The Great Depression Ii?

[Stu Peters]

From the BBC on the Euro debt crisis:

 

'Meanwhile, evidence emerged that some analysts suggest shows European banks have been transferring large amounts of cash across the Atlantic in a bid to escape an emerging European banking crisis.

 

Data released by the US Federal Reserve on Friday indicated that unnamed foreign banks transferred cash into the country's banking system over the summer, while separate data from the ECB that shows that European banks have been withdrawing their cash from the European banking system.'

 

Are we within days/weeks of a complete financial meltdown? Time to learn Mandarin?

[Barrie Stevens]

From the BBC on the Euro debt crisis:

 

'Meanwhile, evidence emerged that some analysts suggest shows European banks have been transferring large amounts of cash across the Atlantic in a bid to escape an emerging European banking crisis.

 

Data released by the US Federal Reserve on Friday indicated that unnamed foreign banks transferred cash into the country's banking system over the summer, while separate data from the ECB that shows that European banks have been withdrawing their cash from the European banking system.'

 

Are we within days/weeks of a complete financial meltdown? Time to learn Mandarin?

 

Stu

 

You are a great man. As am I....It'll all be over by Christmas!

 

Barrie

[Barrie Stevens]

From the BBC on the Euro debt crisis:

 

'Meanwhile, evidence emerged that some analysts suggest shows European banks have been transferring large amounts of cash across the Atlantic in a bid to escape an emerging European banking crisis.

 

Data released by the US Federal Reserve on Friday indicated that unnamed foreign banks transferred cash into the country's banking system over the summer, while separate data from the ECB that shows that European banks have been withdrawing their cash from the European banking system.'

 

Are we within days/weeks of a complete financial meltdown? Time to learn Mandarin?

 

Stu!

 

It has all happened before one way or the other! The more things change the more they stay the same!

 

You are an old Mancunian!

 

I have extracted the following from one of my theses:-

 

QUOTE

 

THE CURSE OF MANCHESTER

("From Manchester the Curse of England" leader article "Manchester Spectator" September 8th 1849)...

 

Manchester is one of the greatest wonders of Great Britain. It is wonderful from its mechanical combinations, its chemical applications, its concentrated industry, and its spirit of enterprise.

Every stranger says so, who visits the place. Perhaps in wet weather a sentimental visitor my grumble at the smoke, or the sloppy condition of the streets; but he forgets all that, in visiting the great establishments of the town and neighbourhood.

The mills, the print-works, the dye-works, the great warehouses, the engineer and machine establishments, the Exchange and the Institutions, are all wonderful, or remarkable; and if the visitor have the touch of the philosopher about him, he goes away muttering, "If it was the steam-engine combined with the spinning-jenny that supplied England with power to fight its battles during the last great continental war, surely it must be the varied industry of the manufacturing districts that enables England, during peace, to keep a foremost place amongst the nations of the world.!"

The spirit of the people is as remarkable as are the wonders of the manufacturing districts and it is commonly assumed that Manchester virtually governs Great Britain.

A genuine Manchester man, proud of his town and his townsman, tells you that all great "movements" originate there, even if they should afterwards be taken up in London. He will tell you that Lancashire and Yorkshire mainly carried negro emancipation. In Lancashire originated the great railway system. In Lancashire sprung up the agitation for commercial freedom, now so great a fact in our history. And in Lancashire a great many more "movements" will originate, all tending to develop material industry and intellectual freedom to diffuse sound education, the principles of peace, and whatever else will exalt our native country, and advance the civilisation of the world.

Well, we may admit much of this, without feeling that undue pretensions have been put forth. To be sure, if Manchester men were labouring under excessive candour, they might confess, without any violation of truth, that even the great feat of repealing the Corn Laws was not so original an idea in Lancashire as some people are appt to assume.

There was a member of parliament, of the name of Whitmore, who used annually to debate the Corn Laws in the House of Commons for years before the anti-Corn Law League was hatched; and as far back as 1836, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Shaw Lefevre condemned the sliding scale, and proposed a fixed duty. Again, although there are able, clever, intelligent people in Manchester, and although there is a large amount of intelligence diffused throughout the Community, there is a strong tendency to exaggerate Manchester intelligence, and to give ourselves credit for a larger amount of it than we really have in stock.

However, let all that pass. Manchester is a wonderful and a remarkable place; wonderful, because of its industrial wonders, and remarkable because of the spirit and enterprise of its people.

And yet Manchester is in a fair way of becoming the Curse of England! What! - the Curse of England! "Surely," exclaims some reader, "You must be a Tory in disguise - a pretended Free Trader, but a real protectionist - a wolf in sheep's clothing; put out your foot, sir, till we see whether or not it is a cloven one! Manchester going to become the Curse of England! Ha!- how do you make that out?" Patience, good sir, and we will try to explain it to you; but do not jump up when you have only half read the explanation, and, in the true spirit of intolerance, vow that you will never read another Spectator while you live.

Manchester will become the curse of England through the indiscriminate application of those principles of political economy which commonly are characterised as being of the "Manchester School." "Oh!" screeches out the reader, "you are a Communist are you? No competition, is your motto! Just as we have got commercial freedom, you would neutralise all its benefits, by tying up the employers by their heads and their heels and throwing them into a den of lions, to be devoured by their workmen! Pretty public instructor you are! Sit down, and try to master the principles of political economy, and if you want philosophy teaching by examples, look at the condition in which France is, even now, from the mad experiments of Louis Blanc and Ledru Rollin".

Reader, do you comprehend the meaning of the word Communism? We doubt if you do. Louis Blanc had a very imperfect comprehension of it, and so had Ledru Rollin. And from the way in which Mr. Cobden uses the word, it is doubtful if he comprehends it. The word is commonly used to signify something ridiculous, atrocious, absurd, abominable, wild, horrible, impracticable; as if Communism meant pocket-picking, and sanctioned a general robbery of those who have something, that it may be wasted by the idle and the worthless.

But true Communism is an emanation of the New Testament; it was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and its spirit beams from the Gospels and the Epistles. And true Communism will yet be embodied in Political Economy, a science of which we have only, as yet, the rough outlines. Indeed, a step towards this has already been made by Mr. Mill in his political economy. To this we may add, that the spirit of unrestricted and excessive competition, which is the product of the Manchester School of Political Economy, is rebuked in every page of the New Testament - as every true Christian will confess.

