How the economy is killing the planet

by Yawn Mon Oct 20, 2008 13:19

This radical idea was advanced last year by the German magazine Der Spiegel which did something I can’t imagine a UK publication having the nerve to do in this highly politicised environment: offer readers a comprehensive, balanced view of the pluses and minuses inherent in warming earth. Contrast that the BBC that allows Climate Change = Catastrophe extremists to dictate editorial policy.

Unlike most UK articles and media reports on the Climate Change issue, Spiegel, in an article ironically titled "Not the End of the World as We Know It," wonderfully began with a little history on the subject to put things in a proper perspective:-
………………

Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.

"Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past."

Doesn’t sound like what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not-so merry alarmists are proffering as they travel the world spreading doom and gloom on the subject, does it?

Regardless, Spiegel addressed how previous cold periods – including the Little Ice Age that began in the 1300s – caused temperatures that:

"...were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land depopulated."

Spiegel continued:

"The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age -- supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.

It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that everything suddenly changed. From then on it was almost a foregone conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the earth's climate. Environmentalists, adopting a strategy typical of the Catholic Church, have been warning us about the horrors of greenhouse gas hell ever since -- painting it as a punishment for the sin of meddling with creation. "

Spiegel advanced a more reasoned approach:

"Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. But even this moderate warming would likely have far fewer apocalyptic consequences than many a prophet of doom would have us believe.

For one thing, the more paleontologists and geologists study the history of the earth's climate, the more clearly do they recognize just how much temperatures have fluctuated in both directions in the past. Even major fluctuations appear to be completely natural phenomena.

Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. "A warmer climate helps promote species diversity," says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf."

Hmmm. A warmer climate helps promote species diversity. Think you’ll be reading that on the BBC any time soon? Or how about this:

"Improved regionalized models also show that climate change can bring not only drawbacks, but also significant benefits, especially in northern regions of the world where it has been too cold and uncomfortable for human activity to flourish in the past. However it is still a taboo to express this idea in public.

For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with benefiting from global warming."

Spiegel also debunked some commonly held myths:

Meanwhile, the Kiel Institute for World Economics warns that higher temperatures could mean thousands of heat-related deaths every year. But the extrapolations that lead to this dire prediction are based on the mortality rate in the unusually hot summer of 2003, for which Germans were wholly unprepared. But if hot summer days do become the norm, people will simply adjust by taking siestas and installing air-conditioning.

The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."

And debunked another myth the alarmists love to disseminate:

According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will strike major coastal cities, raising horrific scenarios of New York, London and Shanghai sinking into the tide. However this horror story is a relic of the late 1980s, when climate simulations were far less precise than they are today. At the time, some experts believed that the Antarctic ice shield could melt, which would in fact lead to a dramatic 60-meter (197-foot) rise in sea levels. The nuclear industry quickly seized upon and publicized the scenario, which it recognized as an argument in favor of its emissions-free power plants.

But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches).

It's a different story in the warmer regions surrounding the North Pole. According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels.

That can’t be true. Al Gore says we’re all about to drown.

To address such nonsense, Der Spiegel published an interview Tuesday with German biologist Josef Reichholf

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,4817....html

who stated:

"The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes. A typical example is the misleading debate over catastrophic flooding, which is in fact caused by too much development along rivers and not by more extreme weather events, which we can't change anyway."

Reichholf also debunked the global warming extinction of species hysteria:

"It's nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species."

And this can also be clearly inferred from the insights of evolutionary biology. Biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north.

This also explains why Europe has such a high capacity to absorb species from warmer regions. It just so happens that we have many unoccupied ecological niches in our less biodiverse part of the world."

Maybe this is why Reichholf stated:

“Personally, I'm even looking forward to a milder climate. But it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.”
...........

Now I doubt the “believers” are not going to like that! ;0)

So let us see if they abuse or debate.

The choice is theirs.

by Che Mon Oct 20, 2008 13:39

....this little gem - what is a poor sceptic to make of it all?

http://ff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=373

Read it - it is worth the time. Sets out all the spin bluff and bluster from those that want to make money out of scaring the pants off the emotionaly susceptable.

But it is written by someone who likes to question the status quo so "the believers" will try to trash it.

They will probably say doing so is easy and quote all sorts of stuff that isn't pertinent or relevent! But I doubt the lack of truthful credibility will stop them

But truly convincing people that the sky is falling is a chickin little too much for most people.

by she Mon Oct 20, 2008 17:13

The only topic capitalists seem to be able to stay on is that of making profit evidently.

by Che Mon Oct 20, 2008 20:37

If you would be so kind

Please define "profit" and explain exactly what is wrong with it as a motivational tool.

