Whilst we doff our caps at the coalition, dominated by the banker funded Tories and it's cabinet of 19 millionaires, it seems the Greeks have woken up to the economic suicidal nature of 'plan A'. A senior economist expalined that they had taken the IMF and European Bank medicine and it had poisoned them - demand had collapsed and the economy was heading into the inevitable downward spiral of even lower revenues and a widening deficit. Taking more of the same medicine wasn't really an option in such circumstances. Yet that is exactly what is proposed as the only solution.
The Greek awareness of the real culprits of their plight contrasts very favourably with the collective brain erasure in England. Here the bankers and financiers escape blame for their mess, and with their media friends, convince enough useful idiots that it was a sudden reckless spending spree by Labour that led to a deficit. Nothing to do with bailing out banks and rescuing financiers from the results of their greedy folly.
The paradoxes are compounded by politicians with their generous benefits and pensions packages lecturing us on the need to cut those of ordinary people whilst theirs continue in unreformed splendour. Not to mention the public school educated elite who can't see the irony in saddling students with a lifetime of debt, blighting their chances of ever having a pension or owning their own house; supposedly in the name of not saddling our children with the 'debt burden'!!
A splendid comment to a Guardian report summarises both the absurdity of the Greek situation, and it's relevance to ours (http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/11269655). It is repeated below in full:
"The Greek politicians don't represent the will of the Greek people. They represent an elite group of the Greek rich who have benefited from Greek tax evasion and the Euro.
The majority of the Greek people should not suffer for the greed of the few. And neither should they suffer for the greed of the bankers.
The bailout of Greece is not a bail out of the Greek state, it is a bailout of the reckless lending made by other European banks or the deceptive deals made to hide Greek public debt made by Goldman Sachs and other US banks.
The bankers took their bonuses and are now afraid to face the consequences of their risky decisions but happy to make the young people, the poor people and unemployed pay the price.
Sadly the situation in Greece is no different from the situation in the UK.
The Tory's dont represent the will of the people of the UK. They represent a narrow group of bankers who want to make the rest of the British population pay for their greed."
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Student Loan nightmare
Convincing you to go to University despite the massive cost: Apparently it's a 'no-brainer' despite the cost because over your lifetime you'll earn on average 150k more because of your degree.
Convincing you not to worry about the fees: Don't worry, you have to earn over 21k before you start paying and the loan is written off after 30 years - so many won't pay anything, or won't have to pay it all back...
So which is it? We shouldn't worry because we'll earn a lot more over our lifetime and it will be worthwhile, or we shouldn't worry because we'll probably never earn enough to have to pay it back!!!!
Some simple Maths: from Day 1 your loan attracts interest of RPI + 3%' so 7.5% at present. That is compounded up during your studies as you add more debt, and the interest incurs further interest. In rough terms an average 3 year degree will have created a debt of around 50k, interest on that will amount to a further 3.75k added to the debt at the end of your first year after leaving. Earn (for the sake of argument) 50k as a result of your degree and you will pay back 9% of 29k over the year - around 2.7k, Your effective marginal tax rate is nearly 50% on income over 35k(a rate you'd otherwise need to earn over £150k before paying) - and your loan debt has still grown, so you end up the year owing more than at the start!
All in all it is a financial car crash, reminiscent of something dreamt up by the geniuses that brought us endowment mortgages. Once again it looks like a vehicle for the money men to cream off from the rest of us - parents and students - and exactly the sort of nonsense Government should protect us from instead of inflicting upon us.
Convincing you not to worry about the fees: Don't worry, you have to earn over 21k before you start paying and the loan is written off after 30 years - so many won't pay anything, or won't have to pay it all back...
So which is it? We shouldn't worry because we'll earn a lot more over our lifetime and it will be worthwhile, or we shouldn't worry because we'll probably never earn enough to have to pay it back!!!!