Now, we have no call to vindicate Communism, because we have not the expectation nor the wish to see Manchester a Communist bee-hive. But we thought we heard a so-called political economist sneering and laughing, and we stepped out of our way to have a tilt with him. When the hungry dog stole a loaf, the baker, who was a Quaker, said, "I'll not kill thee, but I'll give thee a bad name. So he called out "mad dog! mad dog!" and the poor brute was knocked on the head. It is the same way with your conceited, pedantic, pragmatical political economists.

Political Economy is still a developing science; but they assume that it has come out of Adam Smith and Ricardo as complete and full-armed as Minerva from the brain of Jupiter; and if anybody says anything opposed to what they call their "principles" they pull up their collars, look very large and knowing, sneer and smile, and mutter something about the poor wretch who is yet in the darkness of Communism, and incapable of comprehending the glorious liberty of the Manchester School.

To return. The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a great army and navy, the necessity of foreign conquest, and the ruin of industrious peoples of other nations.

Prove it! Do you read the Manchester Guardian? Of course - everybody does. Did you read last Wednesday's paper? Yes. Did you see an article in it, entitled "The Eastern Markets?" yes. What was it all about? Why, pointing out that the vast importance of India and China to this district and, and explaining how it is that China has not yet proved so profitable a market for our manufactures as it will be. Well, then, you read the following passage: - "The fact that China is a large manufacturing country, and has been so for many centuries, was too little thought of in 1845; but there are now some evidences that the introduction of British goods is gradually displacing those of native manufactures, as has been so remarkably the case in India."

Here, it is coolly assumed: 1 That, Manchester ruined the native manufactures of India. 2. That by the same process, Manchester may ruin the native manufactures of China.

But to ruin the native manufactures of China will involve the maintenance of a large army and navy, and ultimately we must conquer the country, as we have conquered India, and hold it in the same way, namely by the terror of military power.

“Pooh!” says your smart political economist, “it will be only a transference of labour. The Chinese will prefer our cheaper and better manufactures to their own, and the Chinese manufacturers will betake themselves to other occupations, growing tea, and whatnot, with which they will profitably and peacefully exchange with us.”

In deed! Pray, Mr. Political Economist, are you quite sure about that? Does a man who has been a weaver all his life so very easily become a baker, carpenter or an agriculturalist?

The introduction of our manufactures in to India caused enormous misery amongst the native population; and if we should succeed in suddenly expelling the native Chinese manufactures from their home market, we shall cause more misery among the crowded population of China than could be perpetrated by fire and sword.

Then discontent will arise; some offence will be given; it will be found essential, for the peace of our manufacturing districts, that we should keep hold of the Chinese market; and the end of it will be that we must conquer China. And while this process is going on, we will be consoling ourselves by getting up a subscription for the Hoang-Ho Mission, and for translating the “Washerwoman of Wimbledon Common,” and the “Shepherd of Salisbury Plain” into the Chinese language.

So much for our first point. The second is: The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a keen spirit of sordid competition at utter variance with the spirit of Christianity, and necessarily multiplies a population dependent for subsistence on the chances of a cotton crop grown in other countries, and of a demand in other markets, generally overstocked; and who, by their occupation, are nourished in hostility to their employers, and, in times of vicissitude, cannot but be more or less an element of disturbance in the state.

It is only half a century, so to speak, since our modern manufacturing system arose. Before the invention of the steam-engine and the spinning-jenny, the world manufactured its own clothing during many thousand years; and in all nations where clothing was worn, the people contrived, somehow or other, to get covering for their bodies.

As for Ireland, the bulk of the people are as wretched and as naked now, as they were in the days of Swift. But under our modern manufacturing system, Manchester has power enough to clothe the world, if the world would only come to it; and with a demand for it, the quantity of calico would only be limited by the quantity of raw cotton. But the whole world will not come to Manchester.

Russia is fostering its own manufactures, and by a high tariff is successfully expelling ours. The United States will not abandon the attempt to maintain its manufactures; it grows the cotton on its own territory, it is abundantly stored with fuel, and its population rapidly increases.

Other foreign markets will not absorb our manufactures as fast as we can produce, and we are driven to the expedient of trying to force new markets; and the humiliating confession is extorted, that though free trade is perfectly right and proper, its results must necessarily be slow, and that our own manufactures must, to a large extent, be consumed by our own people.

Yet, under these circumstances, the “Manchester School” talks in this wise. Away with your Ten Hours Act, for Parliament has no right to interfere with the freedom of trade. Every factory workman is as free as his employer, and makes his bargain with him precisely as that employer makes a bargain on the Exchange. Let mills work as long as their owners choose, and as long as they have got orders - when they have no orders they will stop. All which assertions are essentially false, because they misrepresent facts, and are at variance with the truest and largest principles of Political Economy.

As a general rule Parliament, or Government, or the State, should interfere as little as possible with the concerns of individuals. In all our transactions, we should be free to act as can be rendered compatible with the general welfare. But you cannot lay down any specific rule on the subject.

Certainly, it would be far better if there had been no occasion for a Ten Hours Act, because it would have been far better if the whole dispute had been voluntarily arranged. But it was impossible to effect this. The factory workers, therefore, appealed to Parliament, which at last was convinced that their case was a special one, and gave them a very modified kind of protection. For the factory workers are not free men; it is outrageously laughable to hear shallow praters say that they are as free to bargain with their employers, as their employers to bargain about their goods; and as laughable is it to hear pedants affirm that if you sanction interference with factory labour, which is a special case, therefore you lay down the principle that you must interfere with every description of labour, whether it be special or not.

Let us recapitulate. Manchester is in danger of becoming the Curse of England, from the following causes:-

1.- It is furnished with manufacturing power, to the full extent of any demand that is likely to arise for a considerable time, because free trade must necessarily be slow in operation.

2.- But if the Ten Hours Act be effectually evaded, and the mills run a race of competition, it will stimulate cotton speculation, with all its accompaniments of false reports, fraud, and folly, perpetrated by Christian men, who go to church every Sunday, with their wives and daughters.

It will aggravate the spirit of competition in Manchester which is keen enough already. It will lead to ingenious contrivances for forcing new markets, as amongst the Chinese, whose manufactures we would endeavour to destroy with ours, but whose souls we would propose to win by missions and tracts.

After having obtained possession of the Chinese market, and thrown millions of people out of occupation, we will be obliged to maintain an army and navy to keep possession of this market, and ultimately to conquer the country.

During the temporary period of prosperity, new mills would be built, the manufacturing population would be increased, and a state of things would ensue, the stability of which would dependent on a few bales more or less of cotton and on the smaller or greater demands of particular markets. And when a time of reaction arrived, there would be a larger amount than ever of working people out of employment, and the country would be placed in a state of greater peril than was ever before known.

