Ah…of course…we should have known. The Marxist CofE Archbishops do.

David Davis

Here, you can see the whole sad thing, but…

…to prove my point in the title, I have to quote directly from the article:-

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, condemned the financial traders who made millions by driving down the share price of leading banks as “bank robbers and asset strippers”.

In a powerful speech to City bankers on the effects of the credit crisis on Wednesday, he denounced the “Alice in Wonderland” world of global finance where short-sellers profited by laying bets that shares in HBOS would fall in price.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, warned in a magazine article that modern devotion to the free market is a form of idolatry and that Karl Marx was right in his analysis of the power of “unbridled capitalism”.

The pair’s attacks came following a tumultuous week in which four major financial institutions went bust or were taken over, triggering multi-billion pound government rescue plans to steady the markets, after traders targeted banks that had been weakened by exposure to unrecoverable mortgage debts and a reduced ability to borrow money.

I have to say, here, that I originally thought that Dr John Sentamu was (what messrs Sellar and Yeatman called, in “1066 and all That“) a Good Thing. But sadly, he’s turned out to be just as bad a fascist lefty as all the other Stalinist/de-Christianising redistributionist terroristloving Devilworshipping lefties of today’s Chief officers of the Church of England. John Carey was probably the last Archbishop of the CofE who could be called (more or less) Christian.

And…let’s just straighten this out while I’m on fire…the “women priests thing” is not the problem. It is a Feminazi sideshow, conducted merely to undermine the CofE as an Anglospheric Institution, which used once to act to do great good, for more people, for less money, and in less time, that socialism and “big-state-charity paid for out of taxation. the Feminazi thing, and the aggressive promotion of “gay” priests, to help shatter the bonds of memory about ordinary charity and Christian life in England. It has largely succeeded.

( Regarding the “molestation” issue, many priests, in all times, and in all religions, have liked choirboys or over-young girls. I submit that it’s to do with the emotionally-highly-charged states that lonely men and inspired young people, forced together in concentrated study and practise of skill, can reach, in the environment of a grand and numinous building, and in the presence of very very large, expressive music and deep emotions. Anything that went on as a result ought to have been merely a matter for the civil authorities, if their voters decided to take a position…which under Liberal Classical pluralist democracies, they have been allowed to for the first time!)

(Furthermore, nowhere, nowhere did Jesus Christ ever say that women could not minister to His Word, nor that they could not bear His Witness to others. Indeed, Mary Magdelene did more than her heroic duty in this regard, in her life, in Jesus’s own time. He just didn’t think it was worth mentioning separately: he had other stuff to do.)

But I digress (shut up, you KNOW you like it!) Let’s get back to hysterically chewing the trousers and underpants off the two English Archbishops, who have so disgraced themselves, in public, and who have yet again succeeded in shooting capitalism, the ONLY father of Freedom and Natural Rights, in the foot.

I have to quote Sentamu again:-

Speaking to the Worshipful Company of International Bankers (what’s this? Ed.), Dr Sentamu said: “Those who made £190million deliberately underselling the shares of HBOS, in spite of its very strong capital base, and drove it into the bosom of Lloyds TSB, are clearly bank robbers and asset strippers.

“We find ourselves in a market system which seems to have taken its rules of trade from Alice in Wonderland, where the share value of a bank is no longer dependent on the strength of its performance but rather on the willingness of the Government to bail it out, or rather on whether the Government has announced its intentions so to do.”

Dr Sentamu will speak in New York on Thursday as the United Nations hosts a summit on the progress made by world leaders to end poverty. (Next post: how to staple jelly to the ceiling. Ed.)

He clearly has understood nothing. Which is to say, that the price of something is what someone else is willing to pay for it now, and which can be known right now (today) or else also estimated in the future IF all other factors are equal and the Bank’s (or whatever’s) behaviour is unaltered (say 6 months’ time or whatever.)

Or, he has been got at, by whatever Nazis and other fascist lefty scumbags are at work inside the fabric of the Church of England.

I did admire the silly bugger. In the face of white-hot post-Christian Blairism in Britain, Sentamu deliberately baptised real people, by Total Immersion, in public. He could have been hauled off, and even martyred by Stalinist shits and twats like David Blunkett and Ed Balls and “Jacqui” “Smith” (such an anodyne name, for such a person!)

YOU know! Hate-crimes, and all that anti-Western, fascist leftist multiculturalistical shit. But he did it. I think he’s been got at by the other bugger, the Welsh windbag with the bushy eyebrows.

You might buy a used car from him, but would you let him hold your baby?

You might buy a used car from him, but would you let him hold your baby?

