Formed in 1973 the Libertarian Party of Canada, subscribes to classical liberal tenets of the libertarian movement. Policies the party advocates for include ending drug prohibition, ending government censorship, lowering taxes, protecting gun rights and non-interventionism.
The party has regularly run a large number of candidates in the federal elections of this, the second biggest country on earth and nation of almost 38 million people. Our cousin nation are not entirely unfamiliar with our fair town as The Globe and Mail, Canada’s “newspaper of record” visited our Leavers of Croydon drinks in October last year.
We speak with Brandon Kirby the Libertarian Party Communications Director, about the politics of freedom in their home and native land.
Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about your party?
The mission of the Libertarian Party of Canada is to reduce the responsibilities and expense of government so that we may each manage our lives to mutually fulfil our needs by the free and voluntary exchange of our efforts and property for the value that best realizes our happiness.
“He was terribly in over his head to become prime minister. There was nothing on his resume that suggested he had the capacity to deliver on his promises. The cost of living has gone up significantly, taxes have gone up“
Canada’s Prime Minister is possibly best known here for dressing up and wearing make-up. What are your thoughts on the Justin Trudeau government?
I think that captures his strongest points.
He was terribly in over his head to become prime minister. There was nothing on his resume that suggested he had the capacity to deliver on his promises. The cost of living has gone up significantly, taxes have gone up, he’s engaging in arms trading with genocidal war criminals in Saudi Arabia, his government is giving tremendous subsidies to fossil fuel companies, he failed to balance the budget as promised, and he makes terrible blunders that novices wouldn’t make when answering basic questions about our tax code.
To the point you raised, the fact that he isn’t taken seriously by the international community, is problematic. He’s had difficulty in negotiating a free trade contract with Mexico and the U.S. His overseas trip to India was a national embarrassment that cost us $500 million, which gave him an excuse to play dress-up.
“We have a collection of elites within journalism, lawyers, professors, and politicians, that largely communicate with themselves, and they see particular issues as pressing that many Canadians don’t. Outside of this well-sealed off bubble, ordinary Canadians have differing views”
Canada has some strict speech laws. How do you think these are viewed by ordinary Canadians and what’s the view of your party?
Our party champions free speech. Canada is a divided country. We have a collection of elites within journalism, lawyers, professors, and politicians, that largely communicate with themselves, and they see particular issues as pressing that many Canadians don’t. Outside of this well-sealed off bubble, ordinary Canadians have differing views. Within the context of free speech, overarching demands from the government and various universities with respect to transgender rights and criticism of Islam, many Muslims and transgendered individuals are themselves puzzled by these seemingly counter-productive legislations to their goals; they’re interested in practicing freedom rather than their movements becoming tyrannical.
What are your main campaign tactics? How do you go out for votes?
Our previous campaign used traditional political tactics and was unsuccessful. Our next campaign will likely involve more social media interaction. Rather than broad-based national strategies, we’ll likely attempt a regional strategy focusing on three or four seats that we could win in parliament.
“by a wide margin, the number one issue in Canada right now is gun control. Our party experienced a spike in membership after the new wave of bans was announced over a month ago”
Following on what are the policies that get Canadians excited to vote for Liberty?
Tackling cost of living increases that have come about through central banking was popular with seniors. Free market environmentalism was popular in areas that have suffered environmental damage and with our student population. Opposition to state-funded media was popular within rural, more right wing communities. Tax reform was popular with business owners, as was fiscal prudence in balancing the budget. However, by a wide margin, the number one issue in Canada right now is gun control. Our party experienced a spike in membership after the new wave of bans was announced over a month ago.
The US presidential election is underway, and it’s likely the Libertarians will again finish 3rd. What do you make of the Libertarian politics of your southern cousins?
We’re impressed with the resume of Jo Jorgensen, and interested to see if she can get the Libertarian Party more votes.
Your party has fought in a number of elections, with mixed results. What do you think is next for your party, and what are your next goals?
Mixed results is a generous way of describing our past outcomes. We’re gearing up for the next campaign, learning from past failures, focusing on future successes.
If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?
We would enshrine private property and self-defence rights in the Canadian charter, and enact significant tax reform.
What do you think of your country’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done next?
Canada will be spending a minimum of an additional $250 billion to combat COVID-19. As a result we are creating a plethora of dollars, but no additional wealth – which has inflationary concerns. Given that our economy is dwindling and we’re facing real inflation concerns, the resultant stagflation will be difficult to overcome. Enacting sound money policies will be necessary to escape the looming economic nightmare, along with serious cuts to corporate taxes so that we can recover economically.
“Many Canadian libertarians supported Brexit, and so we were happy to see our parent country trending in a positive direction”
Do you have any thoughts on UK politics?
Many Canadian libertarians supported Brexit, and so we were happy to see our parent country trending in a positive direction. However, during the last leaders’ debate many of us were concerned with Johnson’s support for Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn’s pronouncement that the existence of billionaires is shameful has serious consequences for the international finance community if his line of thinking gains prominence, given the influence of the LSE and the robustness of the FTSE 100. Johnson is acting antithetical to our foreign policy goals while Corbyn could have disastrous consequences to our economy. Neither of the two major leaders appears to be positive from a Canadian perspective and we’re happy to see alternatives popping up within the U.K. Keep up the great work!
You can follow the Libertarian Party of Canada on the web, on Twitter and on Facebook.
