University education - who 'pays' ?

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) today stepped forward to say University students in the UK should pay more for their loans and accept higher tuition fees as "inevitable".

The National Union of Students attacked their report as "gross hypocrisy" from the "fat cats at the CBI". The Association of Teachers and Lecturers attacked the proposals as "arrogant and elitist".

In my view the CBI is once again promoting the wrong strategy, and Robert Peston has today done a fantastic job in challenging this position in his blog ... and points to the issue of inter-generational social justice the CBI ignores ... I've included a few of his comments below:

'... More by luck than desert, the generation of Lambert, Balls, Laidlaw and even Peston have had it pretty good ... we had free university education ... we have saved for a pension over the many years of a bull market and when companies and the public sector felt obliged to offer gold-standard final salary pension schemes ... we managed to get on the property ladder before house prices became ludicrously inflated...

... It was our generation which royally messed up the economy with the inadequate governance that led to the credit crunch and the worst global recession since the 1930s ... but we're - on the whole - alright Jack, thanks to the accident of when we happen to have been born ...

... but those leaving school and university today face an altogether bleaker future: a drought of jobs; a bewildering and unappealing set of options for saving and investing; over-priced residential property (even after the "correction"); relentless fearsome competition from India, China, and so on ...

.. and there's the costs of providing a health service and welfare state to sustain an older generation ...

... so some may well argue that as and when a new government decides to make cuts or increase taxes - to fill the hole in the public finances created by the current generation - its first instinct should probably not be to penalise students ... shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?'

and in response to his blog I added:

'Well put - an excellent article again ... and many great comments from bloggers too. IMHO setting a target of 50% of people going to university is a joke, the CBI comments are a disgrace and the Government need to think very carefully about what they choose to do in this area ...

... for instance young people also have a choice where they live (n.b. they can move anywhere in the EU without restriction), and if hard-working young people move out of the UK to work elsewhere then there will be few value/wealth creators at all here in the future and no-one to pay the taxes necessary to subsidise any public services at all (or to pay off any of the debts) ... and the whole system will continue a downward spiral ... until widespread protest/social unrest hits the streets ...

Instead of passing more debt on to future generations, what about introducing a new tax - a 'Land Value Tax'* (which a number of other countries currently have) ... as it's known to be particularly effective at targeting rich landowners who own most of the land, assets & wealth ... as this group can more than afford it, it can't easily be 'passed on' and they also can't avoid it - unlike most/all of the other taxes aimed at them**! ...

... It would raise large amounts of tax and would allow other taxes to reduce as a result. It would also push landowners to make more land available for housing - which would partly tackle the over-priced residential property market we still have too. A small fraction of this tax revenue could be used to subsidise free tuition fees and provide maintenance grants (e.g. more 'means-tested' grants) for future generations of value/wealth creators (e.g. so long as they are UK residents and continue to stay in the country) ...

... Let's also reduce the number of students going to University from the stupidly high target of 50%, support proper vocational apprenticeships and scrap/replace all the poor quality courses we see today e.g. most of the very expensive, and yet completely flawed, MBA programmes ... which teach students 19th century management practices instead of 21st century management practices (i.e. outdated courses, which partly got us in this mess, and which are often referred to as 'Maybe Best Avoided' - even without all the debt)!

* take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/land-of-free-but-whos-paying-for-it.html for instance.

** NB the Government have allowed 'land' to be one of the very few things exempt from inheritance tax too!

The BBC - part of the conspiracy preventing 21st century democracy

Following from my last post, and my previous points about the BBC failing in it's duties, Greg Dyke (former Director General of the BBC) has also today stepped forward to tell us the BBC is part of a "conspiracy" preventing the "radical changes" needed to UK democracy ... and he told a Lib Dem conference meeting he wanted a commission to look into the "whole political system".

But Greg Dyke also said 'I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it' and said 'major changes he had wanted to make to the BBC's coverage of politics had been blocked'.

He told the Liberal Vision fringe meeting about the expenses scandal and how it had changed voters' attitudes ... 'The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy ...'

Mr Dyke also said ... 'there had never been a greater separation between the 'political class' and the public. We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament ...

... I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors. Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests ...'

