Education in Economics; Has Corrupt Capitalist Controlled Education Influenced the Current World Recession ?!

Back in the day when I played a part in the financial industry in the City of London many years ago, I took some time to research how education in economics received the so called 'free markets' economy. The reason being was that I knew there were major flaws in the workings of the stock markets. I wanted to know if these flaws were recognized by the world's economists.

I was also playing with idea of giving up the finance industry in order to focus primarily in economics and I wanted to know what I was letting my self in for!

What was really strange was that the economics text books of the time appeared to barely recognize the stock markets at all. Okay, this was back in the eighties. But if you take a look at economics text books today, mysteriously little has changed!

This post is primarily to show where economics education appears to over look major issues, which I have to say certainly influence economics in a fundemental way, if not totally create a complete new picture, where our current education system appears to be seeing the free markets system through 'rose tinted glasses' to be saying the very least.

So there is no confusion, every thing you see in purple are quoted from economics text books. So let's start with a few examples of the type of thing that is written in these books.

-The following quotes refer to privatisation. At the moment this is a highly topical subject to those who understand how it really works. Currently the government is blatantly hiding the privatisation of the NHS. Also the TTIP or Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnerhip which is currently being negotiated involves the accessability by private companies, stock markets and private equity companies to buy up public services across the U.S. and Europe. Therefore if privatisation is a bad thing, then now is the time for the world's people to know!

Privatisation, Regulation and  Deregulation

Governments often try to increase efficiency or competition in markets. They can use methods of intervention in markets to achieve this, e.g. regulation, or they can reduce their involvement in a market through methods such as privatisation and deregulation.
-The truth is whilst a government may claim privatisation improves efficiency, it doesn't. It has benefits to members of governments as much of the spoils from a £ multi billion sell off will return to the government members in various ways.- 
-When a service is broken up and sold off in pieces or contracted out it contradicts the 'economies of scale'. ie One big centrally run business can get things done cheaper than lots of small ones....Less offices etc- 
-The claims made here that the government may "reduce it's involvement" in a service by privatising is misleading. The government are very much in control of the process of privatising the NHS and many of the government members are gaining financially from it.

Privatisation Aims to Increase Efficiency
Again we are reminded of the claim that the governments use to justify privatisation....But it seems the economics educators and authors of the text books are not able to question human factors of economics like greed and corruption!

1) A publicly owned firm/industry is owned by the government. The firm industry will usually act in the best interests of consumers-so prices tend to be low and output tends to be high. This is possible as they don't have to make profits.
No problems with this statement. It is the truth. But most of the text here seams to be hell bent on under mining it!

2) However,publicly owned firms/industries tend to be inefficient because they lack competition. Governments may decide to increase competition through privatisation.
This seems to make sense, but there are to many other negative influences such as masses of debt and the focus of profits at cost of service. It also goes against the 'economies of scale' as all ready mentioned. 
3) Privatisation is the transfer of ownership of a firm/industry from the public sector to the private sector.
Think about what that actually means. If a share holder can by a part of a public service, it means any idiot can own part of a service you rely on to survive! Keeping control of Public Services is a governments job......If not, then what are we paying our taxes for?!
3) Some economists believe this will lead to a more efficient firm/industry, because it'll be open to free market competition. Private firms have share holders, so they'll usually need to maximise their profits to keep the share holders happy.
The first statement here I find disapointing from the point of view of a student learning economics. This vague statement about some economists believing that privatisation will lead to more efficiency. Do students want to really know what 'some' economists think, or just the truth. After all this text book is supposed to be educating our future economists! Incidentally you can not trust many of the people given the title of 'economist' because they work for businesses which benefit from privatisation. Therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that  people who claim to be economists at banks, asset managers, hedge funds etc will be heavily biased towards favouring privatisation.....Therefore "what many economists think.." needs to be disregarded in favour of your own research, calculations and judgements.

Privatisation covers a number of different things, for example:
* The sale of public (nationalised) firms-e.g. the Royal Mail was owned by the government, but it was privatised through the sale of shares.
This is where privatisation can become a bit of a blur. As this statement says, a business can be privatised simply by selling off shares to the public. But it contradicts the private company myth that putting a public service into private hands will improve it's efficiency. Share holders become part of the costs. Needless adding of costs to a business or service surely makes it more ineficient. If share holders aren't getting what they see as a good return on their investment they may influence decisions which will damage the service provided, by cutting costs.- The major problem with this as I see it is, that to have a major influence on a company it is generally accepted that you should have relevant qualifications and experience to be in a situation where you can change the way the company operates. Yet, you can be share holder with no qualifications and do exactly that. As an economics student you are not told this.....But then you can see why. It may play with their mind....They may ask questions as to why they are wasting time being educated when clearly education is not necessary to have a major influence in business if you have the contacts available to buy lots of shares. The kind of people you will find at Private Equity firms, Hedge funds and Investment banks.


* Contracting out services - a government pays a private firm to carry out work on it's behalf, e.g. cleaning government owned buildings, such as hospitals or schools.
This is how privatisation in the NHS was introduced. It's difficult to see how paying private profit making companies for cleaning services could be cheaper than staff employed by the NHS to do the same job. I remember years ago at this early stage people in the NHS were saying, "They're going to privatise the NHS!" 

*Competetive Tendering - private firms bid (or compete) to gain a contract to provide a service for the government. Firms will compete on price and the quality of service offered.
A bid will also involve a £multimillion payment from the service provider to the govenment on acceptance of the deal. Often an inferior business will gain a contract from the government purely because it makes a larger financial offer to the government. If this was not legal, it would of course be referred to as bribery! -Ref Virgin against First for a rail service in 2014.

* Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) - a private firm works with a government to build something or provide a service for the public. An example of a PPP is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) - a private firm is contracted by the government to run a project. For example, in the U.K., some hospitals or schools are built by a private firm, then the government leases the buildings from the firm (usually for a long period of time).

The economics publication these paragraphs come from was published as recently as 2014! 

Yet there is little said about the truth behind PFI.

PFI is a major contributor to the crisis that the NHS is experiencing today!

