Benj’s blog!

Thanks to a video I saw recently I’ve taken an interest in the Bank of England. At college I studied economics A-Level and thus thought I had a reasonable knowledge of the workings of the Bank, how wrong I was! I don’t claim to be an expert, but here are some of the things I think I’ve learnt …

First surprise, the Bank of England is a public corporation. It has a charter first granted in 1694 and until 1942 was actually owned by individuals! In 1946 the government “nationalised” the bank (all bank property became government property and the original bank owners were given government stock,) and in 1997 it was made independent (was given the freedom to set interest rate policy.)

Continue Reading »

Leaving Beirut lyrics. More info’, including versions of the song in QT, Real and WindowsMedia.

(Apologies, this entry doesn’t flow as well as I would have hoped and probably isn’t all that coherent. I just wanted to get something posted to my blog for May! Hopefully I’ll have chance to edit it later.)

If you look around the average suburban street in the U.K. you could be forgiven for thinking that the education system is failing, yet each year one hears in the news that the pass rates for G.C.S.Es and A Levels are up. How can both statements be true? Here are some random thoughts on the issue:
Continue Reading »

Johan Norberg responded to my points a couple of weeks ago via email; here’s what he had to say:

“Here are my brief responses to your questions: I don’t agree that we have to rape the earth to create growth. Growth means moving resources from uses we value less to one we value more, that does not imply destruction of resources. When we use sand to create computer power that is a good new use, and new technology are going to make it easier to recycle these resources (and clean up pollution). The environmental problems are worst in poor countries, not in growing ones. I am developing this issue in my book In Defence of Global Capitalism: http://www.johannorberg.net/neo.asp?page=indefense

This is also why wealth does not presuppose that someone is ripped off. When we create value we don’t have to destroy it for someone else, in every exchange, both parties must think that they benefit, otherwise there would be no deal. Voluntary exchange is not a zero-sum game.

It’s true that the Western European countries have destroyed a lot with colonialism and genocide. I am not saying that everything that happens across borders is a great thing, I am saying that liberal globalisation, the globalisation of voluntary relations, trade and communications is a great thing. And the opposite of forced colonialism (the classical liberals, Smith, Cobden etc, were fierce opponents of empire and colonialism).

It’s not an ideal system, I have never said that. Only the best one so far, and we can move to improve it in many ways, for example by implementing the liberal reforms, free trade etc that I am discussing in my book and film. And they, by the way, are very similar to what Adam Smith proposed in The Wealth of Nations.”

I’ll add my thoughts later …

On Sunday, 21st September 2003, Channel 4 aired Johan Norberg’s Globalisation is Good. It was a short film in which Johan tries to demonstrate that Globalisation is a good thing; convincing me of that would be no small accomplishment!

Still, it’s great that Channel 4 as part of their ThinkTV series keep showing thought provoking films. I have to wonder is the person who scheduled it the same person who decided to show The Salon or BigBrother?!! As a friend pointed out, they’re offering alternative viewing, but for the masses …

Anyway, I decided to write to Johan with a few criticisms of his arguments, I wonder if he’ll reply?

Update 17th Oct — He replied a few days later.

Continue Reading »

… at least that’s what Michael Meacher thinks, writing in the Guardian on Saturday 6th September 2003. It’s an interesting article and I would have missed it if it wasn’t for the mailing from Richard K Moore’s (rkm) cyberjournal cj mailing list!

I spoke with a few friends today who speculated that the aircraft which “crashed” in Pennsylvania might have actually been shot down. Perhaps the delays that Meacher speaks about were actually the Pentagon or whoever figuring out the best solution. Imagine the uproar if it was made public knowledge that a US fighter shot down a plane full of US citizens? Instead they devised a strategy which made it look like an accident? Plausible, perhaps. Maybe I’ve been sucked in by the conspiracy theorist stuff after reading too much Chomsky.

Either way there is no disputing that Project for the New American Century actually exists, here’s the website. The document that Meacher refers to in his article is called Rebuilding America’s Defenses, and here’s a link to it, in PDF. Since I’m in a linking mood, here’s the letter from co-signed by Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others to Bill Clinton, written in 1998, asking that he “turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power”.

