Saturday, 9 November 2019

Who should own our vital national infrastructure and services?


One of the most absurd fictions in British politics is the idea that the Tory party are Britain-loving patriots because they wrap themselves in the union flag and pretend to love our country as they carve it up and give it away piece by piece, while Jeremy Corbyn and Labour are supposedly a bunch of Britain-hating traitors.

In order to recognise this nonsense as the reality-reversed lie that it is, all you need to do is look at the contrasting economic policies of the two parties.

The Tory party believe in a grotesque form of so-called "privatisation" that blocks the UK state from owning and operating its own infrastructure and services, whilst allowing foreign governments to come in and buy up stakes as cash cow investments for themselves!

The Tories are not opposed to national ownership in principle, because they allow the Chinese government to own stakes in our water supply, China and Qatar to own chunks of our National Grid, the national rail networks of loads of countries to buy up stakes in the UK rail network to siphon profits back into their own domestic rail networks (Netherlands, Singapore, Germany, France, Italy, Hong Kong ...), and they even sold off the UK's underground aviation fuel supply network directly to a company operated by the governments of Oman and the UAE, then immediately rented it back for ten years for three times the price they just sold it off for!

So the Tory "privatisation" ideology turns out to be the absurdly anti-British belief that every state in the world should be allowed to own chunks of British infrastructure and services, except for Britain itself!

And these are the people who pretend to be patriots!



The Tories also believe in outright defying the public will by privatising stuff like the police, NHS, Royal Mail, schools, and prisons into the hands of unaccountable private profiteers, mostly with disastrous consequences.

They flogged off the Royal Mail at a tiny fraction of its true valuethey've privatised 75% of the secondary schools in England in
to the hands of unaccountable private profiteersprivatisation of the police forensic science service has resulted in a huge evidence tampering scandal, their prisons privatisation agenda has turned out to be an absolute disaster, and despite all the Tory lies that "the NHS is not for sale" NHS privatisation rose to an all-time record high in 2018 of £9.2 billion.

The Tories continually put the interests of private sector profiteers above the will of the British people that the profit motive has no place in our police forces, hospitals, and schools.


Labour's position is much clearer and more coherent. They don't believe that foreign states should be allowed to come in and buy up chunks of our national infrastructure and services as cash cow investments for themselves, because it should be being run as not-for-profit public services for the benefit of Britain and the British people.

Labour also believes in running the police, NHS, Royal Mail, schools, and prisons as not-for-profit public services, not as money making scams for parasitical private sector profiteers.

Labour believes in Britain, while the Tories detest Britain to such an extent they'd rather have foreign governments and parasitical private profiteers running our infrastructure and services than Britain running it's own stuff!

Yet somehow, the billionaire propaganda barons, and their vast army of mercenary media hacks have managed to convince vast swathes of the public that the Tories are the patriots who love Britain, and that Labour are the Britain-haters who want to do it down!


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah... Labours bill for all these nationalisation projects comes to 500 billion, they want to borrow the money as bonds. So that's: massive inflation which will make everyone in the UK poorer to re-nationalise industries that make revenue in the 100's of millions... Oh, they want to artificially lower the price people pay as well, further lowering the revenue at a loss to the taxpayer (because it's the taxpayer that has to fund all of this).

Sounds lovely but everyone will be poorer.

Maybe we should lobby to stop bailing out companies with state ties and stop subsidising industries that can actually naturally compete (nationalising the rail network is good and inevitably for this reason).

Anyone here ever thought of doing that? Y'know, rather then just mindlessly clamouring for a political party to sort it out with a farcical re-nationalisation plan: People could organise on a grass roots level to affect change that way I've just mentioned as it won't cost billions... Just a thought. I await the usual vitriol and cries that I'm a Tory supporter. But maybe there's one coherent thought out there. Hope I guess.

Anonymous said...

