123
rogerglewis
#107: War-games
WHY SOMEONE IN BRITAIN NEEDS TO GET A GRIP
Britain’s opposition Labour party incurred a lot of media displeasure with the recent disclosure that it had contingency plans to cope with a run on sterling. In fact, such “war gaming” was nothing more than prudent. Indeed, it is to be hoped that the authorities, too, have such plans (though, of course, it would be madness to say so).
The thinking behind Labour’s plans was that, were left-leaning party leader Jeremy Corbyn to become premier, some of his policies (and especially his commitment to nationalization) might panic international markets, causing GBP to crash in a welter of capital flight. On this scenario, it seemed – even a couple of weeks ago – that there would, at least, be plenty of time to prepare. After all, few expected an election to be called in the near future.
As things now stand, and…
View original post 745 more words
“Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely unrestrained in determining where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, operating without check or controls. Most modern countries practice a mixed capitalist system of some sort that includes government regulation of business and industry”.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
What is Populism
“The recent Euro crisis has shown a fact that is relatively obvious for observers of Latin American and US politics, namely, that populism can be both right-wing and left-wing in nature, but has two opposing terms which together define it: elitism and pluralism.”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/crist%C3%B3bal-rovira-kaltwasser/populism-its-opposites-and-its-contentious-relationsh
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretence that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
Carol Quiggley Tradgedy and Hope-