 PFI has been heavily involved with the NHS. In the hands of the Conservative government (This all began before the last Labour government!) , the UKs National Health Service agreed (atleat the Tories did), to enter a finance deal with a number of private companies, to build a number of health service establishments......But the deals involved tax players who were funding the NHS paying massive amounts for these so called improvements to the NHS. Most of which was actually going to finance companies and banks! Many of said establishments have now siesed serving the public due to debts that had accumulated as a result of the original agreement!  

As I mentioned above, this economics publication was published in 2014, yet doesn't even recognize the potential problems. (Potential problems obviously is just being polite. Whilst private firms 'lobby' (bribe) governments, this is an inevitability).

The same publication then goes on to list what it thinks are advantages and disadvantages of privatisation....

ADVANTAGES OF PRIVATISATION
*Increased competition improves efficiency and reduces x-inefficiency.
X-Inefficiency is a word that's used where a company wastes money paying out too much because it is not competing with other companies and has no need to make a profit.- I think this term has been invented so that students go away with it implanted on their mind as a major factor. This word is simply to smear publicly run services so that privatisation can be justified.......(I'll expand more on this later).  

*Improves resource allocation-private firms have to react to market signals of supply and demand.
I don't see how privatisation improves resource allocation.......But on this subject; Imagine you have a dozen telephone network providers providing networks for the U.K or U.S......They will be in competition with each other to buy any equipment, to hire staff, engineers etc. They will be in competition with the other companies for the resources they need to operate the business......As well as massively duplicating customer services offices and staff, as well all those irritating sales staff. Lots of staff who are putting up the cost of the industry for the customer!

*PFIs enable the building of important facilities that the government might not be able to afford to build.
Totally misleading statement.....PFIs, Private Finance Initiatives may be financed by a combination of private equity firms and banks. But the costs are mortgaged and the debt is paid off by the private company that owns them. The private company receives payments to lease the facility which is paid for by the  government with the use of our taxes.....Or where our taxes are not enough, the money is borrowed by the government and it is added to the national debt! So the National debt is being used as a bail out service for previous PFIs......National debt is being used to pay off other debt which tax payers or the government could never afford to do.- I'm not going into the costs of interest payments here and other fees to financial businesses. But they have resulted NHS facilities coting many times the cost they should have cost. 

*PFIs means lower taxes in the short run because the government won't pay for the new facility immediately.


*The governmennt gains revenue from selling firms.
The initial sale of a public service is clearly an influence on why many governments favour privatisation. The Billions of dollars the government receives on payment of a public service which has been paid for over decades by it's hard working public. Some of this money will go to MPs and Lords who may be active is some of the businesses who gain the business through a public service's privatisation.- The logic of this is similar to the economics of selling a house you already own to a landlord and renting it back from him. Short term you get a bundle of cash.......But in the long term, you can't justify it because you will be paying 'rent' on it for after.....It is highly likely that some time in the future you won't be able to afford the rent! This is happening to public services which have been privatised. We are paying massively increased costs to what are often called 'rent seekers'. This term is for people who simply use debt to gain control of property or business in order to syphon money from the general public.....So you may see the term 'rent seekers'used in association with private equity firms, investment banks, hedge funds and businesses who use these finance businesses in order to gain control of other businesses and property.

DISADVANTAGES OF PRIVATISATION

*A privatised public monopoly is likely to become a private monopoly - so extra measure, e.g. deregulation, need to be taken to avoid this.
This term is banded around the finance industry mostly, but also by politicians who want the banks and financial sector to remain in control and able to dictate the way our econmy is run even though it may only be fore their benefit at the cost of the vast majority.

In practice this what deregulation actually means (where public services and privatisation are concerned).........
 The ability for any one, regardless of relevant qualifications or experience to enter an industry to be able to take over or buy control of a public service or part of it. This is done through backing of financial businesses and banks- They themselves want to also get in on the 'payroll' of the public services. Banks are permantly on the payroll of privately run public services as a result.-It isn't who the investment banks are seen to be lending to- It's all about getting on the payroll of the tax payer!

-Deregulation is mostly about opening the door to any one with the appropriate amount of cash to hand to the government.
 

*Privatised firms may have less focus on safety and quality because they have more focus on reducing costs and increasing profits.
This is true. But it should also mention that they are likely to be far more irresponsible with debt and paying the top management excessively.

*The new private firm might need regulating to prevent it from being a private monopoly - this adds costs for tax payers.
Presumably a reference to regulators such as OFGEM and OFCOM. 
Tax payers pay for regulators to apparently monitor various industries. - Most of their powers only revolve around profits made. -But this may be an incentive for a businesses to pay directors even higher salaries. Then it is removed from the profits! Regardless of what regulators are supposed to do, they have proven that they are as much for protecting the businesses from the public, as they are for protecting the public from being ripped off by high prices and bad service.- Regulators are an additional cost to the public, but of little use to them- They are also paid by the industry-The firms they are supposed to be regulating. This may influence actions they do or do not take. 

*A PFI  will often cost more in the long run than it' s worth - so it adds to government debt and may not represent value for money.
This is so true. How this has damaged the NHS in a way that it may never recover should really be given a mention. It may well also be a contributory factor to why the U.K. national debt will never be paid.


*PFIs mean higher taxes for future generations to pay for cost of the government leasing the facility.  And a growing national debt!......Whilst the tax payers are unable to afford the costs.
 

Any way, that should give you a bit of an idea as to how it looks like education is being used to mislead young people. Is it the capitalist system being forced on students before they are able to form their own views? Is it education being effected in the same way as our capitalist controlled corporate media?

I will go into the stock markets in a similar way at a later date. That is if the blogosphere can take the heat!

 

Can We Really Trust Mark Carney to Run the Central Bank in a Way that Will Help the British People Leave the Recession?

When ex Goldman Sachs man Mark Carney was handed the leadership of the Bank of England, I am sure I was not the only one who had serious doubts over whether he was the right man.
The first reason being that ruthless investment banks were a major player in contributing to the financial crisis. In the lead up to the crisis, there was no investment bank bigger than Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs had been a beneficiary in the trading of food products, whilst it caused prices to fluctuate un-realistically, causing food shortages and starvation in various parts of the world. This has recently been outlawed due to action taken out side of the banking system, by groups such as the World Development Movement. This trading has been outlawed, consequentially saving many lives and improving the life quality of many more.

Traders in Goldman Sachs had been taking home hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but oddly enough never high lighted  the problems that Goldman Sachs and the banks who had followed their lead such as J.P. Morgan, UBS and Barclay's, were inflicting on the poorer people of the world a few thousand miles from Wall Street and the City of London.- So that's my first reason for objecting to Mark Carney. His back ground is totally inappropriate. Are we really expected to believe his policies will give the U.K. stability when he has gained the experience he does have from a company who has made unjustified profits through it's ruthless trading which has caused suffering to innocent people around the world.

Can we really be expected to believe then that fiscal policies controlled by the Bank of England are going to be in the general public's interest? Or is it more likely that the policies and decisions made will be at our expense in order to help the big banks and the corporations they finance and burden with debt?

Currently, low interest rates are creating fuel for a boom in the merger and acquisition market- or the buyout business!
- Of course we are being told the low interest rates are there to help home buyers with their mortgages....But the acquisition and merger market has taken off. Billions of dollars is borrowed by big businesses, private equity firms and hedge funds from investment banks. Adding costs to big businesses in general which will be passed onto the customers of these businesses , if they can afford the increased prices. If not, the customer will lose out and the business may well collapse under it's debts. Large telephone companies, mining companies and pharmaceutical companiesaround the world are getting easy access to cheap credit. Whilst this happens, the investment banks put themselves on the 'payroll' of the business through interest payments they will receive their after on top of the mortgage payments on the debt.

Banks earn fortunes in setting up these mergers and buyouts. The fees will inflate wages and add to bonuses - Even if the bussneses they load with debt at a later date collapse under the load of debtthe banks burden the business with. Which at some stage will be affected by a surge in the rate of interest when the Bank of England raises the base rate.-The rise interest rates which we are continually warned of is going to come soon.

-Any way, I think this explains the current saga with the interest rates. I believe that the low interest rates have little to do with mortgages for homes. They can lend billions to the acquisition and merger deals without the need for retail banking branches. Hence we are hearing of announcements of closures of retail banks now on a regular basis. They don't need them for big investment deals. The big deals are therefore cheaper to do then what are relatively more tedious and time consuming, mortgages for homes.

Mark Carney has certainly not been clear on this. But then I wouldn't expect any one from his kind of investment banking back ground to be particularly clear on any thing where there is a conflict of interest between big investment banking deals and loans for homes.

The Bank of England's fiscal policies have little to do with home owners, though the BBC and much of the other media would have you believe otherwise.

The other concern I have with Mark Carney is that not only has he been given control of the bank of England, but he is also the chairman of the FSB - The financial Stability Board !
You might think that running the Bank of England would be a full time job, but you would be wrong. Regardless of this, there are serious questions which need to be asked of what the Financial Stability Board is actually supposed to do, for the following reason...

The findings of the FSB in a recent report into 'Shadow Banking' is worrying, - but the FSB appears to see no reason for concern......

First of all, what is 'shadow banking'?

What the banking industry's definition of shadow banking is and what it really appears to be, to  real people and genuine unbiased investigative journalists, are two different things. The term shadow banking being fairly appropriate in that it seems that there is a conscious decision that has been made by the regulated banking sector, not to shine too much light on it. Hence leaving it in the shadows!


To be continued....  

Russel Brand......The Right Wing Capitalist Controlled Media's Token '"Loony Lefty"!

Comedian Russel Brand has recently made a film encouraging the'bashing' of banks to go with his recently published book...."REVOLUTION"

 Russel Brand is probably one of Britain's most well known anti-capitalist and anti-establishment campaigners. But there is a reason for this. Campaigners, anti-capitalist, anti-establishment and any journalists who try to give backing to these, -what the right wing capitalists annoyingly refer to as 'leftys' or 'looney leftys' do not get their fare share of exposure by our predominantly capitalist corporation controlled media.

In fact I am sure that the capitalist main stream media use Russel Brand so they can portray the 'left' in the way that the controlling capitalists want the majority of the public to see it.........As the Looney Left!

....When it is merely a trick to confirm to any wavering right wingers, that the left are just a bunch of loonies,..Just as Russel Brand can often appear. This is made easy of course by the fact that he is or at least used to be a comedian.

Whilst the capitalist tabloids will portray statements he makes for example when he likened the current financial system with a vacuum cleaner that was malfunctioning during a BBC interview, which was great for the Daily Mail who recently decided to do some analysis on the interview. To the Daily Mail, it was just an opportunity to make leftys appear loony.

The comment Russel made was when asked for a comment on the financial system..."If my vacuum cleaner went nuts and forced me to live in economic slavery, I wouldn't roll my eyes and say "Oh well!", and humbly do it's bidding. I'd turn it off and f*** it out the window!"

The daily mail apparently brought in an economist to analyse Russel's comments. Professor Chandran Kukathas from the London School of Economics....

The economist's expert knowledge brought the following response to Russel's Vacuum cleaner comment.....
"Is the industry really like a vacuum cleaner?
 How does one turn it off?
 Or throw it out the window?"

I feel that any one with only basic knowledge of economics and finance could have come up with a more in depth response.

How did the idea that the banking system has been sucking in money from every individual on earth in various ways, such as...........................

       i)Through the banks bail outs through the taxes we pay
       ii) Through our losses in property values and other assets. These values were sucked out due to the failure of the system.
       iii)Through cuts to services which are a result of taxes being used for bank bail outs instead of the public services we thought we were paying fo

                                                    ....................go straight over Professor  Chandran Kukathas's head?

It's a shame that for the price of his education he isn't able to see that........