How, then, are we to prevent Manchester from becoming the curse of England?

1.- By allowing FREE TRADE slowly and gradually to develop itself, so that supply shall naturally follow demand, without artificial stimulus, or eager speculation. It is by eager speculation that every period of prosperity is shortened, and the subsequent distress aggravated.

2.- By a strict maintenance of the Ten Hours Act, giving time to the workmen for their moral, social, and intellectual improvement, thereby removing all legitimate grounds of discontent, and preparing them for cheerfully bearing privation, should a period of distress arrive.

3.- And (as a consequence of the foregoing), by keeping down rather than extending our manufacturing power, and diffusing over the greatest space of time that natural demand from which manufacturer derives his legitimate profits, and the workman his surest wages.

4.- Lastly, by abstaining from forcing new markets, reckless of the misery that may be inflicted on the native manufacturers, and as reckless of the misery that may be inflicted at home, by re-action. If our manufacturers are ever destined to supersede the home manufactures of China, common prudence, to say nothing of any other considerations, requires that the process should be a very gradual one.

But here comes our smart political economist. First, he pulls out his statistics, and then he displays his principles. By his statistics, he shows you, that if you interfere with factory labour, such is the keen competition of other countries, and such the narrow range of profit, that so far from being able to acquire new markets, we run a great risk of losing those we already have.

And with his principles, he demonstrates that every thing we ask for will happen quite naturally, in the due order and sequence of events. That speculation cures itself - that new mills will not built, unless the old ones are realising good profits - that any attempt to force our manufactures into China, before the taste and demand for them have been created, is far more likely to ruin the English than the Chinese manufacturer - that free trade and commercial intercourse are powerful preservers of peaceful relations - and that, in fact the whole thing resolves itself into the answer which the French merchants gave to Colbert, when he asked what he could do for them - “Laissez-faire” - “Leave us alone.” All of which we must examine on another occasion, for the subject is by no means exhausted.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Nothing new under the sun. Swings and roundabouts...(Just buy plenty of baked beans and porridge oats)

[Amadeus]

Time to learn Mandarin?

Taking that most of Europe seems to be skint and that China already owns America, I'd say that's a pretty good idea.

[Topaz]

Oooooooh, please, please don't quote Barrie's post anybody..please don't.

I'm already bordering on a psychotic incident

[GD4ELI]

Are we within days/weeks of a complete financial meltdown? Time to learn Mandarin?

 

Time to return to taxi driving Travis?

[John Wright]

Marx was correct, time for a reassment, OK communism was wrong, but capitalism is inherently unstable and the booms and busts get larger. We have had a period of extended "bought" boom, since WW2, with the welfare state and increasing reclassification of people as middle class, ie haves. That has kept the majority of people "on side" and played down the proletarian "threat".

 

Now there is a serious risk that the current bust will expose the "gentrification" of that middle class as an unsustainable sham, they will start to suffer and will start to reidintify as the have not proletariat.

 

That, given the oppressive laws re terrorism, which can be subverted to be used domestically, could give rise to revolution.

 

Capitalism is broks, fewer and fewer people work to produce.

 

Well its a simplified version of one take going round in academic and philosophical circles wehere Marxist philosophy, economic theory etc is undergoing rehabilitation.

[GD4ELI]

... in academic and philosophical circles where ...

i.e. those who don't actually produce anything useful?

 

Any able-bodied persion who is prepared to get off their backside has work if they are prepared to apply themselves.

[spook]

This time it's new.

 

The 1929 depression came about as a result of money becoming disconnected with the real wealth of the nation but recovery was possible because there was a market for American goods, especially when WW2 started and the whole nation profiteered from it.

 

This time there is no similar market for American goods because that market is being served by the industrialisation of The East.

 

Where the US could find a market for what they have that is “better” than anyone else would be in another war, and I wouldn't put it past US Big Business to promote such a thing.

[GD4ELI]

This time it's new.

 

The 1929 depression came about as a result of money becoming disconnected with the real wealth of the nation but recovery was possible because there was a market for American goods, especially when WW2 started and the whole nation profiteered from it.

 

This time there is no similar market for American goods because that market is being served by the industrialisation of The East.

 

Where the US could find a market for what they have that is "better" than anyone else would be in another war, and I wouldn't put it past US Big Business to promote such a thing.

 

Also the US debt is greater than GDP. On the upside the underlying strength of western economies is far, far higher than in 1929 so although it'll not be pleasant it'll also not be the disaster of 80 years ago.

[manshimajin]

Stu, reading the press today

 

1. Angela Merkel has said that the situations in Greece and Italy are 'extremely fragile'
   
2. The markets are factoring in a Greek default - a Greek 1 year bond would pay 82.1%
   
3. Money is going into what are seen as more secure government debts, Germany, UK and USA (is that where the bank monies were going - from euro to dollars?)
   
4. The head of Deutsche Bank has said that some European banks are close to collapse
   
5. The Germans are looking for greater austerity in the eurozone
   
6. Investors are hoping that there will be more stimulation of economies
   
7. It is looking increasingly likely that sterling interest rates will stay low for a number of years yet
   
8. There is talk of the ECB reversing current policy and lowering interest rates because larger economies, including Germany, are slowing down.
   

 

All told not a pretty picture but maybe one of continuing to bounce and scrape along the bottom rather than falling through the floor. OTOH if Italy starts to follow Greece down the slippery slope who knows what will happen to the Euro and to banks with excessive amounts of bonds in peripheral EU economies? Surprisingly amidst all of this Ireland seems to be the one problem economy that is seen as getting it about right and up to last week its costs of borrowing were reducing (will not stay that way if panic sets in about Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal).

 

UTM Bank is looking the best at present!

[Evil Goblin]

UTM Bank (Who they? Ed)

[Addie]

Oooooooh, please, please don't quote Barrie's post anybody..please don't.

I'm already bordering on a psychotic incident

 

Go on, you know you want to...

 

Stu!

 

It has all happened before one way or the other! The more things change the more they stay the same!

 

You are an old Mancunian!

 

I have extracted the following from one of my theses:-

 

QUOTE

 

THE CURSE OF MANCHESTER

("From Manchester the Curse of England" leader article "Manchester Spectator" September 8th 1849)...

 

Manchester is one of the greatest wonders of Great Britain. It is wonderful from its mechanical combinations, its chemical applications, its concentrated industry, and its spirit of enterprise.

Every stranger says so, who visits the place. Perhaps in wet weather a sentimental visitor my grumble at the smoke, or the sloppy condition of the streets; but he forgets all that, in visiting the great establishments of the town and neighbourhood.

