I have a vivid memory of 1964 when Labour had just won the General Election and I was 7 years old, asking my father (a Conservative voter of working class background): "What is Labour?" His reply: "They give it to you with one hand and take back with the other" always stuck with me - and I understood at that moment, and ever since, the essential corruption of the state.
As an adult, I have remained forever baffled that at least half my fellow adults cannot see this and could not understand why they didn't want freedom. Margaret Thatcher was the first politician who was able to really communicate this economic fact to the masses - hence her success. In the 80's the Thatcherite litany was "Keep a tight control of the money supply" to hold back inflation, that age-old method of impoverishing the masses.
Qualifying as a lawyer in 1983, I began to find an answer to my puzzle of why a certain section of society always voted Left and it was the opposite of my assumption that it was those at the bottom of the economic pile, looking for handouts. It was the 'posh' people! THEY were the wannabe 'tyrants'! They wanted to control the masses because they were so superior and arrogant, they knew best and felt it was their right to tell the lower orders how to live their lives - my first encounter with the massive group at the top of the social order - the species known as Champagne Socialists. I quickly saw that those in the class that didn't really espouse Marxist economics, but still wanted to control others were a sub-group called 'Liberals' (later LibDems) who prated about their 'values' (which, as far as I could make out, boiled down to open door immigration so they could have cheap nannies).
As well as the superiority and arrogance, it's important to mention that a lot of the people you described are genuinely - but misplacedly - compassionate. That's an important piece of the puzzle.
It was probably around that time (I would have been 10 in 1964) that I became aware that is was possible to be too nice, too open and tolerant for one's own good.
Reading 'News from Uncibal' is an education for me. It's clearly written so I can understand it, and contains interesting topics and people that I can google and follow up on. I'm learning and I like it. Thanks!
I find the subject of economy interesting, but I do wonder whether we aren't chasing our tails. On the whole, I agree that if our choices are only between Thatcherism and nanny-statism, I'd prefer the former. But surely there's more to it, or at least there could be more to it. What have economists been doing all this time? It seems that both systems ultimately serve a higher master--the banks. We don't even talk about usury anymore, as though that ethical subject were a lost cause entirely. I had a student from Cameroon years ago who told me that many Cameroonians left Canada because of attitudes towards money (or you might call it the culture of money). He explained that in village life back in Africa, folk gave each other money in times of need, there was no lending and certainly no lending at interest. Shouldn't the notion of "financial products" bother us? I mean, it's all pretty obviously scammy. But there's no mature conversation about the fundamentals. Among those dubbed "alt-right" there is conversation regarding "the Fed" and "the greenback" and the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking, but so far as I can tell, no one takes the issue seriously. Shouldn't we?
I'm also chary of the idea that wealth makes one happy and ethical. It's simply not true. And yet here you are, David, implying that such is the case. I've mentioned before that I don't mean to come across naive on this subject. Certainly, we require a certain measure of wealth or solvency to function, to satisfy basic needs, including social ones, especially in our corporate society. But so long as we continue to live wrong, assessing those needs is a mess in and of itself. Like so many other subjects that are being expressed poorly and even outrageously these days (I'm thinking the whole woke universe), there is some urgent truth trying to reveal itself. No doubt some return to fiscal balance would be better than what's going on now (MMT), but I truly believe a reset is needed, not the Davos sort, but one based on sound principles that empower individuals rather than corporations and the state. Surely, you'd agree that Thatcherite policy is still banker's policy and doesn't actually resolve the underlying issues.
I don't think being wealthy makes one happy or ethical, no - on this we agree. Rather, it makes it easier for civic society to function. That's a different thing, and what I wanted to emphasise here.
I think that the lack of pride wasn't related to poverty in the past. I was born in 1944 and my father was a coal miner. There wasn't a lot of money. We lived in a rented Victorian terraced house with no hot water and shared outside toilet. Yet all the front steps were regularly washed and whitened.
I always keep the gutter outside my house clear of weeds but I am probably the only one in the road to do this. They also don't even clear weeds from their house boundary and the pavement. The council will not keep these areas in good condition. One house has tall weeds and outside are two cars and camper van. Pride is about attitude, not wealth in my opinion and what is outside their property no longer matters to people. Many people don't even keep their gardens in good condition.
No doubt. My grandparents lived in a council house in a down-at-heel part of Liverpool which they bought through a right-to-buy scheme and kept absolutely immaculate. The house was sold some 20 years ago and now looks like a bombsite with a jungle growing on top. This is the same up and down the street in which they lived. People often talk about how language or manners are deteriorating, but what is even more noticeable is the way the physical world is itself being allowed to decay. (Don't get me started on fashion...)
That was really interesting David. Most of us are relient on the State to some extent, not necessarily directly working for Government at any level but for a contractor or other body that relies on grant or contract awards or purchases. Some self-censor to some degree lest they be cancelled at individual or company level. Get along to get along in other words. I think that for many this reliance on daddy government steeps into the soul. We are now zoo animals who find their captivity unremarkable and for many who are completely captured there isn’t even a sense of private space or private thoughts anymore, they just parrot the narrative.
Totally on the button, David.
