Is a good education sytem bad for an economy

 

The shadow education secretary Brigit Phillipson is going to try and give more opportunities for kids at school.

Can this work?

I frequently see workers plodding to a night shift. To a dead end low paid job. Dressed in orange, heads bowed and depressed. The shift only relieved by banter. Others trudging hopelessly to call centres. Low paid jobs, no real hope no real future. Low paid, dead end jobs are the norm. What is the point of an education that prepares them for opportunities when there are none for the majority of school leavers?

There are only a finite number of opportunities in the economy. Most jobs are relatively dead end. Most kids realise they have few if any opportunities and they are giving school a miss.

Most kids only need the basics from education.

Could an education that prepares and stimulates children to seek limited opportunities be counterproductive. Could such an education system cause social unrest as most school leaves don't find the finite number of opportunities?

Government Deficits

 "(government) Deficits can be used for good or evil.

They can enrich a small segment of the population, lifting the yachts of the rich and powerful to new heights, while leaving millions behind.

They can fund unjust wars that destabilise the world and cost millions their lives.

Or they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works

for the many and not just the few."

The Deficit Myth Stephanie Kelton

and supported by Mariana Mazzucato the woman who gave Starmer his five missions.

What is modern monetary theory MMT

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a macroeconomic theory that argues that governments with sovereign currency have the ability to spend without limit, provided they are able to raise sufficient taxes or sell enough bonds to prevent inflation.

MMT economists believe that the government's ability to create money gives it a unique advantage in the economy. This advantage allows the government to spend money on public programs without having to worry about running out of money. In fact, MMT economists argue that the government should use its spending power to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

How does MMT work?

MMT is based on the idea that the government's currency is a public monopoly. This means that the government is the only entity that can create and issue currency. As a result, the government has complete control over the supply of money in the economy.

When the government spends money, it does not need to raise taxes or sell bonds to finance that spending. Instead, the government can simply create new money. This new money enters the economy and increases the amount of spending power available.

If the government's spending increases too much, it can lead to inflation. However, MMT economists argue that inflation can be prevented by raising taxes or selling bonds. These actions will remove money from the economy and prevent inflation from rising.

What are the implications of MMT?

MMT has a number of implications for government policy. First, it suggests that governments should not be constrained by their budget deficits. Instead, governments should focus on using their spending power to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Second, MMT suggests that governments should not be afraid to run budget deficits. In fact, MMT economists argue that budget deficits can be a good thing, as they can help to stimulate the economy.

Third, MMT suggests that governments should not rely on interest rates to control the economy. Instead, governments should use their spending power and taxation policies to control inflation.

Criticisms of MMT

MMT is a controversial theory, and it has been criticized by many economists. Some critics argue that MMT is based on unrealistic assumptions about the way the economy works. Others argue that MMT would lead to inflation and financial instability.

However, MMT also has its supporters. Some supporters argue that MMT is a more realistic and effective way to manage the economy. They argue that MMT would allow governments to use their spending power to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/04/18/modern-monetary-theory-an-explanation/

The liberal democratic consensus has been broken

Writing from prison the neo Marxist Antonio Gramsci argued that the western Liberal elites (capitalists) use ideology rather than violence to maintain a hegemony (control) over the population.

The ideology we follow, and generally it's not a bad one, is Liberal Democracy. Where you have political parties vying for votes. The parties act within the boundaries of the ideology. This would be, social democracy or democratic socialism, not quite socialism, and Labour's normal (but not current) position on the spectrum. On the other side is 'free market' liberalism, traditionally this would be the Liberals, but the Tories have usurped this position since Thatcher.

Since 2016 two things have happened, one has broken the ideology of liberal democracy in Britain and the other has removed the choice that must be present for it to work.

Some factors of liberal democracy are

1. Fair play

2. Rule of law

3. Free and democratic elections

4. Free open and fair society

Cummings along with AIQ used artificial intelligence (ai) to win the Brexit referendum. This alone breaks every rule in the liberal democratic handbook. But it's worse than this. They used ai to trawl Facebook for 'gullible' people, find out exactly what they were saying and then spend £/$millions to buy BILLIONS of targeted adverts made to look like posts. Most of these ads were misleading and some were outright lies.

Just so happened that the 7 million or so mainly gullible men were located in what is known as the red wall constituencies

Then Johnson and Cummings used the residual data and ai again to target these gullible (mainly) men in the red wall and win a Tory landslide. Again they used £/$ millions to buy misleading Facebook ads that looked like posts and many of which stirred up ethnic feelings and many of which were outright lies.

Both the Brexit referendum and the 2019 election need to be declared void and strict regulations regarding the use of ai in elections are put in place.

It doesn't matter where you are on the liberal democratic spectrum, the referendum and the 2019 elections must be declared void to return to the established hegemony. Because it requires (reasonably) honest elections. Otherwise, it's just not cricket!

The second factor that is disturbing the liberal democratic hegemony in Britain is the Labour party!

The leader of the Labour party lied to the members in his election campaign. He pretended to be a social democrat/democratic socialist - solid labour you might say.

Once elected he jumped the traditional labour ship and boarded the free market vessel captained by Mark Littlewood and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) (which incidentally exists to remove the Labour party from Britain).

So there is at this time no difference between the three main parties.

The liberal elite must alter this to restore the liberal democratic choice. The elite(s) do exercise hegemonic control, they run the show.

They can...

1. Restore Labour to the Keynesian/social democratic - democratic socialist spectrum. Persuade Starmer to return to his 10 labour points position and dump his Mazzucato dreams. Or remove him!

Or alternatively

2. Promote the Green party to the position of the main opposition party. This would make sense in the current climate but the grassroots members of the Green party are not to the taste of the Liberal elite. But they could arrange for cash to pour into the Green party and for it to market itself to those more acceptable to the elite. Initially, possibly Labour party members disillusioned with Starmer and Reeves?

The odd thing is, for Britain to survive as an economy a democratic socialist government might be needed.

A democratic socialist government would benefit the many as well as the few.

So I end with the question, why isn't the Western liberal elite promoting a left wing Labour leader?

letter to labour mps arguing for keynes

 I am writing to you today to express my concern about the Labour Party's leadership's current neoliberal position. I believe that the Labour Party is now the same as the Conservative party, and that Labour is following the ideology of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

I am a lifelong Labour supporter, and I am deeply disappointed in the party's current direction. I believe that Labour should adopt a Keynesian economic approach, with the slogan "take Keynes to the market."

John Maynard Keynes is considered one of the most important economists. The Insititute of Economic Affairs and proponents of free market economics attack Keynesian theory. 

Keynesian economics is a theory of macroeconomics that argues that government intervention in the economy is necessary to prevent or mitigate recessions and depressions.

Keynesian economics is based on the idea that aggregate demand is the driving force of economic growth. Aggregate demand is the total amount of goods and services that consumers, businesses, and governments want to buy at current prices. When aggregate demand is low, the economy will go into recession.

Keynesian economists argue that the government can increase aggregate demand by spending money on public works projects, providing tax cuts, and lowering interest rates. These measures will stimulate the economy and lead to economic growth.

I believe that Labour should adopt a Keynesian economic approach because it is the best way to create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce inequality. 

Keynesian economics has been proven to work, and it is the only economic theory that has the potential to solve the problems that we are facing today.

Unfortunately, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are following a supply side approach that cannot work

I urge you to support a Keynesian economic approach for the Labour Party. I believe that this is the best way to move the country forward and to create a better future for all.

How Dominic Cummings and Aggregate IQ Used Artificial Intelligence and Facebook in the Brexit Campaign

In the 2016 Brexit referendum, the Leave campaign used a variety of methods to try to sway voters, including artificial intelligence (AI) and Facebook. One of the key figures in the Leave campaign was Dominic Cummings, who was a former adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron. Cummings is a self-described "data nerd" and he was instrumental in the Leave campaign's use of AI.

Cummings and his team at Aggregate IQ, a data analytics company, used AI to target specific voters with personalized messages. They also used AI to create fake news stories and social media posts that were designed to look like they were from real people. These fake stories and posts were then shared on Facebook and other social media platforms, where they were seen by millions of people.

The Leave campaign's use of AI and Facebook was highly effective. In the end, they won the referendum by a narrow margin. However, their methods have been criticized by some for being unethical and for spreading misinformation.

How AI Was Used in the Brexit Campaign

Cummings and his team at Aggregate IQ used AI to target specific voters with personalized messages. They did this by collecting data on voters' online activity, such as the websites they visited and the pages they liked on Facebook. They then used this data to create a profile of each voter and to target them with messages that they were most likely to see.

For example, if a voter had visited a website about immigration, they might be targeted with a message about how Brexit would reduce immigration. Or, if a voter had liked a page on Facebook about the NHS, they might be targeted with a message about how Brexit would protect the NHS.

Cummings and his team also used AI to create fake news stories and social media posts that were designed to look like they were from real people. They did this by using AI to generate text that was similar to the text that real people would write. They also used AI to create images and videos that looked like they were real.

These fake stories and posts were then shared on Facebook and other social media platforms, where they were seen by millions of people. The goal of these fake stories and posts was to sway voters to vote for Leave.

The Impact of AI on the Brexit Campaign

The Leave campaign's use of AI was highly effective. In the end, they won the referendum by a narrow margin. However, their methods have been criticized by some for being unethical and for spreading misinformation.

Some people argue that the Leave campaign's use of AI was unethical because it allowed them to target specific voters with personalized messages that were designed to manipulate their opinions. Others argue that the Leave campaign's use of AI spread misinformation because they created fake news stories and social media posts that looked like they were from real people.

Regardless of whether or not the Leave campaign's use of AI was ethical, it is clear that it was effective. Their use of AI allowed them to target specific voters with personalized messages and to spread misinformation. This helped them to win the referendum by a narrow margin.

The Future of AI in Politics

The Leave campaign's use of AI in the Brexit referendum is just a glimpse of what is to come. AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated and it is being used by political campaigns all over the world. As AI becomes more powerful, it is likely that it will play an even greater role in future elections.

It is important to be aware of the potential risks of using AI in politics. AI can be used to manipulate voters and to spread misinformation. It is important to ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly.

Tufton Street Grooming

 OSINT research project hypothesis.

Use a social/demographic template to identify Tufton Street plants in British politics. Some of these plants don't know they are plants.

The foreign funded right wing think tanks were born in 1955 with the Institute of Economic Affairs. They operate under the (dis)guise of being proponents of the 18th century free market economic ideology of Adam Smith as amended by Hayek and Friedman.

This isn't their true role or goal. Their true role and goal is to rid Britain of the Labour party and eradicate socialism.

They've done this at least in part and perhaps in the main by grooming people and easing them into jobs of influence. Some of them will be hard to spot. There will be Tufton Street plants right across the media, right across academia, and cultural organisations, they are known to have infiltrated the BBC, National Trust, and institutions like the NHS. And finally politics.

It's politics where Tufton Street plants might be identified with a social/demographic template.

1. From a modest background

2. Did well at school

3. Ambitious

4. Highly aspirational - for their children - parents

5. Oxford University where they are initially groomed.

The 'chosen ones' for want of a better word are supported in their careers into positions of influence. Including one Prime Minister, Liz Truss and at least one Chancellor Kwarteng.

Truss, Braverman and Kwarteng provide the template let's see if we can find some more.

Because there's infiltration affecting the British way of life and democracy in a way the Communists never managed via Cambridge University.

18th century free market ideology is a front.

OMG of course!!! Hayek and Friedman were brought to prominence by the Tufton Street gang and via an ambitious Oxford graduate from a modest background called Margaret Thatcher.

Of course, of course, of course!

Thatcher was the start of the activated phase and Truss was meant to finish it!

Sunak, a closet Keynesian who could unknowingly be a Tufton Street plant, is surrounded by others he can't get rid of.

Eh, modest background, highly ambitious Oxford graduate Sir Keir Starmer?

#Tories have stayed on their track. But big changes have happened to #Labour, As Mark Littlewood @MarkJLittlewood of the Tufton Street, IEA says, now - you can't tell the difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

Let's have an OSINT look at Oxford Labour and Tufton...