We are joined by Bill Etheridge, the former UKIP, Libertarian Party & Brexit Party MEP, as we discuss the Taxpayers Alliance’s City Hall Rich List, a potential new trade deal with japan and the Cancellation Culture attacking our historic statues and even beloved TV shows & films. We then chat with Bill about his time in politics, the demise of UKIP and the future of Classical Liberalism in this country.
“over 10 years of supposedly Conservative government and I’m old enough to remember before they got in, they were going to sort all of this out and have bonfires of quangos… still more than a decade on these obscene salaries are being paid out”
“we’re still an enormous economy, we’re very important in terms of diplomatic links, we are a hugely important country and of course people want to do deals with us”
“all of these things they want to erase, so they can start a new narrative, start from year zero. This is a modern day version of a cultural revolution”
“there was a little game that the staff that worked with us as MEPs, used to sit down and do a bingo, and they would try and find the Thatcher or Reagan quotes that I slipped into my speeches”
“Nigel Farage is the most effective and inspiring politician for patriotic right of centre politics, that there has been for many years”
“partly I wanted to make a statement that Libertarianism is something people should look at. Because it’s not discussed, people don’t talk about Libertarianism”
“it’s a tough old game being in politics, especially when you’ve got a bit of a reputation behind you, you become a target for all sorts of things, and if I’m going to do it, I’m going to do it for a party I actually believe in and it’s worth making the sacrifices”
“If you believe in something, don’t just sit in the pub with a couple of mates talking about it, don’t just type something on Twitter, or whatever. Actually actively pursue that interest and try to make a difference”
A UK government adviser stated on Tuesday that Britain must be braced for widespread riots this summer, warning that poorer people and areas will be hit harder by the fallout of the coronavirus – Michael Swadling from The Croydon Constitutionalists has shared his views on the matter.
“it’s reasonable to think it’s a scenario that could happen. I think also the feeling that we’ve had enough of experts is ringing true here again. “Likely to take place” is a stretch and we clearly should hope that everything happens to avoid that, but right now everything is there for things to go wrong”
“I remember those riots very well. I live in Croydon and there were a couple of major fires in Croydon and I could indeed see them from the back of my house. Do I expect them to happen again? I would hope not, but the government needs to act quickly to make sure it doesn’t and there’re some very basic things it can do. Lift the lockdown; get people back to work – it’s very hard to be rioting when you’re in your job, people will be busy and tired and that’s a much better place for people to be than bored and angry.”
“a decent protest – a protest against racism is a perfectly righteous thing to do, but if you’re throwing bricks at police horses, you need to be stopped. If you’re vandalising property, you need to be stopped.”
The decade after the financial crisis has seen many front line public sector and most private sector employees receive below inflation pay rises, with many suffering years of stagnant earnings.
Not so for those at the top of City Hall, delivering value for money from the public purse is of no barrier for their earnings. The TaxPayers’ Alliance have published their City Hall Rich List 2020 which reveals:
654 people employed by the GLA and its subsidiary bodies in 2018-19 received more than £100,000. 154 received over £150,000.
Transport for London alone has 518 employees on over £100,000. With 114 on more than £150,000.
28 employees received remuneration in excess of a quarter of a million pounds in 2018-19.
Taxpayers have to fund this on top of all the other costly burdens of living in London., with the Mayor having increased the band D council tax precept by just under nine per cent in 2019-20.
London taxpayers are paying Limousine prices for what all too often turns out to be a Reliant Robin service from City Hall. This is on top of the burden from London’s Borough Councils. Croydon Council employs more than 23 staff on over £100,000 a year. Hardworking Taxpayers need a fair deal that protects them as well as rewards staff.
We know the economy has taken a serve hit from Covid 19 and the lockdown. We ask that City Hall and its subsidiary bodies share the burden with those who pay their wages. We think it’s reasonable to ask that no new employee in the Metropolitan Police, Greater London Authority, London Fire Brigade or the Mayoral team, be paid more than the Prime Minister. Those in post were employed in good faith and must retain their salaries, but surely it is not unreasonable in these troubled economic times to say a Deputy commissioner in the London Fire Brigade or a Transformation director in TFL does not need to be paid more than the person running Britain!
We calculate that if this were already the case, just capping the salaries of the top 20 highest paid staff in TFL would save over £3.9 million a year. A good start to helping council tax payers.
We discuss the introduction of compulsory face masks on public transport and the Taxpayers Alliance’s latest tax proposals to assist with a post COVID recovery. We then consider the Hong Kong protests and the CBI’s change of tune on Brexit.
“I tell you, in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need repentance.”
– This article is part of a larger collection of my work I hope to have available soon titled ‘The Social Science Of The Market’. – Josh L. Ascough
Many economagicians, central planners and establishment economists have an unnatural admiration for this leviathan juggernaut of pestilence; ignoring the fact that, many economic issues causing harm to individuals and societies are due to this abomination’s existence. The creation of this legally monopolistic, monolithic, malicious institution has been at the very heart of the decreasing value and standards of life.
In order to adequately talk about the central bank, we require delving into a few topics first, in order to fully understand the issue. These topics include:
Deflation
The Gold Standard
Sound Money to Fiat Money
Inflation
The Boom/Bust Cycle
We will begin the subject with The Gold Standard and the process of Sound Money to Fiat Money.
