Sincere economic questions

I know that my A grade a-level in economics does not translate well to serious national economics; however, i have some queries over Europe’s, UK’s and the US’s bail-out of the banks. It would be good if someone could explain why what i am saying isn’t feasonable or doesn’t make economic sense.

I get the idea/theory/jist of putting money behind the debts that banks have incurred from stupid, ridiculous lending. However:

Money was also given to banks to give them more money to lend to each other, well… if this money was instead used for sweeping tax cuts, or as grants to poorer families, or to ‘pay-off’ people’s debts, then would this not also give the banks more money? Understandably, if this money was used aboard then it would not be in UK banks, but, nearly everyone has a bank account, so if people have more money to spend then they will have more money in their accounts. Banks use the money people deposit in their accounts as their own money at the moment anyway, i.e. they lend it. So if governments used the money to cut taxes drastically, then more accounts would have more money in them, more people would be spending this money in more shops- pushing consumerism up, more shops would have more money- that is saved in bank accounts. So more jobs are created or kept because people are still spending. And more people are more happy, and from a electoral point of view, New Labour would most likely win a lot more support- Brown could have called an election and become our PM by popular choice.

But instead of this they just gave the money to the banks and asked them to lend it to other banks!? So this leads me to believe there is some illogic in my theory. I am sincerely asking people to explain it to me. This is not me using sarcy theories to push my own ideology, far from it. My ideology is more nationalise all banks, move away from consumer led economy, pump the money into a new green energy sector and move Britain towards a low carbon energy independence, and i don’t want New Labour to regain power. So i am being sincere.

While i’m at it, green energy. If all the money given to banks was instead put into green energy, would it not therefore be feasible for the UK to generate all of it’s own electricity, either from hydro, wind or solar. Could the money not have been used to give a grant to every household to enable them to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the grid? Would a revolutionised green energy sector not provide for thousands (maybe of millions depending on what the sector contains) of jobs- reducing unemployment, raising job competition, giving people job security and allowing them to earn and spend their money, boosting consumerism and along the lines of a previous point allowing more people to have more money in their bank accounts, boosting the amount of money the banks have. It would also give Britain complete energy independence, we wouldn’t need to rely on other countries. We wouldn’t need to have such a presence in the Middle East. In theory, it could reduce any terrorist threat that we are facing- one of the first major aims of Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is to end the influence of the West in the Middle East (destroying secularism and allowing for the push of fundamentalism – i don’t think secularism would be destroyed in the Middle East anyway, even if Britain/America weren’t there)- so because of our reduced addiction to oil, we wouldn’t need to be in the Middle East (Afghanistan but especially Iraq).

Anyway, i am going off at a tangent. My point is, if we gave everyone else but the banks money, the banks would get the money in the end anyway.

One last thing. The National Debt. Who are we actually in debt to? I understand when it comes to borrowing from other countries we are in debt to them, but why do i hear of Britain borrowing from the banks? Am i just mishearing? If we were borrowing from the banks (Bank of England) then to me it is more excuse to nationalise them! Plus who is going to hold the UK to account if they don’t pay back their debts on time? More sincere questions.

The Biggest Open Air Prison In The World

For those of you who have had the grace of hearing my baby/vegetarian analogy, you know that my reasoning arguments are often crude and simplistic. But that won’t stop me as here is another one:

If you and your family were under house arrest (could not communicate with anyone outside or even go outside) by a group of people who don’t have political power over you, and who only passed through to your family one meal per day, would you do something? If in your house you had a gun, would you or someone else in your family use this gun to try and end this situation?

Well this is one way of looking at the situation in Gaza.

I know this is a simplistic way of looking at things, and there are far more complex issues involved, but essentially the rocket attacks on Israel via Gaza are partly a reaction to Israeli control of Gaza and the severe economic and humanitarian sanctions imposed on the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel- just because Israel does not like the democratically elected Hamas government (who admittedly can be more than a tad extreme).

Israel of course has a right to defend itself against these rocket attacks, but the scale to which they have reacted in recent weeks is sickening, but sadly not unexpected, Israel was born out of aggression, fear and genocide.

The blockade of Gaza by Israel has lead to the description of the biggest open air prison being suggested of Gaza. By road, air and sea Israel controls all imports into the country (apart from those that are smuggled), which include food, electricity and aid. There are numerous reports of Israel cutting off all food and energy imports into Gaza for days on end.

So if you were in Gaza would you sit back and say ‘fair play to Israel, they don’t like the government we’ve elected so they have every right to cause untold disruption and chaos in what should be my home country…’ Na, it does not work like that. When you’re put in intolerable positions where not just your own, but your family’s, your friend’s, your community’s and everyone around you’s life is in danger you react, you try and stop it, you try and make things better.

So in a way I empathise with the rocket attacks. NO, WAIT. I didn’t say I agree with the attacks, I just said I empathise- I can understand why they launch rockets into Israel. But then again I empathise with Israel’s right to defend its citizens, even though they bought it on themselves. Yet this is where the catch 22 situation comes into play. Without the hindsight of the complete withdrawal of the Israeli blockade, how do we know attacks against Israel will stop?

I believe the first step in resolving this situation is for America to pull its arse out of where ever it has been sticking it and actually stop supporting Israel in the way it does. America needs to say to Israel ‘now come on, now you’re just being stupid’. Then America and the UN need to send troops there, not to fight the Israeli forces but to create a bit of stability among the borders by controlling them and what goes in/out of Gaza. This force would of course need to be unbiased- something that would never happen with America’s current support of Israel. Then, we need three states. The old two state solution is far far away, not least because Gaza and the West Bank are not connected, but they are now so politically diverse considering the West Bank being under Fatah control and Gaza experiencing what it is currently experiencing (bombing, attacking and destroying Gaza will only radicalise those living in Gaza even more)

Yet this is not going to happen anytime soon. With all the hope of change Obama’s victory in America bought with it, he has only managed to say nothing but that there is no point in having two voices come out of America about the situation. Maybe this means he will differ from what Bush has recently said (Bush bumming Israel) and he doesn’t want to polarise American attitudes. Maybe it is because a huge majority of America is pro-Israel in this war and Obama doesn’t want to get off o the wrong foot. Or, he agrees with Bush and Israel…

***********

pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, pro-peace

English Fundamentalism

I have just been reading an interesting article on the Guardian website about the documentary film maker Sean Langan who has just recently been released by the Taliban after 3 months.

I would like to quote Langan in relation to his only glimpse of the outside world- a small hole in the wall of his ‘cell’ that was embraced with a view of an apricot tree; “It kept me going, thinking about the outside world and English values that could be lost, like tea and sympathy and tolerance and basic humanity.”

This is a man who has been locked up and psychologically tortured for 3 months, yet he still acknowledges basic English principles: sympathy, tolerance and basic humanity, and the fear that his situation could make him abandon them. It is a shame that a majority of English people are willing to throw these principles away when they are in the warmth, comfort and safety of their own homes and there is the slightest threat of a terrorist attack or they see a group of Polish workers on the way to work.

The article also led me to view the arrogance of those fighting the British in Afghanistan in their views of the West; “Mr C asked me once if it was true that western women married frogs. He had seen a children’s fairytale and believed that it was true.” This is not something confined to just a minority in Afghanistan. The rise in Islamophobia is fuelled by the fear and belief that all Muslim’s want to do is destroy ‘Western values’ and end British lives. [I put commas around Western values, as i believe a majority of those in power in both Britain and America have no dignified values at all]. In reality, this belief is the upside-down version of the truth. In reality, the majority of those who follow the Islamic faith pose no harm to the West at all. There is however a very small minority of Islamic Fundamentalists who appear to want to (i say appear because really the 9/11 attack was not against the West but an attempt to polarise the people in the Middle East into either fundamentalism or secularism- helped afterwards by America’s War on ‘Error).

Johann Hari wrote a brilliant piece on the latest Big Brother and how fundamental and secularist Islam is clashing within the Big Brother house. The point of the article is to explain the reality of the current situation. Islam is not about killing as many people who disagree with you as possible, but at the same time, there are fundamentalists who believe it is. This debate tends to be forgotten by the right-wing media, which wrongly portrays Muslims as a threat. Hari suggests that this clash is finally an example of proper reality television. There are many other aspects of Hari’s article that i could write on, yet to grasp the context of the debate you should read it yourself.

Judging by how some people are reacting to the threat posed by Fundamental Islam and their over the top reactions to immigration into this country, i would suggest that there is a growing sense of English (British) Fundamentalism growing. If they think that all Muslims are Fundamentalists, then it is safe to say that these English Fundamentalists are just as bad as the Islamic Fundamentalists they are afraid of.

To view the Guardian’s article on Langan, click here.

To view the Johann Hari article, click here.

***********************

On a completely separate topic, here is another Langan quote; “I am alive. And I’ve realised that freedom is the air we breathe.” Out of all the things i could say, all i will say is that if the air we breathe is true freedom, then irresponsible oil companies and Governments are clutching onto not only our freedoms, but the freedoms of the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after that, and on and on. Why, therefore, aren’t more people fighting for our own freedoms if not the freedoms of others?