Economists

Economists have to adhere to a web of beliefs to be part of the gang.  I don't fully know what these beliefs are, how true they are, or what other, truthful beliefs they should have but don't. I think this needs to  be examined, and answers found.  I am particularly suspicious about the assumptions always made about how interest rates and different types of government spending (the issuing of bonds, bailouts for banks, investments in infrastructure are examples) influence economic activity.  I have a feeling that these things are very poorly understood, bot no-one ever admits to this.  Isn't that a disaster?  Countless government policies are enacted withour a proper understanding of their effects!

Control of interest rates

It was very interesting that it was a Labour government (Gordon Brown)who ended goverment and democratic control of a key lever in the operation of capitalism, namely interest rares.  It should, of course be totally unacceptable for private institutions, especially big, powerful ones, especially its head - the BoE - especially its head - Mark Carney - to have uncontrolled power over such key matters as the rate of interest.  Why would he ever be interested in the effects of interest rate on the incomes, housing costs  - everything, actually - on ordinary people.  As was obvious from the outset, only the rich would benefit from such a corrupt arrangement.  Let's do the obvious and take back control of interest rates.

Background Music

14:47 16/10/2016
Background music.

It gets up my nose.  But why?
I feel invaded, manipulated, controlled.
It seems to have suddenly emerged as a more or less ubiquitous accompaniment to nearly all

media programmes.
It feels like a conspiracy to control all our minds.
It is probably also a way to influence our feelings, but not always.
It has became a significant distaction to me, almost entirely because I've decided to make an

issue of it.
It can, occasionally, make it more difficult to follow what is being said.

I want to complain about it.  But to whom - it's everywhere.
Along the following lines:

"I am writing to complain about the presence of background music in almost all programmes

these days.  It is largely unnecessary and is often a distraction.  I feel invaded and manipulated.

How has it arisen, and in such profusion?  Was there a covert revolution of some sort in the

Musicians' Union, a threat of something unimaginably heineous if there was not music in all

programmmes?  Can anything be done to put an end to it?  Probably not.  I fear that its removal

will be opposed by many, who think it's somehow 'nice'."

The government is now considering paying £10,000 to every household if all in an area are prepared to permit fracking, with the inevitable consequences of poisoning local soil, water and atmosphere as a by-product in the rush to bring forward the day of reckoning for the planet by the unnecessary burning of extra fossil fuels.

BREXIT

If I abrogated the running of my household to a larger body exprt in such matters, and then reverted to independence, I think it is likely I would lose out in purely economic terms.  But I would definitely still do it. Is this a good way to argue for Brexit?  I think so.

At the moment, I'm pretty anti the EU. Would we be better off economically in or out of it?

No-one knows, it could go either way, and any, how much does it matter?  Especially if you compare it with other issues.

This country is very rich, so if we lost half our wealth and half our income, we would be absolutely fine.  The issue is, of course, about the distribution of that money.

It would be so easy to tax and legislate for much more equality of income and assets - though of course, politically quite hard, unless the people got hold of the media.  Then most people would be quite comfortable economically.

It would also help the planet if consumption fell.  And if work were distributed more equally, a lot of people working too hard wouldn't have to.

So let's leave the EU.

Journalism

I'm so dissatisfied with journalism.  It needs a complete overhaul.  Journalists love to control what you know. As well as choosing what to report and how to report it, it is normal for them to jealously withhold the source of their information, so that we can't easily find and see it for ourselves, check the veracity of what they say.  There is a pretence that they are focussed on giving you the facts. Actually, they're disguising how selective and interpretive they're being.  While they may do a useful job of interpreting, analysing and summarising information, it would be nice if we could more often decide these kinds of judgements for ourselves.

Where do they get their stuff from?  Let's look at that.

Journalists should be expected to reference their sources.  If protection from danger can be cited as a reason for not disclosing, fair enough.  Otherwise, we should be told.  This goes especially for "reports", which seem now to be the stuff of most reporting.  If you, as an organisation, issue a "report", maybe reporters will report it.  (Or maybe not; what gets reported or not is another issue.)

Full access to the report should be possible, through links.

It seems to me that they can't normally admit to functioning subjectively; so often, their point of view is masqueraded as objective, the definitive truth, when usually it is anything but.  Any time a journalist asserts something, it should be referenced with a superscript, eg ⁽¹⁾ , and then ⁽²⁾ , explained at the end of the article.

Journalists want to make their mark, show off their skill at making a good read, at the expense of accurate, well organised copy.

I would love to see something along the lines of:

Look at what I've found: "[the article]".  Bearing in mind [this], [this] and [this], it looks as if [that], probably for [this reason]. In my opinion, [....].

That would have the enormous benefit of honesty, and would much lessen the tendency journalists of trying brainwash you, persuade you in more or less devious ways.