Let us first take a look at the spectrum of international monetary systems to gain a quick grasp of the subject.
The graph shown above displays a quick overview of The Gold Standards history, starting with its 100 percent Gold system, where there was no central bank or any format of paper money receipts.
“The Classical Gold Standard had the monetary unit set, to be legally defined as a weight of gold, and though it is a popular belief, the gold standard was not a creation of government, but a market supplied commodity with an intrinsic value predicated in use and exchangeability”
The Classical Gold Standard took place from 1821 to 1914. Under this system we had the creation of paper money receipts; these were not forms of money but were tickets or claims to the noted amount of weight in gold (a £20 note was not money, but a claim to 20 pounds of gold, which the bearer of the note could give to the bank to withdraw said amount of gold, or could use as a money substitute to purchase goods and services; the money substitute or ticket, could then be used by the new owner to claim 20 pounds of gold. The Classical Gold Standard had the monetary unit set, to be legally defined as a weight of gold, and though it is a popular belief, the gold standard was not a creation of government, but a market supplied commodity with an intrinsic value predicated in use and exchangeability, which developed over time as people found more reliability with the precious metal.
As a monetary unit, under the gold standard the currency name was not an indicator of national sovereignty, but was simply unit of gold measured in weight.
For example from 1834-1933, the US Dollar was legally defined as $1 = 1/20th of 1 oz of gold (23.22 grains), and the British Pound from 1821-1931 was defined as £1 = 1/4 of 1 oz of gold (113 grains).
With regards to the exchange rate of the gold standard, the gold standard was not a fixed exchange rate system, as all countries operated with the same form of currency; that being gold.
“the “exchange rate” of Dollars to Pounds for 100 years was $4.86 ÷ £ = 113 grains of gold, as there was a smaller weight of gold in the Dollar coins as opposed to the weight of gold in Pound coins. The exchange rate of the gold standard was simply a law of arithmetic”
So the “exchange rate” of Dollars to Pounds for 100 years was $4.86 ÷ £ = 113 grains of gold, as there was a smaller weight of gold in the Dollar coins as opposed to the weight of gold in Pound coins. The exchange rate of the gold standard was simply a law of arithmetic.
The operation of gold as the currency did not require or involve the fixing of the price. If an individual sought to redeem £4 for an ounce of gold, the bank or the government was not in fact selling gold to the bearer, but was simply fulfilling its contract to redeem the value of £4 to the title holder of the property. Another way of looking at this system and transaction, would be to think of placing a piece of property into a storage building and being given a receipt; the piece of paper is not the property object itself, but is a claim to the property and its rate of value is equal to the property.
Under the gold standard the MS (money supply) was strictly limited to the amount of gold in circulation and to that of gold mining; hence bank notes and deposits can only increase if and when new gold was to enter the banks. This is often referred to as “The Golden Handcuffs”, as the banks were restricted in how much money substitutes they could supply.
As a result of this, prices tended to fall over periods of time, as saving, investment and technological improvements increased the supply of goods and services available more rapidly than the increase of the money supply. Price deflations are natural outcomes of a gold standard. As an example in the US from the period of 1880-1896, price percentage decreased an equal amount of 30%, while GDP percentage saw an increase of 85%. A more broken down format would be a decrease of 1.7% per year, and an increase of 5% per year. This type of increase in production with a decrease in prices is what is known as “Growth Deflation”.
The destruction of the gold standard began during the period of WWI, when gold reserves in the US were centralised in to the Federal Reserve; prior to this, private banks held their own reserves of gold against the money receipts they issued. This was aided and achieved through the act of a heavy tax implemented on to all private issues of bank notes, alongside the exporting of gold being prohibited in 1917.
During the period of the 1920s, the private issuing of bank notes became outlawed. This was followed by the Federal Reserve cutting reserve requirements from 21.1% to 9.8%, which in turn caused the money supply to double from 1913 to 1919.
These first steps were achieved through mass propaganda by the government and the central bank, classifying the use of gold as “old fashioned”, in an attempt to have the dollar not associated with a weight in gold, but with a government owned paper money.
From 1922 to 1933, the Federal Reserve expanded bank reserves in an attempt to stabilise prices and assist Great Britain in returning to the gold standard, as a means of having foreign nations buy up the US gold supply.
In 1929 the Great Depression and the bank runs began, signalling the end of the classical gold standard, as Franklin D Roosevelt, on the 1st of May 1933 issued an Executive Order, prohibiting the ownership of gold by private citizens and businesses, with a criminal charge of $10,000 or 10 years in prison for non-compliance.
There was a temporary period where an apparent “gold standard” made a comeback, named the Bretton Woods System, from the period of 1946 to 1971.
However, the BW system was a faux gold system, and was an attempt to bring order to the chaos brought about by the newly adapted national fiat money systems, by covering it as a gold standard.
Under the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar was treated as the key currency; or the world reserve currency, and was made convertible into gold at a fixed rate of $35 per oz. This caused a devaluing of gold from the legitimate rate of $20 per oz.
All other forms of currency were convertible into dollars, but at fixed exchange rates, and currencies were only convertible into gold for central banks and governments; US citizens were not permitted to convert their dollars to gold or own gold, due to the FDR Executive Order of 1933.
