Oh dear George

I believe that the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less with Gordon Brown\’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.

Colonialism as plunder eh?

The great British adventure – three centuries spent pillaging the labour, wealth and resources of other countries – is over. We cannot accept this, and seek gleeful revenge on a government that can no longer insulate us from reality.

Yup, that\’s the line. That trade, the international division of labour, specialisation and swapping the resultant production, are all simply pillage.

No doubt George will be ready to castigate himself for his pillage of the fruits of French labour as he drives his Renault around the Welsh lanes.

14 thoughts on “Oh dear George”

  1. Or pillaging those poor Arabs to fill his Renault or fuel his flights around the world to save the planet.

  2. Presumably ‘George’ is completely self sufficient, in order to avoid “pillaging” the local supermarkets.

  3. The great British adventure – three centuries spent lifting the world out of its perpetual penury into an era when economic growth is possible.

  4. Ah yes, the British Empire. So wonderful to be colonized that they all organized insurrections to get rid of us.

    Let’s start that list of the ungrateful:

    The United States of America
    South Africa
    India, Pakistan, Bangladesh

    Ungrateful bastards. Don’t they realise that if they’d have kept British rule they could have been great nations?

  5. And of those ungrateful bastards how many of them aren’t living in a shit hole?

    And out of the remaining 3 how many are the indigenous inhabitants?

    Fiji…. if you allow for the ethnic unrest & the military coup

  6. The international trade is not free though. So called free trade agreements are set up to give advantage to multinationals. The inclusion of intellectual property restrictions hands power to the rich.
    Our governments support corrupt regimes who steal land from the inhabitants of their countries to hand it to the highest bidder.
    Through the IMF ‘development’ is funded – this employs multinationals to build infrastructure at the expense of the people in the country, to provide the infrastructure to build their factories.

    It is consistent with support for free trade and classical liberalism to condemn the current trade system. It is not set up for free trade.

    True, working in a sweatshop is better than the alternative – but this is because all other alternatives are denied.

    This should be central to the libertarian critique. Our business and trade environment is a creation of state granted privilege – but the solution is not yet more state action, its the removal of that privilege and security in property rights for justly acquired property for all, not just for the politically connected.

  7. @Tristan

    I agree entirely but it is a view that would scare George and his readership half to death.

  8. @pj

    And of those ungrateful bastards how many of them aren’t living in a shit hole?

    I don’t know but the lines are buzzing as we speak. I have a Benjamin Netanyahu on line 1 and some halfbreed called Obama who claims to be speaking on behalf of 300 million ungrateful bastards on line 2…which one will you pick up first?


  9. Actually, I thought the article was pretty good; certainly better than many of the comments here.

  10. Brit.InAussie you shouldn’t really be calling someone a dickhead just because you failed to read their comment properly. He very clearly excluded 3 of the countries from the list of shit holes (and it is pretty clear the Israel and the US are two of those 3). But further made the point that these countries are not populated by the original inhabitants.

  11. @Martin
    The commenters here have however stated why they thought the article was bad, whereas you have not yet said why you thought the article was good.

  12. Of course you don’t have to, and no where did I say you had to, you are being silly now. I simply observed whereas some other commenter’s had made valid critism (ie they defended their position) you had not.
    There is no obligation for you to back up your assertions whatsoever. But if the point of your comments is to pursuade other people, then engaging in argument, is the way to go. Still, you do what you like. If the very act of hitting keys on a key board is what gives you pleasure, fill your boots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *