Vote for conservatism!

I don't think in term of simplistic narratives designed to make me ignorant to what is actually going on.

Is that anything to do with this?

http://www.positivemoney.org/


I wacthed the video in your link. Do you really think the best people to tackle those sort of problems (if indeed you believe those are problems) are the neoliberals who think you should just leave markets alone. It seems to me if you want to change that kind of thing you linked it require some kind of regulation. People at the top of the pyramid profit out of the situation that makes those at the bottom of the pyramid worse of. There isn't even the risk of bankrupts etc for those at the top since they are 'too big to fail'

One way those at the bottom can change things is if they vote in a government that doesn't view regulation and state interference like neocons do.

Yes, Positive Money are a group that advocate monetary reform and believe that the current monetary order isn't working and is injust. There are quite a few differences in opinion on what the solution should be but the unifying factor is that they want reform. Some support the complete nationalistion of money creation, others support free banking, some support 100% reserve requirements etc.

I personally think you are pretty confused if you think they current situation is the result of leaving markets alone. Quite the opposite in my view. The banking system is highly regulated, it is just the regulation entirely misses the key issues. I would also argue that regulation is never guaranteed to work and can often create perverse incentives or cause unintended consequences.

It is state regulation and central banking that is responsible for much of this. The legal privileges that banks have, state backed deposit insurance, limited liability in banking, the central banks acting as lender of last resort and legal tender laws all contribute to making the current system what it is.

I haven't decided exactly what solution I would support but I would support any or most reform in the right direction. At the moment I'm leaning towards free banking which doesn't mean leave the banks as they are but cut regulation. What it actually means is the separation of banking and government.

Your use of the terms neo-liberal and neo-cons are also pretty confused and don't fit with how you describe them.

What do you disagree with? That there is more opportunity to laze around if you are given free money?

By neoliberal I mean

'Neoliberalism^[1] is the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s,^[2][3][4] whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.^[5][6][7][8] The usage and definition of the term have changed over time.^[7]' - wiki

The only arguments I have seen as a solution come from that positive money group who's idea are going to come into conflict with people who want market liberalization and minimal government interference in the economy.

The current mainstream economic consensus is neoliberlaism, that is what they call themselves. Sure they may not actually praticse what they preach and often the only aspects of neoliberal theory that make people rich is applied and the state is then used to interfere in a way that protects elites.

I view most of the benefit demonisation as a justification narrative for ideological shrinking of the state.

By creating a nice simple 'common sense' economic narrative that economic illiterates (me included), who are otherwise functioning successful adults, to latch onto giving them a false sense of understanding the situation.

In other words it is propaganda that makes people see benefits as the big problem rather than looking else where.

They then go and vote for the party that promises to 'clamp down on benefits'. Some of the voters will even be people who say read the Sun and actually rely on benefits.

It is a way to make people who do not share the same ideological convictions of shrinking the state to 'see the light' and that it is absolutly nececery and not just a political position.