He said ... 'the expenses scandal had been 'British democracy's Berlin Wall moment' but he feared the opportunity to change the system was fading away. He called for an end to pathetic jeering, shouting and childish behaviour and the pomp and ceremony in Parliament ...

... an independent commission should look at ideas such as moving the seat of democracy out of Westminster, a fully elected upper chamber with no whipping system, proportional representation, cutting the number of MPs by half, and reforming their pay and expenses, he added. It's time to be radical. Our current model was designed for the 18th Century. It doesn't fit 21st Century Britain' ...

And he added ... 'We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament because they have been knocking on people's doors for 10 years ..'

and went on to say ... 'A lot of the BBC governors were also what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and.... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system ... I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere' ... and he added ... 'In the end political journalists live in the same narrow world as politicians do and they don't see a need to change because they think it's the world. They just don't understand that out there it's very different.'

Change - a challenge indeed ... however happen it will, and aided by the internet & 21st century technology, politics & power will eventually change forever ... and with Greg Dyke's comments today we are a little more wiser about the real BBC (and BBC journalists - particularly their 'political' journalists) and the role (or lack of a role) they are playing ... which, if nothing else, confirms what most of us in the blogosphere already know ...

Referred to on Robert Peston's 'What future for media and journalism?' blog.

Media and Journalism - what future ?

Robert Peston recently tried to answer the above question in the Richard Dunn Memorial Lecture at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival ... and for me the main points he made were really about the future of journalism:

"... It was plainly in the public interest to disclose the weakness of our banks. And the primary justification - for me - of this kind of story is to democratise information that matters to all our livelihoods, which would otherwise be available simply to a few bankers, hedge funds and government officials ...

... what matters is what has always mattered - the facts, the story. The skill for a journalist is unearthing information that matters to people and then communicating it as clearly, accurately - and if possible as entertainingly - as possible ...

... for me, the blog is at the core of everything I do, it is the bedrock of my output. The discipline of doing it shapes my thoughts. It disseminates to a wider world the stories and themes that I think matter ... it connects me to the audience in a very important way. The comments left by readers contain useful insights - and they help me understand what really matters to people. That is not to say that I give them only what they want. I retain an old-fashioned view that in the end the licence fee pays for my putative skills in making judgements about what matters. Most important of all, the blog allows me and the BBC to own a big story and create a community of interested people around it. Sharing information - some of it hugely important, some of it less so - with a big and interested audience delivers that ownership and creates that committed community ...

... more than ever we need a choice of providers of high quality, authoritative news. The question is how to ensure there are enough competing groups with the resources to invest in news - because it is far from cheap to supply people with the information they need to take control of their lives and hold big institutions to account ...

... in my area, of financial journalism - but I think this argument can be extended - there is more-than-ever a requirement to fulfil that traditional purpose of serious journalism, to empower people to participate fully in democracy ...

... there was a time when jobs were for life and a decent income in retirement was guaranteed by a benign employer, with the welfare state rescuing the unlucky or feckless few. Those were the days. Whether it's pensions, or buying a house or acquiring new skills so that we can remain in gainful employment, the onus has been put much more on individuals to make decisions that will determine whether they'll be prosperous or paupers. But are we equipped to make those life-determining decisions? ...

... what I am talking about here, as you know, is the importance of public service journalism, about informing and educating the public so that there is democratic participation in big decisions about the future of capitalism. Now at a time when the future of the financial underpinning of the economy is in question, so too is another part of the fabric of our society - the part that transmits not money but the news and information we need to hold powerful institutions to account. And for me, the issue is all about securing the greatest access for the greatest number of people to a diversity of competing high quality news sources ...

... with financial paternalism in its death throes, just as we are being forced to take control of our financial lives as never before, are we sure that a wholly liberalised commercial news market would ensure that everyone has access to the kind of news and financial information they need and deserve? ...

... will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues - financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on - that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if 'can't pay' means 'can't know'? ...

there is a debate here about two kinds of fairness. There is the fairness of ensuring a level playing field for players in a commercial market. And there is the fairness of the distribution of information and knowledge to all who need it, irrespective of their material circumstances ..."