The financial system that is operating today is the same one that failed us. The economic damage it did when the crisis surfaced is simply being ratcheted up and the suffering of the bottom half of economy at the very least is still increasing. And there is no sign of any let up.....and no sign of the U.K., U.S. or the European governments finally recognizing that a plan B needs to be rolled out......As wacky as the capitalists at the Daily Mail and the BBC want him to appear, Russel Brand pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Now, going back to the London School of Economics which is where the daily mail found their economist!

The problem with the London School of Economics, is that where an individual has been educated at this university, you may find that you want to use the word economist in quotation marks. This is because economists who are influenced by LSE may not be what they appear to be on the tin. Although most are unaware of it, including most disapointingly, the students being educated there, The London School of Economics is as supportive of 'free markets' capitalism to pretty much the same degree as the other L.S.E. -The London Stock Exchange. Any comments which you will see which originate from 'economists' from the London School of Economics, at least those comments that make it to the media are almost certain to support the current system.....relentlessly.... religiously!..........

.......Yet most would imagine the London School of Economics to be a place where alternatives are examined. Where young people could be nurtured into a kind of Mother Teresa of the economics world and could eventually create a system which rewarded people for solving food shortages, the problem of immigration and the for ever growing problem of inequality. From what I can gather, the London School of Economics is simply a place where genuine open minded students go to get educated. Probably in the hope, they can make a difference one day in the future. But what actually happens is they are brain washed into believing that the failed 'free markets' system is the only way and there is no genuine alternative.

What the London School of Economics does then, is provide an endless supply of  waffle to back up the biased capitalists who influence our main stream media. This gets used against any supporters of left wing policies which the right wing media choose to give publicity to.......Which is as explained, not very often.

So the right wing press and media only give publicity to 'left wing' activists when they think it suits the right wing capitalists.
-This means that any person who can give a more clear and convincing picture of the state of this and the over all world economy, -the right wing press are likely to give them a wide berth. Although the right wing press are happy to quote Russel Brand's comments on economics in bold black letters, they will be far less willing to do the same with activist and journalist Owen Jones. If the right wing press had given more time to people like Owen Jones in the past, well the simple fact is we would not have a press and media that is dominated by the right wing capitalists,- and that is what they are afraid of!

The corrupt capitalist's biggest threat are people like Owen Jones, who are able to explain the problems we all face in a way we can all understand. The day that people of the likes of Owen Jones  attract the publicity they deserve, will be the time that the new students of the the London School of Economics will begin to realise the choice between the right wing capitalist system and the left wing socialists, is simply a difference of the truth & sustainability.... against deceit and lies backing greed and 'free markets' system which uses fraud to increase wealth within banks, corporations and individuals within governments.

Although the capitalist media may use Russel Brand a representative of the 'loony leftys' he is a supporter of Owen Jones. They have similar views on many issues such as the current dismantling of the NHS by the Tories. But you are probably less likely to see Owen Jones treated in the same way. Owen Jones is definitely no loony. It's probably easier for them to just ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist which is what most of the right wing media tries to do most of the time.

I haven't yet read "Revolution" by Russel Brand, but if you are open minded about the possibilities of an alternative, you might have your views expanded by "The Establishment", the latest book by Owen Jones....

This book clarifies the state of the British media, the way it has been abused for corporate and political benefits and the appalling influence it has had on our country. As well as just about every other problem which has contributed to the current crisis we are in! . If I was to use one word to describe  the picture of the political, corporate and media situation it describes, as being the past few decades to the present in the U.K., the only word I could use is 'devastating.'

I must have read going on for 100 hundred books on economics, finance etc. I think this may be the very best of the bunch. When I get some money together I think I'll buy a few thousand copies and stand out side Eton College and the London School of Economics and give them to all the students free! The students will get a free education and it should pretty much solve all our problems for the future!

Good luck to Owen Jones and To Russel Brand in hoping that their books will inspire others to follow them and discover the truth that many of us are already aware of!
                                           

Under the Conservative Party.........The NHS Will Die........Not Lies I'm Afraid Mr Cameron!

On Monday, the U.K. national and international main stream media reported on a speech given by David Cameron....
The title of the articles were to the effect of,-
"Samantha Cameron close to tears as Prime Minister describes how NHS cared for couple's dying son."

David Cameron made an attempt to tell the people he cared about the NHS by sharing his own family's experience of the service whilst the service cared for their son.

Samantha Cameron....Close to tears (apparently)!...But was this just for her son or  due to the plight of the NHS under the god forsaken Tories?!

In February 2009, Samantha and David Cameron lost a son to Cerebral Palsy and Epilepsy.

I completely sympathise with the Camerons. This is not something I would want to see happen to any family.

........But exactly what this has to do with current Conservative Party policy on the NHS is difficult to see!

The Camerons' story of their son was being used in an attempt to defend the Conservative Party from claims by the Labour Party that the Conservatives were privatising and destroying the NHS.

Whilst the Labour Party have often made claims that the NHS is being privatised, David Cameron and other Conservatives have denied this, whilst admitting only to a reform of the NHS taking place.

However....Whilst the Conservatives claim that the NHS is not being privatised there is an event which took place in the House of Lords on April 24th 2013 which contradicts this. The event was a vote on whether the NHS should be privatised!

Before I go any further I must clarify some business interests which many of the Lords have whilst apparently also looking after the interests of the British public.-

In the years approaching this vote, many of the Lords who are influencing decisions which affect the British public accumulated a massive amount of financial interest in businesses which would benefit from the privatisation of the NHS!

Many of the Lords are now directors, Chairman or share holders in health companies. Many of which have been formed in recent years.

Other Lords are involved in the running of banks and financial businesses who have been involved in providing the finance to private health businesses, to  buy control of services offered by the NHS since the governments decision to privatise the majority of the NHS.......Which was a direct result of the vote which took place at the House of Lords on April 24th 2013!

In other words, it is clear that the vote which took place was little about what was best for the British people but more about what was in the vested interests of the Lords.......In fact not just vested interests, but it looks to be more like the results of a meticulously culminated plan to remove the NHS from public ownership, so it could feed the wealth of Lords MPs and financial businesses such as banks.

Much of the 'lobbying' from big businesses in recent years is from businesses who would benefit from NHS privatisation. This lobbying is not only to the Conservatives, but to all the other major parties. This is why I believe that there has been relatively low reaction from the competing parties over recent years on this issue....

Recently, there has been an attempt by Ed Milliband to gain the upper hand against the Conservatives by bringing the issue of the NHS to the fore.

Any way, to get back to the main point. David Cameron appears to be using the death of his son when ever he is questioned on the cuts to the NHS or it's privatisation. He constantly claims to care for the NHS and the people working in it............But what the government has been doing and is currently doing would suggest that he is treating the public like fools. All we are getting from David Cameron is a constant Barrage of lies and deceit.......

His own son died from Cerebral Palsy and epilepsy, but he has recently cut benefits to people with Cerebral Palsy........Not only this, but the conservatives are intent on abolishing the 'Independent Living Fund', which is a fund which many severely disabled people receive. Though this is being delayed whilst it is being dealt with in the courts.....The courts have found the conservative policy to close the Independent Living Fund to be unlawful as it would cause too much suffering to those who depend on it.......Yet the government are still pursuing this policy regardless of the findings of the courts!



This Conservative Party got in to power on the back of lies and deceit and it continues to wallow in a quagmire of corrupt fraudulent media backed bull excrement which is clearly the only way it is able to thrive!

A Controversial Corrupt Capitalist Conspiracy to End Democracy!.... The TransAtlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP).... or EU-US Trade Agreement.

On the 12th May 2014 there was a meeting in Holborn, London on an issue which has been given little media attention. It concerns an agreement which is being pursued by politicians in the U.S. and Europe. The conclusion of that meeting was that it was a corrupt deal which actually had a different agenda to the one that had been publicized through the media........
....The conclusion at this meeting was that it needed to be stopped at all costs!....
That meeting involved mostly activists. Included was the Green Party leader.
A couple of weeks later a debate took place which all main European Government candidates were invited to take part in, prior to the European elections. Organised by the World Development Movement. This post is about the findings of the two meetings.

 It has been known as TTIP (TransAtlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) in Europe.

The media attention given to the public on TTIP has been misleading. On the occasions that it is mentioned in the media, claims are made that the deal between the U.S. and Europe will involve less restrictions on trade between the U.S. and Europe. This we are told, will be good for business and create jobs.

This is what the deal really means...

It is a deal that hands power from governments to multinational corporations.

In order for trade barriers between Europe and the U.S. to be removed there needs to be what has been called a "harmonization" of regulations.

The consensus seems to be that the European regulations will be reduced in order to accomodate the lower standards of  the U.S.

This means our hard earned rights and standards for.......
              Food
              Environmental
              Workers rights

              ..........will be reduced. All rules and regulations are at risk of being modified.

The dumbing down of our current regulations is not the most serious issue with this treaty!

 The big problems come with new regulations which involve giving power to corporations over our governments.......

Corporations will be able to sue governments if they don't like new rules.

  Under the "Investor to State Dispute Settlement"  procedure known as ISDS, corporations will be able to sue governments for any losses of income that happen as a result of governments making new regulations!

The Fracking industry is believed to be a major influence on this deal happening. To secure it's future expansion in a way that no individual and no government will have the power to stop! Banks would also see the business's future as more secure and would be able to invest many billions of dollars more into the industry. 

The media is saying that this a deal which increases U.S. trade in Europe and European trade in the U.S. This deal is being is being 'packaged' in a way that the public will believe that the deal will generate more business and jobs.......The truth is......It's more about corporations getting their own way over their own people on each side of the Atlantic!.......In the media, the economic crisis is often used as a justification for a much needed economic boost. But the economic boost will only involve those who are not suffering. The people running the corporations and their financiers.

What does this 'deal' mean to us?

It will be impossible to bring in new rules on climate change........

Future restrictions on car mileage will be contested by fuel companies for loss of earnings as a result of rule changes.

Restrictions on use of fossil fuels will create a risk of a government being sued by any company involved in fossil fuels.

Any regulation forcing energy companies to use renewable energy will be impossible to implement as the government risks being sued by oil and gas corporations!

Fracking is taking place in Europe, though to a large degree on an experimental level.....In the future we won't be able to stop it. Because of the losses it will cause to the fracking businesses and investment businesses who are supporting it.

Rules on tobacco and alcohol companies, like for example changes in minimum age or any restrictions on their use will be difficult for governments to implement due to financial losses of these firms resulting in governments being sued by them.

Privatised public services will stay privatised even if a new political party wins an election and opposes privatisation. If a government wanted to create a free health service funded by tax payers, where such a service didn't exist, private health businesses could sue the government for losses .

The Role of the Financial Sector...

The City of London Corporation is having a major influence on this deal. The City of London Corporation involves Trans National Financial Services-.........

There will be a, "liberalisation- Opening investment opportunities to transnational foreign investment...."

-This is worrying because the financial industry needs changes to it. Angela Merkel recently pushed for more regulation in the finance industry, for example restrictions on hedge funds. This was rejected by the U.K. government..........As was the transaction tax which has now been agreed to by many countries in Europe. In the future we are less likely to see needed changes implemented as they are likely to face objections from business leaders on the grounds of financial losses to the financial businesses.

..............This deal will mean it will be virtually impossible for a government to bring in new financial regulations on investment banking, hedge funds, the stock markets, the buyout industry and private equity firms...
....These financial businesses continue to have a destructive affect on businesses and the economy throughout the world regardless of the positive spin given to them by a rigged financial media in general! 

So what are our M.E.P. candidates stance on this issue?......

A couple of weeks back......(  ), there was a meeting in London which was organised by the 'World Development Movement'. Representatives from all the main parties were invited to the meeting along with activists from various groups who opposed TTIP. This was a short time before the European elections.

