[I shall be using the terms ‘soul’ and ‘divine’, which have a lot of baggage that I’d like to disown.  However, as words they are too convenient to avoid] Capitalism is only one of many viable systems of human organisation.  These systems arise and evolve for many reasons, but the most fundamental factor within each is human nature – common to all. Capitalism’s dominance of the world is a testament to its success.  Its success derives from its "laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer," (let do, let go, let pass) doctrine, which allows far greater freedom for human nature than previous, more idealistically oriented systems e.g. socialist, democratic, religious, etc.  In allowing greater freedom from self-imposed and artificial restraints, capitalism has enabled people to exploit those characteristics foremost in their nature.  Capitalism is, therefore, a mirror reflecting the soul of humanity.  Predictably, not everything we see is pleasant. The prime reason for this is that we are a dichotomy – our souls are divided between the divine and the bestial.  Currently the mirror (capitalism) shows us that the bestial-self is dominant.  This manifests itself in our behaviour: most people, most of the time, being concerned wholly with themselves; being reactive (motivated by immediate ...

Ideals e.g. Communism, Christianity, Islam, etc all fail due to one common factor – the nature of man.  Like other ideals, Democracy was born strong and beautiful, it had a glorious start but, like other ideals, has become dilute and corrupt with age.  Like other ideals, democracy now exists only as a dream, a memory, a fantasy for the naive to aspire to and defend; for the aware to lament. Today ‘democracy’ is a designer-label used as a sop to the masses – a beautiful illusion used to beguile people into quiescence.  Behind this label, the truth is that the democratic vote is dead because we no longer live in a democracy (more accurately, the blend of democracy has become very diluted).  We live in a capitalist society where influence over the course and nature of society is directly proportional to the resources one has.  This, however, is no cause for despair, quite the opposite. No system is perfect.  Moreover, no system can remain static.  Democracy has simply evolved.  The four-yearly vote for a limited choice of dubious and duplicitous candidates has been replaced by the dollar vote.  In a society governed by consumption HOW one consumes affects one’s society.  Therefore, every ...

Letter originally written to an MP’s aide as part of a longer correspondence. I don't believe that the 'democratic vote' means much anymore.  Blair, in particular, but leading politicians of every hue, do what they like irrespective of pledges and public opinion, thereby undermining any notion of democracy.  Also, as government power seeps increasingly into the hands of non-elected business, the relevance of government declines.  Thus, the value of the 'democratic vote' diminishes in direct inverse-proportion to the increasing value of the 'capitalist vote' i.e. the currency in one's pocket - each pound spent is a real and immediate and daily (rather than once every four years!) vote for the provision of more of that product, or service. In a society such as ours, that is only nominally democratic, the ability of the consumer to influence is greater than the ability of the 'voter' to influence.  Naturally, this does mean that the wealthier you are the more influence you have, but this, in truth, is the way it has always been under any system throughout history.  However, whereas the 'swinish multitude' were always at the mercy of the well-organised and motivated elite, they are now better educated and can pool their resources/co-ordinate/motivate ...

...AND THE SMALL PRINT TAKETH AWAY (a Tom Waits lyric). This was originally written on Sunday the 6th of February, 2005, after watching Peter Madelson, then Britain's European Commissioner, being interviewed on the ‘Politics Programme’ on BBC1. He was asked when the EU would fulfil its commitment to remove agricultural subsidies (see my related post written at the same time).  His bullshit answer, and the fact that the interviewer allowed him to get away with it, angered me and inspired the following. How does Peter Madelson, and his kind, get away with subterfuge on a daily basis? My train of thought ran thus: He (Peter Madelson) is a professional politician. His position gives him access to knowledge and lends authority. He is taking advantage of our ignorance and trust. Both allow him to lie (manipulate the truth) to us and get away with it. He lies because he knows we would not allow him to do what he is doing if we knew the truth. We would not like what he is doing because it does not favour us, either in the short-term or the long-term. So who does it favour? Preserving the status quo makes his life easier, but also ensures that patterns and conditions of trade remain in the favour ...