The operations of the BW system were so that, currencies of foreign nations were expanded and placed into a pyramid on top of the US dollar, causing the Balance of Payments adjustment mechanism, which limited inflation under the gold standard to be null and void.
This lead to the Federal Reserve having the ability to create money, causing domestic inflation and BOP (Balance of Payment*) deficits without consequence, due to foreign governments and central banks buying up dollars with their own currencies instead of demanding gold.
Because of this, the Bretton Woods system caused a persistent BOP deficit due to a global surplus of the dollar. However, as long as foreign governments and central banks were willing to accept and hold excess dollars, the US did not require concern for the deficit; in essence, the US exported paper money and inflation to the world in exchange for economic goods.
On the 15th August 1971, President Nixon placed the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard, by renouncing the obligation of the US to convert dollars for gold, as decreed under the terms of the Bretton Woods system.
Under the current operation of fiat currency, gold would play no direct role under the fiat money system. The US dollar and other currencies continue as pure fiat money, which are unconvertable to gold. The monetary basis would be comprised of fiat paper money (government controlled central bank notes), which are held by the public and the banks within the vaults and cash machines. Thus, the central banks would continue to control the monetary system, by buying or selling bonds, and giving government’s political control over the supply and dealings of money.
*The Balance of Payments was an automatic mechanism, which would cease the increase in the money supply before it could cause too much damage to the economy. Under the BOP mechanism, if the domestic money supply increases, domestic prices would rise above world prices. This would lead to exports to the country in question decreasing and imports increasing; resulting in a balance of payments deficit. This mechanism maintained an equilibrium in BOP, and distributed gold throughout areas according to the demands for money (gold). In addition, the BOP operated inter-regionally, with the end result of a limited money supply increase and inflation by central banks. The mechanism operated as such: As the MS (money supply) increases, the domestic P (price) increases above world P. This causes exports to decrease and imports to increase, creating a BOP < 0. This leads to gold supply to decrease, creating a downturn in the MS, causing domestic P to drop below world P, and leading to exports to rise as imports drop, equaling a BOP > 0.
With the subject of the gold standard and the introduction of the fiat money system concluded, let us move on to the subject of Deflation.
Does the reader enjoy falling prices for consumers? Does the reader believe falling prices are good for the economy?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then there is not much purpose in continuing on with the subject of deflation; for the purposes of reaching the end result of the central bank subject however, I will continue.
Deflation is a natural occurrence of the market economy, and is generally subject to the same laws of supply and demand. Like any price for economic goods, the value of money is determined by the equilibrium level in relation to supply and demand.
An increase in the value of a money, or a reduction in prices is caused by a reduction of the money supply, or a rise in the demand for a money. We increase the demand for money when:
A) We produce and sell more goods.
B) When we aim to hold more of our money, leading to spending and investment to decrease.
It should be noted, that there are three kinds of deflation:
Growth Deflation.
Cash-Building Deflation.
Confiscatory Deflation.
Growth Deflation is caused by the production and supply of economic goods seeing an increase; this is an economic growth.
A rapid increase in economic growth is caused by an increase in the investment of capital goods, which reduce the cost of production and increase profits. The newly increased supply of economic goods creates greater degrees of competition for money by sellers, and as a result increases the exchange value of money. If the money supply is allowed to increase very slowly alongside the fast increase in production, this will result in the value of money to increase, causing this to be reflected in falling prices.
Cash-Building Deflation is caused by economising individuals wishing to hold on to more of their incomes in relation to prices; prices can refer to consumer goods or rates for investment. The lack of spending causes the same result; demand for money to increase and prices to decrease.
Confiscatory Deflation is caused by the government confiscating money from individuals, demonetising notes or limiting the withdrawal amount of cash from banks. This form of deflation however is not a natural market occurrence, as it infringes on property rights and distorts the economy by sending false signals of economic activity.
“In 2001 Botox treatment was priced at $365; in 2013 the price was set between $99 -$149.
Liposuction in 1992 was at a cost of $1,600, and in 2013 the cost was roughly $999.”
Historical examples of Deflation can be examined with computers, HDTV’s, laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery.
In the 1970s mainframe computers cost upwards of $4 million; today, thanks to growth deflation, home computers are 20x faster, and are able to hold more memory; selling for less than $500.
From 1980 to 1999, computer prices fell by 90% as the industry grew.
In 2004, roughly 32 million TVs sold in North America at an average cost of $400, sized at 27 inches.
In 2015, around 44 million TV’s sold in North America at a price of $460 sized at 38 inches.
This shows that price per inch fell to $12.10, from a rate of $14.81.
A broader breakdown of the overall price can be seen as such:
From the period of 1998, Lasik Eye Surgery was priced at roughly $4000 per eye. From 2013, the price was set around $300 per eye.
In 2001 Botox treatment was priced at $365; in 2013 the price was set between $99 -$149.
Liposuction in 1992 was at a cost of $1,600, and in 2013 the cost was roughly $999.
To add more detail to Cash-Building Deflation otherwise known as “Speculative Deflation”.
Cash-Building Deflation plays an important role, particularly during a recession, as businesses increase their cash holdings due to the production costs, such as wages and additional forms of input; capital, land, materials or machines, have seen a sharp increase during an inflationary period (or boom), which in turn have wiped out profit margins. This is a speculation of prices; the speculators have concluded that costs will fall and so seek to hold on to their resources until prices fall back to normal, or equilibrium levels.
