’s favourite economist”

Seems not. 

Stephanie Flanders began her new series of the great economic thinkers last week….which Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph  called  ‘magisterial’.

It certainly had all the bells and whistles of a grand television production, travelling around the world, numerous famous talking heads and high production values with music and film clips set to stun and ‘inform’ with their piquancy.

However a cooler head might not have been so carried away and taken in by the flummery and showbiz pizzaz……if you can’t hide something the best thing to do is decorate it and that is exactly what Flanders has done. She is covering up the fact that her choice of economists is highly suspect and not a little self serving if you were someone who wanted to persuade an audience that one particular economic theory was the only one with legs.

Her choice of economists? Keynes, Hayek and Marx.

All no doubt of some stature and well known…but just how effective were they personally and why choose them?

The choice is of particular interest. As Flanders points out ‘Keynes is never more relevant’…but who to? The Labour Party….but he was consistently ignored for much of his career by politicians in the 20’s and 30’s.

What about Hayek…who is he relevant to? Well no one really……because his position was so extreme that no one, as Flanders points out at the end of that programme, is going to implement his free market policies…which makes you ask…why did Flanders choose him?

I suggest precisely because he was of the ‘right’ and extreme and so could be associated with Thatcher and therefore associate the Tories with ‘extremist, unworkable’ policies.

Marx was an inevitable choice and really I might suggest a schoolboy one, or schoolgirl. Marx failed in his every utterance and prediction. His thoughts were not even his own and were derived from a great a long line of previous thinkers and contemporaries. Influential? Certainly but not in a good way. However judging by Flanders write up of him in the Times you can’t help thinking he is ‘more relevant than ever’ to her….the programme goes out this Monday.

 

Three economists…all of note but were they the most influential in the last century or more?

Marx was, in the way that Hitler was an ‘influential’ figure for the Jews. Marx led to more deaths and misery in one century than has probably been seen over the course of human history.

Flanders decided not to look at Adam Smith, probably the most famous economist but perhaps he was too far in the past.

But who was the most influential economist who genuinely changed the course of economic history in the world? Milton Friedman.

Flanders continually associates Hayek with Thatcher…she repeats her assertion that Hayek ‘inspired those who built the world around us…..sewing the seeds of today’s financial crisis’ and flicks up a film of Mrs Thatcher….the clear intent to suggest Thatcher created this financial crisis we’re in now…Gordon Brown hardly gets a mention other than to be shown ‘saving the world’ in 2008.

But was Hayek that influential?

Who was Thatcher’s real ‘guru’?

Milton Friedman.

“Mrs Thatcher’s favourite economist”

If as some suggest of Mrs Thatcher that …’No one can seriously dispute that she mattered – more so than any other twentieth-century politician with the exception of Winston Churchill and , perhaps, Lloyd George.’ then surely her ‘favourite economist’ must merit a mention, a whole programme to himself?

Lady Thatcher said: “Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten. He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science.

“I shall greatly miss my old friend’s lucid wisdom and mordant humour.”

He was also the winner of a 1976 Nobel Prize.

Mr Friedman believed that tax-funded government spending was appropriate only to the most limited set of “public goods”, such as national defence.

Over half a century, Mr Friedman, the son of Hungarian Jewish immigrants, established himself as arguably the most influential economic thinker of his time. Over that post-war period, “Friedmanism” – the belief that changes in money supply dictate fluctuations in the economy – supplanted Keynesianism as the dominant economic philosophy of the industrial world.

“It’s hard to think of anyone who’s had more of a direct influence on social and economic policy in this generation,” Professor Allan H Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University.’

Even Ben Bernanke admitted Friedman was right and that government intervention had caused the 1930’s collapse.

‘As Mr Friedman celebrated his 90th birthday in 2002, Ben Bernanke – then a Federal Reserve governor, now chairman of the US central bank – sought belated forgiveness for the error: “Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right,” Mr Bernanke acknowledged. “We did it. We’re very sorry.” ‘

 

And look….Thatcher is now a hero in China…….

‘The former British Prime Minister is now being held up as an inspiration for future leaders of the People’s Republic of China, with words attributed to the Iron Lady being used to train senior members of the Communist Party.

Professor Li Min, a lecturer at the institution, said when it came to crisis management Britain’s former prime minister was a model of behaviour.’

 

Not only Thatcher but also Milton Friedman, not Marx, is now a hero of the Chinese Republic: 

‘On reaching retirement age in 1976, he joined Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and from there he continued to campaign for economic freedoms worldwide. This mission took him to China months before the Tiananmen Square massacres. As one observer recalled, the young Chinese “followed Milton around like he was a god”.’

 

So given all that why did Flanders not have a programme on Friedman?  Is it because he was both free market advocate and a supporter of government spending, when in the vital national interest?  Is it because a man of such influence supports moderate spending and not the Keynesian spending like a drunken sailor theory? Was it because his policies, and Thatcher’s, stabilised the British economy and brought us into the black only for all that to be ruined by a spendthrift Gordon brown?

Keynes you could say was in fact the ultimate, über capitalist, the very essence of an irresponsible capitalism, his policies of massive borrowing and spending were government speculation, gambling, they were in effect Casino finance that gambled the future of the nation’s prosperity on the hope of future growth…and we’ve tried that already under Brown…it failed.

And yet here we have the BBC, in the shapely form of Stephanie Flanders, giving the big thumbs up to Keynes.

A feeling for her opinion can perhaps be given by a quote from another BBC favourite Lefty economist Paul Krugman(a frequent voice in the programme) eulogising Keynes book: ‘”The General Theory is nothing less than an epic journey out of intellectual darkness.’

 

It should also be noted that Flanders’ and the Labour Party’s economic guru went to school at Eton. Indeed their other hero, F.D. Roosevelt went to the US equivalent of Eton, Groton, he was an aristocratic Democrat.

Now it’s a curious thing that those who worship at the altar of Keynes and the New Deal should try to undermine Tory Cameron’s credibility and his ability to empathise or understand the economics of the ‘plebs’ just because he went to Eton….surely that is evidence of a good pedigree in economic thought….or maybe they know more about Keynes than they let on….lets have a look at him in action……

‘..in Spain where massive government spending on ‘white elephants’ has bankrupted the nation…..(but you know more spending will improve our situation in the UK)……

In Spain the economy is imploding, as Paul Mason relays to us:

The Spanish regions are heavily in debt. People rely on them for free health and education, but they can no longer pay their bills – and they can’t expect much help from central government, as it too struggles under a huge financial burden.

Now quite a lot of the patients are having to do something which for them is extraordinary: they are having to pay – a bit – for their medicines.

During the property boom which has now busted Spain, they were collecting some taxes – from, yes, property.

Now that source of revenue is gone, they are expecting the central government to provide them with the cash they need. But the central government is in trouble too: it cannot borrow – except at punitive rates.

The regions cannot borrow either. Valencia’s deep in debt and who does pharmacist Paula blame? She smiles bitterly. “That is a very hard question to answer,” she says.

Valencia is littered with vanity projects that tell their own story.

The airport that has never seen a single plane land. The theme park built in a place where the summer heat rises above 40C (104F). The land bought at premium prices that is now worthless.

Where massive white elephant projects went unquestioned for a decade, and where the banks that funded them, boards stuffed with appointed politicians, have now gone bust. And where if you need some insulin from the health service, you had better hope you are the first in the queue.’

 

 

OK…I mention Mason’s report on Spain because firstly it brings into stark relief what capitalism brings to the party when it is working properly, and second it highlights the fact that what brought Spain to its knees, massive building projects and government vanity projects building ‘white elephants’ that nobody could afford to buy or use, did exactly the opposite of what the Keynesians are suggesting such projects will do for our economy despite a century’s worth of historical evidence that it is cheap money and housing bubbles that break economies.

What has that to do with BBC bias…apart from the well known enthusiasm for Balls’ Plan B?

Stephanie Flanders’ first programme looked at Keynes…it was in essence an enthusiastic promotion of Keynesian theory and its ‘beneficial’ policies that will turn our economy round. Unfortunately it was also a load of old hokum missing out important information and deliberately misleading viewers at times.

The Hayek (Pronounced as in ‘High Explosive’…ie highly dangerous. Geddit?) programme was far more downbeat and gave the impression of an extremist oddball whose fans were also extremists, including of course Maggie Thatcher, another one pronounced a ‘domestic terrorist’, and who was really only interested in his own glorification and awards for his work.

 

Flanders as said, begins by telling us Keynes is more relevant than ever.

As Flanders went on, apart from the expected upbeat cheerleading of a Keynesian approach to running the economy, I noticed something odd….I know that the Party conference season is upon us but as she talked I realised I’d heard or read much of the same lines she spouted as coming from Ed Miliband….is she just doing the warm up act for him?

She told us that Keynes saved capitalism from the capitalists, what is Miliband’s latest line? ‘I’m going to save Capitalism from itself’.

Another phrase that kept popping up…‘we’re all in this together’…..a Tory phrase that Miliband has tried to co-opt as his own recently…and now repeatedly echoed by Flanders.

