Those were reportedly the last words of General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House in the American Civil War. (Wikipedia boringly says that he did complete the sentence. Just.)
General Sedgwick was a brave man to stride along the front like that. He sought to encourage his men, some of whom had been seen to flinch as the Confederate bullets landed all around.
I hope our Scottish readers will forgive me if I say that, though all the hearts that beat under Scottish skies are brave, not all of them are quite as brave as General Sedgwick. But some are:
“Deficits are nothing to be afraid of”, writes Jim Byrne for Bylines Scotland. You see, taxes don’t fund spending and a sovereign government can create new money to pay off its debts whenever it likes and so all Scotland needs to do make its deficit disappear is declare independence. This is called “Modern Monetary Theory”. Mr Byrne posts a link to a 14-page Bank of England document that, he says, shows that the Bank agrees with him. Which does make one wonder why the Bank doesn’t just declare “the deficit is nothing to be afraid of, let the rejoicing commence”. Unless it’s a case of “Gary, no”?
Police interviews, however, are to be avoided at all costs. As demonstrated by senior members of the SNP.
However, going back to the “Magic Money Tree”, it’s no wonder that this is suddenly winning friends and influencing people in the belt of cities from Glasgow to Dundee, since only by spouting economic and monetary delusion can they get past the fact that the biggest barriers to Scottish Independence are the deficit between taxes / spending and Scotland’s share of the National Debt.
Back in 2014, Wee Eck could just about pull off a fast one and say “Scotland’s Oil will pay for it”. Now that’s just a pipe dream (and it was never just “Scotland’s Oil”).
So the only way the gap can be bridged is by the fruits of the “Magic Money Tree”.
God Save Scotland.
I am sure the citizens of the soon-to-be independent nation of Scotland are looking forward to the day when their government, freed of the dowdy old traditional constraints on their fiscal behavior, simply declares all Scots to be newly made billionaires.
The only thing standing in the way is a wee bit of daring and imagination!
And we have similar brilliant thinkers on this side of the pond too (see, for example, the plan to pay every single black citizen in San Francisco $5 million – at a total cost to the state of California of over $600 billion).
Unlimited Democracy was a mistake.
Voters with little or no tax money at risk will always vote for rewards for themselves. They would be fools not to and taxpayers were fools to allow them that power.
There is nothing “modern” about “modern monetary theory” – it goes back, at least, to the Roman Empire with the debasement of the coinage. And, Fred Z, it was certainly not caused by “democracy” (unlimited or otherwise) – as the Roman Empire was a military dictatorship. The great debasement of the time of Henry VIII and his son Edward VI was also not caused by democracy – because there was none.
The difference today is that they governments and the pet banks do not, mainly, produce base metal coins of bronze or copper, or even “print money” – what they do is create “money” from nothing at all, it is just lights on computer screens which the powerful can manipulate (or just turn off) at any time.
We know what this system is based upon – it is based upon, in the words of Professor Krugman (and he thinks this is a good thing – he is not against it) “men with guns”.
It is not the case that the people demand XYZ – what happens is that intellectuals decide that the people should be provided with XYZ and the people are taught to expect these things. And one can see the “logic” – after all if the pet banks and corporations are to be given endless corporate welfare (supported, in a then modest way, by our dear friends the Economist magazine even back in the 19th century) then why not everyone? If there is to be welfare for the rich, surely there must be welfare for ordinary people, and for the poor as well.
The monetary and financial system is utterly evil (the word “evil” is not too strong – it is a statement of fact, it used to be limited in size, but now there is no limit upon it at all) and it will collapse, the end will be terrible – but at least it will be the end.
I think that “Ground Zero” of the collapse will be the great cities of the United States, such as New York City and Chicago, but the whole Western world is going to be savagely hit.
It is possible (possible) to restore an economy – even after it has been reduced to state of barter.
For example, the Emperor Anastasius of the East Roman (“Byzantine”) Empire restored a monetary economy after many years of taxes being collected “in kind” (an incredibly wasteful process) and a real (gold and silver) coinage – but I do not see anyone Anastasious anywhere near power now.
Napoleon did the same in France – but when he did so it was after only about a decade of monetary chaos, ordinary French people could remember a sound monetary system – no one now alive in the Western world can remember a time when the monetary and financial system was anything but insane.
The same is true for Prime Minister Lord Liverpool (so despised by Disraeli – the truth is the exact opposite of what is taught, it was Disraeli who was the nonentity and it was Lord Liverpool who was the great man) – who got rid of income tax and restored real money to these islands.
People in the time of Lord Liverpool could remember rational times – all people now alive can remember is frothing insanity (both in the monetary system and in the financial system).
When did the taxes and spending of the Roman Empire no longer really add up? Most likely under the Emperor Septimius Severus – who greatly increased military pay and allowed soldiers to marry (which meant they had families to support).
But government spending went to utterly insane levels under the Emperor Diocletian (the so called solver of the “crises of the third century” – which had really been solved by the Emperors Aurelian and Probus) – under the level of government spending, and government control, that was pushed under Diocletian economic decline (indeed eventual collapse) was inevitable. In spite of such make-shifts as the Emperor Constantine looting pagan temples to get more gold and silver for coins.