"Labours bill for all these nationalisation projects comes to 500 billion, they want to borrow the money as bonds. So that's: massive inflation"

This will cause an inflation in bond prices, not an inflation in the prices of good and services (the actual definition of inflation)
This is a good thing that ultimately lowers the cost of borrowing, in a similar fashion to QE. Here's how...

Like QE, The Bank of England can purchase these bonds from the gov. in bulk. These measures have the effect of raising the price of the bonds and therefore depressing its interest yield, making it cheaper for the government to raise capital.

Here's, economist, Ann Pettifor confirming this mechanism: 04:45 - 04:52 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eGTY6RWeg

The BoE can then hold these bonds in perpetuity without reclaiming the money back from the government, this is known as debt monetisation has been used to successful effect by the Bank of Japan in the past.

Also here's Adair Turner, former head of the FCA, talking about the same principle, from 58:00 onwards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXmIruzikxQ&t=2188s

I hope you enjoy learning about the arcane world of monetary policy and its history.

Anonymous said...

Well that was pretty coherent!

Radioh3d said...

"Sounds lovely but everyone will be poorer".

So, Boris and his assortment of hand-picked narcissists and sociopaths asset stripping the country to further enrich the already stupidly rich will make everyone better off? Coherent? That? You?

"I await the usual vitriol and cries that I'm a Tory supporter".

Or you could just toddle off back to the diseased Guido Fawkes hate chamber and spout your nonsensical rightist bull to the capitalist gammon brigade and dim-witted tribalists who'll gleefully jump at the chance of agreeing with you.

Anonymous said...

@Radioh3d
No that's projecting all on your own. I'm saying creating bonds of 500 billion is a bad idea and will make everyone poorer for my aforementioned reasons. Criticising Labour does not mean I support the Tories. You're incoherent and very predictable as evidenced by your response (which I predicted).

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous
Neither economist you posted answered any of my queries, they merely explained the theory that by investing in a market in this fashion (printing bonds) it's possible to receive revenue from it. I'll break it down for you again so we can get to the root issues I have with this:

Labour wish to create government bonds of 250 billion alone to nationalise the energy industry. This was in their manifesto from 2017 and is now combined with their current manifesto. They wish to create bonds for this project at 25 billion a year. EDF's (One of the big six's) revenues in 2016 was 330 million in the UK. This is the baseline revenue after subsidy. Labour also wish to artificially lower how much individuals pay for their electricity and take away the subsidy (the only part of this policy I agree with) which you'll have to deduct from the revenue stream.

If UK energy revenue is this low (comparative to a ten year borrowed investment of 250 billion, that will need to eventually be paid back with interest. I mean neither economist was talking about keeping hold of the money in perpetuity. It will need to be paid back), how do you justify this policy when it appears to be investing in an industry that simply can't create the revenue to pay it's price tag back?

Similarly this is a policy that is looking to broker a deal with the big six and the smaller energy companies in which it is A) a manifesto pledge, a huge one at that so Labour will need to follow through on it or face further repeated and justified smears from the press and B) They've gone into a deal stating how much they're willing to spend by printing off money they can pay back further down the line; What if any member of the big six asks for a few billion more? What if the asking price is higher?

Thank you for your videos btw, I actually enjoy a back and forth that's reasonably sourced (unlike Dickh3d below, the fellow's got nothing to offer). I've got my own responses from economist's regarding the bonds issue (specifically Mark Blythe who's written a lot on it. Also Dickh3d, if you're reading this: Blythe is a fan of Keynsian economics. Read a book. Tit) and frankly it appears to be a government created debt bubble that will be further hefted onto the tax payer further down the line. In addition I'm pretty sure it created a debt bubble in Japan regarding the housing issue, but I'll need to research that. I'm hoping you'll explain the maths of the situation. Which is: How will he 250 billion for this specific policy be paid back.

Cheers.

Deep Thinking said...

"Maybe we should lobby to stop bailing out companies with state ties and stop subsidising industries that can actually naturally compete (nationalising the rail network is good and inevitably for this reason).