This also accounts for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur will hold on to his money supply and wait until wages and other input costs adjust to a reduced rate before they begin to proceed with investment.
Deflation plays a vital role in the speed of the readjustment period from a recession; we will go into the subject of recessions, booms and busts later in this section.
With all this said however; many commentators, financial writers and economists hold an irrational fear of deflation and the results of it, that being; falling prices. A handful of fear driven titles of blog posts and articles include:
“The Deflation Monster Still Lives”
“Why We Should Fear Deflation”
“Defeating Deflation”
“The Spector of Deflation”
In a congressional testimony, Alan Greenspan (2003) made the statement that a further drop in inflation would be “an unwelcome development.”
Further stating; “We see no credible possibility that we will at any point, run out of monetary ammunition to address problems of deflation.”
In 2002, Ben Bernanke gave a speech, in which he stated:
“The Chance of significant deflation in the US in the foreseeable future is extremely small. The Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.”
This fearmongering should be seen for what it is; a desire to promote an irrational fear of deflation among the public, in order to justify further inflationary policies; the subject of inflation we will delve into in the following.
Inflation could be misleadingly seen as simply an increase in prices. This, however, is an errored concept. The price of an economic good can rise and fall for a variety of reasons: if the overall consumer demand for an economic good sees an increase, then the price mechanism will reflect the increase in value, or if the input materials or a particular economic good of higher order (capital) becomes more scarce, then the overall cost will be reflected in the equilibrium of value in relation to consumer demand and the supplies available to producers.
The monetary inflation occurs, when the central bank expands the rate of credit artificially through the expansion of the money supply, or beyond the money supply, causing interest rates to be set artificially low; this results in false signals being sent to investors, entrepreneurs and producers as to the degree of real, loanable funds available, and is the starting point of an economic “boom”; this could also be referred to as an “inhale” within the economy.
The economic boom or “inhale” cannot be maintained for long however, as the rates have been kept artificially low in relation to the expansion of credit and the money supply; this as stated, sends false signals to investors as to the funds available for production such as housing construction, the purchasing of capital such as labour, land, materials, machines etc. As those seeking further expansion continue to reach for resources, it is revealed that there are too few; leading to interest rates rising and the capital developed to become devalued; resulting in an economic bust, which can be referred to as an “exhale” in the economy.
The economic bust is a painful process, however it is highly necessary in order for rates of value to meet in a position of equilibrium, and stabilise the economy in relation to real loanable funds available reflected in the rates of interest, and allow the pricing mechanism to signal the actual value of economic goods in relation to consumer use value and producer exchange value.
We can think of the boom and bust cycle as breathing. We all breath (hopefully) inhaling and exhaling air, yet, if we were to take a deep breath in an attempt beyond what our lungs are capable of, and withhold from exhaling, we would slow the process of relief and do damage to our lungs. The boom and bust cycle can be seen in a similar way; the boom is the problem; the boom is an excessive intake of air, the bust is the readjustment back to a stable, natural rate. Yet many policy makers insist in bringing relief to the economy in the form of stimulus; this is folly, as the stimulus is just more of the same, perverse incentives and false signals, delaying the recovery period and prolonging the pain (this faulty activity in our breathing example can be seen as an attempt to hold the excessive air in the lungs, as a way of “strengthening” the lungs for a better recovery. There is only one method of recovery. Exhale!)
Inflation is not just a simple act of expanding the money supply however. A money, any money at the end of the day is an economic good, and is subject to the laws of supply and demand, as well as the first rule of economics: All goods are scarce.
What defines a good as an economic good, and to that extent, whether it holds any economic value at all, is whether it holds a demand which aims to satisfy a human need, want or desire, and whether or not the good in question is scarce. If the good in question falls into these two categories, then it is an economic good. What form of economic good it is and what its value is in relation to, is reflected in whether it serves a direct need (such as food), or an indirect (tools for cooking food); the good which serves direct consumption is an economic good of lower order, and the good which serves to better the ability to serve the need; tools for cooking, cars, materials and labour for making cutlery, are economic goods of higher order.
With Regards to a money, if it loses one or both of these characteristics, the money in question will cease to hold any value; if people no longer demand the commodity deemed as a money, its rate of value will decrees as people no longer hold it to a standard to which it serves a need, if the money ceases to be a scarce good, it will lose all economic value.
That which is stated above, is an extreme format known as hyperinflation. But, a monetary inflation of the magnitude we are used to in a fiat world is not therefore, less dangerous.
The process of inflation is not as simple as: more money is printed followed by lower value; there are many areas in between this process.
When government expands on the money supply, the new money is used to stimulate economic activity to which the economy cannot afford. The early receivers of the new money benefit from the influx, as they will be able to enact projects such as construction at unaltered prices. As the new (bad) money continues to pass through the economy, the prices of goods and services begin to reflect the decreased value of the money in question, causing the late receivers to be worse off, as their money has become less valuable with the artificial increase in supply.
This is why there is a tendency for prices to not increase straight away from inflation. However even the term “price increase from inflation” is a faulty one it must be admitted; the price of goods have not seen an increase, the money used for the means of exchange has seen an overall drop in its value, the prices have not increase but are merely reflecting a decrease in exchange value of the commodity used for trade.
One fallacy which I will briefly go over, is that wealth is simply a measure of the degree of money an individual holds possession over.