The reason for highlighting these statements in particular are because they allude to a more fundamental problem, not directly (but indirectly) mentioned, which is the demise of proper responsible journalism, and its increasing replacement with sensationalist / celebrity news reporting (e.g. headline grabbing) ... as highlighted by Jeremy Paxman as well in the 2007 James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture entitled "Never mind the scandals: what’s it all for" ... as well as Peter Sissons recently, whilst referring to the lack of unbiased journalism in the BBC with regard to climate change ...

Comment Added to Robert Peston's blog.

Challenging Poweromics ... and looking for Recovery

Insightful words were this week articulated by the head of Britain's trade union movement, Brendan Barber, as he pointed out the fundamental flaws in Politicians' actions over the last ten years ... as well as the fallacy in promoting the 'green shoots of recovery' ...

"Politicians bought the line that 'Finance' should be 'King' and deregulation the answer to every problem ... activities so well described by Adair Turner as 'socially useless' were seen as 'economically essential' ...

... set finance free we were told, have a bonfire of regulations, let the super rich get even richer ... it will somehow trickle down to the rest of us ... 'manufacturing is old fashioned', 'let the city rule', 'greed is good' ... these were the 'watch words' ... and those whose still preach that greed want us to forget the crash and tell us the economy is now in recovery ...

... but the economy has fallen off a cliff and the green shoots mean little ... when 1000's of people a day are joining the dole queue ... and rising share prices count for little when a million and more young people can't find work ...

and bumper bonuses ... an obscene joke, when it was our money that rescued to banks, and its our public services that are now being told they will have to face the consequences ...

... it's only when unemployment starts coming down, only when we create decent jobs that pay decent wages, and only when vital public services are safe from cuts, that we will be able to talk about a real recovery ..."

Wise words, well spoken, from a leader who can clearly see the wood from the trees ... but what's arguably most shocking & surprising of all is that he's describing the behaviour & actions of a supposed Labour Government (led by 'leaders' supposedly also brought up in the church!) who were once thought of as the voice of communities and hard-working people ... how things have changed ... and how things will have to change for us to get back on course ...

... but unfortunately none of the current politicians & bankers will do this for us ... it will require brand new leadership, new people who truly represent the voice of the people, to take responsibility and turn around our failing economy, and society ... we face a huge battle, a battle of values, one that needs to challenge Poweromics and the basic premise that 'greed is good' ... we need to quickly introduce Leanomics (and leanomics indicators such as the 'BUTS' test - where U refers to unemployment/untapped talent as mentioned above), else we will resign our economy/society to history ...

'For evil to flourish, all it needs is for good men to do nothing' [Edmund Burke]

Connection between 'worth' and 'reward' obscured

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams told BBC Two's Newsnight programme: "There hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year" ... "We haven't heard people saying 'well actually, no, we got it wrong and the whole fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty'."

What we are looking at is the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we have seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged. Dr Williams went on to say ... "It's a failure to name what was wrong. To name that, what I called last year 'idolatry', that projecting [of] reality and substance onto things that don't have them."

He also said that the crisis was a lesson that "economics is too important to be left to economists" ... and he went on to suggest there was a role for "awkward amateurs" in examining how the City operates.

Dr Williams also said there was a sense of "bafflement" and "muted anger" at the bonus culture and said "I think that's one of those things that feeds the... diffused resentment, that people are somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and the reward you get becomes more obscure".

He could have gone a lot further, and questioned the value/ethics of building an economy based on 'gambling' (instead of adding real value for communities), and the legitimacy of gambling with other people's money ... allowing a small minority to profit greatly when it goes well, only to be bailed out by the vast majority (taxpayers) every time it goes wrong.

He didn't mention the need to split commercial banking from investment banking, but he did mention the importance of 'wealth creation' (value creation & well-being) compared to 'wealth manipulation', which I have referred to in past blogs ... Leanomics will need to replace Poweromics (in terms of 'economics') very soon if our nations are to have any chance of a survival, 'success' and a 'sustainable future'.

More people need to take responsibility and challenge what is happening (see 'for evil to flourish') and as far as having 'awkward amateurs' examining how the City operates - I couldn't agree more ... in fact Leanomics would naturally create this ...

