In all this, I'm not sure whether it's the people's learning curve that's so very steep or the politicians'. If an entire nation's well-being were not at stake, this would be laughable. Often, people who are unable to make appropriate decisions quickly come under the care of the psychiatric community for their delusional thinking or mental retardation or inability to process information. Yet, they now rule. . .and are allowed to rule. Without being accountable for their behavior. Here are some of the stupid crudities they are passing off on us that we unquestioningly accept:
War is good for the economy. This came out of faulty thinking that looked at the history of war and saw that when there was war, economies got stronger, technology blossomed and people were put to work. The problem here is that only recent war years were looked into, not well into the historical record. In the 1960's, in the States, a marvelously presented satire was written, Report From Iron Mountain, that was uncritically accepted as being true and prophetic. In simplified form, the message was: War is good for the economy. And it sounded great. And it was propounded by "the authorities" people in the know, the thinkers.
Note the focus of this kind of "thinking": it's the economy that's important, not people. This delusion exists in capitalist societies, fascist oligarchies and Marxist social dictatorships, for all are focused on economic growth under the guise of good things for the people.
War actually kills people. Many people. And it doesn't matter what kind of people, all people are equally eligible. Of course, it is true that because so very many people are eliminated from the economy the unemployment situation is bettered after the fact. But it's difficult to see how fewer people will improve the general over-all economic picture of a country. I thought that it took people to do the work required to make the economy better. Perhaps, though, I am wrong — and the proof of that may be that the banks and international conglomerates are doing just fine while a large proportion of the people of the world are not working, starving and/or dying.
If we look a little further back into history, like the end of the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century (that actually lasted, on and off, for a hundred years or so), we find the instance of the efficacy of war in Germany, the area that would become Germany: a country of 21 million grew and prospered to 13 million, as much from mayhem, murder and destruction as refugeeism. It is true, too, that Richelieu managed to rid France of Huguenots, those pesky heretics, by Shanghai-ing them into being the front line attackers of his armies and creating a massive refugeeism. This latter was good for the American Colonies — and my family — and the British government and its business interests. So, war was good for someone. Ergo, war is good for all, according to these people's thinking. Our rulers of crudity.
If we look closer to home, we find war positively affecting economy by increasing the cost of some goods (imports) and limiting access to all foods. A healthy populace is a secondary concern when compared to the war effort. It's always sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice so your loved ones can die, die, die in the name of freedom and. . . whatever. Isadora Duncan, who never scrimped, roused up the war frenzy on two continents — and was proud of the number of people she helped die as she opened her studio-school to the Red Cross to attempt to heal those who had suffered the fallout of government-sanctioned murder. She could fucking dance though, yeah?! (It is not known whether she could dance fucking, though she had. . .a number of lovers throughout the war years and beyond.) These wounded and dying soldiers were good for the economy because they put women to work, taking them away from the home and their children and making the government spend more and more money, which is, of course, the mark of a healthy economy, right?
Technology? Aside from new and more gruesome ways to kill and mutilate and destroy? New surgical techniques for saving lives. The Crusades brought about Humanism and, eventually, the Renaissance via bringing back cultural knowledge and information from the Middle East. Which was a good thing, for as Islam became more rigid and dogmatic, inventiveness and creativity and discovery disappeared.
I am, perhaps, biased via my Anale School of historiographical inquiry, which takes into account the people and their lives and low-tech adjustments to living (including war) as this seems to affect the general functioning of the people of a country; but it seems to me that nowhere in our littered history is there an economy that was better off post-war than it was pre-war. Lots of death and mourning, lots of destruction and loss to businesses, lots homelessness, poverty, unemployment, yes; health and welfare, no. (I think it took America the Victorious 10 years to recover economically post-WWII.) Nevertheless. . .war is good for you. It teaches you what lie is worth.
People have short term memory problems.