So, you can see it’s not like he’s making this stuff up! I think rkm’s comment at the bottom of the email is particularly apt. “Many thanks to MP Meacher for his courage. I suggest to him that he does not walk his dog alone in the woods.”

This entry continues on from this one, so better make sure you’ve read that first!

So what is Rand saying? I’ll use Rand’s own definitions to make it clear. (For a more thorough treatment, see here.)

1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
2. “You can�t eat your cake and have it too.”
3. “Man is an end in himself.”
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Let’s look at metaphysics, which can be defined as “the philosophical study of being and knowing”. Rand’s metaphysics state that “facts are facts, independent of man�s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.”. In otherwords, we must accept things for what they are, “the facts are the facts”. An alternative view is that of religious; with religion we accept another level of being above that or what we can see or experience. Religion is no longer apprehending reality, but instead creating it.

To tackle epistemology, defined as “The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.”, I direct the reader to page 2 of the following by Dr Peikoff (Rand’s “intellectual heir”): The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary. In summary the objectivist’s view is that, we as humans are capable of comprehending the facts as derived from the real world, thus epistemology and metaphysics are tied together: It is, therefore it is, or something like that!

Continue Reading »

Sometime in 1997 I remember having a conversation on IRC with a friend about communism. What little I knew about it seemed to make a lot of sense; why shouldn’t it be possible to plan an economy and bring about perfect conditions for the citizens. Well, the friend, after trying to convince me the errors of mindset, told me to find a book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

I don’t think Amazon had a UK outlet back then and I had to order it from Dilons (a local bookstore). A search on the dumb terminal and clarification on the pronunciation of “Ayn” (rhymes with mine) had my order placed and it would be about 2 weeks before it arrived. The book was pretty “fat”, and the type was small but I slogged through the first chapter. After a few more chapters I had decided Ayn Rand was very readable author and the story was very good.

For the past few years I had done practically no reading (for leisure), it was a refreshing feeling and I soon understood why the friend had recommended the book to me! I was “cured” of those thoughts about communism — I thought I understood the effects of planning and was convinced that capitalism was the future! Rand is a very clever author, extremely romantic and descriptive in the way she writes and managing to put across subtle but effective messages — Objectivism.

Objectivism is Rand’s philosphy for life and for a while after reading the book I was proud to go around calling myself an objectivist (for the next few years in fact). Objectivism had some key principles which I agreed with strongly (i.e. forget about religion!). I strongly recommend the book to anyone. The key points (as stated by Rand in this essay) are:

Continue Reading »

This evening I watched the 3rd part of the BBC documentary ‘Fighting the War’. It’s your basic fly-on-the-wall stuff but, what I can’t figure out is:

• Did the MoD/government use the BBC to put this show out to try and bring some closure and/or legitimacy to the war.
• or
• Did the members of forces really fear for their lives, really believe that Iraq was a credible thread to them? Maybe the beeb just chose to emphasise this point, or perhaps it’s the good training of the UK armed forces showing through. I suppose it could be fairly disasterous if UK military approached the war with a “ha, we can win this with 1 hand tied behind our backs” attitude.

Was certainly an interesting show though. I’d never realised to what extent modern warfare is reliant on technology. Maybe I should go into that business?

So, I’ve been reading Understanding Power and I’ve almost finished. On the one hand it’s easy going; basically you’re reading through a bunch of dialogue, question and answer sessions with Chomsky around and about in the US ‘89 through ‘96ish. And so reading through the stuff really isn’t the problem, thinking about it is.

To call Chomsky a conspiracy theorist would mean I had missed the topic of the book entirely. Chomsky’s points are that the whole modern world is setup as a slave to capitalism, there’s nothing covert about the way things work. To take a simple example, the press in the US is not free at all because ultimately corporations pay for the press. (In the style of Chomsky) Look, if some paper starting publishing some investigation into some organisations that demonstrated they were operating illegally or whatever, but these same organisations were paying for adverts in the paper, then it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s going to happen! So this isn’t a conspiracy, there are no 10 masked guys, it’s just common sense.
Continue Reading »

Time Magazine, on the history behind the War on Iraq.