The mills, the print-works, the dye-works, the great warehouses, the engineer and machine establishments, the Exchange and the Institutions, are all wonderful, or remarkable; and if the visitor have the touch of the philosopher about him, he goes away muttering, "If it was the steam-engine combined with the spinning-jenny that supplied England with power to fight its battles during the last great continental war, surely it must be the varied industry of the manufacturing districts that enables England, during peace, to keep a foremost place amongst the nations of the world.!"

The spirit of the people is as remarkable as are the wonders of the manufacturing districts and it is commonly assumed that Manchester virtually governs Great Britain.

A genuine Manchester man, proud of his town and his townsman, tells you that all great "movements" originate there, even if they should afterwards be taken up in London. He will tell you that Lancashire and Yorkshire mainly carried negro emancipation. In Lancashire originated the great railway system. In Lancashire sprung up the agitation for commercial freedom, now so great a fact in our history. And in Lancashire a great many more "movements" will originate, all tending to develop material industry and intellectual freedom to diffuse sound education, the principles of peace, and whatever else will exalt our native country, and advance the civilisation of the world.

Well, we may admit much of this, without feeling that undue pretensions have been put forth. To be sure, if Manchester men were labouring under excessive candour, they might confess, without any violation of truth, that even the great feat of repealing the Corn Laws was not so original an idea in Lancashire as some people are appt to assume.

There was a member of parliament, of the name of Whitmore, who used annually to debate the Corn Laws in the House of Commons for years before the anti-Corn Law League was hatched; and as far back as 1836, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Shaw Lefevre condemned the sliding scale, and proposed a fixed duty. Again, although there are able, clever, intelligent people in Manchester, and although there is a large amount of intelligence diffused throughout the Community, there is a strong tendency to exaggerate Manchester intelligence, and to give ourselves credit for a larger amount of it than we really have in stock.

However, let all that pass. Manchester is a wonderful and a remarkable place; wonderful, because of its industrial wonders, and remarkable because of the spirit and enterprise of its people.

And yet Manchester is in a fair way of becoming the Curse of England! What! - the Curse of England! "Surely," exclaims some reader, "You must be a Tory in disguise - a pretended Free Trader, but a real protectionist - a wolf in sheep's clothing; put out your foot, sir, till we see whether or not it is a cloven one! Manchester going to become the Curse of England! Ha!- how do you make that out?" Patience, good sir, and we will try to explain it to you; but do not jump up when you have only half read the explanation, and, in the true spirit of intolerance, vow that you will never read another Spectator while you live.

Manchester will become the curse of England through the indiscriminate application of those principles of political economy which commonly are characterised as being of the "Manchester School." "Oh!" screeches out the reader, "you are a Communist are you? No competition, is your motto! Just as we have got commercial freedom, you would neutralise all its benefits, by tying up the employers by their heads and their heels and throwing them into a den of lions, to be devoured by their workmen! Pretty public instructor you are! Sit down, and try to master the principles of political economy, and if you want philosophy teaching by examples, look at the condition in which France is, even now, from the mad experiments of Louis Blanc and Ledru Rollin".

Reader, do you comprehend the meaning of the word Communism? We doubt if you do. Louis Blanc had a very imperfect comprehension of it, and so had Ledru Rollin. And from the way in which Mr. Cobden uses the word, it is doubtful if he comprehends it. The word is commonly used to signify something ridiculous, atrocious, absurd, abominable, wild, horrible, impracticable; as if Communism meant pocket-picking, and sanctioned a general robbery of those who have something, that it may be wasted by the idle and the worthless.

But true Communism is an emanation of the New Testament; it was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and its spirit beams from the Gospels and the Epistles. And true Communism will yet be embodied in Political Economy, a science of which we have only, as yet, the rough outlines. Indeed, a step towards this has already been made by Mr. Mill in his political economy. To this we may add, that the spirit of unrestricted and excessive competition, which is the product of the Manchester School of Political Economy, is rebuked in every page of the New Testament - as every true Christian will confess.

Now, we have no call to vindicate Communism, because we have not the expectation nor the wish to see Manchester a Communist bee-hive. But we thought we heard a so-called political economist sneering and laughing, and we stepped out of our way to have a tilt with him. When the hungry dog stole a loaf, the baker, who was a Quaker, said, "I'll not kill thee, but I'll give thee a bad name. So he called out "mad dog! mad dog!" and the poor brute was knocked on the head. It is the same way with your conceited, pedantic, pragmatical political economists.

Political Economy is still a developing science; but they assume that it has come out of Adam Smith and Ricardo as complete and full-armed as Minerva from the brain of Jupiter; and if anybody says anything opposed to what they call their "principles" they pull up their collars, look very large and knowing, sneer and smile, and mutter something about the poor wretch who is yet in the darkness of Communism, and incapable of comprehending the glorious liberty of the Manchester School.

To return. The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a great army and navy, the necessity of foreign conquest, and the ruin of industrious peoples of other nations.

Prove it! Do you read the Manchester Guardian? Of course - everybody does. Did you read last Wednesday's paper? Yes. Did you see an article in it, entitled "The Eastern Markets?" yes. What was it all about? Why, pointing out that the vast importance of India and China to this district and, and explaining how it is that China has not yet proved so profitable a market for our manufactures as it will be. Well, then, you read the following passage: - "The fact that China is a large manufacturing country, and has been so for many centuries, was too little thought of in 1845; but there are now some evidences that the introduction of British goods is gradually displacing those of native manufactures, as has been so remarkably the case in India."

Here, it is coolly assumed: 1 That, Manchester ruined the native manufactures of India. 2. That by the same process, Manchester may ruin the native manufactures of China.

But to ruin the native manufactures of China will involve the maintenance of a large army and navy, and ultimately we must conquer the country, as we have conquered India, and hold it in the same way, namely by the terror of military power.

“Pooh!” says your smart political economist, “it will be only a transference of labour. The Chinese will prefer our cheaper and better manufactures to their own, and the Chinese manufacturers will betake themselves to other occupations, growing tea, and whatnot, with which they will profitably and peacefully exchange with us.”

In deed! Pray, Mr. Political Economist, are you quite sure about that? Does a man who has been a weaver all his life so very easily become a baker, carpenter or an agriculturalist?

The introduction of our manufactures in to India caused enormous misery amongst the native population; and if we should succeed in suddenly expelling the native Chinese manufactures from their home market, we shall cause more misery among the crowded population of China than could be perpetrated by fire and sword.

Then discontent will arise; some offence will be given; it will be found essential, for the peace of our manufacturing districts, that we should keep hold of the Chinese market; and the end of it will be that we must conquer China. And while this process is going on, we will be consoling ourselves by getting up a subscription for the Hoang-Ho Mission, and for translating the “Washerwoman of Wimbledon Common,” and the “Shepherd of Salisbury Plain” into the Chinese language.

So much for our first point. The second is: The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a keen spirit of sordid competition at utter variance with the spirit of Christianity, and necessarily multiplies a population dependent for subsistence on the chances of a cotton crop grown in other countries, and of a demand in other markets, generally overstocked; and who, by their occupation, are nourished in hostility to their employers, and, in times of vicissitude, cannot but be more or less an element of disturbance in the state.

It is only half a century, so to speak, since our modern manufacturing system arose. Before the invention of the steam-engine and the spinning-jenny, the world manufactured its own clothing during many thousand years; and in all nations where clothing was worn, the people contrived, somehow or other, to get covering for their bodies.

As for Ireland, the bulk of the people are as wretched and as naked now, as they were in the days of Swift. But under our modern manufacturing system, Manchester has power enough to clothe the world, if the world would only come to it; and with a demand for it, the quantity of calico would only be limited by the quantity of raw cotton. But the whole world will not come to Manchester.

Russia is fostering its own manufactures, and by a high tariff is successfully expelling ours. The United States will not abandon the attempt to maintain its manufactures; it grows the cotton on its own territory, it is abundantly stored with fuel, and its population rapidly increases.

Other foreign markets will not absorb our manufactures as fast as we can produce, and we are driven to the expedient of trying to force new markets; and the humiliating confession is extorted, that though free trade is perfectly right and proper, its results must necessarily be slow, and that our own manufactures must, to a large extent, be consumed by our own people.

Yet, under these circumstances, the “Manchester School” talks in this wise. Away with your Ten Hours Act, for Parliament has no right to interfere with the freedom of trade. Every factory workman is as free as his employer, and makes his bargain with him precisely as that employer makes a bargain on the Exchange. Let mills work as long as their owners choose, and as long as they have got orders - when they have no orders they will stop. All which assertions are essentially false, because they misrepresent facts, and are at variance with the truest and largest principles of Political Economy.

As a general rule Parliament, or Government, or the State, should interfere as little as possible with the concerns of individuals. In all our transactions, we should be free to act as can be rendered compatible with the general welfare. But you cannot lay down any specific rule on the subject.

Certainly, it would be far better if there had been no occasion for a Ten Hours Act, because it would have been far better if the whole dispute had been voluntarily arranged. But it was impossible to effect this. The factory workers, therefore, appealed to Parliament, which at last was convinced that their case was a special one, and gave them a very modified kind of protection. For the factory workers are not free men; it is outrageously laughable to hear shallow praters say that they are as free to bargain with their employers, as their employers to bargain about their goods; and as laughable is it to hear pedants affirm that if you sanction interference with factory labour, which is a special case, therefore you lay down the principle that you must interfere with every description of labour, whether it be special or not.

Let us recapitulate. Manchester is in danger of becoming the Curse of England, from the following causes:-

1.- It is furnished with manufacturing power, to the full extent of any demand that is likely to arise for a considerable time, because free trade must necessarily be slow in operation.

2.- But if the Ten Hours Act be effectually evaded, and the mills run a race of competition, it will stimulate cotton speculation, with all its accompaniments of false reports, fraud, and folly, perpetrated by Christian men, who go to church every Sunday, with their wives and daughters.

It will aggravate the spirit of competition in Manchester which is keen enough already. It will lead to ingenious contrivances for forcing new markets, as amongst the Chinese, whose manufactures we would endeavour to destroy with ours, but whose souls we would propose to win by missions and tracts.

After having obtained possession of the Chinese market, and thrown millions of people out of occupation, we will be obliged to maintain an army and navy to keep possession of this market, and ultimately to conquer the country.

During the temporary period of prosperity, new mills would be built, the manufacturing population would be increased, and a state of things would ensue, the stability of which would dependent on a few bales more or less of cotton and on the smaller or greater demands of particular markets. And when a time of reaction arrived, there would be a larger amount than ever of working people out of employment, and the country would be placed in a state of greater peril than was ever before known.

How, then, are we to prevent Manchester from becoming the curse of England?

1.- By allowing FREE TRADE slowly and gradually to develop itself, so that supply shall naturally follow demand, without artificial stimulus, or eager speculation. It is by eager speculation that every period of prosperity is shortened, and the subsequent distress aggravated.

2.- By a strict maintenance of the Ten Hours Act, giving time to the workmen for their moral, social, and intellectual improvement, thereby removing all legitimate grounds of discontent, and preparing them for cheerfully bearing privation, should a period of distress arrive.

3.- And (as a consequence of the foregoing), by keeping down rather than extending our manufacturing power, and diffusing over the greatest space of time that natural demand from which manufacturer derives his legitimate profits, and the workman his surest wages.

4.- Lastly, by abstaining from forcing new markets, reckless of the misery that may be inflicted on the native manufacturers, and as reckless of the misery that may be inflicted at home, by re-action. If our manufacturers are ever destined to supersede the home manufactures of China, common prudence, to say nothing of any other considerations, requires that the process should be a very gradual one.

But here comes our smart political economist. First, he pulls out his statistics, and then he displays his principles. By his statistics, he shows you, that if you interfere with factory labour, such is the keen competition of other countries, and such the narrow range of profit, that so far from being able to acquire new markets, we run a great risk of losing those we already have.

And with his principles, he demonstrates that every thing we ask for will happen quite naturally, in the due order and sequence of events. That speculation cures itself - that new mills will not built, unless the old ones are realising good profits - that any attempt to force our manufactures into China, before the taste and demand for them have been created, is far more likely to ruin the English than the Chinese manufacturer - that free trade and commercial intercourse are powerful preservers of peaceful relations - and that, in fact the whole thing resolves itself into the answer which the French merchants gave to Colbert, when he asked what he could do for them - “Laissez-faire” - “Leave us alone.” All of which we must examine on another occasion, for the subject is by no means exhausted.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Nothing new under the sun. Swings and roundabouts...(Just buy plenty of baked beans and porridge oats)

[pauld]

Oooooooh, please, please don't quote Barrie's post anybody..please don't.

I'm already bordering on a psychotic incident

 

Go on, you know you want to...

 

Stu!

 

It has all happened before one way or the other! The more things change the more they stay the same!

 

You are an old Mancunian!

 

I have extracted the following from one of my theses:-

 

QUOTE

 

THE CURSE OF MANCHESTER

("From Manchester the Curse of England" leader article "Manchester Spectator" September 8th 1849)...

 

Manchester is one of the greatest wonders of Great Britain. It is wonderful from its mechanical combinations, its chemical applications, its concentrated industry, and its spirit of enterprise.

Every stranger says so, who visits the place. Perhaps in wet weather a sentimental visitor my grumble at the smoke, or the sloppy condition of the streets; but he forgets all that, in visiting the great establishments of the town and neighbourhood.

The mills, the print-works, the dye-works, the great warehouses, the engineer and machine establishments, the Exchange and the Institutions, are all wonderful, or remarkable; and if the visitor have the touch of the philosopher about him, he goes away muttering, "If it was the steam-engine combined with the spinning-jenny that supplied England with power to fight its battles during the last great continental war, surely it must be the varied industry of the manufacturing districts that enables England, during peace, to keep a foremost place amongst the nations of the world.!"

The spirit of the people is as remarkable as are the wonders of the manufacturing districts and it is commonly assumed that Manchester virtually governs Great Britain.

A genuine Manchester man, proud of his town and his townsman, tells you that all great "movements" originate there, even if they should afterwards be taken up in London. He will tell you that Lancashire and Yorkshire mainly carried negro emancipation. In Lancashire originated the great railway system. In Lancashire sprung up the agitation for commercial freedom, now so great a fact in our history. And in Lancashire a great many more "movements" will originate, all tending to develop material industry and intellectual freedom to diffuse sound education, the principles of peace, and whatever else will exalt our native country, and advance the civilisation of the world.

Well, we may admit much of this, without feeling that undue pretensions have been put forth. To be sure, if Manchester men were labouring under excessive candour, they might confess, without any violation of truth, that even the great feat of repealing the Corn Laws was not so original an idea in Lancashire as some people are appt to assume.

There was a member of parliament, of the name of Whitmore, who used annually to debate the Corn Laws in the House of Commons for years before the anti-Corn Law League was hatched; and as far back as 1836, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Shaw Lefevre condemned the sliding scale, and proposed a fixed duty. Again, although there are able, clever, intelligent people in Manchester, and although there is a large amount of intelligence diffused throughout the Community, there is a strong tendency to exaggerate Manchester intelligence, and to give ourselves credit for a larger amount of it than we really have in stock.

However, let all that pass. Manchester is a wonderful and a remarkable place; wonderful, because of its industrial wonders, and remarkable because of the spirit and enterprise of its people.

And yet Manchester is in a fair way of becoming the Curse of England! What! - the Curse of England! "Surely," exclaims some reader, "You must be a Tory in disguise - a pretended Free Trader, but a real protectionist - a wolf in sheep's clothing; put out your foot, sir, till we see whether or not it is a cloven one! Manchester going to become the Curse of England! Ha!- how do you make that out?" Patience, good sir, and we will try to explain it to you; but do not jump up when you have only half read the explanation, and, in the true spirit of intolerance, vow that you will never read another Spectator while you live.

Manchester will become the curse of England through the indiscriminate application of those principles of political economy which commonly are characterised as being of the "Manchester School." "Oh!" screeches out the reader, "you are a Communist are you? No competition, is your motto! Just as we have got commercial freedom, you would neutralise all its benefits, by tying up the employers by their heads and their heels and throwing them into a den of lions, to be devoured by their workmen! Pretty public instructor you are! Sit down, and try to master the principles of political economy, and if you want philosophy teaching by examples, look at the condition in which France is, even now, from the mad experiments of Louis Blanc and Ledru Rollin".

Reader, do you comprehend the meaning of the word Communism? We doubt if you do. Louis Blanc had a very imperfect comprehension of it, and so had Ledru Rollin. And from the way in which Mr. Cobden uses the word, it is doubtful if he comprehends it. The word is commonly used to signify something ridiculous, atrocious, absurd, abominable, wild, horrible, impracticable; as if Communism meant pocket-picking, and sanctioned a general robbery of those who have something, that it may be wasted by the idle and the worthless.

But true Communism is an emanation of the New Testament; it was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and its spirit beams from the Gospels and the Epistles. And true Communism will yet be embodied in Political Economy, a science of which we have only, as yet, the rough outlines. Indeed, a step towards this has already been made by Mr. Mill in his political economy. To this we may add, that the spirit of unrestricted and excessive competition, which is the product of the Manchester School of Political Economy, is rebuked in every page of the New Testament - as every true Christian will confess.

Now, we have no call to vindicate Communism, because we have not the expectation nor the wish to see Manchester a Communist bee-hive. But we thought we heard a so-called political economist sneering and laughing, and we stepped out of our way to have a tilt with him. When the hungry dog stole a loaf, the baker, who was a Quaker, said, "I'll not kill thee, but I'll give thee a bad name. So he called out "mad dog! mad dog!" and the poor brute was knocked on the head. It is the same way with your conceited, pedantic, pragmatical political economists.

Political Economy is still a developing science; but they assume that it has come out of Adam Smith and Ricardo as complete and full-armed as Minerva from the brain of Jupiter; and if anybody says anything opposed to what they call their "principles" they pull up their collars, look very large and knowing, sneer and smile, and mutter something about the poor wretch who is yet in the darkness of Communism, and incapable of comprehending the glorious liberty of the Manchester School.

To return. The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a great army and navy, the necessity of foreign conquest, and the ruin of industrious peoples of other nations.

Prove it! Do you read the Manchester Guardian? Of course - everybody does. Did you read last Wednesday's paper? Yes. Did you see an article in it, entitled "The Eastern Markets?" yes. What was it all about? Why, pointing out that the vast importance of India and China to this district and, and explaining how it is that China has not yet proved so profitable a market for our manufactures as it will be. Well, then, you read the following passage: - "The fact that China is a large manufacturing country, and has been so for many centuries, was too little thought of in 1845; but there are now some evidences that the introduction of British goods is gradually displacing those of native manufactures, as has been so remarkably the case in India."

Here, it is coolly assumed: 1 That, Manchester ruined the native manufactures of India. 2. That by the same process, Manchester may ruin the native manufactures of China.

But to ruin the native manufactures of China will involve the maintenance of a large army and navy, and ultimately we must conquer the country, as we have conquered India, and hold it in the same way, namely by the terror of military power.

“Pooh!” says your smart political economist, “it will be only a transference of labour. The Chinese will prefer our cheaper and better manufactures to their own, and the Chinese manufacturers will betake themselves to other occupations, growing tea, and whatnot, with which they will profitably and peacefully exchange with us.”

In deed! Pray, Mr. Political Economist, are you quite sure about that? Does a man who has been a weaver all his life so very easily become a baker, carpenter or an agriculturalist?

The introduction of our manufactures in to India caused enormous misery amongst the native population; and if we should succeed in suddenly expelling the native Chinese manufactures from their home market, we shall cause more misery among the crowded population of China than could be perpetrated by fire and sword.

Then discontent will arise; some offence will be given; it will be found essential, for the peace of our manufacturing districts, that we should keep hold of the Chinese market; and the end of it will be that we must conquer China. And while this process is going on, we will be consoling ourselves by getting up a subscription for the Hoang-Ho Mission, and for translating the “Washerwoman of Wimbledon Common,” and the “Shepherd of Salisbury Plain” into the Chinese language.

So much for our first point. The second is: The indiscriminate application of the principles of the Manchester School of Political Economy involves the maintenance of a keen spirit of sordid competition at utter variance with the spirit of Christianity, and necessarily multiplies a population dependent for subsistence on the chances of a cotton crop grown in other countries, and of a demand in other markets, generally overstocked; and who, by their occupation, are nourished in hostility to their employers, and, in times of vicissitude, cannot but be more or less an element of disturbance in the state.

It is only half a century, so to speak, since our modern manufacturing system arose. Before the invention of the steam-engine and the spinning-jenny, the world manufactured its own clothing during many thousand years; and in all nations where clothing was worn, the people contrived, somehow or other, to get covering for their bodies.

As for Ireland, the bulk of the people are as wretched and as naked now, as they were in the days of Swift. But under our modern manufacturing system, Manchester has power enough to clothe the world, if the world would only come to it; and with a demand for it, the quantity of calico would only be limited by the quantity of raw cotton. But the whole world will not come to Manchester.

Russia is fostering its own manufactures, and by a high tariff is successfully expelling ours. The United States will not abandon the attempt to maintain its manufactures; it grows the cotton on its own territory, it is abundantly stored with fuel, and its population rapidly increases.

Other foreign markets will not absorb our manufactures as fast as we can produce, and we are driven to the expedient of trying to force new markets; and the humiliating confession is extorted, that though free trade is perfectly right and proper, its results must necessarily be slow, and that our own manufactures must, to a large extent, be consumed by our own people.

Yet, under these circumstances, the “Manchester School” talks in this wise. Away with your Ten Hours Act, for Parliament has no right to interfere with the freedom of trade. Every factory workman is as free as his employer, and makes his bargain with him precisely as that employer makes a bargain on the Exchange. Let mills work as long as their owners choose, and as long as they have got orders - when they have no orders they will stop. All which assertions are essentially false, because they misrepresent facts, and are at variance with the truest and largest principles of Political Economy.

As a general rule Parliament, or Government, or the State, should interfere as little as possible with the concerns of individuals. In all our transactions, we should be free to act as can be rendered compatible with the general welfare. But you cannot lay down any specific rule on the subject.

Certainly, it would be far better if there had been no occasion for a Ten Hours Act, because it would have been far better if the whole dispute had been voluntarily arranged. But it was impossible to effect this. The factory workers, therefore, appealed to Parliament, which at last was convinced that their case was a special one, and gave them a very modified kind of protection. For the factory workers are not free men; it is outrageously laughable to hear shallow praters say that they are as free to bargain with their employers, as their employers to bargain about their goods; and as laughable is it to hear pedants affirm that if you sanction interference with factory labour, which is a special case, therefore you lay down the principle that you must interfere with every description of labour, whether it be special or not.

Let us recapitulate. Manchester is in danger of becoming the Curse of England, from the following causes:-

1.- It is furnished with manufacturing power, to the full extent of any demand that is likely to arise for a considerable time, because free trade must necessarily be slow in operation.

2.- But if the Ten Hours Act be effectually evaded, and the mills run a race of competition, it will stimulate cotton speculation, with all its accompaniments of false reports, fraud, and folly, perpetrated by Christian men, who go to church every Sunday, with their wives and daughters.

It will aggravate the spirit of competition in Manchester which is keen enough already. It will lead to ingenious contrivances for forcing new markets, as amongst the Chinese, whose manufactures we would endeavour to destroy with ours, but whose souls we would propose to win by missions and tracts.

After having obtained possession of the Chinese market, and thrown millions of people out of occupation, we will be obliged to maintain an army and navy to keep possession of this market, and ultimately to conquer the country.

During the temporary period of prosperity, new mills would be built, the manufacturing population would be increased, and a state of things would ensue, the stability of which would dependent on a few bales more or less of cotton and on the smaller or greater demands of particular markets. And when a time of reaction arrived, there would be a larger amount than ever of working people out of employment, and the country would be placed in a state of greater peril than was ever before known.

How, then, are we to prevent Manchester from becoming the curse of England?

1.- By allowing FREE TRADE slowly and gradually to develop itself, so that supply shall naturally follow demand, without artificial stimulus, or eager speculation. It is by eager speculation that every period of prosperity is shortened, and the subsequent distress aggravated.

2.- By a strict maintenance of the Ten Hours Act, giving time to the workmen for their moral, social, and intellectual improvement, thereby removing all legitimate grounds of discontent, and preparing them for cheerfully bearing privation, should a period of distress arrive.

3.- And (as a consequence of the foregoing), by keeping down rather than extending our manufacturing power, and diffusing over the greatest space of time that natural demand from which manufacturer derives his legitimate profits, and the workman his surest wages.

4.- Lastly, by abstaining from forcing new markets, reckless of the misery that may be inflicted on the native manufacturers, and as reckless of the misery that may be inflicted at home, by re-action. If our manufacturers are ever destined to supersede the home manufactures of China, common prudence, to say nothing of any other considerations, requires that the process should be a very gradual one.

But here comes our smart political economist. First, he pulls out his statistics, and then he displays his principles. By his statistics, he shows you, that if you interfere with factory labour, such is the keen competition of other countries, and such the narrow range of profit, that so far from being able to acquire new markets, we run a great risk of losing those we already have.

And with his principles, he demonstrates that every thing we ask for will happen quite naturally, in the due order and sequence of events. That speculation cures itself - that new mills will not built, unless the old ones are realising good profits - that any attempt to force our manufactures into China, before the taste and demand for them have been created, is far more likely to ruin the English than the Chinese manufacturer - that free trade and commercial intercourse are powerful preservers of peaceful relations - and that, in fact the whole thing resolves itself into the answer which the French merchants gave to Colbert, when he asked what he could do for them - “Laissez-faire” - “Leave us alone.” All of which we must examine on another occasion, for the subject is by no means exhausted.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Nothing new under the sun. Swings and roundabouts...(Just buy plenty of baked beans and porridge oats)

Just no need for that addie, mission must be going ballistic he hates bloat quote.