"Anyone here ever thought of doing that? Y'know, rather then just mindlessly clamouring for a political party to sort it out with a farcical re-nationalisation plan: People could organise on a grass roots level to affect change that way I've just mentioned as it won't cost billions... Just a thought."

^This. Nationalize vs. Corporatize is a false dichotomy.

Presumably the the Good Old Green Party have thought of this, although maybe that's a misunderstanding of "grass roots". And in any case, they seem to have gone even further off the rails lately...

Anonymous said...

@DeepThinking
No it's not.
Nationalised industry: The government dictates how much of your tax money they will use to keep the energy industry running. This will be either Labour or the Tories who will run it.

Full privatised with no bailouts/subsidy: The market means the energy companies compete to keep the prices as low as possible. They need to ensure technological innovation to ensure the business runs as efficiently as possible.

Private energy as a whole runs more efficiently then nationalised. Just look at the monthly cost of nationalised energy providers to private providers in the U.S on a state by state comparison.

Please see my aforementioned response to Anon on the issues facing affording nationalising the energy sector. You'll need to address the 250 billion bill rather then just calling my points a false dichotomy and providing no detail. It's not especially detailed or indeed living up to your moniker to casually dismiss such an issue.

The Greens do not wish for full privatisation. Please provide citation that they do otherwise, you've made that up. They wish to completely get rid of nuclear energy which would require state intervention (and already has a la we don't use Thorium, thanks big government). I am talking about lowering subsidy which will be a short term raise in energy costs that will level out as the market becomes efficient with no state intervention.

Deep Thinking said...

Yes.
Fully privitized with no bailouts/subsidy: not corporitized industry.

Your point wasn't what I was calling a false dichotomy.

Anonymous said...

@Deep Thinking
Oh, sorry bud, misread. Cheers.

Radioh3d said...

"You're incoherent and very predictable as evidenced by your response (which I predicted)".

Well considering it was stupid o clock and I was off my face, I'd say I was pretty darned articulate, not to mention unpredictable.

Digging your super powers of perception, though. Good hindsight, insight and foresight beats oversight every time. You already know that though, cause you can see across vast distances into the minds of strangers and predict the future... eh?

Anonymous said...

@Dickh3d
No, I just predicted what you were going to do because you don't understand what people are talking about here so you respond with over the top insults that don't link to the context of the situation. You have nothing to offer. You can't handle your drink and you don't understand these basic political or economic concepts do you? You're angry but you can't explain it and thank god that you've found someone to vent to online. Yo're clearly to incoherent and bitter to be able to do it face to face. I bet you get all red when you talk about politics in the real world and people just let you have your usual commie moan then turn the t.v up.

Lol, just seen some of the replies you're getting as well. Eject Scotland! That's hilarious! You're being trolled on a solid level mate. Keep it up, you're worth every penny. Well, the reactions to you are. You have nothing useful or constructive to say. You're hopeless.

Anonymous said...

"neither economist was talking about keeping hold of the money in perpetuity."

Adair Turner did, watch until the end of the lecture (watch the full thing in fact, but it's only the final section that speaks of debt monetisation).

I follow Mark Blyth. Please could you share his comments on the matter?

Thank you

steve said...



غسيل خزانات بمكة شركة غسيل خزانات بمكة
غسيل خزانات بجدة شركة غسيل خزانات بجدة
غسيل خزانات بالدمام شركة غسيل خزانات بالدمام

Radioh3d said...

Yeah whatever Anonymous. You're always the troll on here, and you know it. You're fooling nobody with your pseudo-intellectual, fake-assed, multiple personality craziness.

If you really must pretend to be other people.... character variation/development is where it's at. Oh, and not always going under the same name and talking the same shite... would help. Simple common sense stuff, but you don't get it.

Look, if you're gonna do something, you do it right (and no, not that kind of right). Never do things by halves. Go hard, or go the fuck home.

Anyway, you better get going. Guido and his galloping gammon brigade will be waiting on the news you take back.