As time goes on, and things get worse, such messages will get progressively stronger, highlighting the fundamental lack of ethical and moral values prevailing in our 'leadership', as well as the fundamental gap (and flaws) between 'creating value' and 'monetary reward' that current exist ...

Why the Prime Minister hasn't learnt a thing

Gordon Brown said today he is "appalled" that some financial firms are continuing, and even extending, their bonus culture ... so why did he present an open-cheque book to them, bail them out with £100's billions of taxpayers money, and put nothing in place to stop this from happening again? ... for instance why has he not pushed for the introduction of a new Glass-Steagall type act to separate commercial banking (supporting wealth creation) from investment banking (supporting wealth manipulation) again, given the removal of this was a key factor in the financial crisis in the first place?

Mr Brown also refused to blame Britons for their level of rising personal debt during his time as chancellor and prime minister, saying the vast majority of debt had been the result of the "legitimate aim" of people trying to buy a home ... a "legitimate aim" to have a roof over ones head - yes ... but to have to take on huge personal debts to do this - no! ... and this would not have happened if the Government had ensured a steady & sufficient supply of housing (ideally driven by a Land Value Tax too), rather than 'promoting' self interest/greed and house price inflation/speculation.

The problem is the Government do not know how to create real wealth ... they only know how to manipulate wealth, and letting landowners profit from land whilst bankers profit from loans ... and what's even more worrying is that the Prime Minister's comments today show he hasn't learnt anything from this crisis! ... so how could we ever believe he is the right man to fix it?

Double Dip - Double Quick ?

Following on from my previous posts (1,2 for instance), take a look at these recent reality checks from other groups today ... about what we may see in the future too.

Recovery - House prices rising ...? irrelevant ...? a false dawn ? ... and the TUC rejecting claims of recovery too, suggesting we could see a "double dip, double quick" ... with unemployment escalating to 4,000,000 (not 3,000,000) ...

... and there is nothing to say this won't happen, or in fact for it to get much worse than this, unless the Government starts to invest effectively in innovation, creativity and enterprise that can add real-value in far more effective/sustainable ways (e.g. not gambling, investment banking, and property speculation), which can also support public services, as many of my additional posts (e.g.1,2) have also pointed out (including the one below) ...

"... 21st century management practices double the value-adding capability and halve costs both at the same time - but because it's 'lean' in terms of management (and 180 degrees different to traditional management!), most 'leaders'/'managers' either fail to understand it or choose to ignore it, and prefer to stick to what they know* ... most 'leaders' and 'managers' don't mind change, so long as it doesn't change how they lead and manage ... but unfortunately that's what's now needed ... don't expect to see it in a hurry ... but you'll see successful nations/enterprises doing it ... Sir Gus O'Donnell (head of the Civil Service) has known this for years, but has failed to do anything about it ..."

Posted on Stephanomics blog (post 31).

'Cutting' your way to 'success' is flawed

Supporting enterprise that creates value for others (and wealth for the nation) would be a good idea - as the revenues, and hence the taxes paid for by corporations / workforce, is what's actually needed to fund any public services in the future ... yet little mention / action by politicians with regard to this ... they all show they have no real policy/ideas on this at all ... hence their focus on cutting costs ... and they haven't really got a clue about that either.

What we see is current 'leaders' failing to 'lead' ... the government gave hundreds of billions of taxpayers money to financial institutions ... who prefer to i) make money from money (i.e. wealth manipulation'), to ii) gamble using other peoples' money, and to iii) profit from the good times and get bailed out by us in the bad ... nothing has changed, and we are continuing down this road again ... but with very little to show for it, except a massive debt to pay off, higher taxes and less & less cash to pay for public services.

Investment in entrepreneurship and real enterprise is needed to rebuild a sustainable economy and to fund future public services ... instead of trying to get investment to return into property again (alongside gambling) in the hope that international markets believe people in the UK will be prepared to take on more debt so that they can take a disproportionate chunk of people's salary in the process (for adding little/no value at all) once again ...