This however is completely false.
Wealth is not determined by the degree of money in a man’s pocket; nor is it necessarily a significant calculation of wealth. Wealth is based on the degree of economic goods; both of higher and lower order, to which an economizing individual holds command over.
It is the use value of the economic goods, their time frame, and their ability to serve a need to which the individual recognises, as a need he wishes to have satisfied.
If it were true, that wealth is simply determined and measured by the quantity of money in a man’s pocket, then we should be praising the outcomes of inflation, and ultimately striving for hyperinflation. Under this notion, Germany during its dark period of hyperinflation should have been considered the wealthiest nation of all time; everyone had barrels full of thousands of paper money notes.
Inflation is not just a monetary disaster; inflation is the theft of value.
It is the loss of opportunity for a higher standard of living for all economizing individuals. By increasing the money supply for the purposes of “short term gains”, the central bank and the government steals the possibilities of our means of exchange, by reducing the scarcity, and overall how valuable the good in question is in the long term. Central planners love the prospect of inflation because it provides them the ability to hold further control over the monetary system, and increase spending without increasing production and productivity.
Overall, with this fallacy at its end, I hope the reader will be left with the understanding that, with the creation of this monolithic institution known as the central bank, and the means of inflating the money supply; the creation of the fiat currency and its monopolistic hold, the central bank and the government have bestowed upon themselves control over the monetary system.
Whereas in the past money was a creation of the market, and as a market commodity for exchange aided in building upon the relationship between consumers and producers; now, under the fiat, government owned system, that relationship has shifted. With government solely in control of money, who may acquire it, how it may be used, who has theirs decreased or increased both in quantity and value, that relationship has turned to one between the establishment, and whoever it can gain the most from; whether that be consumers or producers and whichever is not chosen, is the one who suffers.
“the creation of the central bank and the enacting of the fiat currency, the power to print limitless quantities and act as a mafia towards the individual’s means and ability for exchange; forever weakening our lives and value”
The State has brought to itself the legal monopoly not just that of money production, but the power to define a money and through the elimination of the gold standard, the creation of the central bank and the enacting of the fiat currency, the power to print limitless quantities and act as a mafia towards the individual’s means and ability for exchange; forever weakening our lives and value.
If we truly want to end Cronyism and all it encapsulates; we need to restore the gold standard with a stable form of money substitute as a market commodity, not a symbol of “national sovereignty” to be centralised; we need to destroy the Central Bank.
We are joined by Alasdair Stewart, the former Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation, as we discuss the media’s reaction to the COVID crisis and in particular their recent treatment of Dominic Cummings.
We also consider the great news about the Nissan plant in Sunderland, Croydon Council’s dire financial position and some recent developments in the 2020 US Presidential campaign.
We then chat with Alasdair about his experiences in politics, his time as the Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation and his thoughts on politics in Croydon.
“I’m sure many people in Croydon can remember, the 23% increase in council tax that Croydon Labour had to push through the last time the council’s finances got into this kind of terrible state”
“in Croydon, is that when Labour win control of the council everyone feels they only listen to their voters in the north, that delivered them their seats, and similar complaints are leveled against the Conservatives when they were running the council when they would only focus on the south of the borough. Anything that motives the Elected Mayor to think of the whole borough would be good for local democracy”
Alasdair Stewart Interview
and from his interview:
“I’d seen the damage they had done to Scotland, whether it be the Heath Service, with Education or even with the government’s finances and I was quite frankly terrified of the idea of the SNP propping up a Labour administration in Westminster.”
“How disappointing it is when you’re speaking to people and they say how unhappy they are about how the council might be doing things, but then also say they aren’t going to vote”
“local members were not just incredibly positive for Brexit and wanting to leave, but also a proper Brexit”
“One of Croydon’s problems is the fact it is effectively a two party competition. It is incredibly partisan and entirely divided. With the Conservatives in the south primarily, Labour in the north and everyone fights over the centre”
“When they were in power the Conservatives, the Conservative Croydon administration built more council houses than this administration under Labour”
“We need some more voices for the ordinary British person, we know from recent elections the climate change warriors, and the lefty socialists are not representative of the country as a whole…. I would encourage more normal rational people to get involved, have a voice and share their voice”
We have seen further coverage this week of the financial crisis in Croydon Council where:
“The council is facing a £62 million overspend and currently has £440 million worth of debt made up of short term loans.
Given its annual budget this year was £280 million, the overspend represents about one fifth of the council’s total annual spending power.”
As we have covered previously Croydon Council now has 23 staff who earned over £100,000. 16 more that Barnet council which is about the same size and 12 more than Sutton, 3 more than Bromley (which can afford this as it doesn’t have any debt).
But do we get value from these highly paid staff? Do they provide a great service?
As part of the government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis, councils are tasked with paying out grants to local businesses under the ‘Small Business Grants Fund (SBGF) scheme’ and ‘Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Grants Fund (RHLGF)’.
We can now measure some of the success of Croydon Council’s high pay bill. The government has published details of the amount of grants paid out against the initial funding, and expected number of payments.
Croydon Council has found itself in the bottom 10% of payments made by number and by amount. Croydon having made only 77% of the payments identified and 71% by amount. This compares to 84% and 80% on average by local authority, with 96 authorities having made over 90% of their identified payments. Maybe they employ 24 people on over £100K?