If one looks at the length of time between Diocletian and Anastasius one can see just how great a man the later was, to get government spending and the monetary and financial system under control after such a long period of decline.
Almost needless to say, great men who do good in office, are either forgotten (Anastasius) or reviled (Lord Liverpool).
It is people who do harm when in government who are praised by the establishment historians.
Fred Z wrote:
I’ve been saying for decades that universal suffrage was a mistake.
* – Substantial Net Taxation, not paying $1 and receiving $20,000 in welfare and/or tax credits.
Of course, I’ve also been saying for decades that any suffrage is a bad idea, if for no other reason than once one class gets to vote the rest will as well. Just make the House drawn by random like jury duty with a single 3 month session every two years except when summoned by the president in an emergency and let the governor’s appoint two senators for the same 3 month sessions with the advice and consent of their state legislatures and no one can be reappointed after a total of five years.
I’m also in favor of every law sunsets after five years, including taxes, cannot be renewed in an omnibus package, and each bill must be on one and only one topic only and require three quarters of each house to pass. And both the spending, necessary, and commerce clauses be reined in.
None of which will ever happen.
Steven R: I have my doubts about term limits as a useful policy. California imposed term limits on both houses of the state legislature quite a while ago. I haven’t seen any improvement in the quality of legislative decisions—quite the reverse!
So we don’t have to pay taxes anymore?
Hereditary kings!
(Universal suffrage may result in stupid governance, but it lessens the chance of civil war. People feel at least somewhat empowered. This is why the new attitude of “they cheated” is so serious, and is treated as such anathema by the PTB. Once the idea of “we all pick our path together” dies, so does political civility, such as it is. If I have no vote, and you simply take my money to build a bridge that serves your home, well, I have my guns.)
As I have already pointed out, there is no evidence that democracy or universal suffrage are the source of the problem of debasement – as it has happened before when there was no democracy at all.
As for government spending – those, such as the Economist magazine, who support welfare for the rich (which it did, in relation to bankers and associated enterprises – even in the 19th century) have no defence when intellectuals (intellectuals NOT the voters) start demanding welfare and “public services” for everyone else as well.
When Lord Stanley, later the Earl of Derby, created a system of state schools in Ireland he was NOT responding to any demands of the voters (there were no mass protests with people chanting “we want government schools and we want them now!”) and the same was true when Lord John Russell introduced the Poor Law Tax to Ireland in 1838 or extended it in 1847 – it was not done in response to any “democratic demands”.
Blaming democracy is easy – but it does not fit the facts.
As for the bank bailout people having no defence against demands (demands from intellectuals – not “the people”) for welfare for everyone, Lord John Russell was not just a state funding for education supporter and a Poor Law Tax supporter, he was also a supporter of Bank Bailouts by the Bank of England – that he was should come as a shock to no one (of course he did).
Walter Bagehot, third editor of the Economist magazine and leading bank bailout ideologist, also said in his “The English Constitution” (1868) that “we should concede whatever it is safe to concede” – this meaning any amount of welfare and “public services” that did not hit his own income and wealth and that of his friends (in short liberalism had ceased to be, even in 1868, a positive program for rolling back the state, for reducing the size and scope of government).
Once you start accepting welfare-for-the-rich (bank supporter by Central Banking) you have no defence, against demands for welfare and “public services” for everyone else – and those demands will be from intellectuals (not, at least not at first, from the people themselves).
By the way – people who support the present monetary system, where “money” is just lights on computer screens that can be manipulated (or just turned off) on the whims of the powerful, have no standing (none) to be critical of anything else.
People who support an utterly insane monetary system, based as Professor Krugman admits (indeed boasts) on “men with guns”, are no good.
Of course there is also the little “detail” that the present system may not be democracy – for example Prime Minister Johnson did not want “HS2” (a 100 Billion Pound railway scheme), but it went ahead – and Prime Minster Johnson did not want a Covid lockdown, but it went ahead (between 400 and 500 Billion Pounds) – and as Mr Ed pointed out these regulations were clearly, by their complexity, written long BEFORE Covid (Covid was just the excuse).
A Prime Minster can go along with the powerful – as Mr Johnson did (humiliating himself with endless statements in support of policies he knew to be insane), or they can speak against the powerful – in which case the Prime Minister is removed, as Liz Truss was.
Blaming democracy for our de facto bankruptcy is making the assumption we actually have democracy.
It may well be that the people who really make the decisions are not elected.
If deficits are nothing to be afraid of, and if borrowing money doesn’t cause inflation as our politicians like to tell us, then I propose this: The Scottish Government borrows six trillion pounds and then gives every Scottish resident a million pounds. That would immediately alleviate poverty throughout the country and make all the voters very happy indeed. Can you imagine the increased tax base!!
If you believe the ideas of modern monetary theory then this is the very, very obvious thing to do.
Of course this isn’t quite as insane an idea as you might think. California is seriously considering a proposal to give $800,000 to every black person in California for “reparations”. But that passes for sane in California. In San Francisco the plan is to give every black person five million dollars, plus a guaranteed income of about $100,000 a year for the next 250 years, and a free house. (Unfortunately, there was no mention of free ponies, the cheap bastards.)
I always say that the problem with reductio ad absurdum is that there is always someone who things your absurdum is a damn good idea.
FWIW, here is a reference about the San Francisco reparations proposal. I forgot, they also pay off all your debts if you are a black person…. If I were a black person in San Francisco I’d be maxing out my credit cards, and stop paying any student loans I had.
Here is the money quote (quite literally):
Just to re-emphasize. This was a unanimous vote. Oh, and BTW, I checked the publication date. March 18th, not April 1st.
The entire point of the black reparations conversation is to tell blacks “see what we were going to give you until the damned dirty Republicans stopped us?”
They do theater so much better than we do it.
We ought to be encouraging California’s program, with the out-loud caveat that they will, of course, never look to federal dollars to pay those reparations. That point will kill the discussion. Then we can tell the blacks “see, California was just leading you on for your votes.”
Fraser Orr wrote:
One has to wonder what the intention is behind this. It’s hard to believe that all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors are so unanimously ignorant and foolish that they genuinely believe this is a viable plan; apart from anything, San Francisco is not a sovereign state and does not print its own money. So – is this an extreme form of Cloward-Piven strategy, aiming to bring down the Federal government by somehow forcing they pay for it? Is it intended to provoke rioting by offering this wealth, snatching it away, and blaming their political opponents?
@bobby b
The entire point of the black reparations conversation is to tell blacks “see what we were going to give you until the damned dirty Republicans stopped us?”
I’m not sure how they do that in California, since there aren’t any republicans there — certainly not in SF, for sure.
And FWIW, I don’t think it is primarily theater in SF (though that reptilian Newsom certainly would make Machiavelli blush). I think the people who run the city really are just that stupid.
I think of democracy as like the line from The Incredibles, “When everyone is special, no one is.” Or in this case, when everyone one votes, no one does. In other words, universal suffrage is equivalent to no democracy at all. If half the people pull left and half pull right, the effect is as if no one was pulling. The government can do as it pleases and it will always be able to point to some section of the electorate whose interest it is acting in. If democracy is to mean anything, then only those with a stake in the future of the nation should be voting.
Creating money from nothing does not “create” or “lead to” inflation – it-is-inflation, contra to Professor Fisher, and other misguided people in the 1920s, inflation is not “prices going up in the shops” according to some “price index” – inflation is an increase in the money supply, and it does terrible harm without “prices in the shops” needing to go up at all.
Neither the debasement of the currency or the wild government spending has anything to do with democracy – demanding dictatorship is just a distraction from the real problems (and demanding dictatorship may be an ironic demand – given what may be the true nature of modern governance).
And, sadly, the assumption that we actually have a democratic political system is highly dubious – Prime Ministers being pushed into supporting policies that cost Hundreds of Billions of Pounds, policies which they know (they know well) are utterly insane.
Who is doing the pushing is an interesting question – but it is certainly NOT the voters.
Even if one looks back at history – the major government spending schemes were normally NOT pushed by voters.
WS Gilbert got there first:
As to Byrne, the SNP’s downfall isn’t coming a moment too soon. We are governed by madmen.
The idea that everyone is special does not come from democracy – it comes from Christianity, and before that from Judaism.
Everyone is special – because they have a soul. Which is why such things as slavery, as well as murder and other crimes, are wrong.
As for blaming democracy for either debasement of the currency or for government taking on various bottomless pit spending responsibilities – it just is not true that demands for any of this came from “below” (the people), they did not.
So even if we are a democracy (a problematic assumption as I have already explained) – blaming democracy for our de facto bankruptcy is just not true.
“Under God the people rule” is not the motto of the United Kingdom, it is the motto of South Dakota, not a place known for fiscal irresponsibility – rather the reverse.
It’s along time since I studied the subject, but I seem to remember state-funded schooling in the UK was set up because *employers* were demanding employees who could read the buttons on the machines, not because of any demnds from the parents of the future employees themselves.
For centuries there were charitable foundations and apprenticeship-type schemes that provided funding for school those that wanted it, supply and demand was generally in balance. And for centuries the clamour of “I want some adult education” was the response “well, you and your mates band together and buy some books, nobody’s stopping you” and we got loads of things like Mechanics’ Institutes, and Workers’ Education Associations and stuff.
jgh – it was neither.
The idea that there was “pressure from below” is the old myth.
And the idea that it was “really to help the capitalists” is the Marxist (and “Libertarian Left”) myth.
Neither myth is true.
Whether one is talking about state education in Ireland or in England and Wales, it was a matter of elite individuals (people who could not give a toss about factory owners) holding it was a “Good Thing” (TM), it really is that brutally simple. So, for once, I do not need a long comment to explain it.
“Social Reform” whether it is done in the United Kingdom or the United States was (and is) a matter of elite ideology – intellectual fashion.
And, yes, you are quite right about workers educating themselves in the 19th century.