Sean Gabb on the Financial Crisis (Yawn!)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 175
19th September 2008

Free Markets and the Financial Collapse
by Sean Gabb

I was called earlier today by someone at the BBC to comment on the collapse of the financial system. I have no particular qualifications for commenting on this. I do not know how long it will last, or how the recovery will begin. I certainly have no detailed advice on what should be done by anyone during the next few days.

The reason I was thought worth contacting, though, was obvious. The narrative in the establishment media is that markets were too lightly regulated after about 1980, and that the consequences were a ruthless and short term greed that has now reached its natural conclusion. This being so, the answer is how much regulation should now be introduced to prevent all this from happening again. I am a libertarian. I believe in markets. If markets are now being denounced, I am the right sort of person to approach for a defence.

The problem, the researcher discovered, is that I was not the right sort of person to approach. I think, for most people, it is a matter more of ignorance than of intellectual dishonesty. But there is a general tendency to identify free markets with any set of institutional arrangements that allow things to be bought and sold.

When it comes to the Private Finance Initiative, or the privatised utilities, or the internal market in the National Health Service, I do grow impatient. These are not examples of free markets, but of corporatism: they have been called into being by the State, and are at every step regulated and privileged by the State. Where the financial markets are concerned, the identification is more reasonable. After all, these are dynamic and highly efficient markets. Perhaps more so than any others, they conform to the neoclassical concept of perfect competition. Many people who work in finance are sympathetic to libertarianism. The markets are often discussed and defended in libertarian terminology.

What I tried to explain to the researcher was that, for me and for many other libertarians, markets are to be defended not according to how efficient they may be, but according to whether they are or would be part of a voluntary order.

What libertarians want is a society in which people come together only in uncoerced relationships. Some of these � marriage and partnership agreements, for example � might be hard or even impossible to dissolve. Some others � the main example being parents and their children � might involve some coercion for a limited period. But we do require, so far as reality permits, that no one should be compelled into any relationship.

When we defend markets, we mean those relationships, outside the circle of our friends and loved ones, than involve exchanges of legally binding promises, usually with a price attached. We do not defend priced relationships that are based on any degree of coercion. Therefore, we denounce slavery and trading in slaves. We denounce the collection of taxes to pay for services provided by the government. We denounce regulations that limit the range and nature of relationships that people can choose.

And we denounce patterns of indirect coercion that herd people into relationships they might not otherwise have chosen.

The financial system, as it currently exists, is based on this last type of coercion. Consider:

First, we have taxes and a monetary framework that make prudence, as traditionally known, unwise. It used to be that people would save for emergencies by putting money into savings accounts or contributing to mutual insurance schemes. For their old age, they would save money for purchase of annuities on retirement. But we have long had levels of inflation that eroded capital values, and taxes that depressed real returns. We can respond to this by playing the markets. But this requires more time and understanding than most people are willing to give; and there is the problem � at least in Britain � of capital gains tax when securities are sold at a profit.

The answer has been to put our savings with groups of professional speculators. These claim to understand the markets better than ordinary people. Undoubtedly, they have more time to follow the markets. And there are tax laws that privilege such companies.

The result has been to concentrate most savings into the hands of people whose job is look out for short term profit, and who are inclined to welcome exotic new products that no ordinary investor would ever dare touch.

Second, there are the company laws that allow easy incorporation and limited liability for debt. These have allowed giant business organisations to rise up and flourish. The result here has been to increase the number of securities that can be bought and sold, and to call into being whole armies of professional speculators, employed by multi-national banks and other organisations.

Third, there is fractional reserve banking and fiat money. Ever since the development of modern finance, bankers have been tempted circulate more notes than they could honour. What kept this in bounds was knowledge that the monetary base was a certain amount of gold that would not quickly be changed in size. Nowadays, if bankers cannot finance all the lending they would like to make at prevailing interest rates from the stock of savings, they can simply create more money. They still have an obligation to redeem their promises. But they operate in circumstances where the monetary base can be increased at will.

I do not say that there would be no financial markets in a voluntary order. There would be intermediation between lenders and borrowers. There would be trade in bonds. There would be securitisation of debt. There would be speculation on future values of commodities and securities.

I do not even say that the financial system we have is wholly useless or malign, given the highly corporatized nature of business. Fears of shortselling or takeovers provide a check on corporate sloth or greed. The endless speculation enables those of us who have some money not to have it all stolen by our government through taxes or inflation.

But the financial system, as it does now exist, would not exist as part of a voluntary order. It would not be the huge global casino that it is. It may be efficient. It may be plausibly claimed as an instance of the free market in action. But it is not part of a voluntary order, and therefore has at best only partial legitimacy to libertarians.

