Great observation. It’s strange that government takes trouble to put rules on net zero goals but refuses to put the correct rules on money itself.
It wants to govern by decree but ignores putting our monetary system right first.
But don’t think interference is anything new.
The abolishment of the slave trade is one example of interference if the norm if the day. That was for the best! I don’t think their intentions on net zero are any different.
Rewriting rules of the playing field should be exactly what they should do. If it’s for the good and better of all it the majority.
Whatever we are we should be a democracy first and foremost.
I don’t disagree with your assessment. Many things government do isn’t the best but I think it’s sincere.
I just think that their inability to put the rightful rules in place to control money and flow by enforced spending is a great calamity.
Because from such a move everything we need to get done is finally possible.
It’s the movement of money by SPENDING that gives growth! So as they need to get the economy working they need to enforce SPENDING especially as all taxes are triggered and collected by SPENDING.
We know this because, not spending money triggers and collects NO TAX at all! NONE.
So to get growth we need more money and more spending and from that they get more tax revenue. So enforcing spending is the only way to achieve growth.
We can’t keep waiting for confidence alone to get us jump started! We need money moving freely free of debt. Not leveraged indebted money.
Until everyone starts to realise that the concept of needing money moving to get growth the faster we actually get there.
I don't disagree with your argument. However, since the term corporatism has been forgotten and fascism has been overused, it's concerning that one must invent a new term that disparages the word capitalism. It gives fuel to those who view state action as righteous and argue that capitalism is the problem and needs to be tossed in the dust bin. You make a great point near the end of The Critic piece: "Wartime economies are not designed to create general prosperity. They are not intended to make ordinary people richer, and they don’t. They are designed for one purpose only: to produce in great quantities whatever is needed to win a war." According to Labour (dominated by Fabians) and those who support net-zero, we *are* in a war, a war against climate change. It's an emergency. It's a crisis. All of this requires drastic action and government intervention -- whatever it takes to win this war that will never end.
This reminds me of another socialist economy which left much of industry in private hands but controlled everything it did.
It was Germany in the 30s.
This is something I wrote about this week https://thecritic.co.uk/public-control-private-blame/
I have now just read your article.
I'm disappointed that my comparison wasn't original, but pleased that someone agrees.
Of course the evil intent of the rulers is absent from our government, but the tactic is one more cause for a failing economy.
Stakeholder Capitalism is the new Corporatism (vide Mussolini)
Great observation. It’s strange that government takes trouble to put rules on net zero goals but refuses to put the correct rules on money itself.
It wants to govern by decree but ignores putting our monetary system right first.
But don’t think interference is anything new.
The abolishment of the slave trade is one example of interference if the norm if the day. That was for the best! I don’t think their intentions on net zero are any different.
Rewriting rules of the playing field should be exactly what they should do. If it’s for the good and better of all it the majority.
Whatever we are we should be a democracy first and foremost.
I don’t disagree with your assessment. Many things government do isn’t the best but I think it’s sincere.
I just think that their inability to put the rightful rules in place to control money and flow by enforced spending is a great calamity.
Because from such a move everything we need to get done is finally possible.
It’s the movement of money by SPENDING that gives growth! So as they need to get the economy working they need to enforce SPENDING especially as all taxes are triggered and collected by SPENDING.
We know this because, not spending money triggers and collects NO TAX at all! NONE.
So to get growth we need more money and more spending and from that they get more tax revenue. So enforcing spending is the only way to achieve growth.
We can’t keep waiting for confidence alone to get us jump started! We need money moving freely free of debt. Not leveraged indebted money.
Until everyone starts to realise that the concept of needing money moving to get growth the faster we actually get there.
I don't disagree with your argument. However, since the term corporatism has been forgotten and fascism has been overused, it's concerning that one must invent a new term that disparages the word capitalism. It gives fuel to those who view state action as righteous and argue that capitalism is the problem and needs to be tossed in the dust bin. You make a great point near the end of The Critic piece: "Wartime economies are not designed to create general prosperity. They are not intended to make ordinary people richer, and they don’t. They are designed for one purpose only: to produce in great quantities whatever is needed to win a war." According to Labour (dominated by Fabians) and those who support net-zero, we *are* in a war, a war against climate change. It's an emergency. It's a crisis. All of this requires drastic action and government intervention -- whatever it takes to win this war that will never end.
In a short sentence: appalling misuse of power.