Or Miliband’s ‘We want a market economy not a market society’…….Flanders told us a Keynesian policy was to suggest ‘If we can tame capitalism we can shape our destiny.’…also an echo of his ‘predators and producers’ sound bite?

And of course Keynes is just Plan B with a moustache.

 

Flanders claims Keynes saved Britain from the depression. How did he do that then exactly when he was roundly ignored by all politicians in the 20’s and 30’s?

Flanders admitted in her last Stuff’n’Nonsense programme that what saved the British economy from the Depression was massive private investment in housing…not government spending…and then the war (the debts of which we only finally paid off in 2006…and only 1/10th of the value of goods we actually received was repaid…at 2% interest….and we still owe an estimated £225 billion to the US for WWI and we had rationing until the 1950’s imposed upon us).

 

The truth is the British government had always adopted a policy of intervention in the economy, ‘stabilisation’, who can forget the ‘Corn Laws’, and a long process of social change and laws regulating industry came into being during the 19th century….so there never was a ‘free market’ in the Hayek sense.

Both Britain and the US were spending heavily long before Keynes raised his head, and they were also trying to regulate world markets to keep things on an even keel….

‘In a world where the vast majority of nations were in debt, the US played a vital supportive role.’

So the programmes assertion that Keynes encourages us to co-operate internationally is something that has long been in operation….and is therefore not ‘Keynesian’.

 

 

Flanders in fact doesn’t dwell on Keynes in Britain in the 30’s but heads off to the US to flim flam us about the ‘New Deal’….but first she tries to scare us about the prospect of Fascism stalking the streets as throughout the programme we are told that austerity leads to Nazis marching in the streets.

Making Germany pay reparations was a mistake which led to Fascism? Not the spectre of revolutionary Marxists? Isn’t it in fact the Left who have taken to the streets in strikes and violent rampages and of course the Marxist ‘Occupy’ movement.

Unfortunately it seems that is pretty much nonsense…..the evidence is that Germany could afford to pay, and did pay…but only when it wanted to….it frequently evaded payment as a tactic to test the nerve of the Allies and what they would do to enforce the reparations. Keynes was famously opposed to Reparations….purely on economic grounds or something else?

Although Flanders told us Keynes was gay she didn’t mention this….‘The American historian Sally Marks commented that Keynes had fallen in love with Carl Melchior, a member of the German delegation, and that views on reparations “…were shaped by his passion for Carl Melchior, the German financier and reparations expert whom he met during negotiations at Spa shortly after the armistice”.

 

So in fact Germany was not in such a terrible position after all….and indeed kept up payments until the Wall Street Crash meant loans from the US dried up.

Flanders wheels in the big guns….Alistair Darling comes on to say we are making the same mistakes as in WWI….then Larry Elliot, Guardian economics editor….‘We are failing to learn the lessons of history.’

Flanders tells us that Germany printed money and destroyed its economy with hyper-inflation…..isn’t that what the US is doing now…..and in its way, the ECB, with its promise to buy unlimited amounts of bonds to keep the Euro afloat (all paid for by Germany)?

It is not austerity that led to Nazis in power but massive government stimulus…..and it was US President Hoover’s stimulus, in the shape of easy credit and low interest rates, to the American economy, that led to the collapse of the stock market and the depression in Europe which relied on US cash.

The Federal Reserve’s decisions, as admitted above by Ben Bernanke, were what ‘did it’, precipitated the Great Depression……

‘One of the most costly errors committed by it or any other banking system in the last 75 years.’

Germany at the time thought the Fed’s policy was corrupt.

Any echoes with today?…German politicians who think the ECB’s latest policy to save the Euro by buying sovereign debt with Euro Bonds is ‘the Devil’s work!’.  It is the equivalent of printing money and the easy credit terms of the 30’s.

The USA in the 1920’s increased its money supply by massively increasing credit availability…..providing cheap credit….in other words essentially increasing government spending….‘to stimulate, protect and prosper all kinds of legitimate business’

Now where’ve we heard that before?

Hoover introduced protective tariffs and cheap credit to boost economy….doesn’t sound ‘laissez faire’ to me.

Hoover thought that even bad foreign loans that were unlikely to be repaid helped exports and created jobs…sounds very Brownian.

The result of all this, unsound loans, easy credit, was a collapse in confidence and world recession.

Now where’ve we heard that before?

 

Keynes verdict….The successful management of the dollar by the Federal Reserve Board from 1922 to 28 was a triumph!

Hayek……‘The crash indicated the risks of ill informed meddling.’