Moreover, if the financial system is a creature, directly or indirectly, of government, its current problems have been wholly caused by government. I do not know when the inflation started. It may have been to float us out of the last recession, back in the early 1990s. It may have been to avoid the expected panic of the Millennium Bug. It may have been to pay for the War on Terror. It may have been the product of all of these and others. But for many years, money has been lent that was not first saved. The gap between savings and loans was bridged by money creation. It is testimony to the skill of regulators and the sophistication of the markets that the speculative bubble was able to grow so large. But, however long delayed, its bursting was inevitable. The media can blame crooked mortgage sellers in the American ghettoes, or coke-fuelled graduates in the London dealing rooms. But financial collapse was always a matter of when and not if.

When I gave a potted version of this to the BBC researcher, I could almost hear her eyes glazing over. For the second time this year, I was not called into the studio to defend the City. I understand why I was not called in. What I am saying does not fit into the establishment narrative of what has happened.

And though I never got to tell the researcher, I also have no idea of what should now be done. Perhaps the bank of England should raise interest rates sharply and stand back while much of the financial system goes insolvent. This would get things over and done with, and move us reasonably fast into the recovery stage of the next bubble. Or perhaps it should flood the City with fresh money, in an effort to bring about a soft landing. I really do not know.

Something I do know reasonably well, however, is how to stop these bubbles from starting. If I ever came to power as the front man for a military coup � somewhat unlikely for several reasons, but still worth hoping for � I would do the following:

First, I would cut taxes and government spending by at least two thirds. The remainder should pay the interest on the national debt and honour the pension commitments made to those over about the age of fifty. I would then end the tax privileges of the investment funds. This would, among much else, allow people to plan for their future without having to sit behind the institutional equivalent of a compulsive gambler.

Second, I would repeal the Companies Acts and make the declare the directors of existing corporations the true owners with joint and several liability for their debts. This would put an end to the impersonal, bureaucratic nature of modern business. It would also reduce the number of securities to be bought and sold and reduce the number of people employed to buy and sell them.

Third, I would move to a fully-convertible gold standard, with the heads of every bank made jointly and severally liable for redemption in gold of all obligations, unless contracted otherwise

As said, even a stateless voluntary order would still have financial markets. And the semi-statist system I am recommending would have not only financial markets, but also some room for speculative bubbles. But neither would be anything like the world in which we actually live.

The shame is that what we have is largely what we shall have. Sooner or later, the present collapse will be over. Then, whatever �tough regulation� the politicians may have brought in will be circumvented by a new generation of clever speculators, and the next bubble will begin to inflate.

It could be worse, however. We are not talking about Soviet Communism here, but a corporatism that, if neither stable nor just, does enable the creation of vast amounts of real wealth. And, I might say, I have done rather well personally out of the late bubble. I am assured I shall not lose disastrously now it has burst. This means I am well placed to benefit from the next bubble.

As the Good Book says: �Unto every one which hath shall be given �.�

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

So good that I have to hijack the whole lot

David Davis

All hijacked from somewhere else. But then actually, hijackers are such cool people (no pun intended.) Hat tip to cspeight@dircon.co.uk

In these dire times it’s good to have a laugh and realise that the biggest loser in the crash has been the BAD GUY!

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Christina aka Cassandra
(nb – after I had been ranting on about the inevitability of  the coming credit crisis for some time  I adopted as a ‘sub–title’ the term Cassandra !  It’s now become a badge of pride! ]
EUREFERENDUM Blog   16.9.08
Negativity revisited

Nobody seems to know what they are doing, says a warbling voice on the radio. I looked up this and smiled wryly. Time to batten down the hatches.

The good news is that Lehman Brothers were heavily into climate change, lauding the business opportunities which were opening up.

Interestingly, their report on “The Business of Climate Change” (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/21/131335/679) is cited on its web site (we wonder how long that will stay up) as an example of their “intellectual capital”. Lehman Brothers, the site proclaims, “prides itself on being a thought leader”.

This is a company which had on its board, or so we are told, the ultimate snake oil salesman, James Hansen, the self-same company having ambitions of becoming “the primary brokerage for emission permits”.

Somehow, it is entirely fitting that a company which was looking to exploit the smoke and mirrors business of carbon trading should crash and burn.

And, where Lehman Brothers go, surely al Gore cannot be far behind. Gore is (was?) a great pal of Theodore Roosevelt IV, Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, sharing common interests as fellow members of the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

In our post yesterday, on carbon capture, we wrote, “there is money in that there carbon“. What begins to emerge is the extent to which the greenie agenda has been hijacked by big business, who see in the raft of climate change controls huge money-making opportunities.

With Lehmans in the forefront of this hijack operation, we wonder whether – like the dotcom fluff – another bubble about to burst.
Posted by Richard North