Stop bugging people here though. Nobody agrees with you... apart from the few other versions of you.

Anonymous said...

@Dickh3d

No more welfare. No more nationalistic tribalism.

Lets trigger article 30 and have the UK vote to:
Eject Scotland.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

Shit you were right, missed that. I've found no example of the government printing off money and holding it in perpetuity however. Couple of issues:
If Labour create the bonds then use them to buy off the energy markets/PFI, etc: That will put the bonds in circulation as currency thus you'd have massive inflation.
Also do you have a hard example of what you're suggesting again: You are effectively printing off debt exactly like the banks are.
Similarly: Why not just issue trillions of bonds to pay off the national debt or instigate UBI (free money)? This is clearly a vote winner if you can simply wish away debt without having to pay for it and suffer no consequences as a result?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon

Part 1

"If Labour create the bonds then use them to buy off the energy markets/PFI, etc: That will put the bonds in circulation as currency thus you'd have massive inflation."

Sorry to be a pedant but with the debt monetisation method those newly created bonds will not be in circulation as the BoE would have bought them. The money from that purchase would now be at the Treasury. But to answer your point let's assume it has all been spent in the wider economy, as that is its end game. Where this money ends up will decide where the price rises occur. Notice I didn't use the word inflation here.

There's a big problem with people misunderstanding the true definition of inflation. The BoE purchasing the bonds would make their price go up. You do not state this price rise, IN BONDS ONLY, as inflation. To have true inflation you need a CPI/RPI rise in the price of good and services.

Before I talk in detail where the prices will occur re: this debt monetisation practice, and whether these will be tantamount to actual inflation, I need to elucidate on a few inflation myths.

The 70s is talked about with regard to inflation and it has prefaced our thinking on the matter ever since. Mark Blyth talks about this A LOT and I've referenced him below. 

First up, you couldn't have a situation like the 70s anymore because of the way finance is now globalised and capital is free to move.

The inflation of the 70s was part caused by the post-war and international Bretton Woods agreement which sort out capital controls to "cage" wealth in its respective country.

In essence it was to ensure that native money was spent natively. Investment at home, not wherever it can seek out the biggest rent or return. They hoped this would improve conditions in each country, for everyone, and therefore lead to stability and peace. Their motive was to avoid the laissez-faire economic practices of the 20s that lead to the Wall Street Crash, global penury, the rise of fascism and...that war.

The unforeseen problem was this inevitably led to an over heating of the system as prices and wages had to rise in tandem. Money was in essence trapped. There was a big reset in the late 70s with a new school of economics in town which unleashed capital, to the detriment of labour (small l). This is now know as Neoliberalism, as you know.

Both parties, Conservatives and Labour, exacerbated the frailties in the non-partisan B-W system, which worsened inflation.

The dangers in this system, whereby the government set overall policy while the central bank worked out how to implement it, became apparent when the Bretton Woods semi-fixed exchange rate system broke down in the early 1970s. Without a balance of payments constraint, Edward Heath’s government (Conservatives) dashed for growth while simultaneously deregulating finance through the policy known as competition and credit control. Heath and his chancellor Anthony Barber were deaf to the Bank’s warnings about excessive credit expansion. There followed accelerating inflation that peaked in the mid-1970s at 27 per cent on the retail price index, a crushing recession and a fringe banking crisis precipitated by a collapsing property market.

Labour, as we know, could not control its trade unions which lead to increased bargaining power from workforce labour (COLA contracts) and therefore higher wages and prices.

Anonymous said...

Part 2

Right, now fast forward to the post crash paradigm where the Western world pumped trillions into the economy through variants of QE. As a result we got....drum roll... nominal inflation, if at all. Barely a jot. Certainly not enough to pay credence to how the Monetarists in the late 70s/80s thought about it. 