Flanders still backs Keynes and Plan B:

‘Keynes understood that imposing too much austerity is self defeating’.

Straight from the Ed Balls’ book of wit and wisdom.

I like that turn of phrase…‘Keynes understood’……not ‘Keynes said’…..saying he ‘understood’ suggests that such an idea is obviously correct…and clever Keynes understood that…which George Osborne does not. Just another Flanders dig at Austerity.

Flanders continues the rewriting of history with an apologia for Brown’s ‘mistakes’…… Brown made mistakes in not recognising the uncertainty of the economy which lead to his overconfidence, but it was a mistake that Keynes made himself….and therefore if the Great Man can make such a mistake it’s OK for Brown to do so.

 

Flanders continues her pro-intervention narrative saying Keynes recognised that an economy that sank may not come back up and therefore needed government help….

Recovery is blocked by lack of business and consumer confidence and therefore they do not invest in, produce or buy goods…..You cannot just wait for things to get better…..the government must create the atmosphere that engenders confidence.

That seems to completely forget ‘Business’ itself, as if it were just an adjunct to government policy….and that it was private money that built the houses that kick started the economy in the 30’s….and it is only exports that will bring in growth to our economy now…or wage cuts or a great rise in productivity….nothing government can do will boost genuine growth….she also fails to highlight the new industry and businesses springing up in the 30’s…..J.B. Priestley in ‘English Journey’ mentions them….the gleaming, chrome and glass covered new factories making England look more like California than England.

Then it’s over to America where she deploys her smoke and mirrors…1 million mirrors to be exact….in a ‘vast Keynesian experiment in the Arizona desert’ building the world’s biggest solar power plant.

Isn’t that just a massive make work scheme…paying ‘dole’ money but at a vastly increased rate…..employment paid for on printed or borrowed money?

Extra government spending would produce higher tax revenues we are confidently told…but never how that would happen.

 

She states that Hoover was all about spending cuts and tax rises…she claims ‘we have heard this argument recently’…..clearly meaning the Tories…giving it negative connotations.

Was Hoover a fan of Hayek’s free market?

‘Under Hoover federal spending rose in an attempt to stimulate job creation but the federal budget, a mere 4 per cent of GNP, was too small to make a significant impact in the face of such a major contraction. In 1932 he supported the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation believing that this body could give essential support to the stricken banking system.

During the presidential election campaign of 1932, Hoover was attacked by Roosevelt not for inactivity but for failing to balance the budget and for being too interventionist. Both Hoover and Roosevelt argued for economy in government.’

What Hayek thought was that the economy was far too big and complicated for anyone to understand…and therefore shouldn’t be meddled with as your actions will produce unknown and unintended consequences that could be worse than those you were trying to prevent.

Gordon Brown should have listened to Hayek as he has admitted…he had not understood the complexity of the world economy and the effects of globalisation….strange you might think for an economic expert when history relates quite clearly that even in the 30’s globalisation and the interconnectedness of economies could bring disaster, when one collapsed…others would follow…as with the US leading Europe into recession.

Brown was not the ‘genius’ some suggest….his world was more one where economic policies were shaped for political purposes. Which is why we are where we are.

 

As now it seems Roosevelt had the support of the Media, approval of academia, patronage of intellectuals and historical orthodoxy. Hoover gets a ‘bad press’.

Roosevelt, Flanders tells us, had a different approach…the Keynesian way, to spend his way out of trouble…‘echoing arguments we hear today’…that is ‘Plan B’… cue clip of Roosevelt in dynamic mode….‘action is what we want, action now!’

She says that was no time for a government to sit on its hands (relevant today she thinks…no good Osborne sitting it out?)…something had to be done…by government…..and in response Roosevelt created the New Deal…except he didn’t… Hoover did….and unemployment in the US never dropped below 15% throughout the 30’s.

Roosevelt merely carried on and expanded Hoover’s policies….the New Deal was just a continuation of Hoover’s policy….Walter Lippman said….‘the measures are a continuous evolution of the Hoover measures’.

Flanders tells another big porky in her enthusiasm to big up Roosevelt…..saying…‘A celebrated example of how to boost an economy…no more iconic example than the Hoover Dam.’ and claiming it was Roosevelt’s project…the clue is in the name…The Hoover Dam!

We were then told that the Hoover Dam cost $161 million but produced billions in economic growth…Keynes’ ‘multiplier effect’…..really? And where were the facts and figures for that?