Some simple Maths: from Day 1 your loan attracts interest of RPI + 3%' so 7.5% at present. That is compounded up during your studies as you add more debt, and the interest incurs further interest. In rough terms an average 3 year degree will have created a debt of around 50k, interest on that will amount to a further 3.75k added to the debt at the end of your first year after leaving. Earn (for the sake of argument) 50k as a result of your degree and you will pay back 9% of 29k over the year - around 2.7k, Your effective marginal tax rate is nearly 50% on income over 35k(a rate you'd otherwise need to earn over £150k before paying) - and your loan debt has still grown, so you end up the year owing more than at the start!
All in all it is a financial car crash, reminiscent of something dreamt up by the geniuses that brought us endowment mortgages. Once again it looks like a vehicle for the money men to cream off from the rest of us - parents and students - and exactly the sort of nonsense Government should protect us from instead of inflicting upon us.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Cameron - PR for dummies: scapegoats and mono-culturism
Cameron's speech on 'multi-culturism' has actually had some mainstream defenders. Unbelievable. I can only assume they are worried about possible loss of grants, because it is hard to see how such an ill-timed, disconnected, and lazy speech 'flawed in structure and details', could be seen as a serious contribution to debate. Typical of the vacuous waffle from the coalition, that seems to think that assertions delivered with a forceful expression and slick delivery is a substitute for any substance.
Madeline Bunting, writing in the Guardian today did a decent job on pointing out the floors in his argument. It was a good illustration of how quickly the Coalitions arguments unravel once anyone actually bothers to questions their assertions.
Although suffering from the usual Guardian attempt at reasonableness - very misplaced on this occasion - their editorial nevertheless was good on the crassness of timing and the nonsense of the defence that the speech had been planned since Christmas:
Mr Cameron made his speech on the same day as 3,000 supporters of the English Defence League marched through Luton chanting such slogans as "Allah, Allah who the fuck is Allah". For the prime minister to talk about community cohesion right before one of the biggest anti-Islamic rallies Britain has ever seen, and not to have made even a passing criticism of the EDL – instead confining his remarks to "Islamist extremism" – is irresponsible. The fact that Nick Griffin hailed Mr Cameron's remarks as "a further huge leap for our ideas into the political mainstream" should be taken seriously by the prime minister's team as a sign that his remarks were not sufficiently clear.
It was good to see that at least they understood the motivation - although would have been braver had they also understood the historical context and the logical link (with the PR tactics and practice of Goebbels in 1930's Germany) that made the location of the speech as crass as the timing :
One other qualm about the prime minister's speech is what it says about his own standing. Governments normally bring out such dog whistles when they are faltering, just as New Labour did after Iraq. After only nine months at No 10, and with his approval ratings on the slide, Mr Cameron is already resorting to such tactics.
Madeline Bunting, writing in the Guardian today did a decent job on pointing out the floors in his argument. It was a good illustration of how quickly the Coalitions arguments unravel once anyone actually bothers to questions their assertions.
Although suffering from the usual Guardian attempt at reasonableness - very misplaced on this occasion - their editorial nevertheless was good on the crassness of timing and the nonsense of the defence that the speech had been planned since Christmas:
Mr Cameron made his speech on the same day as 3,000 supporters of the English Defence League marched through Luton chanting such slogans as "Allah, Allah who the fuck is Allah". For the prime minister to talk about community cohesion right before one of the biggest anti-Islamic rallies Britain has ever seen, and not to have made even a passing criticism of the EDL – instead confining his remarks to "Islamist extremism" – is irresponsible. The fact that Nick Griffin hailed Mr Cameron's remarks as "a further huge leap for our ideas into the political mainstream" should be taken seriously by the prime minister's team as a sign that his remarks were not sufficiently clear.