I wasn’t at all surprised by the content of the press conference today in the Azores. Let’s hope Bush et. al. stick to the promises they have now made to the people of Iraq and that the war is short and “bloodless”.

It was quite amusing to see the difference between the three leaders answering questions, particularly between Bush - who says it as it is and Blair - who even at this time is trying to put a spin on things.

I’m not sure where I now stand on the issue. I also wonder what tricks Mr Saddam Hussein has planned, if any.

Surfing around, reading some more about Geolibertarianism, I found the following: [begin]

When NASA was preparing for the Apollo Project, it took the astronauts to a Navajo reservation in Arizona for training. One day, a Navajo elder and his son came across the space crew walking among the rocks. The elder, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question. His son translated for the NASA people: “What are these guys in the big suits doing?”

One of the astronauts said that they were practicing for a trip to the moon. When his son relayed this comment the Navajo elder got all excited and asked if it would be possible to give to the astronauts a message to deliver to the moon.

Recognizing a promotional opportunity when he saw one, a NASA official accompanying the astronauts said, “Why certainly!” and told an underling to get a tape recorder. The Navajo elder’s comments into the microphone were brief.

The NASA official asked the son if he would translate what his father had said. The son listened to the recording and laughed uproariously. But he refused to translate. So the NASA people took the tape to a nearby Navajo village and played it for other members of the tribe. They too laughed long and loudly but also refused to translate the elder’s message to the moon.

Finally, an official government translator was summoned. After he finally stopped laughing the translator relayed the message:

“Watch out for these pricks. They have come to steal your land.” [end]

The Henry George Institute.

Well …

Jack Straw shot up in my estimation - I never knew he was able to speak with passion! Why can’t they just accept the level of pressure needs to be maintained, whilst at the same time the UN inspectors are doing what they are doing? Saddam clearly co-operates in these situations ..

Colin Powell’s response are as I would expect; pressing continually the point that the Iraq co-operation was not immediate and there is still work to do. So what? Which is better, resolution with or without conflict? Also if the U.S. knows X,Y and Z to be the facts why do they not present the evidence the the inspectors? Perhaps they don’t have any ..

Whilst I accept it isn’t practical to give Iraq unlimited chances and/or time, given the sheer magnitude of the issue at the moment coupled with the pressure from the U.S. forces, I feel the diplomatic route should be pursued some over all costs. If UN1441 really was an ultimatum then it should have been worded a whole lot more carefully; “immediate co-operation” should have been defined.

BTW I wonder whether the irrelevance of the UN argument has some validity. The U.S. and U.K. are acting like rich kids with no friends i.e. they are buying the votes of the other members of the security council. If the vote succeeds, then it’s because it’s been “bought” and if it doesn’t there will be conflict anyway; either way there is an aspect of irrelevance!

The U.S. don’t have a leg to stand on.

The inspectors are clearly saying Iraq *IS* now co-operating (not complying .. ). Technically they were/are in violation of 1441, since they didn’t act “immediately”. Where is the justification for an immediate strike against Iraq? They are now complying!

Which is a better situation of compliance? Immense pressure from the international community via 300000soldiers on your borders but NO unnecessary bloodshed?
OR
A potentially bloody and horrible war.

Disarmament of Iraq is the objective.

Since all of this is carried out under the banner of the various resolutions, most recently 1441 then let the security council decide whether military action is now appropriate.

The only angle the U.S. have is that of a pre-emptive strike in the interest of self-defence? Well that’s fine if there is a credible threat? They can’t realistically go in under the pretence that they are upholding 1441, since the inspection regime is doing that and the security council have said military action is not appropriate.

Also what kind of precedent would this set? Pre-emptive strike with no evidence? Consider the case where Palestinian fundamentalists acquire some nuclear weapon (or more likely some chemical weapon). Citing the U.S’s strike on Iraq, they can claim pre-emptive self-defence.

No THANK YOU .. I don’t wish to live in a world like that.

Mr George Bush, Mr Tony Blair get a clue!