And then there are the Mercenaries. Less draining on the government budget than enlisting people out of the general mass of society, for whom benefits must be paid — and reducing the workforce necessary to insure the continuation of the war at maximum intensity because not everyone is into murdering. In the 16th-17th centuries, 3,000 mercenaries, out of work and responsible to no one, that is no government responsible for them, ran amok in the Netherlands, sacking towns all along the Rhine. Sacking includes, if you're not sure, murdering, raping, burning and stealing. The usual punishment for any who were stupid enough to allow themselves to be captured by civilians was stringing them up along the side of the road and letting them rot there as a warning to others; or beheading them and sticking those trophies on pikes and raising them along the roadside. In fact, nothing the general populace could do really deterred the mercenary, a man ferocious with murder and mayhem as a way of life. But a new war did! And, so, war's good for society. No more predators! Though, of course, during those muggy peacetimes they could have gone into police work and imposed their brand of peacekeeping on the general populace. But there are — used to be — rules to abide by.
Which leads to. . .
The belief that increasing penalties for crimes deters crime and helps reduce the government's debt. If only the lawmakers in Britain proclaiming the need for harsher penalties would look to the former Colonies for the absolute mess this kind of thinking generates, we could unmask the lie. In reality, the more police, the more crime A great proportion of the US population is in prison, now, and though it's sort of racist, the most important point (for our discussion) is that less people are in society to drive the economy. Which is good as this means higher salaries for those who are doing all the work, one would think. Suddenly, too, people who would otherwise be "let go" for their petty crimes after a short term are incarcerated for years. And years. Because of harsher penalties.
Criminals off the streets? Safer streets?
Here's the stupid part that we're not listening to: while these criminals are locked up they must be fed, housed, kept healthy — and all at public benefit. They must be looked after (another good job for mercenaries out of work: prison guards). So, how does putting more behind bars for longer reduce the government's debt? And better the economy?
Increasing penalties, like increasing the police force, results in more crime. If you look at recent stats, say for the past 15-20 years, it looks as if I don't know what I'm talking about (and I may not: like all writers and anti-government types, I just blather on with the same attention to facts that our governors show). But the way crimes are categorized in the US has been tampered with and redefined as has unemployment and poverty of late in order to show how wonderful the government's policies are. I remember when rape was a violent crime. And new crimes are being invented every day, I read recently.
And then, when those vicious, dangerous criminals are let loose, when they've been rehabilitated, as they say, they cannot work, even if they want to. So that the burden on society is not relieved much at all, for they're still being housed and fed and kept healthy at public expense.
But people buy this stupid rhetoric. Maybe this is why the world is in the mess it's in: people either can't or don't think. Mark Twain's comment about readers applies to thinkers: a man who cannot think is not nearly so dangerous as a man who does not think.
Here's another one. . .
Reducing mandatory retirement age will allow the youth to enter the job market and reduce the government's debt (because the young unemployed are on the public dole). Well, it may help the young get into the marketplace but if they've not got the experience said retiree has, it costs the business to train the youth, especially as there's no experienced person there to keep things going while the inexperienced learn how to do things. (There's no such thing as apprenticeship any more.) But the young are not on the public rolls. . .the old folk who are prone to being less healthy or taking on age-related diseases are on the public dole seeing their medical providers more often and requiring more medications and visits to the hospital or ER simply because they are less active. And, as they're over 60, they pay nothing for their meds: that's the State's burden — as it should be. . .caring for the people. Which is why it's so necessary to relieve the government's debt by cutting social services — but we'll get to that. Hold on.
Of course not having to work and put up with frustrations and anxieties might have a positive effect on these old farts' health; though, as has been shown in the States, if older people are around younger people or remember/think younger, they tend to remain more alert and "younger" and therefore healthier. (Balanced reporting, this.) I'd say okay to this if and only if all government employees were also forced to retire at 65 (they're already on the public dole and, here, retirement would diminish the state's burden as retirement is considerably less than the salaries we are paying them to belch out stupid crudities like a leech blood). PM and Cabinet, Parliament, House of Lords, Representatives, Senators, Executives. Maybe with some younger, new blood some new, up-to-date policies might be enacted instead of the same old same old dressed up in new rhetoric and newspeak. As it stands now, government is more like a "hire the handicapped" business as we keep our old rugged and cross politicians in place. Or perhaps a gated community for the demented, that is, the delusional. Anybody for Borstall? Bedlam? Berserkshire?