Because I'm some bloke on a forum and therefore highly untrustworthy (lol). Here's MB on the same topic, from 11:00 onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbB9HcxA2Kg

If Lab were to use this process to nationalise certain industries, you would see prices rises in certain elements of the economy. Just like in the UK, £300bn+ of QE caused rising equities and, indirectly, house prices. BUT we would not call this 'massive inflation.' The CPI barely changed at all in the years post-crash.

"Also do you have a hard example of what you're suggesting" :  See A.Turner talking about Japan, plus the quotes he pulls out from household economists on the matter. Basically watch to the end of that lecture.

"You are effectively printing off debt exactly like the banks are" : Yes, this has been a common practice (creating new money) for central banks. See wave after wave of QE at ECB, FED and BoE. 

You make a very important distinction though....'like the (private) banks'....the nub of the issue is whether we are happy with growing the private debt bubble or the public one?

There are no perfect answers here (a rare admission for someone on the internet), the way we have run our economies for the last 50 years is based on a total taboo on monetary finance whilst being totally relaxed on private credit creation.

Looking a the basic theory on where nominal demand can come from in an economy, it must ultimately come from either governments/central banks creating new money and spending it or from private banks creating new credit money and purchasing power. That is the only way you get an increase in nominal demand. We must recognise that both of those carry risk. 

We have ended up with a philosophy that is vehemently against the government printing and spending money, but is totally relaxed about however much and for whatever purposes private banks create credit money. From here, you must ask yourself who is more accountable?

"Why not just issue trillions of bonds to pay off the national debt or instigate UBI (free money)?"

I'm going to ignore CBI as that is a whole other beast, but as for paying off the national, public debt, that would cause inflation.
Again, AT talks of the need for measure, caution and probity, but gives examples in history of when this has been achieved. It's not an easy balance to achieve hence his term: Between debt and the devil. 'The devil' being inflation. 'Debt' being an increasing burden on the private sector (which causes demand side problems as households/businesses struggle to upkeep their payments). 

Just to be clear, before you start picking imaginary holes, it's not an either/or scenario. You can mix methods and ideologies to achieve this balance.

p.s. As I have answered all your points could you return the favour and please share MB's comments on the matter from your exchange with him?

Jason said...

Hear hear. The notion of a Tory enriching anyone other than themselves or their cronies is fanciful.

deepak said...

very nice diet motivational quotes-motivation456

deepak said...

very nice diet motivational quotes-motivation456

deepak said...

very nice inspirational birthday quotes for myself-motivation456

deepak said...

very nice inspirational birthday quotes for myself-motivation456

DR. AZIBA HERBAL CURE HOME said...

Herbal medicine is best and fast in recovery from any illness, disease or growth.
My name is Priest/ Dr Aziba a Herbal Doctor I am here to help you get cured out of any disease or virus you might be having, no matter how long you have been suffering from that diseases there’s a cure. Herbal medicine is 100% guarantee for any kind of disease e:g
HERPES TYPE 1 / HERPES TYPE 2
HEPATITIS A,B,C
CANCER,(COPD)
HIV-AIDS
DIABETES
PENIS ENLARGEMENT
Just write to me below
Contact Me on my Email handle : priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com .and also on whatsapp: +2348100368288

DR. AZIBA HERBAL CURE HOME said...

Herbal medicine is best and fast in recovery from any illness, disease or growth.
My name is Priest/ Dr Aziba a Herbal Doctor I am here to help you get cured out of any disease or virus you might be having, no matter how long you have been suffering from that diseases there’s a cure. Herbal medicine is 100% guarantee for any kind of disease e:g
HERPES TYPE 1 / HERPES TYPE 2
HEPATITIS A,B,C
CANCER,(COPD)
HIV-AIDS
DIABETES
PENIS ENLARGEMENT
Just write to me below
Contact Me on my Email handle : priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com .and also on whatsapp: +2348100368288

motivation456 said...


url: Very nice Christmas day 2019

motivation456 said...


url: Very nice Christmas day 2019

motivation456 said...


url: Very nice Christmas day 2019

sumit baghel said...


very nicebirthday quotes for friend inspirational