The meeting was chaired by John Hilary, technical director of War on Want. The author of ;

The Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership...
A Charter for Deregulation, an Attack on Jobs, An End to Democracy

The panel of European election candidates at the meeting were;

Glyn Chambers                                .......Conservatives
Jonathan Fryer                                 .......Lib Democrats
Jean Lambert                                   .......Green Party
Seb Dance                                        .......Labour
Non Runner                                             UKIP

Now to throw some light on where we stand, on the stance of these political parties in relation to the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (or EU-US Trade Agreement).

UKIP
UKIP were invited to the meeting a couple of months before it took place. But just before the meeting a message was received from them saying that they had not had enough notice.....

However......They were asked to clarify their position of TTIP so that it could be shared at the meeting. This was the reply...
"We have a lot of difficulty with the TTIP because on one hand we like it because it gives so much power to business. It gets rid of a lot of environmental and labour standards. This, we have no problem with. But what we don't like about it is, that it is being negotiated by Brussels, by the European Commission in secret without any democratic accountability."

John Hilary then gave an account of why the meeting had been arranged and why we all needed to be concerned about TTIP...

"TTIP is anagreement between the European Commission and the U.S. Government. On the 19th May (2014) . began the 5th round of negotiations. The negotiations began last July (2013).
Recent protests in Brussels led to hundreds of arrests. Arrests of people who were coming forward to say that TTIP is a huge threat to our democracy and our future.
There are three main reasons for this;-
1...A huge transfer of power to international corporations, free of restrictions which have been in place in the past.....I.S.D.S....Allows corporations to by pass the domestic legal system and take national governments to court through an investor tribunal.
2...Deregulation Agenda............Not so much to lower tariffs at borders, but to reach behind the border to reduce regulations which will potentially reduce profits to corporations...e.g. food safety, environmental laws and labour laws.
3...Government Procurement....A massive privatisation threat.......We won't be able to get back those public services again in the future."

CONSERVATIVE
"We are strongly in favour of TTIP and we believe it would be beneficial. If you look at the trade between European countries, no one would disagree that it is beneficial. Or believe it is taking away National sovereigny and other things. This agreement has the potential to add £10 billion to the U.K. economy, through increased trade with the U.S., which is already our single most important export market. Tariffs on sports wear and on cars and on energy moving in both directions. We could get cheaper gas from the U.S. if we had this free trade agreement with the U.S.
TTIP would set a standard for other free trade agreements. This would put pressure on China and India to raise their standards to the levels set by the TTIP agreement.
These are the economic benefits.This is not to say there are potential costs. There are potential issues to worry about. We will be very careful in insuring we take those in to account."

GREEN
"I want to say a few words about trade in the beginning. From us as Greens, intervention in trade should not be under mining development,it shouldn't be under mining aid...and the Greens of the European Parliament have opposed a number of free trade deals which the European Union has negotiated with various partners. For a number of reasons. One of the reasons that we have concerns, is about the role of international business, and the way it is actually creating it's own international law.
We also think the trade agreement should not be under mining standards of labour rights, environmental issues and human rights standards.
We are concerned with the number of agreements which have been 'on the table' and are still on the table. We believe that the benefits that are advertised in their promotion don't materialize and that quite often, thew assessments that are done in advance don't really look at issues holistically. Various things get left out. The transparency issue is an important one, and agree with UKIP on that."

LABOUR
There's not much that Jean has said that I disagree with.
I'm at odds with UKIP because of doubts over the European Community being able to negotiate trade agreements of this nature. We are talking about a market place of well over 500 million citizens.
We already have trade agreements between EU member states including the U.K. where I.S.D.S and similar already exist and we simply don't talk about them. We don't have this level of scrutiny. But I am extremely glad that this is an issue we are looking at in detail and lobbying new and existing M.E.P.s


LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
"I've been involved in trade and other issues for many years. Most of the time as a journalist working for the BBC. But also as a lobbyist at the NGO liason committee. This involved looking at trade and aid agreements between the European Union, Africa and the Caribian. So I came from a perspective of wanting to see an agreement that will actually deliver what it says it will. for not just the people of the United States and the European Union, but for the whole world as well. There needs to be an element of justice in this trade agreement...............I don't want to give a vote on for or against TTIP. But, in the spirit of the European Parliament, to seek to improve TTIP and vote for it!.....If not (improved) then vote against it. In other words, I think the potential is there if it was improved.
There are two areas that I do worry about; the ISDS- the idea that corporations could sue!- But services like the NHS in Britain would be ring fenced from being affected.
-Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You are doing great work, many of you lobbying that TTIP is fraught with dangers. -But let's not make it never happen.Let's make it happen but happen better. If indeed it can't be made better, then vote it down."

Then the audience were given an opportunity to ask the panel of M.E.P. election candidates questions....Three questions were accepted at each time...

The first questions were...

 "Why is this trade deal being dealt with in such a secretive manner?"

"What is your view on corporations being able to sue on hypothetical lost profits.-Is this in the public interest?"

" How would you oppose ISDS if it remains in the agreement?"

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
"Trade talks between two super powers with different views will not be held in view of the public. However, details have been leaked and this has spread public debate. Debate on public issues should be shared. I am against ISDS and we have got to get rid of it. It shouldn't be in there. If we are just presented with a document as M.E.P.s as a done deal with no opportunity to change, then of course we would not accept it."

CONSERVATIVE
It's no more or less transparent than other trade agreements in the past. You would have to accept that in sensitive negotiations that some of it would be kept secret. But there is an on going consultation set up by the European Commission which every one has been invited to participate in and express views on.
On the second question- The U.K. has 94 bilateral treaties.Many with ISDS. We have been taken to court only twice. None of those two (court cases) have succeeded. As this mechanism allows for more investment abroad, barring any confiscation of money by dictatorial regimes and that kind of thing,- I think it's a positive thing and something that upholds property rights rather than something to undermine sovereignty. These are things that are intrinsical to the way any international trade agreements work and there hasn't been a problem with them.- And now because this is such a big deal, there is a lot of scare mongering going on regarding it.