If the UK still plans to go for the latter, don't expect it to last for very long, as debt will continue to spiral out of control, more unemployed will need to be supported by the state due to the lack of enterprise, and many more enterprising/hard-working people will make a different choice on where they would like to live (e.g. remember EU borders are all open now)- and they will be unlikely to choose here (e.g. because of high property prices, high taxation and imploding public services ...)

Simply 'cutting' your way to 'success' is a flawed strategy. Innovation and value-added enterprise, supported by freeing up more resources to allow more value to be created, is far better (e.g. robust & sustainable) ... but current 'leaders' haven't got a clue ... fail to understand this ... and unfortunately the chicken's will eventually coming home to roost.

Posted on the Stephanomics blog (Post 17), and links to chapter 1 (page 9) of my book!

Hype, Panic and Policy

Mark Easton, the BBCs Home editor, posted a very interesting journalistic blog recently ... entitled 'when panic shapes policy' ... which referred to the history/creation of the government's 'Vetting and Barring Scheme' as a child of moral panic.

'... It is a textbook case of how media hype, political expediency & bureaucratic process lead to conclusions that can later appear disproportionate ...' and referred to forums questioning such actions ...

... which will risk deepening the generational segregation that, to my mind, is now a greater cause of community disharmony than ethnic or class segregation. There is an increasing disconnection: adults are encouraged to see all young people as potential muggers while children are encouraged to view all adults as potential abusers ...

How many adults will decide against volunteering to work at the local youth centre or after-school club because they don't want to be judged by some faceless quango ... ?'

... refers to recent forum discussions, and concludes 'our democracy is regularly buffeted by panics which make rational, considered discussion impossible ...'

Is Mark Easton showing us that 'journalism' is set to make a come-back (cf news reporting), and that the BBC acknowledges the negative impact media hype is having on Government policy ... ?

Are we about to see calm, sound and reasoned judgements (based on a mixture of examining all the facts and applying a good dose of common-sense) make a come-back ? ... helped by the BBC ... ?

One would hope so, given they have a civic duty/responsibility to us all (and we pay all their salaries) ... but don't hold your breath !

UK scepticism about climate change growing

The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a recent survey ... twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated"... four in 10 believe that many leading experts still question the evidence ... one in five are "hard-line sceptics".

The survey, by Cardiff University, shows there is still some way to go before the public's perception matches that of their elected leaders. Although the findings are similar to those of other UK surveys, this is the first to show that people may be becoming "tired" of claims surrounding climate change.

Half of the people surveyed believed the media was too alarmist ... and a third said there was too much conflicting evidence to know what is actually happening. Other surveys have shown that people in the UK are more sceptical than those in Europe, but less than those in the US.

However this article fails to mention any science, particularly about the critical role played by water vapor/clouds and the reasons behind people's scepticism (e.g. water vapor/cloud making up over 90% of the 'greenhouse effect' - whilst man-made carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.12%) but my previous post covers some of this, as well as a few of the conspiracy theories too ...

We all want to understand what's happening and to tackle the problems we face, but alarmist reporting and fear may well make the problem worse (e.g. pushing car companies into making hydrogen cars - which generate water vapor)!

Challenging 'Greed' and creating a 'Leaner City'

Extracts from a City diary, from an insider who has worked in the City of London for over a decade ...

"... You get to the top by making more money than your peers. Competitive crafty, greedy people give their employers what they want and rise up the ranks. Greed is inevitable ...

... We're told by our chancellor that the solution to our crisis is more effective regulation of our banks, but regulation will never stop greed. Chancellor Darling also cites the notion that "spreading your risk is a good thing." This is a classic academic over-simplification and fails to account for human behaviour ...

... All that happens when risk is "spread" is that it ends up in the weakest hands and overall the system becomes saturated with the same risk. The mantra that diversifying risk is "good" ends up producing the opposite effect: we all fall down together ...

... It's why we must disentangle investment banking from more ordinary, commercial banking. It's the only way to stop another crunch in however many years' time ...

... After the Great Crash of 1929, the Glass-Steagall Act in the USA forbade commercial banks from conducting investment banking business. Since then, financial crises came and went without the disaster we've just witnessed. Separation of the two forms of banking prevented contagion ...