And please!!!!!!!!! No schoolmaster "jokes" (they are totally lame in any case) - I genuinely want to understand why you are so against what I consider to be the motive that drives us all, has driven us for eons and will continue to drive humankind.

by She Tue Oct 21, 2008 01:13

If you do not even understand whats wrong with the profit motive then you really are very behind on the awareness curve.
Perhaps you should go away and try reading one of those 'Capitalism for dummies' type books for the enlightenment you seek.
Best of luck in your research.

by Joey Tue Oct 21, 2008 08:18

>

Hammond, if nobody wants to 'debate' with you in this space, you only have yourself to blame, surely even you can perceive that one.

You have been banned in the past for a month for constantly dis-respecting BIM guidelines and most of the other users of this space.

You have had more posts deleted than any other user, and you still dont seem able to 'get it'.

Your ability to 'stay on topic' for more than one post in any thread is non-existant.

You offer your opinions and assumptions / presumptions and hardly ever a fact, and generally show contempt
and sarcasm in most of your patronising and condescending posts.

You do not communicate in a style that encourages others to engage with you, so maybe discussion is not really on your agenda, maybe you have another
motive for posting here, pure disruption perhaps?

The way you communicate towards others here simply does not lend itself to enlightening or even interesting discussions.

Maybe you should try another forum, (or start your own, if you have not already done so, (?) you obviously are not able to communicate
effectively here.

You appear to have no respect or regard for anything other than your own 'capitalistic experience' .... we are seeking alternative ways of
organising / 'working' and living, but whenever anybody here has the temerity to criticise capitalism in any way you rant on about how bad you think socialism was / is, sooo boring.

You do not in actual fact have anything to offer anybody that uses this space in the way of a better future for life on earth, or do you?

by Bill Tue Oct 21, 2008 09:29

Agree 100%. Well said.

by No actually Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:10

I dont agree; I have been around on here for the last three years and have found Clive Hammonds debating robust but fair. in most cases he has cornered every one of those who took him on and he has been called far more names than he has called himself.

It is entirely understandable that the BIM controllers are going to apply bias in the name of the perceived majority here; it is after all an anti-capitalist slant that has led to the very existence of Indymedia. Why should anyone be surprised that clive gets banned for speaking his mind?

At some point you have to agree to disagree; but that is not likely to happen in this environment.

The issue here is one of intolerance. BIM is percieved by the broad left to be in their ownership; their turf; they dont like it when someone who does not subscribe turns up and questions their beliefs as comprehensively as Clive has done.

by Che Tue Oct 21, 2008 13:45

I have read a great deal, researched a great deal, travelled and worked a great deal - and as I say - not one credible alternative has come to light as yet.

But if you are saying:-

Whats wrong with the profit motive?
by She Tue Oct 21, 2008 02:13
If you do not even understand whats wrong with the profit motive then you really are very behind on the awareness curve.
Perhaps you should go away and try reading one of those 'Capitalism for dummies' type books for the enlightenment you seek.
Best of luck in your research.

And that "If you do not understand what is wrong etc " - then I am somehow behind the awareness curve then I admit it because so far no book, no research paper and certainly no one on BIM has been able to enlighten me!!!!!!!

And neither have you. You just seem to hide behind a "Sharn't tell you!" response which frankly just underlines the fact that you probably have no idea on any alternative to the profit motive either.

So She - if you are "aware" - let me make it clear - I seek the enlightenment you make out you have achieved.

Don't keep it a secret.

Please. Enlighten us all.

Please.

by nickleberry Tue Oct 21, 2008 16:24

Let me take up the challenge laid down by @Che to give alternatives to the profit motive. And, while I'm at it I'll respond to this charming contribution from @Royston Vasey: Not more tedious bitching from the left. Do you people actually have any opinions of your own or do you only criticise. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you shared your fantastic and coherent vision for the future with the people of Bristol rather than just keeping it a secret in your own little select group of political geniuses

I think your scared, just plain scared to express yourselves either because you can't or you know it wont stand up to scrutiny.

I always find it strange when people use the Bristol IndyMedia site to attack "the left" for a lack of vision. You see Bristol IndyMedia is itself a visionary project. It is a media project which aims at giving a voice to people in Bristol who don't ordinarily have a voice. It is run by a group of people on a non-hierarchical basis. It is run without a profit motive. It has not owned by a larger organisation with any vested interests. It has a transparent editorial process - guidelines are publically available, and the editorial process is subject to criticism and review from site users. Site users are also free to come to BIMC meetings to affect the direction of the site.