GREENS

The European Parliament did a couple of reports before we were presented with a request to go ahead or not. The government at the end of it will only be able to say yes or no. The European Commission has published a mandate for the main five areas, just a few days ago. There's disagreement amongst the national governments at the moment about whether other parts of that mandate will be made public. There is that question of the mandate, itself agreed by the national governments with the European Commission. There are certainly questions about how far national governments are being able to see documents coming from the American side. In terms of how they will work with the commission to track negotiations. So I think there are a lot of questions about this, concerning information not being put in the public domain. The green Party has a website which helps track information that is available at the moment.

John Hilary's response to the first question-
"From a letter from the Chief Negotiator for the Fed to his counterpart made clear there is a 30 year restriction order on all documents per TTIP. The public will not be able to find out a lot of information on this till thirty years down the line! The U.S. has set out all of it's demands with regard to opening up markets.

LABOUR
On scrutiny of deals, I firmly believe that there is absolutely scope for transparency when it comes to the commission. When it comes to the range of information they put before the public. To encourage dialogue. Trade issues with U.K. are discussed by parliament and the U.K. government. The European Parliament is beginning to look and act as a legislator. A representative legislator for all citizens in the E.U. If this leads us to the insidious decision that the European Union is something that is imposed, which completely undemocratic and people have no say at all, then this is a good thing. Because this is how we can engage people and get people talking about it.

Why be Sceptical on Views of Politicians.......

There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about answers to questions on issues like TTIP.

The answers given by these politicians will have varying degrees of their own individual opinion in addition to the opinion that their political party has on this subject. The politcal party position may well be influenced on issues like future funding for the party. The fact that TTIP will increase profits of corporations and allow them more freedom in general is likely to have an influence on the views of political parties they are funding.......even if common sense alone would actually reverse that political position.

The fact is there is a vast amount evidence based on trade deals of the past to prove that these trade deals are damaging to the majority of the world's population. Governments of Quebec in Canada and Australia are currently in battle with corporations for loss of profits or potential profits of corporations. These disputes originated by decisions of the governments simply making decisions which would protect their people from corporations that would otherwise put lives at risk!

The U.S. is pursuing another agreement (TPP) which is a trade deal involving Japan, Australia and other nations in that region of the world. But this is surely simply an extension of this same deal. It's a world wide deal which the U.S. appears to be at the centre of. The deal is simply divided into sections in order to make the agreement more managable. My fear is that if one of the deals does get signed soon, we will be led to believe that the deal that is not signed by for example Europe will place us at a disadvantage to those who have signed the deal with the U.S.

An other point is this phrase "Liberalisation of markets".....It's too vague a term to be using I think by any of the people involved in Banking and finance. Liberalisation really just means more freedom, in this case for the financial sector. What it will mean to the people is that, finance businesses (many from the U.S. but also the U.K)  will be given more freedom to go into other countries in the agreement and make offers for businesses and gain control of them whether it be through private equity companies, hedge funds and corporate buyouts. These will be heavily financed by the investment banks of Goldman Sacks, J.P. Morgan and Barclays etc. These financial businesses,- the banks, private equity firms, hedge funds and asset managers will get themselves onto the payroll of these businesses. They will cost many jobs. But often those in control of the businesses give in to an offer that they are often it seems unable to refuse. These businesses will currently be Nationally owned water companies, communications companies etc. To me this deal looks like a major part of what this deal is really about. It as about opening new markets for the financial industries in capitalist countries to expand their portfolio in their hunger for more profits, into regions which are currently difficult to access due to regulations which are preventing thei absolute dominance. Increased control of businesses and public services will become possible. All because the finance industry and associated businesses want to become mere "landlords" of these businesses and public services! ....Believe me, we will suffer for this.

X-ECONOMICS Conclusion
There seems to be plenty of evidence against these trade agreements. Some of the politicians seem to have had their views blurred of what is really happening here. Capitalism has been unrestricted in the U.K. and the U.S. There are problems with the capitalist free market system. The biggest I believe it needs to continually expand to survive. If investors can't make their $billion dollars increase in value with little effort they will stop giving their money to banks. To do this banks have to keep buying up assets- businesses, nationally run services....Fodder for their invested cash. Also, whilst the banks cause businesses to collapse by loading them up with debt.....they need to divert money else where, to new assets. (If they don't do this you would see prices for businesses becoming uncontrollably inflated!)........The hedge funds, asset managers, private equity firms and investment banks of the capitalist world need more fodder for their investments in order for the capitalist system to struggle on for an other few years. Of course when the day comes that the media tells the world how this system really works (or more accurately, doesn't), it will finally collapse!

These trade agreements would appear to be away for this corrupt capitalist system to create a tunnel through lots of legislation in many different countries which would otherwise prevent the corrupt capitalists from putting the profits of a few before the welfare of the world's population and even the world's ecological system. If any politician is any doubt, their answer should be a no. I.S.D.S. is part of this deal. Should it be signed after the removal of I.S.D.S, there will simply be an attempt to add it in at a later date. Politicians that say we should not refuse TTIP because the terms have not been finalised need to get real. What the U.S. government has suggested is a risk to us all. For that reason it should be refused.....If a burglar told you he was going to break into your home tonight and steel all your posessions, you wouldn't ask him if he was willing to renegotiate. For this reason, the only party I would trust on this matter currently is the Green Party.

Not enough clarity is given to these deals by the people involved with them and the media is not just not failing to inform us but is being used to pass on misleading information. The Ukraine crisis was begun with a trade deal that the people of Ukraine disagreed upon. The chances are many people were probably misled on the details of this deal. Misinformation and a lack of clarity has probably contributed to the many lives lost in Ukraine. The total of which has been added to today as I write this.....Politicians need to take more responsibility for their actions...or may be in this case, lack of it!

Independent Living Fight Back.......Protest to Save the Independent Living Fund.

On 12th May, a spirited protest took place at Department of Work & Pensions head office in Westminster, London against the abolishment of the Independent Living Fund. A fund to support severely disabled people.This fund is being abolished as a result of the bank bailouts and the rapid accumulation of national debt as a result. Though it has to be said that it is unlikely that the austerity measures will make any difference to the problem which was the reason behind the austerity. There are still no signs of the national debt ever reducing. The government is living off a fairy tale ending that is just never going to happen! There is inevitably going to be a plan B at some point, which will be after the passing of the current governments. Who ever takes on the leadership role will inherit the national debt problem we have today. It will probably be much worse.But, by then there will be many who will have paid an unnecessarily high price for those failed austerity measures!