... The investment banks could be as greedy as they liked without recklessly endangering the rest of the population. Glass-Steagall was repealed after nearly seventy years in 1999 and it then took just eight years for the investment bankers to bring our entire global financial system to its knees, hold it to ransom and then get paid to fix it ...

... The politicians' solution? Merge more banks together and embed investment banking even more deeply into our financial blood system. Institutions that are "too big to fail" should, if we apply common sense, be "too big to exist". But instead they have become "too big to resist" ...

... If I am right, the next financial crisis, when it comes, stands to make the last two years look like a "warm up". When these newly engrossed banks fail, what then? For the time being, more of the same is the only prescription the politicians can conceive of. The bailouts that were sold to the public on the grounds they would help the ordinary citizen have failed to do anything other than nationalise previously private debt, leaving the "little guy" to fend for himself and pay up to the hilt for the privilege ...

... Closer to the ground, it's common to believe that these are uniformly hard times for everyone in the City. Not necessarily so. The firms that survived the bust have never known it so good - less competition, fees have gone up, margins have got larger - all courtesy of the reduced competition created by our politicians waving-through mergers as a solution to the crisis ...

... But none of what I see makes me any more hopeful for a better, leaner City. I want a City that properly serves the economy and acts as the lubricant, rather than the engine, of growth. I want commercial banks to make boring, safe loans. I want investment banks to be able to blow up without taking the country down. I want the ordinary citizen to be insulated from financial excess, not left out in the good times and then billed for the bad times. Yet none of this is on the way. Leaving me to simply ask: Why? ..."

Again great insight which very much echoes many of my posts (e.g. take a look at this recent one for instance) ... and I think the answer to last question partly lies in the fact that it's not in the interests of the 'small minority' currently in 'power', who desperately want to 'maintain power' so they can 'profit from power' (i.e. applying Poweromics). However Ignoromics will also have to reduce for this to be properly challenged ... for real change to take place ... and for us to see a "Leaner City" ... one applying "Leanomics" ... and focused on adding value and wealth creation (for communities/society) rather than wealth manipulation (for a small minority).

The 'battle of values' ahead is becoming ever clearer, and as more people take notice (and take responsibility) new 'leaders' will emerge and change things for the better (nb current 'leaders' are unlikely to this - for the reasons outlined in my previous post), and this is not very far away ...

Referred to on Stephanomics recent blog.

UK Government have jettisoned moral hazard

Extracts from a City diary, from an insider working in a commercial bank ...

"Whilst we are looking to increase our net lending, it will only be to those companies who have a better credit rating than we do - which means only the top businesses, posting good results and having recovered or stayed immune from the crunch, rather than small and medium sized businesses ...

... What has proved to be bad is not the potential failure of a lender, but the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people, the stifling of innovation and investment, and the massive tax liability for generations to come ...

The reality is that we have had two years of predominantly useless noise and an impression that things are being done. We are still no further forward than what should have been blatantly obvious before we got into this mess ...

... A crash in an industry which was previously considered impervious and monolithic you would hope would result in profound change and enlightenment - core principles ripped up and rebuilt. I am a strong believer in the potential of creative destruction but there is a void-like gap in financial and regulatory innovation or debate. Wealthy investment banks have become even wealthier - with minimal incentive to reform as they now have even fewer competitors ...

The government has jettisoned moral hazard by bailing out terrible lenders with universal quantitative easing. Business failure, the ultimate sanction of the free market, has been removed".

More observations of reality from people who care ... so when will apathy reduce and people take responsibility for changing it ... ?

Telling the truth - a revolutionary act?

I was recently drawn to a comment made on an internet discussion group - focused on the fact that "Americans haven't seen so much of their wealth evaporate since the Great Depression" ... the comment referred people to one of my blogs "Big Questions: Too hot to handle?" ...

... and went on to make the following comment & reference ... "this might help to explain why one political party is no different than the other ... It's just the nature of the unevolved beasts" ... and following on from another of my posts went on the quote George Orwell too ... adding the phrase "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".

... Powerful words and powerful insight from George Orwell's famous book "1984", written way back in 1949 - and it's scary to think how much of his insight has now become true (e.g. 'Big Brother', 'Attack on Civil Liberties' etc), 60 years on, in 2009.