PM: Prime Mate of the Ship of Fools. Prexy: add mustard for a good taste. The common people: dupes.
But, onward and upward. . .
Reducing social benefits, like medical coverage and support payments, will reduce government expenditure. Right. I wonder. . .if the government reduces medical benefits will more old people end up engaging a chauffeur to take them to the nearest ER? Oh, surely not! But the government can rely on the fact they these underserved people, especially the pesky older sort, will die sooner — and that's a savings for government, right? And if support payments don't make housing payments or cover food and drink. . .do you think people might also call for a chauffeur-driven car to the ER? Hell, even suicide! Which will reduce the burden on society, of course. And, it'll keep the coroners and the police busy, if not the neighbors and the clean-up crews due to the smell after the bodies have been lying around for awhile. That's good for the economy, putting people to work. Better to have people working than lying around, eh?
I know someone who is asthmatic. It takes about £100/mo to guarantee he remains breathy and healthy. If he can't buy his meds, he can call ahead for a chauffeur-driven limousine and cost the State several thousands of £££ each visit. A year of his meds is only £1200. And because he can't get his meds, this multi- thousand £ tour of the ER will occur more than once a year. . .because, in their sagacity, the State has deemed less benefits equals less government spending (and debt) and that's good for the economy. Of course, if the fucker dies, that is one less massive burden, yeah?
Or those with edema. The fluid doesn't get out of the legs and, aside from the pain and discomfort and the difficulty walking, the kidneys are affected and, over time, this leads to kidney failure. Let's not count the costs of dialysis while waiting for a replacement and then the necessary drugs to counteract rejection. Less than £10/mo for the Spironolactone versus perhaps six figures of £-age for the other stuff. Yup. Sounds like a good deal. Cut them benefits, y'all!
And then there's malnutrition. Or the State housing people who have been turned out for inability to pay rent or mortgage. Cool. Breadlines and tent cities or flop houses. Say. . .maybe they could utilize whore houses for this and enact a bill legalizing prostitution so the government can reap the benefits of yet another tax. A hierarchy of taxes based on sexual behavior even? What would you call it? Back taxes?
We're on a roll here!
And the greatest crime against humanity? The class war mantra! If you work hard enough, if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you will succeed. Work, nigga, work!
Say, wait a minute! Who is it tells us this?
You got that right: the privileged people, the people who ain't had to work since they issued out of mama's vagina, crying and bitching. What the hell do they know about hard work, I ask you! Look at the working class, the poverty class! They work their asses off all their lives and. . .their success is remaining working class or poverty class. Old Mother Hubbard lived in a shoe, she had so many dogs she didn't know what to do, so she let 'em shit all over the place, even in the bared cupboard. . .and then she paid fines for being unsanitary. The kids, meanwhile, ran wild, were arrested and put in prison — another kind of shoebox, another kind of home.
The underlying assumption = there's nothing wrong with society, it's your fault, not the government's (that government debt is great). This is what's peddled to the populace when they're told to suck it in (and suffer) in order for the greedy bankers and businessmen and drug companies and government workers to continue with their high salaries and bonuses and 100% medical coverage (for good work, of course, which they never ever don't do) and intemperate spending — and more war, which is good for you. Is that like. . .1-, 2-, 3-million; 4-, 5-, 6-billion; 7-, 8-, 9-trillion, 10-quadrillion dollars? What comes after that? Too big to fail?
Hello? Is anybody home?
Hi! I'm not home right now. But if you leave a message. . .
by James L. Secor Around the world, military regimes are arising as if it were the latest fad and every State is vying for Faddist of the...
by James L. Secor As the economy of the world, via the US, comes tumbling down like Humpty Dumpty, I read articles about the End of Capitalism,...
by James L. Secor Even when the economic situation is fixed, we will still be left with a broken system. Something more needs to happen than an...
by James Secor All day in the roofed, open-air food plaza of the University of Malaya, the TV is tuned to Al Jazeera TV (occasionally CNN). Al...
by James Secor I returned from an evening with Ali and my daughter in Kuala Lumpur just before Obama's inauguration. I was too tired to bother:...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites