Here are a couple of Wednesday snippets on my (alleged) no blog post day. I have a great tip for the Remainers in Britian who are struggling to make any sense in their quest to hang on to the European dream (nightmare!). It is not a new argument but it has resurfaced in the US recently. Apparently, “the top US intelligence official” (words have meaning and intelligence usually means having some brain power) has told the US Congress that “the ballooning national debt … posed a ‘dire threat’ to … national security”. He told the Congress that the “fiscal crisis … truly undermines our ability to ensure our national security”. Truly used to mean something also. So here’s the thing all you so-called British Remainers. This will top your claims that Brexit will increase the rate of cancer in the UK. Just start raving on about threats to national security. A sure winner. It is the argument you introduce when you have run out of any semblance of an argument. Meanwhile, we now know that the British government, while in the EU, helped the right-wing forces (including the CIA) to kill the democracy in Chile in 1973, in what should be considered one of the more disgusting historical episodes. But then Salvatore Allende was clearly a threat to national security. What with all those Chileans that were improving their material standards of living under Allende and all!

One of the large funded projects that I have been involved in over the last few years concerns regional equity (in part). Our planning involves the completion of a new book (to be published sometime 2019) on the way in which regional development has become biased to the economic settlement (where jobs are created) at the expense of the social settlement (where people live). This might sound reasonable until you realise that it is another aspect of the way in which governments have abandoned their remit to ensure general prosperity, and have, instead, ‘allowed the market to work’ – which is neoliberal code for tilting the playing field in favour of corporations and global capital. One of the more recent neoliberal ruses in this context, that undermine the lived experience of local residents and boost the profits of large corporations is the concept of the ‘visitor economy’, which is the new buzzword for Tourist-led growth. Governments who claim they have run out of money are quick to hand out massive subsidies to large-scale events to promote the ‘visitor economy’. The same governments also subvert their own planning rules, encourage multi-national corporations to exploit loopholes in labour laws to cut wages and conditions, and privatise valuable public assets to ensure corporations can extract as much profit from activities as possible. Local residents’ rights are trampled in this process as corporations turn their suburbs into ‘global playgrounds’ while pocketing massive public subsidies into the bargain.

I recently re-read several books (well books), the first of which was published in 1932, and, the others published in the early 1940s, which were written by a relatively unknown American economist Stuart Chase. He not only wrote about economics but also ventured in the area of semantics (which is one reason I wanted to re-read the collection). As a economist and a social theorist, he was way ahead of his times. Much of his insights and ideas still have currency today, especially as it appears that an oppositional Left is finally starting to emerge from the wreckage of the conventional social democratic political parties and is in no small way due to the engagement of young voters in the political process who know that neo-liberalism is not the way of the future. Stuart Chase understood that the limits of the government’s spending capacity was defined by the available real productive resources and he also understood that the natural environment had to be accessed in a sustainable way. Very modern insights – 75 odd years ago.

There are several petitions circulating around the Internet at present condeming the US Supreme Court’s decision on June 17, 2014 to reject the appeal by the Argentine government against a prior US court ruling in favour of NML Capital Ltd, which effectively denies the Government access to the US banking system until it repays the outstanding liabilities that NML holds. The implication of the decision is that the Government can no longer service any liabilities is has which require payments being made via the US banks. That means the vast majority of the so-called ‘exchange’ bond holders, who took settlements in 2005 and 2010 after Argentina defaulted on its public debt obligations, cannot be paid until NML, who has a small amount of so-called ‘hold out’ Argentine government debt, is paid in full. What can the Argentine government do in this situation, given it has been fully servicing the exchange liabilities but claims it cannot meet the original liabilities held by NML? The answer is simple and doesn’t involve putting advertisements in US newspapers pleading the fairness of the situation. There is no sense of fairness involved.