 

 

What was the biggest ‘lie’ told by Flanders? It was a lie by omission ….she failed to mention that Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ brought the US economy to its knees in 1937/38. A massive fall in GDP and employment that would have crippled the US for years had not the Second World War intervened.

Flanders likes WWII…it is an example of State management of the economy by planning, a command economy,  that she likes to showcase as a pointer towards how economies could be run…no doubt in 5 year blocks.

This is highly misleading….because she doesn’t lay out just what it cost the US to pay off that war and how they did that…nor that unlike this financial crisis, WWII was a finite occurrence…once it was over the spending on massive armies and munitions and supplies could stop and then a payment scheme worked out…the financial crisis is on going and continuous….all the welfare systems and government responsibilities still need to be paid for…the NHS, schools, army, police, emergency services, local and civil government etc. The only real choice is to cut the spending on these or borrow more…which is the argument now. Keynes and Flanders would borrow more.

How did the US pay off its huge war costs? It of course introduced price controls, rationing and massive tax rises as well as a stealth tax in the shape of war bonds…the value of which fell when they came to be redeemed. It’s economic growth after the war was also huge and far outstripped the debt….but that is not going to happen here Keynes or no Keynes.

We were then treated to a talking head saying…..‘Austerity leads to unemployment going up, endless amount of suffering and the economy will sink’….cue judicious use of film clip….Cameron speaking…people slumped looking very bored…Brown looking and dynamic saving the world.

Flanders trips over to Germany to suggest that the way out of the recession is to boost domestic consumer spending and cut exports…now any fool knows that won’t work….look even Gordon Brown knew that was tosh:

‘It is essential that consumer spending is underpinned by investment and industrial growth. Britain cannot afford a recurrence of the all too familiar pattern of previous recoveries: accelerating consumer spending and borrowing side by side with skills shortages, capacity constraints, increased imports and rising inflation.

Already there are warning signs that this pattern could be repeated. In similar circumstances some of my predecessors have ignored these signs while others have deluded themselves into believing that growth, however unbalanced, was evidence of their success. I will not ignore the warning signs and I will not repeat past mistakes.’

 

The only way out is growth from manufacturing of products, ideas or services……this provides the money that then goes to fund domestic consumption…you have to earn the money to spend it.

Eventually Flanders’ comes clean……sort of…..admitting ‘Keynes’ didn’t work….(and who took over….Milton Friedman…not Hayek)

‘Keynes’ may not have worked because…there was enough spending…or….there was already too much debt so you don’t want to pile more on.

 

However apparently ‘Keynes has an extraordinary legacy that changed lives of billions around the globe.’

She asks ‘What can Keynes do for us now?’ Cue more film of a factory kept open by government money…. ‘Government intervention can keep factory gates open and increase employment.’

And of course the final seal of approval for Keynes…..‘Failure to adopt his policies leads to regional war as inequalities grow.’

 

Oh and one last thing….you have all heard of the Banks that were too big to fail that caused the credit crunch? well in the 30’s the banks were ‘too small to fail’…..so St Vince’s prescription is a little uneducated and suspect….

‘Why was the banking system so vulnerable and what role did this vulnerability play in intensifying the depression?

There are a number of factors that need to be taken into account in an analysis of US banking. The structure of the system is important. Many states favoured unit banking so the US had a large number of very small independent banks most serving rural communities. These small banks were undercapitalised and 11

highly vulnerable. Indeed, during the prosperous 1920s about 5,000 of them failed. Most could not satisfy the minimum capital requirements for membership of the Federal Reserve but there was strong emotional attachment to unit banking in a country which still had half of its population residing in rural settlements. The extent of unit banking was a serious structural weakness.’

Too small to fail.

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Cameron: “No Political Advertising In The UK”..Laugh? I Nearly Cried All Over My TV Licence…

As David pointed out the BBC piece on Cameron’s Letterman test encapsulated the beeboid world view so perfectly that it was hovering on the borders of self parody. Indeed one wonders if, like the scribblers at Pravda or the Volkischer Beobachter, the beeb’s hacks fall about laughing at the barefaced hypocrisy of the drivel they purvey….

Mr Cameron prompted the loudest applause of the evening when he explained that Britain does not allow political advertising, a big issue in the US where multi-billion dollar attack ads are being used in the presidential campaign.

Let’s have another dig at those crude, uncultured mall, shopping, fast food loving unsophisticates across the pond with their billion dollar attack adds. We do it far more effectively over her, dahling – the BBC runs political advertising 24/7 on behalf of the Labour Party with embedded attack ads on Tories and what’s even better they are financed, not by Ed Milliband & Co but by a poll tax….

Job done…”it’s what we do”….

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone