Hmmm.

Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.
http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty

PS I understand Ron Paul has now got 150 Co Sponsors to audit the ( PRIVATE ) Federal Reserve, Bernanke is offering him alone to audit the Fed in secret.

Would it do any good if we could audit the Private Bank of England.

That is why we cannot take comfort from the fact that our 1.9% decline appears to compare favourably with Germany’s 4%. Our own contraction is a chronic one or in the politic-speak of today; systemic. That is why we will wallow in the mire for a lot longer than they. A structural cause of this is that we lack the numbers of innovative small businesses with the potential for export led growth that underpin the strength of the bigger players.

This vacuum is not the fault of our budding entrepreuners, its the fact that they are unable to raise adequate finance in order to get their ideas off the ground allied to a regime of costly regulation. Business Link is an ineffective quango, our banks have been concerned with little more than ‘buying and selling smoke’ for years, and the government has been obsessed with only supporting big business. As a result of Gordon Brown’s infamous budget of 2005 for example tax on big business has been reduced while those for small business have been massively increased.

Hopefully an incoming Tory government will scrap the 50% income tax rate to ensure that the City in particular recovers its admittedly vital role in our economy but it will also be imperative for it to properly address the reasons as to why the importance of our innovative small business sector has been ignored for so long. If not, after a long period of stagnation our economy will simply return to being a lesser version of the same one trick pony that we were before.

One other point to add, as JR has often said in the past in a very timely manner is the question over why the debt position has become so bad is primarily due to the undertaking of massive liabilities because of the illogical, immoral and unethical nationalisation of UK banking industry – which was totally unnecessary. The govt could have just stood behind depositors (in a fractional reserve banking system I think that would have amounted to about 10% of total liabilities) and then let equity holders and bondholders separate assets under a bankruptcy procedure – with some continuing finance provided by the govt if necessary – subject to the securing of first liens. But this govt has chosen to stand behind bondholders – many of whom are foreign – opting to bankrupt the country instead. This can only be described as an act of economic terrorism – despite their benign claims to be standing behind British business and the British people. British business and the British people people would be much better served if their government was in a position to secure funding at reasonable cost to carry out its business. Instead we now face a scenario in which our economic sovereignty may be at threat. People will start to wake up and smell the (more expensive) coffee when interest rates start rising, public sector starts shedding jobs en masse and property prices embark on their crushing third wave down.

At this stage we face a simple choice – do we want to face up to the responsibility of doing what is necessary ourselves or have it imposed on us externally. This government clearly is the problem – only conservative principles can allow us to do what is required, as painful and radical as that may be. The first step should be to rectify the abysmal favouring of bondholders over taxpayers. In one fail swoop the debt could be brought down to more manageable proportions and some badly needed ethical redress be given to the shell-shocked taxpayer – whilst sending a strong message to the markets and owners of capital that they cannot expect privatising of profits with socialising of losses – which is the current policy and can only lead to more moral hazard down the road.

What was clear tonight is the huge appetite for a general election sooner rather than later and Gordon Brown will have an uphill battle to hold this steamroller at bay for 12 months.

We believe the public thirst could be assuaged by agreement to a sensible timetable based on the rationale we blogged here yesterday. We re-produce our proposal and arguments below and suggest that the Opposition recognise that an election in 6 or 12 weeks from now is impractical at this time of year and start suggesting that an election should be held on 1ST or 8TH OCTOBER.

WE BLOGGED HERE YESTERDAY….

Our favoured scenario would be for a general election on Thursday October 8th (assuming we cannot follow the sensible Australian procedure of a Saturday polling day).

This would:

a) Give time to select/de-select candidates

b) Give MPs an unusually hard-working summer recess to prepare.

c) Enable the Queen to open Parliament in November with a new program from her new government.

d) Prevent the waste of an entire 12 months of government inactivity and trough-swilling by retiring members.

WE COMMEND OUR PLAN TO THE HOUSE

http://www.markit.com/en/about/news/commentary/cds/cds.page?

As far as foreign currency external debt obligations are concerned, it would be better that you did not mention that again see following.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

“Market” to me, means a place where you sell and buy things. The USA, apparently, has stuff to sell. China has lots of stuff to sell and is becoming very rich, as its people don’t spend much. It is now, apparently, buying up Sri Lanka as an inroad into India. It is fast buying its way into Zimbabwe and other African countries, where it is enslaving the wretched Africans.
So what have we got to sell?

If we haven’t got as much to sell as we are spending, then, surely, we will go broke? And, at the moment, the books are not in any way balancing? Is it really that simple?

Welcome to competitive devaluation, which will probably continue for many years.

And I don’t know why Obama and Brown and their cabal of economic advisors are not taking any notice of the Rational Expectations theory.