All of these elements are utterly different to mainstream media projects. Which is why the content of the Bristol IndyMedia website is utterly different to mainstream media sites (like that of The Evening Post). So... By all means criticise what Bristol IndyMedia is about; feel free to assert that there are other, better ways of doing things. But you're entirely missing the point if you claim that this site is all about criticism and not about constructive action. The site itself is constructive.

There are other examples, in other areas of life: Kebele is a good one pertaining to community centres. Non-hierarchical, community-based, fucking brilliant.

More generally, I would suggest that @Che's advocacy of the profit motive is significantly over-egged. Clearly the profit-motive has achieved a hell of a lot of change in this world. One couldn't argue against its efficacy. However it clearly has short-comings:
- the changes caused by the profit motive are not always good change. The profit motive admits no moral element. Clearly society needs to be able to intervene when the race to a profit is causing damage in some way. There are a myriad of examples: c.f. environmental problems, the arms trade, greedy fucking bankers, etc
- a society based exclusively on the profit motive tends to empower those with money, and marginalise those without. The profit motive does not have a good track record of providing affordable public transport to poor areas of the country; the profit motive does not provide poor people with dental care; the profit motive does not build good schools in poor areas, etc etc. You get the idea.

The point is: the profit motive does seem to be a good way of getting some people out of bed in the morning. But the profit motive does not at all guarantee that these people will be using their energies constructively. And it does not guarantee that all the jobs that need doing, get done. For these two reasons, we need other ways of doing things. And, as I've pointed out, there are plenty of examples in Bristol of people doing just that.

by Emma Tue Oct 21, 2008 16:40

The best example of the short-comings of the profit motive I like is the example from Fight Club, where the insurance company decide on a recall based on a calculation of the potential loss of life from a safety defect combined with the average win per case in a lawsuit - compare this to the cost of a recall of the vehicle line.

Great if you are a shareholder, rubbish if you are driving a car with a known safety defect.

by closed mouths Tue Oct 21, 2008 16:43

Hammond, you cant even be trusted to get what 'she' wrote without spinning what she said into what you want to claim she did.

She never wrote "shant tell" but in your usual dishonest manner you distort everything to suit your own agenda.

And you expect us to blindly trust you with anything important?

How many moons are there on your planet?

by Che Tue Oct 21, 2008 18:56

The reference to "Sharn't tell you" was from another thread entirely - the Parecon thread where She actually stated that the alternative concept to capitalism was there but she did not want to share it because all we capitalists would do was "to make money out of it.

But hey "closed mouth".

If She cannot do it - why not give it a try?

Nickleberry has done a really good job of setting out the pros and cons - but seriously Nick - you say there are good examples in Bristol but you do not state what they are?

I am all for the alternative economy at the moment and I am sure that you will remember the examples I quoted on the other thread (Paraecon) of Lewes introducing its own currency and the pub bartering veg for a pint.

I think that is great! - especially if it circumvents Darling/Brown's tax take (used to bail out bankers?? - not with MY £'s unless I can help it!) But is it anything less than simply keeping profit local and more efficient?

As for Emmas point re the bad things about profit and quoting the car with the defect.

That is bad - no doubt about it - but in a free democratic market economy - we actually learnt about it!!!!

In contrast the old socialist states had factories that killed their workers, poisoned the planet and didn't give a shit!! If you want examples of appalling ecological damage done in the name of socialism - just let me know - I can give you, no! bury you in examples and references!!

Socialism gave us the Trabant and the Wartburg and the (old) Skoda.

Capitalism gave Skoda back its good name and good working conditions, a fair wage for its workers and a helped a failed socialist state back on its economic feat.

Now that is what I call a true example of the profit motive. You go to a current Skoda worker and say "Come on comrade - let me take you back to the old days!" - I wonder what the reaction would be?

And still no one - not anyone, on here has given any examples of how an alternative economy could work?

Parky does well with Parecon and on the other thread I have compared it to the old Kibbutz.

Nick has done a superb pros and cons on capitalism - ----- but no true examples or alternatives - just a statement that somewhere in Bristol someone is doing it.

