Wealth Creation

Original posting, October 2006

Redistribution

Making money or 'creating' wealth?
There's no such concept actually and it's
simply about moving 'wealth' around.

A Winners And Losers game. 

Labels (Choose any colour - it makes no difference)

This current Blair Labour government will forever dream up more taxes to pay for (bail itself out, get out of jail FREE card...) the ludicrous policies it also dreams up. Failure follows failure follows failure. Why dream up taxes? Dream up policies? Just for fun? Maybe. Or something to do. It's what governments do. Create more and more useless laws to constrain the people and their movement, but mostly to separate them from their money.

That makes them VERY useful! - DA

Mortgage Yoke

• Where did the original wealth begin? That's an interesting one, but probably:

Earth's resources

Wealth doesn't grow

It declines

True wealth declines as it is used up. Unless it's gold. The value placed on this element is it's relative rarity, lack of reactivity and stability. But this, of course, depends on what you are: parasite and growth or host and decline.  New sources of a known resource may be located or a different one altogether, but unless something is replaced it will all become exhausted. The elephant in the room is that the human parasite is wily and before the complete decimation enough of the host must be spared to support the parasite. But unknowingly (kept) in ignorance.

A more accurate meaning of sustainability becomes use and don't replace, but change. and definitely not the politically 'money-acquiring' meaning that involves using, exploiting and moving on to the next parasite's victim when it's all gone. Be aware, buying plots on the Moon (next will be Mars and Venus)... is now possible. How ludicrous. And pathetic that the principle of appropriation can continue. As though someone has actually laid claim to 'owning' the Moon and so has rights to sell parts of it.

Appropriation is a euphemism for theft:

"...the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants..."

"...the army seized the town..."

Sounds like the invasion of Iraq. Little wonder the inhabitants are hostile.

But only because people make it possible by buying something like that. Earth's land surface originally 'belonged' to nobody. Now just about everywhere is 'owned' by someone. As though they have any moral rights. The concept of legal and illegal is one of Man's control inventions. Can do. Can't do. Who says so?

In archaic terminology: our betters.

What? Such a quaint idea.

All this Blair/Brown hostility. Really? Or just a sham to attempt to cover up the long term plan to screw us all. Again. How many times now? I stopped counting at 50 times.

A bunch of hopeless, inept wasters? No. They know what they're doing. And it's not to help you or me. And why doesn't Blair go yesterday?

End of May 2007!!!

How many more freebies can his wife get in during these next few months, I wonder. But looking ahead, it's her Human Right to get freebies, apparently.

It would seem that technically she can be described as a 'first lady', but the morality of that is certainly not in my code of behaviour, even though she is a non-elected inidividual who happens to be the female spouse of a male prime minister (head of state). Frivolous trivia? Nauseating, nevertheless. The public demonstration of the conceit. The arrogance. The 'in your face' contempt. The stereotypical hypocrisy of the stance. The 'I don't care what you think' attitude. 'I do as I please and if you don't like it, then tough' attitude.

Apart from all that, it is a morality code of sorts. Couple that with the speech made about poverty and it all fits together quite consistently. Obviously the 'first lady' since there is nobody else as important except the one to whom she is married. That male head of state.

Real Human Rights issues are not trivial.

I always thought that the Queen was the head of state in a monarchy. Is this my confused thinking? In the reverse sense, Royal consort Prince Philip should be 'first man'. But then we are not yet in Federal Europe or a Federal Union.

Think about it. Consider it. One day. 1984 proved too early, written in 1948. Reverse the last two digits -> 1984 (published in 1949).

Perhaps, it could be retitled 2002?

Forwards or backwards it reads the same. The scenario's the same

But it's coming. Inexorably coming. Too many influential 'meal tickets' for the taxpayer to pay for. To keep the influential in their pig trough of excess that is just getting deeper. And deeper. Perhaps Mrs Blair sees herself as The Queen fighting for Human Rights. That, presumably, makes her husband: King Tony. Anyway, honours of state are anticipated by all. Have to make do with a seat in the House of Lords, but maybe it'll get abombished.

They get there and start behaving in the appropriate way. Not rocking the boat too much, but enough to show someone's in. The speeches still get made (in the lucrative USA) to the converted and the proselytising never stops.

Stand well back, I am going to be sick. Again.

Technically, the label I should wear is possibly part 'Marxist'. Communism doesn't work, although as a theory it could. But it cannot work as hypocritical communists are, in fact, camouflaged capitalists (George Orwell's Animal Farm). Political capitalists (New Labour, Conservative...) actually come over as communists:

The New Labour Communist Party?

The Conservative Communist Party?

Labour?
Never. New or Old.

Conservative?
Partly.

Liberal?
In part, perhaps.

Capitalist?
No. I'd drown in such a shallow trough. I swim in cleaner and deeper water, beneath all the shit.

Communist?
Not very pure though in principle, maybe partly.

Fascist?
Definitely not.

Humanist?
Most likely

Subversive?
In a non-active fashion (in principle only)

Remember: Communists are Capitalists in disquise. Or the other way around, of course, but

allegiance is still zero (-1)

Labels never work as there are just too many shades of grey.