A “to-let” sign above our local launderette caused some consternation. When dropping off our service wash, I asked the owner if it referred to his business, or the premises above him. Indeed, it did relate to him; the council, it seems, are putting up his rates – he could no longer afford to stay in business.
Here on my own high street, then, as there are increasingly bound to be in many other cases up and down the land, was a direct consequence of the UK government’s decision to redirect public money into the capacious trousers of international financial men under the guise of “debt and deficit reduction”. As one source of a council’s income dries up, another must be exploited. My laundrette owner could see it clearly himself; he didn’t know why he had to shut down his business to pay Greeks to repay bankers billions of pounds in money that doesn’t really exist.
Over the last few days in the news we have been warned that yet more British tax payers’ money – 3.2 billion as quoted by the Mail (I don’t know whether it is to be paid from the EU bailout pot, or is additional to that) – is potentially on its way into this EU money hole. The Coalition mouthpiece press is still claiming that Osborne was always and remains powerless to stop it, even though that is simply not the case (my own conviction about this finds reassurance in more convincing expressions of expertise that also plainly state that Osborne is a liar).
Tory MP Douglas Carswell, I suspect as part of the great game of appearances, has also been a critic of Osborne (there is now silence about his freedom of information request to ascertain Osborne’s involvement in agreeing the Stabilisation Mechanism). The reason I mention him here is to introduce the notion of the bailouts as a criminal activity. The idea is well established in “conspiracy” circles and has a certain momentum to which mainstream opinion will attempt to apply drag. This could be Carswell’s intent when he tackles it; to unattach associations of crime. Unfortunately for Establishment types who engage in it, this kind of exercise means bringing the subject matter to the notice of people who won’t even consider a thing until it is written about or mentioned by a figure that is part of the collectively-self-elected prestigious elite who have the official-wireless-voice that must be huddled around.
In a recent blogpost Carswell indirectly – through quotes from former head of Argentina’s central bank, Mario Blejer – called the bailouts a Ponzi Scheme, which, at least as I understand it, is a fraud that in its simplest terms takes money off one set of investors to give, disguised as real profits, to another. Blejer thinks that this Ponzi Scheme will not be apprehended before it collapses – which is the whole point:
“the inevitable default will only be allowed to take place when the vast part of European distressed debt is transferred from the private to the official sector”.
Carswell directs his readers to understand that what is being said by Blejer is that the EU bailouts are recovery action to rectify naughty school boy errors made by bankers: “those banks that made foolish investment decisions get ordinary taxpayers to pick up the tab for their mistakes” says he. What a jolly shame for everyone involved!
That’s not how I see it at all. What I see is a scam perpetrated by a sizeable portion of the international financial sector by inventing debt – money that isn’t really there – and giving it to people who can’t pay it back. They then claimed to be victims of unforeseen circumstances, and pleaded for help that would recoup them the “losses”. Governments then happily obliged them by swapping all the debt with real wealth that at one time had been the property of the tax-paying public.
It is a fraud, no more and no less, and one that couldn’t have worked on such a huge scale without governmental facilitation, and in Europe without the EU structures which Osborne and Darling agreed to.
Now I know that the idea that a government would indulge in deliberate acts of criminality against its own people is too incredible for those who think that some people are so important and prestigious that they could never be up to their necks in fraud. But the situation that the bailouts will create is completely consistent with our government’s motivation; the means and ends of a system that makes a few bankers very rich and that subsequently rewards politicians handsomely is copybook in terms of their political endeavour.
Our system of government believes in corporatisation as an extension of itself. The corporations are the bucket into which the exact sort of complicit university-brainwashed graduates fall out of the education grinder that chops out the parts that do free-thinking. Now manned with morally and intellectually hollowed out automatons, the corporations centralise and suck in wealth. They act as organs of a collectivised State which by its nature will disdain individual wealth-holding members of a real business owning middle class. The bottom line is that the masses must be poor and reliant on the State. What we are seeing in the debt crisis is an industrial scale process to bring this about.
Going back to our laundrette owner; he made a remark that was probably meant to be an ironic statement that recognised how harmful muddled-but-otherwise-innocent officialdom was. He said that in his case it looked like the council would rather his shop space be empty than have any sort of income from it. One day he will realise that in fact his was an accurate analysis of the true state of affairs, and that he was the victim, like millions of others, of a deliberate plan to make him poor. That day is what some of us are here for.