Just how regulated should the economy be?

Food, fuel and metals traders – just how far can you regulate and who should regulate?

U.S. regulations are now pending to limit banks’ proprietary trading — speculating with their own cash. The new rules don’t apply to trading firms. “Trading houses have huge volumes of proprietary trading. In some cases it makes up 60-80 percent of what they do,” said Carl Holland, a former price risk manager at oil major Chevron Texaco, who now runs energy consultancy Trading Solutions LLC in Connecticut. “They have the most talent, the deepest pockets, and the best risk management.”

In addition to proprietary trading curbs, the U.S. regulator voted on October 19 to impose position limits in oil and metals markets. That gives banks who trade futures cause for concern, but since physical players usually receive exemptions to limits — because they are categorized as bona fide hedgers — trading firms should go unscathed.

The trading houses’ talent and deep pockets translate into incredible power. “Most commodity buyers in the world are price takers. The top trading firms are price makers,” said Chris Hinde, editor of London-based Mining Journal. “It puts them in a tremendous position.”

Whig asks, at Adam Smith:

We could quite easily ask the protestors whether they thought an economy in which circa 50% of GDP is spent by the government could reasonably defined as capitalist? Where 20% of workers are government employees and almost everyone in the economy is in receipt of state transfer payments or other forms of state aid is ‘free market’? Where the top rate of income tax is 50%? Where government debt is 392% of GDP? Where the remaining 50% of the ‘free market’ economy is heavily regulated by the multitude of statutes and statutory bodies across every sector?

Those with no axe to grind realize we have neither “free” enterprise nor yet the soviet style socialism, which was, after all, State Capitalism masquerading as socialism, as most fuzzy, left-liberal socialists envisaged it.  Hence the disconnect, as Yuri Bezmenov showed, when western “useful idiots” were invited on tour of the USSR.  The real nature of the beast had to be kept from their eyes and thus they returned to the States and elsewhere with glowing tributes.  Chappaquiddick Ted was one of those.

Left-liberals are forever being shown to be naive about any chance of their utopia coming about and so they settle for PCism, where sections of the community are happily discriminated against to make the left-liberals feel better about themselves, sort of like Live Aid with Attitude. There’s something mildly spiritually uplifting seeing hardworking “capitalists” dispossessed – your neighbour with a business down the road, that man with the corner shop.

Of course the left-liberal eyes are not on these people, the eyes are on the “greedy capitalists”, meaning Them but in this left-liberal zeal, anyone who commits the crime of earning money or holding property is to be dispossessed. “They” should regulate this, remove that, think the left-liberals. Tolerance for all, even as the oppressed and merely speculative from other nations pour in and take jobs from the feckless locals who become more and more feckless as they cease to be part of the equation, except as some uneducated underclass of yahoos.

We talk to left-liberals and say, “Hold on, you bstds – you just voted in, three times mind, a bunch of bandits from 1997 to 2010 who’ve over-regulated the country to its knees and given the authorities Soviet style powers of entry and arrest and you say it’s nothing to do with you?”

“Well, Maggie was worse,” is their only defence. Then they adopt our own mocking, despairing style and attack Cameron [rightly], the banksters [rightly] and capitalism [wrongly].

Yet those of us on the right, supposedly with Right on our side, are also getting it wrong. In attempting to defend capitalism, we’re also defending Capitalism, as defined by the left, which includes Them and thus is indefensible.

All this confusion is easily resolved by simply understanding Them. Them employed those who ran the Politburo and if you wish to meet Them, well-spoken chappies all- just pop down to Chatham House or conjure up the ghosts of Rhodes, Milner and Tavistock. The more virulent types like Geoff Mulgan and Julia Middleton, part of the lower orders, are still available for a chat, if you promise to lead beyond authority.

They’re not, as anti-conspiracy theorists scathingly maintain, an interlocked club, except at the highest level – there’s too much dog-eat-dog and step-over-your-dead-grandmother for that. True, the higher orders put on a great show of secrecy for the punters at the Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove and mock anyone suggesting a C300, Blair twice denies he was ever at a BB conference, as if it was the critical event and meanwhile the BIS quietly does its thing.

Name me any three board members of the BIS.

Name me the ex-director of Tesco who’s now joined the board of Coca Cola in Atlanta and who set up Force Femmes which caused to be written up the raft of regulations about women in the workplace and imposed on the UK via EU directives. She’s now formed Terrafeminina – world of women [2008]. Most people would never have heard of her.

These are the board members who never seem to do anything but act, as Breshnev once did, as the “political arm”, so he described it, of the armed forces. These are the Common Purpose “advisors” who sit in council offices up and down the land and “advise” on how to toughen up in dealings with local residents. You know – prosecuting someone for having a wheelie bin an eighth of an inch outside its regulated place, that sort of thing. Wasting millions of residents’ money in Iceland.

And where do the Dimons, Geithners and Bernankes fit into this? Tucker and King? Sutherland and Rex Tillerson? Strong and Blair? Irina Bokova and Michelle Bachelet? They’re up there but they’re still only players, lieutenants. The money itself never shows its face.

All right, so I toddle down to St Pauls and speak through a megaphone to the protesters: “You’ve got the wrong targets, you oppressed persons, you. Your targets should include Marianne T. Poulsen and Erik Prince, not just Dimon, Geithner and Bernanke. How about Ambani, Adanis, Birla, Mittal? How about the owners whom I won’t name of Banca del la Svizzeria Italiana? Or one I shall name – Franco Orsini Bonacassi? Why don’t you speak to the steel workers about Etienne D’Avignon? Pop over to Geneva and have a chat with the Oltramaire family because they’re the ones you need to persuade, not Dr Giles Fraser.

So, if you have your way, dear protesters and Capitalism is killed off, what takes its place? Ask Guillermo Ortiz, Jean-Claude Trichet, Zhou Xiaochuan, Jean-Pierre Roth, Christian Noyer or Klaas Knot – they know exactly what’s happening and what will be implemented to replace currency. So do William C. Dudley, Narayana Kocherlakota and Christine M. Cumming.  Ask them, protesters.

And how on earth can “we”, as in “we the people” regulate or roll back those people named above if we don’t even know who they are, what they do or how much power they actually wield, severally and/or collectively? How exactly will you, the people, stop the modern day Jacques Soustelles? Don’t you understand that this is a hydra or to use another analogy – the Bernankes and Trichets are only the soldiers on the outer ramparts. How are you going to get to the keep? By storming the Bastille? As Gaddafhi showed – the closer you get to the source, the more you encounter private armies.

These are the people who are dirtying the whole concept of capitalism but when you replace that word with a less emotive one – free enterprise – then if you kill that off, you are killing off your last chance of not being finally enslaved by the monied families.  And as said many times over, the things in the way of that currently are patriotism to the nation state, embracing the traditional family, proper marriage which at least produces legitimate heirs, private property/inheritance, the Judaeo-Christian tradition so many like to mock and let’s throw in the American Constitution and the 1687-9 bulwark in this country.

I’m not a conservative libertarian because it’s fashionable or it’s my mindset – my mindset is more radical than that.  I’m a conservative libertarian because it is the only bastion, the last remaining one, against a tyranny we just don’t want to know but which I saw the remnants and legacy of in Russia.  You know what I loved most about my ex-gf?  Her lifeless grey eyes.

Welcome to the future unless we get our targets right.

We’re still waiting for this to be debunked.

4 comments for “Just how regulated should the economy be?

  1. October 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Let me add this little paragraph as an addendum, speaking of the old money which suddenly pops up when it has to:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4574

    The World Series wasn’t the only event in the majors to be postponed because of inclement circumstance. The crisis in the EU, originally scheduled to culminate last night, was deferred when President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, et al. discovered a large cache of cash in the pockets of a small group of private citizens who had arrived to witness the event.

    Suspicious that any private citizen should have money and wary of anything untoward occurring, the assembled leaders of the EU persuaded this group of citizens to “voluntarily” surrender half of what they had. The crisis was then immediately called for the night and is rescheduled to begin again in two years’ time.

    Now you don’t have to accept that scenario but if you do, then the question is “why”. The answer is not only the Olympics but that they’re not ready of course – there are still many powers to be ceded. They don’t wish to crash at this time.

    Now this can be seen one way by you but I see people in Bavaria watching closely and prising open the piggy bank at this time, only on the promise that good things are going to happen – no one gives money for nothing.

  2. October 28, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Hello, James!

    A well-researched and considered post, but then we would expect nothing less. I am unqualified to comment on the content.

    However, just a bit of commentary on Ephesians 6:12 cited at the end: this verse appears to refer more to battles with the Devil and his own principalities, including false teachers — the Ephesians having been converted from sorcery — than with our secular rulers and overlords:

    http://biblecommenter.com/ephesians/6-12.htm

    Matthew Henry:

    ‘I. He gives them the true character of those teachers who were industrious to seduce them, in several particulars. As, 1. They were men who desired to make a fair show in the flesh, v. 12. They were very zealous for the externals of religion, forward to observe, and to oblige others to observe, the rites of the ceremonial law, though at the same time they had little or no regard to real piety; for, as the apostle says of them in the following verse, neither do they themselves keep the law…’

    Barnes:

    ‘Not against flesh and blood – Not with people; see the notes on Galatians 1:16. The apostle does not mean to say that Christians had no enemies among men that opposed them, for they were exposed often to fiery persecution; nor that they had nothing to contend with in the carnal and corrupt propensities of their nature, which was true of them then as it is now; but that their main controversy was with the invisible spirits of wickedness that sought to destroy them. They were the source and origin of all their spiritual conflicts, and with them the warfare was to be maintained.

    ‘But against principalities – There can be no doubt whatever that the apostle alludes here to evil spirits. Like good angels, they were regarded as divided into ranks and orders, and were supposed to be under the control of one mighty leader; see the notes on Ephesians 1:21. It is probable that the allusion here is to the ranks and orders which they sustained before their fall, something like which they may still retain. The word “principalities” refers to principal rulers, or chieftains.

    ‘Powers – Those who had power, or to whom the name of “powers” was given. Milton represents Satan as addressing the fallen angels in similar language:

    ‘”Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.”‘

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:

    ’12. Greek, “For our wrestling (‘the wrestling’ in which we are engaged) is not against flesh,” &c. Flesh and blood foes are Satan’s mere tools, the real foe lurking behind them is Satan himself, with whom our conflict is. “Wrestling” implies that it is a hand-to-hand and foot-to-foot struggle for the mastery: to wrestle successfully with Satan, we must wrestle with God in irresistible prayer like Jacob (Ge 32:24-29; Ho 12:4). Translate, “The principalities . the powers” (Eph 1:21; Col 1:16; see … Eph 3:10). The same grades of powers are specified in the case of the demons here, as in that of angels there (compare Ro 8:38; 1Co 15:24; Col 2:15). The Ephesians had practiced sorcery (Ac 19:19), so that he appropriately treats of evil spirits in addressing them.’

    • October 28, 2011 at 8:25 pm

      That’s how I read it too but I hitherto haven’t come out and used those words.

      • October 28, 2011 at 11:27 pm

        Accepted, although there might be the possibility that others might misinterpret it and use it for unintended purposes, as is true with so many Bible verses. (Think of how the Occupy group is misappropriating them! 😉 )

        When I was younger, I had a small tome called The Radical Bible which pulled many out of context with no explanation. Now I can see how bogus it was. 🙂 But the former Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s might be using the same book. 😉

Comments are closed.