The protest began at 3 pm on the afternoon of 12th May 2014.
To start with it began with an attempt to communicate with the people inside the building in order to get a perspective from those who were given the job of carrying out the governments orders. This involved the use of a megaphone and a public announcement system. This equipment was used to communicate the feelings of the many disabled people who were going to lose out as a result of these cuts. Whilst each of the different people took their turn to express their views, they went about this in a polite manner with no bad language.

But to every ones disappointment, the required response never happened. At around 4 pm the group split up to block two exits. A police bus arrived to reinforce the police who had been at the protest from the beginning. Staff began emerging from a fire exit. They were offered leaflets on importance of the ILF. Of around 200 staff, I saw one female member take a leaflet. She thanked the disabled protester who was in a wheel chair for the leaflet. The only other time I think some one from in the building actually spoke had come out for some fresh air.  

Videos of the whole protest were taken. I fear that some one is trying to get them all sensored!

The fight goes on...









So what is the ILF?




As part of the austerity measures, the U.K. government is closing the Independent Living Fund in 2015. The Independent Living Fund helps severely disabled people by supporting them in a way that allows them to live independently.

Disabled people are able to learn, work, volunteer, play and live in a way that makes them full members of the surrounding community.

The government had been taken to court on the grounds that the decision to close the ILF would cause undue suffering to those affected. The government lost the case, but are still pursuing the closure of the fund in 2015.

18000 disabled people claim from the ILF.

One third of these people have severe learning difficulties.

The case for this cut by the government is driven by the austerity measures which are being inflicted on the whole of the U.K.


The protest was organised by "Disabled People Against Cuts"...DPAC.

"'Bin British Gas!" Protest at AGM....Bin Them All...Renationalise The Energy Industry!

Before the privatisation of the energy sector, investment in energy was on a long term scale. This investment was initially paid with tax payers money.

When the industry was privatised, there was a reduction in tax payers money going into energy production.

The new private companies who bought the public assets originally owned by the tax payer have then used them to generate profits for them selves. All though there is a lot spin and regular use of the words entrepeneurs, what this selling off of government run services is being promoted to voters by the government, actually is, is not colossally different from a landlord buying a property that you own, and then letting you continue to live in that property whilst you pay rent to the landlord there after. Only you have no control of the cost of that rent!

Over recent years, the demands of the private companies have risen. At the same time, they have been unable or unwilling to invest enough of their profits in future development.

We now have a situation where the U.K.'s energy surplus has been reduced to just 4% when in the past, regulators had recommended a surplus of atleast 25%.

In the past few months, private energy companies have begun to threaten the public that if there are any restrictions on profits, then we can expect to see power cuts within the next year from now.
-This is a threat by the private energy companies, which if carried out, will mean suffering and ultimately loss of life. Suffering and a loss of life to people who have been paying their bills in the past years and providing the colossal wages and bonuses for the executives of these companies.

Even if we were to continue to ignore their greed and let them continue to charge the earth for their so called 'services',do you think they would begin to invest in new energy at the rate that is required?

The reason we are in this situation is because there has been a lack of investment in this industry since the day it was privatised.

BIN BRITISH GAS PROTEST 12 MAY 2014

Unless we take control of this industry, that is just not going to change.

The only answer is to re-nationalise.

To add to this case for renationalisation........

British Gas has shown a reduction in profits of 6% in the latest available accounts....But there are some facts which you need to bare in mind when analysing their figures. British Gas owner Centrica is both a whole sale supplier of energy as well as a retailer of energy. So British Gas profits will be reduced if for example the Centrica business supplying British Gas was to increase it's price as a wholesaler to British Gas. The point is, although British Gas profit is down 6% , the profits for the Centrica group which includes British Gas has only reduced by around 1.5% over the same period......a fall in profit from £2.74 Billion to £2.7 Billion.

Basically, their profits certainly don't show much justification for a 9% hike in energy charges. An increase which they had promised some time ago but had to reduce as so many customers were leaving for competing energy providers.

The final case for renationalising the energy sector is because it's a complete and utter government manufactured farce!

 The U.K. public is being ripped off.

There are 33 companies listed under 'Which Switch' as U.K. energy providers!

-But really!....are they all energy providers?! Well of course they are not. Sinsbury's Energy is actually selling energy provided by British Gas. M&S, Airtricity and Atlantic all listed as suppliers but are selling electricity for SSE. It's a similar story as you go down the list of thirty three companies.

Needless to say, the public are paying executives and sales staff to all these non-providers of energy so they can pass it straight to the customer.

How does the customer benefit from this nonsense?

But going back to the rising energy prices which we are told by the executives of the energy firms and OFGEM, is down to the wholesale price of energy; How is it that British Gas can supply customers of Sainsbury's energy, and Sainsbury's Energy are still able to compete with British Gas?
 In a genuine competitive market, this surely would not be possible!

Couldn't really avoid this bit of additional nonsense......EBICO........is one of the listed suppliers......"The only 'not for profit' energy company."

It probably gets lots of customers because of this statement. It may well be true, that it doesn't make a profit. But then it doesn't 'make' energy either. It sells energy provided by SSE. Who you can be sure are making a profit from the price that EBICO is paying them.

My final case for renationalising energy is that in 2007, British Gas was almost sold to GAZPROM, Russia's biggest gas company. As a government, you just don't know how good your relationship, with another nations government will be in the future. How could that affect energy that is being provided by a business owned by a nation you may have formed some differences with?


All pictures from "Bin British Gas" Protest, run by Fuel Poverty Action. 
Westminster, London. May 12 2014.
Protest against poverty caused by rising energy prices, fracking and the lack of investment into renewable energy. 

- For a more in depth look into privatisation see other posts in X-ECONOMICS by putting PRIVATISATION in search box at top left!