How the Tories have failed their voters. One of Russ Jones excellent threads unrolled here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1548982466995802112.html
Happened here in Canada. In 1988, the Progressive Conservative government had a sizable majority of 156. In 1993, they took...two seats. The downside was that it marked the rise of right-wing populism with our own Reform Party, which later subsumed the whole of the conservative side of the political spectrum.
https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf For those that still think I’m crazy for banging on about money printing & currency debasement all the time.: here is a 2011 IMF paper which talks about financial repression liquidating people’s savings. This is why things around the west are deteriorating It’s all deliberate. Don’t believe a word the politicians say They steal your money from you and use it to pay for bombs to kill innocent civilians in far away lands
Uh, Os...the "heyday of the financial repression era" that they're describing happened with the gold standard in place. When they refer to the Bretton Woods system, that is inextricably tied to the 'hard currency' you love so much: fixed currencies and gold convertibility were the fundament of Bretton Woods.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I said it got massively worse in 1971. It began with the formation of the federal reserve. Before 1912/13 the gold standard was truly in place and capitalism flourished. Not only that, wars were much smaller before the government could create money from thin air. Monarchs or governments would have to win support of the population to be able to fund it. Now they fund their wars by stealing your wealth through inflation
You said it got massively worse in 1971. The paper doesn't say that. Capitalism didn't flourish because of the gold standard. In 1907, the entirety of the American financial system ended up on the verge of collapse, and lacking any sort of ability to conduct monetary policy, the only thing that saved it was a group of bankers loaning huge amounts of gold to the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907 You'll hate to hear it, but the biggest driver of economic growth in the Gilded Age? Unrestricted immigration. The US peaked at 8 million immigrants a year at a time when their population was only 76 million. please log in to view this image
You’re making the classic mistake of cherry picking one bad event and using it to undermine an entire system. The list of pros and cons of a hard money standard is insanely weighted toward hard money. As I mentioned, the biggest reason for this is it defunds the military industrial complex (wars). But there are many others. The collapse of one or two banks should not undermine the entire economic system. They should be allowed to fail and deal with the consequences. Instead they try and stop the collapse and inflate a bubble which will cause much more pain. Why would I hate to hear it? Controlled immigration has always been good. Uncontrolled mass immigration is bad. Of course immigration is important when we need it. Right now we don’t. England can’t cope with the people here. Also we are not vetting people harshly enough. A good example of failed immigration policy is illustrated by this graph from Denmark, where they record violent crime figures based on nationality: As you can see, those of Danish origin are way down the list. The exact same thing is happening here, except we don’t publish this data.
One bad event? Before the Panic of 1907, there was the Panic of 1901: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1901 Before the Panic of 1901, there was the Panic of 1896: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896 Before the Panic of 1896, there was the Panic of 1893: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893 Before the Panic of 1893, there was the Panic of 1884: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884 That's four full-scale economic depressions and one barely-averted complete collapse in 23 years. It was quite literally uncontrolled mass immigration...from Europe, at least. Until the 1920s, there were zero restrictions on the number of immigrants from the continent. Edit: Jesus wept, I didn't see that you'd edited your post to suggest that the problem is "the wrong" immigrants, namely non-whites, using a chart being passed around by white nationalists (the first hit is this guy, whose Twitter account is racist memes and calls for Swedish racial purity):
Yes but you’re misunderstanding the entire situation. It’s a good thing for things to collapse. In a free market things are supposed to collapse and die. Companies and banks dying mean they can be broken up and then replaced. What we have no is things being propped up by fake money. Zombie companies surviving only because of fake monpoly money. We have traded the occasional bank collapse and minor economic crisis for the gradual erosion of wealth of the entire citizenry as it is passed up to the wealthy elite
If you have a problem with the wealth of the citizenry being passed up to the wealthy elite (and you should! I agree!), I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the Gilded Age featured the most profound inequality in the history of the United States. 4,000 families had 50% of all the wealth in the country, which significantly exceeds today: https://time.com/5122375/american-inequality-gilded-age/ The people pushing for a return to the Gilded Age aren't doing it because it'll benefit the bottom four quartiles of society. They're doing it because they want ever more unfettered accumulation of wealth at the top, and that period represents the high-water mark for obscene wealth concentration.
I would argue that there is a myriad of reasons for that. One of the big ones is the centralising forces of the available technology at the time. You had less companies and therefore more monopoly on useful goods. It makes sense that there was obscenely rich people - there were way less useful companies. Now we have thousands of companies doing useful things, and the broken money means that they aren’t being fairly rewarded as the markets are all totally broken
I'm afraid that's incredibly incoherent, and completely at odds with a technological ecosystem that skews heavily toward monopolies. Most tech companies are wholly reliant on economies of scale that are not realized until they have a massive market share; there is a reason so many of them are propped up by venture capital while they spend their first 5-10 years burning cash at a prodigious rate, while they squeeze out smaller players. Few tech start-ups can survive on their own merits, so they survive as loss leaders until they crowd out anyone that doesn't have the backing of the VC vampires, and then go public. That isn't caused by "broken money", it's caused by a reticence to start trust-busting. Same reason it happened in a Gilded Age, just replace top hats and cigars with hoodies and ketamine. Edit: feel like I should mention it, but free marketeers used to be ardent trust-busters, it's just that today the most prominent people who claim to be free marketeers happen to run companies that couldn't survive an actual free market. Monopolies and trusts are enormously disruptive to free trade: the Gilded Age was the golden age of trusts (leading to the golden age of trust-busting during the early 1900s), and we're pretty well back there again.
There is also the fact that our awful immigration system is amplified by a completely inept justice system: https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ws/sexual-deviant-who-exposed-himself-9176556 We could probably take more of a risk on who we let in to the country if we could actually trust the justice system to put disgusting criminals behind bars or expedite them. The above nonce didn’t even get jail time. We are suffering both from poor immigration choices and an awful justice a system which only invites and encourages more criminal behaviour. We have the worst of all aspects right now. We are not a serious country. Mostly because of the ridiculous progressive agenda meaning we don’t have the stomach to look after England properly anymore. And to respond to your last post, it’s not incoherent at all. We have absolutely nothing close to a free market now. Almost all venture capital is allocated incorrectly. There are zero accurate price signals anywhere in the markets. Trusts and monopolies are in general bad, but they’re especially bad when they’re formed based on completely incorrect price signals. We need to separate money from state, like we did to the church.
I'd be interested in the providence of this chart (and whether it's true). I know the Danes have implemented the type of strict immigration system that the Swedes have failed to (and have suffered for as a result - the Swedes, that is). Regardless of whether it was first shared by a mad Swedish loon, if the figures are correct, they really should be taken note of. Immigration in and of itself is not a problem as much as integration is. That's where issues stem from. I'm with Os in that mass uncontrolled immigration, particularly from countries diametrically culturally different (and in some cases, the word 'opposed' is relevant) is a madness.
Found the source. It's Inquisitive Bird on Substack/Twitter: https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-effects-of-immigration-in-denmark https://twitter.com/Scientific_Bird Reading his Twitter, his whole shtick is that non-whites are inherently violent. So, classic scientific racism.
Yeah, in which case it's actually doing the opposite to what they'd like (or at least should like, which is for a sensible discussion to take place. What they're probably trying to do is rile people, so I guess it works). It's actually detracting from a necessary conversation about integration etc.
Actual figures from actual Denmark, do look a bit different. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/sociale-forhold/kriminalitet/doemte-personer
