He managed to slip it in to his speech yesterday

Well, we all have a £4m trust fund like his don't we?

No. It tells us he does not control our economy. Or at least not in the same way the Disraeli government controlled the economy a century or so ago.

Britain is a client state. Not like Nigeria or Jamaica but our relationship to the United States bears a striking resemblance to the one which existed between the Greek territories and the Roman Empire.

Yes, we have a certain degree of freedom to allocate funding. But we DO NOT have the freedom to deviate in any substantial way from the neo-liberal economic framework, nationalise or subsidize industries, plough huge sums into public spending, raise trade tarriffs etc. without attracting the ire of Washington.

The last European nation which attempted to exercise such freedom was Yugoslavia. This government, like every government within the EU (and beyond), is only too aware of this fact. Which is why, in countries like Greece and Cyprus, they have steadfastly refused to bow to public pressure (to the point where they have rendered themselves unelectable for a century) and kick out the IMF. Crippling debt is one thing. Being crippled by the mob boss and his squadron of B2 stealth bombers is something else entirely.

I should clarify the above by saying whilst the US currently sets the global economic agenda (and punishes transgressors) - it increasingly does so in the service of big business. Which means all but the top 1% of Americans are being squeezed much in the same way we are. Of course, Obama isn't in the same position as Cameron. But he takes his orders nontheless - and the power of his office diminishes as each new incumbent arrives.

The truth is we are now in the penultimate stages of a radical overhaul of the global economy (created in response to the threat of democratic reform at the end of the sixties) which will render the traditional concepts of nation state, sovereign rights etc., redundant in all but name. Whilst the Guardianistas and such congratulated themselves on their perspicacity big business pulled off a strategic blitzkrieg - effectively neutering the entire democratic process - on a global scale. From now on public policy will increasingly be a function of trans-national capital. If, by chance, we do stir ourselves to protest - what actions can our elected representatives take when exceeding their margin for free action attracts greater retribution? And should we "protest" in those very ways which clawed from the cold dead hand of business an end to slavery, child labour, the creation of state benefits etc. - "our" government will be only too quick to make use of the millions we are currently investing in "counter-terror", "urban pacification" - not to mention the very same forms of electronic surveillance we are constantly assured are in our best interests.

The "End of History" indeed.

Rollerball was not that far fetched then it would appear!

Or 1984, written as a warning but looking more like a prediction.

Since Blair, politicians in power seem to view it as an instruction manual

Last weekend I helped Emma clear her late grandmother's house. During the clearance, I managed to acquire a framed print of George Cruikshank's "Tremendous Sacrifice". Good to see that buggerall has changed since 1846.

What a huge over reaction - when we see 10 year olds working in factories we will back in the 1800's. One of the big issues in the 50-70s was the huge size of the public sector and the power of the trade unions in those industries. Thankfully both of these factors are nowhere near as disruptive as they were.

This government is the poorest we have had in my lifetime but to compare employment conditions or job retention to the likes of the 20/30s and the general strike is simply not credible.

Times are very hard and Capitalism is at a cross roads - not sure the levels of debt that almost everyone has is sustainable long term. Unfortunately it is the only game in town, everything else has spectacularly failed to deliver anything close to what Capitalsim offers.

Capitalism didn't deliver the 5-day week. Capitalism didn't put an end to child labour. Capitalism didn't bestow upon workers health and safety laws. Capitalism didn't offer us universal healthcare or welfare benefits. Capitalism certainly didn't legislate against environmental pollution.

The truth is it was the [idemocratic struggle[/i AGAINST [iCapitalism[/i which brought about the above. And it was a long and bitter fight.

Forget about places such as the US or the richer EU countries where Democracy has placed constraints on the rampant consumption of big business. Let's look at the nations where Capitalism is unfettered and functions with ruthless efficiency. Let's look at capitalist Nigeria, or capitalist Indonesia, or capitalist El Salvador. Precisely WHAT has Capitalism "offered" those countries?

Oh, and in case you haven't realised: most of the world is capitalist. And most of the world is poor.

There isn't one of course and there aren't too many who would argue against it as a means of wealth generation.

However the one single duty of any government of any colour should be to distribute tax income around its populace in an equitable manner so that the extremities of wealth and poverty are at least evened out to as much an extent as possible during any given government lifespan.

The sight of a government minister on TV this morning failing to criticise the 4000% headline interest rates charged by payday loan companies left a very bad taste int he mouth even after the interviewer suggested that the only reason they won't criticise is because the government is "in cahoots" with the payday lenders - a statement which was vigorously denied by the minister - the follow-up question of "Could you name the payday lenders who contribute to your party coffers then ?" was never asked unfortunately.

OK, it's a bit boring but I'll repeat what I have I have said many times ... capitalism is like fire or water, it's a great servant but a bad master.

Capitalism is a facilitator, not a fault-free god, it has to be free enough to work but has to be restrained to prevent immense harm.

When you free it up too much you end up with ..
a) Employees underpaid, overworked, commoditised and insecure, with worker set against worker, where capital gets the rewards and labour shoulders the burden ... until ...
b) Huge financial crises which affect everyone, not just the main protagonists ... indeed the protagonists will likely walk away untouched by it all, to spend more time with their money and waiting until the mugs allow them to do it all over again.

Blair and Brown, in thrall to the tax revenues coming in from it, failed to regulate the financial sector.
The conservatives, in opposition, wailed that there was too much regulation.

Now we have the coalition tinkering at the edges and not regulating, indeed Cameron is using the possibility of "relaxing" employment law as a gobbet of meaty sustenance for his ever-greedy and squawking backbench nestlings.

As Mugump said, capitalism did NOT deliver to the populace, it was legislation that did that ... and Cameron/Osborne are clearly not in favour of keeping those restraints as their party donors (in line with party ethos) are keen to get back to the golden days of situation a) above.

Ah, Sal – good to see you back.

Perhaps you can provide straight answers to the questions you were ducking a few days ago.

rlYou'll find the most recent episode here.rl

Or is this going to be another example of pooh-poohing other comments, but without ever offering even a semblance of an alternative and never (see above) being prepared to even admit that there are major problems?

Good that you mention China's adoption of the capitalist approach.
China won't say how many children are working in its industries and there have been some high-profile revelations (e.g. Apple recently) of Chinese goods sold in the West.
Capitalism doesn't have legislation against child labour built into it, and a number of Western companies have only done anything about it when their brand looked like being tarnished.
The examples we have seen should tell us that business just won't ask the questions if the price is right, only when they stand to lose in some way will that happen.