I have a vivid memory of 1964 when Labour had just won the General Election and I was 7 years old, asking my father (a Conservative voter of working class background): "What is Labour?" His reply: "They give it to you with one hand and take back with the other" always stuck with me - and I understood at that moment, and ever since, the essential corruption of the state.
As an adult, I have remained forever baffled that at least half my fellow adults cannot see this and could not understand why they didn't want freedom. Margaret Thatcher was the first politician who was able to really communicate this economic fact to the masses - hence her success. In the 80's the Thatcherite litany was "Keep a tight control of the money supply" to hold back inflation, that age-old method of impoverishing the masses.
Qualifying as a lawyer in 1983, I began to find an answer to my puzzle of why a certain section of society always voted Left and it was the opposite of my assumption that it was those at the bottom of the economic pile, looking for handouts. It was the 'posh' people! THEY were the wannabe 'tyrants'! They wanted to control the masses because they were so superior and arrogant, they knew best and felt it was their right to tell the lower orders how to live their lives - my first encounter with the massive group at the top of the social order - the species known as Champagne Socialists. I quickly saw that those in the class that didn't really espouse Marxist economics, but still wanted to control others were a sub-group called 'Liberals' (later LibDems) who prated about their 'values' (which, as far as I could make out, boiled down to open door immigration so they could have cheap nannies).
As well as the superiority and arrogance, it's important to mention that a lot of the people you described are genuinely - but misplacedly - compassionate. That's an important piece of the puzzle.
It was probably around that time (I would have been 10 in 1964) that I became aware that is was possible to be too nice, too open and tolerant for one's own good.
Reading 'News from Uncibal' is an education for me. It's clearly written so I can understand it, and contains interesting topics and people that I can google and follow up on. I'm learning and I like it. Thanks!
That's very kind of you to say - thanks!
I find the subject of economy interesting, but I do wonder whether we aren't chasing our tails. On the whole, I agree that if our choices are only between Thatcherism and nanny-statism, I'd prefer the former. But surely there's more to it, or at least there could be more to it. What have economists been doing all this time? It seems that both systems ultimately serve a higher master--the banks. We don't even talk about usury anymore, as though that ethical subject were a lost cause entirely. I had a student from Cameroon years ago who told me that many Cameroonians left Canada because of attitudes towards money (or you might call it the culture of money). He explained that in village life back in Africa, folk gave each other money in times of need, there was no lending and certainly no lending at interest. Shouldn't the notion of "financial products" bother us? I mean, it's all pretty obviously scammy. But there's no mature conversation about the fundamentals. Among those dubbed "alt-right" there is conversation regarding "the Fed" and "the greenback" and the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking, but so far as I can tell, no one takes the issue seriously. Shouldn't we?
I'm also chary of the idea that wealth makes one happy and ethical. It's simply not true. And yet here you are, David, implying that such is the case. I've mentioned before that I don't mean to come across naive on this subject. Certainly, we require a certain measure of wealth or solvency to function, to satisfy basic needs, including social ones, especially in our corporate society. But so long as we continue to live wrong, assessing those needs is a mess in and of itself. Like so many other subjects that are being expressed poorly and even outrageously these days (I'm thinking the whole woke universe), there is some urgent truth trying to reveal itself. No doubt some return to fiscal balance would be better than what's going on now (MMT), but I truly believe a reset is needed, not the Davos sort, but one based on sound principles that empower individuals rather than corporations and the state. Surely, you'd agree that Thatcherite policy is still banker's policy and doesn't actually resolve the underlying issues.
I don't think being wealthy makes one happy or ethical, no - on this we agree. Rather, it makes it easier for civic society to function. That's a different thing, and what I wanted to emphasise here.
Perhaps I'm reading implications here that don't belong, but I believe I'm seeing some of these ideas in the comments.
I think that the lack of pride wasn't related to poverty in the past. I was born in 1944 and my father was a coal miner. There wasn't a lot of money. We lived in a rented Victorian terraced house with no hot water and shared outside toilet. Yet all the front steps were regularly washed and whitened.
I always keep the gutter outside my house clear of weeds but I am probably the only one in the road to do this. They also don't even clear weeds from their house boundary and the pavement. The council will not keep these areas in good condition. One house has tall weeds and outside are two cars and camper van. Pride is about attitude, not wealth in my opinion and what is outside their property no longer matters to people. Many people don't even keep their gardens in good condition.
No doubt. My grandparents lived in a council house in a down-at-heel part of Liverpool which they bought through a right-to-buy scheme and kept absolutely immaculate. The house was sold some 20 years ago and now looks like a bombsite with a jungle growing on top. This is the same up and down the street in which they lived. People often talk about how language or manners are deteriorating, but what is even more noticeable is the way the physical world is itself being allowed to decay. (Don't get me started on fashion...)
That was really interesting David. Most of us are relient on the State to some extent, not necessarily directly working for Government at any level but for a contractor or other body that relies on grant or contract awards or purchases. Some self-censor to some degree lest they be cancelled at individual or company level. Get along to get along in other words. I think that for many this reliance on daddy government steeps into the soul. We are now zoo animals who find their captivity unremarkable and for many who are completely captured there isn’t even a sense of private space or private thoughts anymore, they just parrot the narrative.