Croydon ranks 290 out of 314 local authorities as below:
Ranking
Local Authority
Initial Allocation
hereditaments that the local authority has identified
grant payments made to hereditaments
Value of payments (£)
% of value of payments
% of number of payments
Top 3
1
City of London
£14,740,000
937
937
£15,310,000
104%
100%
2
Westminster City Council
£78,090,000
4,856
4,856
£86,720,000
111%
100%
3
London Borough of Ealing
£68,212,000
5,110
5,088
£69,945,000
103%
100%
290
London Borough of Croydon
£60,588,000
4,118
3,189
£43,305,000
71%
77%
Bottom 3
312
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
£73,036,000
5,887
3,741
£42,495,000
58%
64%
313
Corby Borough Council
£11,516,000
1,240
773
£9,215,000
80%
62%
314
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
£80,860,000
8,585
4,593
£52,875,000
65%
54%
Average
80%
84%
Croydon Council is again failing local taxpayers. These provide much needed funding to keep local small businesses going and high streets running. Local companies including Coughlans Bakery, All Bikes, and Old Whitgift Sports Club, have come forward with concerns. In central Croydon this is all the more important at a time the council has failed to secure the regeneration of the town centre via the Westfield development.
You can pay for quality, but questions need to be answered as to how Croydon taxpayers are being forced to pay and are still receiving services in the bottom 10%.
Here we are week 10 of the UK Covid 19, lock-down! We find ourselves as a nation being restructured even as I type. Looking back we can see that social distancing was and is necessary to contain the spread of the virus. It is also clear the Government was too slow in introducing the necessary measures. We have had more deaths per million population than most other countries. Provided we’re sensible though we can now begin to get back to normal.
“Singapore never had a lock down but did a drastic trace and test policy from the start isolating anyone with the virus and anyone they had contact with. This definitely worked best for sustaining the economy and reducing cases and deaths and really also for maintaining civil liberties”
Looking around us:-
Sweden instituted a more blended strategy: instead of drastically closing all businesses except essential services, most businesses stayed open with social distancing measures in place. The most vulnerable over 70’s and those with underlying conditions protected. As a result, the majority of the population developed herd immunity, they still have a vibrant economy and seem to have survived not much worse than other countries.
Brazil has taken the view it is all a hoax and carried on as normal but they are now the only country with cases and deaths rising. They are very clearly on the wrong path and will have to change tack soon, the sooner the better.
Singapore never had a lock down but did a drastic trace and test policy from the start isolating anyone with the virus and anyone they had contact with. This definitely worked best for sustaining the economy and reducing cases and deaths and really also for maintaining civil liberties unless you happened to be one who either got the virus or had contact with such.
Lessons are being learnt.
Government is able to quickly impose quite drastic laws when there is a danger of a pandemic. It seems this one almost certainly came from Wuhan in China. What we don’t know is whether it was some tragic accident or whether it was actually created deliberately for some reason such as to create the need for totalitarianism and one world Government. At the very least we need to be alert to the possibility.
Certain groups such as BPAS have been opportunistic, using the pandemic as an excuse to introduce DIY abortions which they are lobbying to make a permanent fixture in UK law. Abortion centres were always going to be in a challenging position. Are they an essential service? We would say most certainly not. Faced with just being closed down they fought back and demanded abortion pills be allowed to be taken at home. Government said “no” at first but then caved in unprepared for the onslaught. Sad. But this battle raged all over the world during the virus lockdowns
The push for a one world Government and probably with it a one world religion is now bound to continue in earnest with interestingly people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at the forefront of trying to set it up. It is very dangerous for civil liberties.
“Individual States in the USA have made regional decisions on the matter. Of course, it is of no surprise that the more liberal states have taken a very harsh line on church activity and even arrested Pastors for supposedly violating state orders”
What about the place of churches?
At the start of this pandemic most churches seemed to willingly give in to being closed down but was it necessary? The application of the Governments’ interpretation of essential activities lacks a holistic approach. I can go along with supermarkets and banks being essential services. This is taking care of our physical and financial needs, but what about our spiritual needs, especially at a potentially very distressing time such as this? If ever there was a necessity for individuals to stay connected to their faith, I think this would most definitely qualify as one of those occasions. Australia took a different approach and deemed houses of worship as essential activities, so churches were able to stay open applying social distancing. Individual States in the USA have made regional decisions on the matter. Of course, it is of no surprise that the more liberal states have taken a very harsh line on church activity and even arrested Pastors for supposedly violating state orders. Whilst States such as Texas have permitted church activity but with some restrictions.
Now it’s time to move on. We believe the process of moving on should have started much earlier. The CPA issued a press release on the 23rd April outlining a sensible strategy for the UK to reopen for business:
As the Coronavirus pandemic calms down in many areas and evidence comes to light the virus is most likely transmitted through the nose CPA calls for immediate action as follows: –
1. Compulsory wearing of masks in all areas where people come into contact with other members of the public like shops and shopping centres and places of work.
2. All shops allowed to re-open but applying social distancing rules.
3. All churches and other religious buildings allowed to re-open applying social distancing rules and reducing the maximum attendance to one third of the normal building capacity.
4. All offices allowed to re-open with everyone working from home where possible and office attendance to apply social distancing and no more than one third of normal capacity allowed inside office buildings.