 

 

See.

 

Okay, so I have seen a growing trend on MF of what I (and others) term 'bloat quoting'. This may simply be down to a lack of knowledge in terms of replying to a thread (IE, you hit reply to the last post in a thread, rather than use the Fast Reply box option when you view the last page of said thread...

 

 

When, in reality, if all you want to do is simply reply to the topic is type in this box here...

 

 

Or, you maybe want to specifically quote a person (or post) but don't intend to quote the whole thing (it may be very long-winded) but simply dont know how to avoid it. In this instance, you do the following...

 

Okay, this is a good example I think, it contains a fair bit of text, some links and an embedded video, this only needs to be re-quoted a few times for it to become a proper bloater (and this happens all the time on here...)

 

Oh come on Cambon, one persons "scaremongering" is another persons risk assessment.

 

The major problem is that for the vast majority of us we can do nothing whatsoever to mitigate such risks, but we are still interested in them, and so the popular press etc will report and publicize.

 

And what they report and publicize changes as the winds blow. A while ago it was all about Maunder Minimums and the solar cylce breaking down, and now its all about the dangers of a direct hit from a solar flare.

 

I wonder why all the fuss is getting publicized now ...

 

Oh yeah I forgot:

 

 

Look Space weather can definitely affect an electrically based, satellite dependent economy.

 

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

The risks of a major electricity grid being knocked out for hours are real and the costs of it occurring would, though small in the grand scheme of things, be significant.

 

A bigger risk would be the loss of satellites - it happens (even when the weather was relatively benign) - fixing a satellite quickly and cheaply isn't easy.

 

Again in the grand scheme of things it isn't the end of the world, but if London was suddenly unable to talk to Tokyo or New York for an extended period it would cost more than a few pounds.

 

The newspapers getting exited about this is basically irrelevent, and the pundits will always concentrate on worst case scenarios, but I, for one, do think the industries concerned should be aware of the risks, mitigate against them, and put redundancy into their systems.

 

Will this make a disruption impossible? No. Does it mean all this is scaremongering? No. Am I expecting anything to happen? No. Could it happen? Yes.

 

Get over it, and understand the press is a terrible way to assess risks and consequences. Heck if you thought what the newspapers said was representative of life, rather than a deliberately biased record of its extremes, then you'd just sit in a bunker all day.

 

If you want to call that scaremongering fine.

 

But communication and power companies still need to do their job and that means monitoring, and being aware of the consequences of, space weather!

 

Soo, we could condense that down somewhat for sure yes, but how???

 

Well, this is how it looks in condensed form but how did we get there?

 

Oh come on Cambon, one persons "scaremongering" is another persons risk assessment.

 

Okay, when you click reply to a post you will see this in the first line (you absolutely need this)...

 

[quote name='Chinahand' timestamp='1298548877' post='592404'][/quote]

 

Then, you might only want to quote the first line (or part of the post) so you just copy and paste that bit after that very important bit above) thus

The major problem is that for the vast majority of us we can do nothing whatsoever to mitigate such risks, but we are still interested in them, and so the popular press etc will report and publicize.

 

and then, to complete your quote, all you need is this bit (either keep it from the original post, or type it yourself)

 

[/quote]

 

Now, if you want to quote multiple people in a thread, rather than reply to everyone in individual posts, you can still do this via the 'multiQuote' button here...

 

 

It's a little more complex to do this but you want that very first line from each individual poster you're multi-quoting ie...

 

[quote name='Chinahand' timestamp='1298548877' post='592404']

 

followed by a small portion of their post and then

 

[/quote]

 

and your response, before repeating the same with the next poster you are multi-quoting.

 

Or, maybe someone might be replying to the thread already but you don't know it, here's how to tell (note, you can't see anonymous posters replying)

 

 

Please, give it a go, in time you will get used to it and you may well find that the less patient (or more experienced) forum posters start to engage with you more, as I for one simply ignore bloat quoters as my time on here is limited these days and quite frankly, I CBA scrolling through overly long posts just to read a one line response (no matter how enlightened it may be).

 

At the very least, try it out in the testing sub-forum until you get the hang of things.

 

Hoperfully that makes sense (I was going to leave it until the morning but as I am online, I thought I would do it now.

 

I do hope that helps, if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask (just don't bloat quote, or I'll have you nuked)...

[Chinahand]

Are we within days/weeks of a complete financial meltdown? Time to learn Mandarin?

我们都注定死於贫困。 ... but obesity levels will continue to rise, beer, fags and ipods will still outsell fresh vegetables, books and getting out in the fresh air for some exercise.

 

Its always a bit dangerous wondering what the future will hold - but I've a feeling we are more robust than many people claim - sure there's been the oil shock, stagflation, Thatcher's cuts, Major's bust, the Asian financial crisis, the tech crash, the bank crash and now the lingering hangover of the various debt crises, but have things really been so terrible overall over the last 40 odd years?

 

I don't discount the huge hardship the unemployed etc face - but for the vast majority that is a temporary burden and for those not so burdened I don't think people will face terrible suffering if the TV doesn't get replaced quite as quickly, the cars, on average, are a few years older and that easter holiday in the sun gets cancelled.

 

For me the mindset of taking on too much debt, often to pander for materialistic treats rather than necessities, wasn't economically or socially healthy.

 

Maybe the slowdown will be a chance for society to think what its priorities are.

 

Material destitution does exist, but I suspect the bigger problem is people placing their happiness in excessive materialism.

 

Measure your wealth through your lack of wants, not material things, and understand how society and culture nurtures your wants via advertizing and social pressures.

 

In the 1930s people starved, now we face an obesity epidemic and rising deaths from diebeties etc - both are symptoms of serious problems within society, but I'm not convinced that our problems currently are totally economic - I feel we face more serious political and cultural problems.

 

Obviously they are interlinked, but over a 40 year time span, I'm not that worried about Europe's debt, or Barclay's liquidity - rather its how to get people being useful members of society, satisfied with their lot.

 

China has brought, and will bring, lots of opportunities, but also changes - the massive hardwork the ordinary people have put in to uplift themselves, in the face of political oppression, corruption, and a misdirected communist rhetoric is really something to inspire - but its also a wake up call - there's no free ride in this world.

 

Has the west been living on the never never while the east has laboured - probably, but I don't think that needs to bring total disaster on us - rather a change in mindset. C'est la Vivre!