An old rant of mine - more to follow... This afternoon (Sunday 06 February, 2005) I watched the ‘Politics Programme’ on BBC1.  Peter Madelson, Britain’s European Commissioner, was being interviewed.  He was asked when the EU would fulfil its commitment to remove agricultural subsidies. These subsidies encourage EU farmers to produce more than is needed and then allows this excess onto the world market.  Being so heavily subsidised it is sold at a price far below what it cost to produce.  So cheap, in fact, that even the poorest countries cannot compete.  Not only can they not sell their own produce, but they find themselves either forced by law (World Trade Organisation), or economic necessity, to buy this foreign produce in favour of that produced locally.  Naturally, this means that their own farmers get poorer and that what little money they have seeps abroad. As mentioned above, the EU has promised to completely remove these unfair subsidies.  What hasn’t been stated is exactly when this will happen.  Asked ‘when’ the subsidies would be removed, Peter Madelson said that negotiations were complex, but ongoing.  He also made it clear that the EU would not act until and unless the USA made the same sacrificial ...

By Karim Attia, 19th May 2009. The BBC is the world's premier media organisation.  Yet, it's crap at developing and protecting its own image, a failing that will cost it more and more as it becomes ever more reliant on its global brand. Aside from the obvious mismanaging of the string of editorial scandals since the summer of 2007, equally irritating is its consistent failure to blow its own trumpet.  For example, the excerpt below was tacked onto the end of a related news item in the BBC's internal news-service: 'It has been independently estimated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that the BBC adds £6.5bn to the UK economy – nearly twice the value invested in the licence fee [currently c.£3.6billion].' (Ariel, 19 May 2009) That sounds more like a headline to me and certainly something the BBC should be bigging-up!

by Karim Attia, August 2007. A business is founded by an entrepreneur in the hope that it will be a success and provide a good income.  Thus, businesses are designed to grow.  This growth can either be fed by re-investment of profits, or by borrowing.  As most profits are smaller than the ambition of the business, borrowing is the principle way that businesses expand.  Borrowing is particularly useful when an immediate opportunity might otherwise be lost by not investing in the business. Borrowing is usually done through loans from a financial institution, or by selling shares in the business. All debt (liabilities) places a burden on the business.  Loans to a business from, for example, banks, operate and have similar effects as loans to home-buyers/owners (mortgages).  The money is lent by the bank for a certain period, for a certain rate and incurs fees.  The loan is secured against the current and future value of the business.  If the value of debts approaches, or exceeds, the value of the business, a lender will know that it will lose its money if things 'go wrong'.  Thus, the risk increases and the terms of any loan would become much less favourable. The greater the proportion of ...

by Karim Attia; November 2004. A lot's happened since I wrote this.  Pretty good forecast although the actual journey we've taken is different - it's been an amazing four-years! The USA Therefore, four more years of aggressive and divisive policy.  Therefore, global political instability. Therefore, inability to plan ahead confidently. Therefore, less risks taken vis-à-vis investment. Therefore, future capacity for growth reduced. Therefore, economic slow-down. Therefore, global recession. Therefore, pressure placed on politicians to act. Therefore, efforts to stimulate the economy and/or stabilise the political environment. Political stability would be achieved by reducing international barriers/increasing international co-operation. Stimulating the economy would be achieved by reducing interest rates, reducing taxes, increased government spending, removing barriers to trade – unleashing money. Oil Oil (and gas) is a strategic energy and raw material.  Its supply is critical to the world economy.  Oil reserves have already peaked and are now in terminal decline.  Oil is steadily running out.  As a result, oil will only continue to escalate in price as its scarcity becomes ever more evident.  This, plus the prospect of continued and additional political instability resulting from America’s policies, will drive global energy costs ever higher [1]. Increased energy costs will hit the poor and manufacturing hardest, but all ...