5. Normal road travel allowed with care to be taken at petrol stations.
6. Social distancing to be applied on all public transport with capacity no more than one third of normal capacity on all buses and trains and flights.
This was only ever meant to be a first step with the next step being a test and tracing regime to be put in place so we can get back to normal. Even now though in retrospect this would have been a good move then for the economy on 23rd April and is unlikely to have altered the downward trend of cases provided people stay alert.
“you can have an abortion but not a baptism, buy a car, but not a votive candle, go to the supermarket, but not a sanctuary, get a divorce, but not get married and break the law, but not receive absolution. It is time to re-open churches”
The government’s recent review of the situation is very puzzling to say the least; The diocese of Shrewsbury in a recent tweet put it in a nutshell – you can have an abortion but not a baptism, buy a car, but not a votive candle, go to the supermarket, but not a sanctuary, get a divorce, but not get married and break the law, but not receive absolution. It is time to re-open churches.
We can however through all this welcome the fact that families have spent more time together. We can welcome the fact that many businesses and Government institutions have been forced to adopt a home working model which will more than likely continue. Social media and video conferencing has come into its own, Zoom has become a household name overnight! The commercial properties market will have to become more creative as less commercial space will be required. High streets, already under pressure will look very different with much more residential space. The NHS has shown great resilience, the fallen heroes of which will not be forgotten. It will no doubt learn lessons from the stress it has been under. My greatest hope though is that our nation will return to its spiritual roots, we are a Christian nation and not forget that prayer has made all the difference in this global crisis much of it done on zoom. Long may the prayer continue! The church also is becoming a changed environment for the better.
This has not been the spring we social democrats hoped for. Building a political party is fiendishly difficult at the best of times, but as lockdown drags on, political engagement has become all but impossible for minnows like us.
We need to meet, to bond and to campaign. In the early months of this year we were planning, at very least, to consolidate our 2019 achievements. Regular branch meetings, local election campaigns and a conference in June would have been the building blocks taking us to the next level. Instead we have to look to the future.
On that score there are reasons to feel positive. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the need for the communitarian values we hold dear. The limitations of a globalism that leaves us over-dependent and under-powered has been acknowledged. The willingness of people to embrace the ‘we’re in this together’ approach has been striking. There is even consensus emerging around the need to avoid future austerity measures that would affect communities least able to absorb them.
Meanwhile, party leader William Clouston has produced proposals for a post-pandemic recovery programme, which is more than can be said for the Labour Party. They recognise that the shadow of Covid-19 will be broad and long and escaping it will be a national endeavour and a multi-generational task. Proposals involve the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identifying the aggregate excess public debt generated by the pandemic; making sure this debt neither imposes an era of austerity or undermines Britain’s financial credibility, achieved by transferring this debt to a separate UK Covid 2080 Sinking Fund which will pay the debt off over 60 years; and making the income from bonds issued within the fund tax-free for UK citizens.
But is this enough? In 2019, the struggle for Brexit and the hopelessness of the Labour Party were gifts for us. With so much at stake and a general election in the offing, we had purpose and our message was distinctive. Now, with both main parties converging on the middle ground, and the Liberal Democrats beginning their slow journey back to credibility, where do we fit in?
“we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour”
Perhaps ‘fitting in’ is the wrong aim. Rather, we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour. Advocating a social democratic nation state in a post-neoliberal world has been a radical stance in recent years, but now we need to go further.
The new normal – whatever it proves to be – will ask this of us. Post-pandemic, society has the opportunity to reconsider its aims and values, but the hyperpartisans will be the least well-equipped to respond. When a paradigm shift is required they will be found wanting. We are not like them. With others from the margins, including Blue Labour and unorthodox greens through to classical liberals and libertarians, we found common cause in Brexit. Post-pandemic, and still under the present electoral system, something similar is going to be needed if we are to have influence.
“Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented”
That outsider status may be key. As I write this, Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented. Once again these arbiters of so-called public discourse have been cowed by the race baiters into silence and inaction.
Meanwhile, China prepares to impose a new security law on Hong Kong, further limiting freedoms and silencing Beijing’s opponents. Unfortunately for them, any lingering responsibility (or just concern) we may feel for Hong Kong will have no effect as the UK’s media and political class are wholly preoccupied at the moment pursuing a personal vendetta against the prime minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings. And of course once this ‘story’ is done with, it will be replaced by another equally trivial distraction.
The point is, their agenda is not ours, and the gulf between us grows. That’s why so many of us have been driven online, where free thinking is still mostly permitted. Interested in serious debate, happy to address complexity and nuance, wary of tribalism and even open to the possibility of our minds being changed, we really are a very odd bunch, apparently.
We’re the only ones, it seems, who understand how Trump could be elected or Brexit supported by people other than bigots. We’re often the ones challenging the tyranny of economic growth at all costs. The ones championing free speech and academic rigour. Decrying the idiocy of HS2, resisting the ‘gated institutional narrative’, exploring the ‘meaning crisis’, and laughing at woke’s many absurdities.
“The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness”
The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness. Cuddly libertarian Dominic Frisby reminds me of this in his recent tweet, ‘If you still have faith in government and government systems after Corona, Lord help you’. In addition, we will need to avoid the dangerous cranks. But there’s a parallel political universe out there – intelligent, tolerant, progressive even – standing in the wings. How much longer should we wait for our cue?