And of course a small band of others just spit their dummy out because (it seems to me) they are challenged to justify their opinions (and not least their abuse of) capitalism and capitalists.

by Royston Vasey Tue Oct 21, 2008 19:03

Ever heard of playing devils advocate Nickleberry, sometimes it's your supporters that push you hardest

by Che Tue Oct 21, 2008 21:29

I do feel we are pushing the envelope of complacency that some on BIM sit comfortably within. And that most certainly does ruffle a few feathers.

The profit motive is something that some seem to fear and hate. No idea why - that is why I ask the question – what is wrong with “profit”? – Surely you can tax a profit so that those taxes can be used to create a fairer more just society. If every venture made a loss or just broke even – no profit – no taxes – no welfare state.

The profit motive is just another evolutionary filter. In the past if you were big muscled and a bully you could become a warlord or even a king of a kingdom, large or small.

Now you can achieve huge success and a turnover greater than that of some countries just by developing marketing and selling a good product. You do not have to be big and strong or a bully - you can be a nerd.

Bill Gates is exactly that. Tho' now he is accused of being a bully for swamping competition. So the emphasis on physical strength has shifted to intellectual strength. And it must be incredibly galling to all those who profess to be anticapitalist to have to use something to post on here that is more than likely to be a Microsoft product or at least owes something to that company.

As a capitalist I am amazed that no one has sited the problem that Bill Gates's Microsoft poses to the further development of IT. Speak to any techy and they will start to spit feathers about what Microsoft’s hold on the market has done to hold back the development of IT.

But that is not the only example - those of us that can remember videotape - no doubt remember Betamax as a far superior system but that the inferior VHS won the marketing war.

Sometimes I despair at the vacuous comments here on BIM. There are infinite number of examples where the market economy does not provide what is best (sometimes not even what is second best) but rather than use that info and facts we get a tired old cliché about "some do it different down the road" and the more usual verbal abuses and a list of someone’s "crimes against your ego" as a reason to keep secret what is of course the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to alternatives to the wicked nasty greedy capitalist society.

Sometimes it seems that some on here are more interested in just ripping down rather than building something, postulating alternatives or even just thinking outside "the box"

What does seem clear is that some peoples "boxes" are smaller in scope, depth and vision than others.

by new and different Wed Oct 22, 2008 03:25

Capitalists are of the past, we are the future.
Why should we explain anything to them, they should be begging our forgiveness for the damage they have done to OUR FUTURE!

by Che Wed Oct 22, 2008 07:19

How do they look upon their old socialist masters?

You know - the ones that destroyed a whole sea.

The ones that had factories that produced carbon black in such quantities that it will take decades for the pollution to get diluted out of the system.

Then there was Chernobyl of course.

A huge monument to the total failure of the socialist dream.

And of course I am not the first to note that the people who were shot and killed on the wire separating East and West Berlin were going in one direction only - towards the western capitalist state.

Same in Cuba

Same in Korea

So if anyone thinks we need forgiveness - I would suggest they see the world for what it is - not what the small box of selected references they choose to use allows them to see it as.

It simply is not on to say "Why should we explain anything" and then go on to say that despite the free capitalist economy being the norm across the world now, all those that somehow enjoy that freedom need to be "forgiven".

If you want to stay a marginalised non event - carry on with that bizarre concept.

If you want to discuss change and actually look at alternatives to what we have now - then stop the clichés and take part.

by nickleberry Thu Oct 23, 2008 09:46

@Che writes: Nickleberry has done a really good job of setting out the pros and cons - but seriously Nick - you say there are good examples in Bristol but you do not state what they are?

I gave two examples. Bristol IndyMedia and Kebele. Other examples: Bristol Stop the War, The Freeskilling folk (http://www.justfortheloveofit.org/ ), The Bristol Anarchist Black Cross (http://bristolabc.wordpress.com/ ), the Bristol Quakers, various events run by/at the Pierian Centre (e.g. http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688983 ), Transition Bristol, the Bristol-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, various events run by/at The Cube.

You get the idea. I got all of the above examples from the Bristol IndyMedia Calendar (http://bristol.indymedia.org/calendar&type_id=5 ). There are trillions of other examples of people getting out of bed for reasons other than proft; I'll mention one more: the Free Software Movement. There are plenty of people in Bristol who are active in this - most notably the Bristol Wireless group (http://www.bristolwireless.net/ ). I've written on this topic elsewhere. See this:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/09/298437.html
And, at a bit of a tangent, this:
http://nickleberry-huxtable.blogspot.com/2006/11/anarchism-in-outer-space.html

But then, weirdly, @Che writes this: There are infinite number of examples where the market economy does not provide what is best (sometimes not even what is second best)

So what are we debating here exactly? Apparently you agree with the proposition that the profit motive is not always best? In which case, brilliant, on with the next conversation.

by arrr Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:10

And from the bristol wireless site :

"As a growing organisation, we have now developed a range of commercial services."

A well worn path that ensures survival.

by Che Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:32

Nick - no personal insult intended - but surely you can see that these examples are micro "economies" or clubs - nothing wrong in that but I am looking for the bigger macro economic alternatives.

Surely those that take part in the examples you quote (and I have looked at all of them, tho briefly I admit on some) are simply using their freetime to run these organisations once they have earned enough to have the freetime to do so from their jobs in the mainstream capitalist economy? Hence my feeling that the example you quote are far too parochial to be a true comparison or alternative to the capitalist system some on here despise.

Paracon as outlined by Parky is clearly one alternative, but to me it was just the old centralised planning without the centre. Its biggest problem was its complexity and the fact that the next generation will always rebel and see straight through the bollocks of all those meetings and vote with their feet.

As for my comment "There are infinite number of examples where the market economy does not provide what is best (sometimes not even what is second best)" I think you are quoting it out of context in that I had stated the appalling pollution workers rights and awful products that came out of the old socialist central planning debacle, and was stating that even with polluter pays legislation, statutory workers rights and a vibrant free market economy, sometimes a second best product is the most popular!

The point being that consumers make the choice - not some faceless civil servant in central planning. And given a choice sometimes people make odd decisions. But that is not a reason to take away the right to make those decisions as happens under Socialist Central Planning and (it seems to me) under the Paracon meetings meetings meetings.

Why is Mac not as popular as Microsoft?

Why did Betamax fail and VHS thrive?

Why do we have 240V at 13 Amp pumped into our homes when the technology is there for far lower consuming products run off batteries and wind/solar power we own personally for our own homes?

Surely these are the questions that should be asked.

Instead we get an idea for a estuary barrier that will destroy acres of fantastic mudflat habitat all on the unproven assumption that A) we need said 240V 13 amp and B) that Climate Change = Catastrophe.

So I do not see the examples you quote as being any where near enough to be a true challenge to that bad decisions being foisted upon us.

So like I say I am a capitalist, one that believes in the freedom to choose. Currently we are making bad choices because some truly believe that:-

“the economy is killing the planet”

It isn’t.

by Emma Fri Oct 24, 2008 19:58

Very interesting video and links on this topic and why the current method is not going to work going forward.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/creeping-to...ness/

by Che Mon Oct 27, 2008 14:30

.......and reports of its immanent demise are exaggerations at best and more likely to be a simple wish from some.

Capitalism never was about limitless growth - if it were then every recessesion ever would have been its death knell.

No, being a dynamic system it has peaks and troughs and of course the "bacteria in a bottle" as quoted in the above is a useful analogy only to those that want to predict its demise. Basically if you have a bottle with a growth medium in it and seed it with a bacteria you get the classic growth phase (usually exponential) then a mature phase - (no overall growth - system in stasis) then a lag or death phase (where toxins increase and the organism numbers reduce or dies).

However, the flaw in the thinking is the cap on the bottle and the seeding with just one type of bacteria. Leave the top of and whilst the original bacteria will still go through its growth, mature and lag phases - other organisms will also colonise the medium and a thriving ecology would develop.

You do not need a PhD in Microbiology to know that organisms are opportunistic and that the dregs of you tea cup if left for a weekend provide a habitat for a large number of organisms some of which grow out of the decline of those that came before. So capitalism works at its best when resources are limited – not limitless. Fundamental error there guys.

As such it is far more likely that capitalism will evolve yet further by way of consumer demand and the following article was far more in line with this thinking than the woodwooze of some predicting the death of a complete system and another wonderful new utopic system would pop into being even if nobody has a clue as yet as to exactly what the alternative to capitalism is or even how it would work! – Certainly not one viable alternative has been flagged up on here!

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2008/10/politician...shift

Human nature being what it is - it will be Market Forces - i.e. the consumer that will drive the future direction of our economy. Not some pseudo intellectual claptrap that can only manage the expletives such as **kkwit capitalist" rather than a true debate using real ideas and concepts.

And yes I think this article captures the mood very well - we are seeing the end of Gucci Capitalism and I for one will be glad to see this lot of politicians and bankers (Mandelson has got the be the epitamy of all that is wrong with politicians today surely?) sent on their way.

It seems to me that sadly whoever you vote for the Government get in and they are all the same sleazy bunch of bar stewards as the last lot.