It was good to see that at least they understood the motivation - although would have been braver had they also understood the historical context and the logical link (with the PR tactics and practice of Goebbels in 1930's Germany) that made the location of the speech as crass as the timing :
One other qualm about the prime minister's speech is what it says about his own standing. Governments normally bring out such dog whistles when they are faltering, just as New Labour did after Iraq. After only nine months at No 10, and with his approval ratings on the slide, Mr Cameron is already resorting to such tactics.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
New Year, more of the same
Adding to the posts of June and July seemed a vaguely fatuous exercise as the rest of 2010 seemed to be variations on the theme. Theoretical cuts became proposed cuts, and by the spring will be more actual cuts - the process of making these more concrete has at last triggered opposition. Whether it is libraries, forests or local campaigns to save school crossing patrols, the opposition to specific cuts and privatisation's demonstrate the basic 'nimbyism' that sees the public accepting the need for cuts, so long as they don't affect them and impact on someone else.
Cynically, both nationally and locally, politicians seem to make a crude electoral calculation by saving/protecting services for the elderly whilst cutting the EMA and closing youth services. Against this, the unlikely, but fantastic response of the students in November and December and the growing popularity of UKUncut all give cause for optimism. The linking of tax avoidance/evasion and the excesses of business with the student fee hike and cuts in basic services has great popular traction. The arrogant claims that 'its all down to the mess they inherited from labour' is being challenged on the ground, as is the bizarre idea that the deficit was down to incompetent labour, and nothing to do with a global economic crisis.
The disastrous GDP figures for the final quarter of last year showed the elementary economic ignorance of the marketeers and their cuts policies. The Thatcherite battle cry of TINA has already worn thin in the mounting evidence of cuts to front line services, whilst the absence of a plan B is starting to worry even some of their supporters. Regardless, our cabinet of millionaires, in the pocket of business, and with no understanding of the lives of ordinary people, continue their attack on the 90% who earn less than £45k a year.
History teaches us that such arrogant certainty can lead to unforeseen problems and, once the policies fail, the hunt for scapegoats starts. Cameron's speech on multi-culturism demonstrates that he is as ignorant of this history as he is of many other things. To not be able to see the irony of making a speech in Munich on mono-culturism, so full of lazy assumptions, and to do so on the day the fascist EDL marched in Luton, without one word of condemnation from Cameron, shows naivety. To continue to claim that he shouldn't change what he says 'because a few people walk down a street in an english town' starts to look more like a play for their votes. A very dangerous path to tread when the economic outlook is so uncertain.
Cynically, both nationally and locally, politicians seem to make a crude electoral calculation by saving/protecting services for the elderly whilst cutting the EMA and closing youth services. Against this, the unlikely, but fantastic response of the students in November and December and the growing popularity of UKUncut all give cause for optimism. The linking of tax avoidance/evasion and the excesses of business with the student fee hike and cuts in basic services has great popular traction. The arrogant claims that 'its all down to the mess they inherited from labour' is being challenged on the ground, as is the bizarre idea that the deficit was down to incompetent labour, and nothing to do with a global economic crisis.
The disastrous GDP figures for the final quarter of last year showed the elementary economic ignorance of the marketeers and their cuts policies. The Thatcherite battle cry of TINA has already worn thin in the mounting evidence of cuts to front line services, whilst the absence of a plan B is starting to worry even some of their supporters. Regardless, our cabinet of millionaires, in the pocket of business, and with no understanding of the lives of ordinary people, continue their attack on the 90% who earn less than £45k a year.
History teaches us that such arrogant certainty can lead to unforeseen problems and, once the policies fail, the hunt for scapegoats starts. Cameron's speech on multi-culturism demonstrates that he is as ignorant of this history as he is of many other things. To not be able to see the irony of making a speech in Munich on mono-culturism, so full of lazy assumptions, and to do so on the day the fascist EDL marched in Luton, without one word of condemnation from Cameron, shows naivety. To continue to claim that he shouldn't change what he says 'because a few people walk down a street in an english town' starts to look more like a play for their votes. A very dangerous path to tread when the economic outlook is so uncertain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)