Let's recap the events of the last few days, shall we. In a nutshell, London was almost flushed down the toilet by spoilt brats who thought they were deserving of new flat screens, sneakers and mobile phones and then went out to get them by any means necessary. The good news, however, was that the majority showed us what civilized people do, but we'll get back to that later.
The spark to this madness came from Tottenham when, last Thursday, a Met officer fatally shot one Marc Duggan in a sting operation. His family, understandably in shock and grief, admitted that he'd been "involved in things", but maintained that he had never been violent. The guy did, however, have a gun on him - and as tragic as the loss of a young life is, if you carry a gun, you run the risk of making a bad situation worse, which is what seems to have happened in this case. The Met initially said that he had shot the officer in question, but this has since been proven to be a fabrication. To fake such an incident is a crime for which the officer(s) involved should of course be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, to say that Duggan was wholly innocent is untrue, after all, he had a gun in his posession.
On Saturday, then, the bereaved family organized a peaceful protest in his memory and against police brutality. All fine, that - and admirable to be sure. People should go the the streets and voice their concerns if they think it will improve matters for their community. It's called participation and taking an interest, and it should be commended because there are few things more dangerous for society than lethargy, of not being bovvered. But, unfortunately, this peaceful protest, mourning a young man who had died violently, mutated quickly into a full blown riot as a result of it being hijacked by people out to create havoc.
And so these thugs set off to work, demolishing Tottenham High Street. Shops were looted, buildings, cars and buses set on fire - in short, jungle rules for the demented. The police were caught off guard, and the situation escalated rapidly. The crowds swelled and the fever began to boil over as kids texted their mates to join in on the "fun". With such large crowds in the way, fire trucks were unable to access the area, as a result of which dozens of buildings were reduced to heaps of burnt wood and glowing metal. Businesses ruined, people made unemployed, homes burnt to a crisp... Tragedy heaped upon tragedy. The family Duggan were quick and right to condemn the rioting, so any pretext thereafter that this was about demonstration and solidarity with the dead man was rank, adding insult to such sad injury.
It didn't matter to the rioters of course and the next night, then, was to be a rerun, only this time in other parts of London as well. Enfield, Brixton, Camden and so on. The media began talking about similarities with the '81 riots, about the underclass letting off steam. Some bleeding heart liberal on Sky News was even crying that this was the fault of society, that "these young people have nothing", and that's why this is happening... Such incredible naivety, placing the blame on anything and everything except the criminals who perpetrate crimes. These were nothing more than vandals, criminals and jerks intent on destroying property, intimidating and attacking bystanders and stealing to their (probably drunk, maybe stoned, but certainly cold) hearts content.
By Monday night the trouble had spread to Clapham Junction, to Ealing, to Barking; the list goes on. What was happening to this city?!
On Tuesday morning, after another night of mayhem and destruction, while buildings smouldered and innocent people were left wondering what had they done to deserve their livelyhoods or homes (perhaps both) being shattered or reduced to ash, an article in the Guardian purported to contextualize these riots but in so doing attempted to shift responsibility for these events on the Coalition government. I was gobsmacked. To absolve criminals of their responsibility due to some perceived greater injustice is exactly the kind of mindset that brought up kids like these in the first place.
It should've been obvious from the nature of the riots that these disturbances had nothing to do with politics. There were no banners, no chants, no slogans, no organized walks. Instead, there were baseball bats and crow bars and balaclavas: everything you need to anonymously smash things up with. These youths were organized, as they demonstrated by the cunning use of BMB messaging in their bling, bling Blackberries to rendezvous in specific locations - ironically, this service is called "Support Community Forums", and it is untraceable by the police and free to boot, thus highly popular amidst those who partake in tearing communities apart. Their instructions on where to meet and what to bring were disseminated via social networking tools, and the messages spread like wildfire. Some of the trouble makers had, it must be said, also shown considerable foresight, like in this Tweet: "For anyone heading to places where riots are: 1) Mask up properly, not just a hood. 2) Bindmans solicitors if you get nicked: 02078334433". If only they had displayed this level of initiative at school. (Bindmans, incidentally, specializes in defending angry idiots who are filled with a sense of victimhood and/or righteous indignation, the most recent example being that wannabe comedian Bobo Jonathan May-Bowles, who assaulted the 80-year old Rupert Murdoch on account of disagreeing with how Mr Murdoch runs his media empire.)
These riots were all taking place on high streets for a simple reason: there are no Currys, PC Worlds, Carphone Warehouses or such in Westminster village. And this type of folk don't really do historical artefacts, paintings or books, as those working at Waterstones were no doubt relieved to find out. I'm still undecided, by the way, about whether this was a good or bad development: burning books is demonstrative of a dangerous mind, but, on the other hand, those who place no value on books are poor souls indeed.
To imply that these misguided young 'uns were only lashing out because they are a) disenfranchised, or b) poor, or c) angry at not having opportunities is therefore farcical to an Orwellian degree. Firstly, this country is not like apartheid South Africa, nor like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (funny, isn't it, how the least democratic states always insist on using that word in their name), or Zimbabwe, or Myanmar - the sad list goes on and on. People do have a vote here. They have the opportunity to get elected into Parliament, if they set their minds to it and do the work required. We can also demonstrate freely, write and think and shout whatever we want - as long as we don't incite violence, of course. In short, these youths could participate and affect how this society is run, if they chose to do so. I suspect, however, that they are too busy getting drunk and playing Grand Theft Auto: Sin City. Nothing wrong with that, for youngsters - only don't then complain if you're not happy about how things are. And certainly don't go around wrecking property, being violent and stealing the more recent GTA: San Andreas.
Second, they are incredibly spoilt, these kids, and far from poor. They have mobile phones, Playstations, TV's, Ipods, bicycles; all those niceties of modern life that make Western being so unbearably light. Many if not most of these kids have more stuff than we as kids could have dreamt of. If, however, there were any in their midst who are forced to deal with pangs of hunger when going to bed, than that's another issue - one often debated in Ethics classes - any thoughts on that, anyone? But for the vast majority of these selfish brats, they know nothing about what poverty really is. They probably don't even bother watching the news or factual programs where they might see people around the world, infinitely less privileged than they are, starving, or living in makeshift tents, or walking 10 miles for water, or rummaging for food in waste dumps. These kids should try living on $2 a day. That's the reality of poverty - and there but for the grace of God go each and every one of us.
And, third, angry at not having opportunities? Bull. They have free education. Granted, it may not be the best in the world, but each kid here can, if they work hard, gain the basic tools to do something constructive with their lives. They also have the internet, often even on their snazzy smart phone. Instead of playing games and loitering on Facebook, however, they could be using it to learn more about our world. They have free health care. There are also libraries in most communities, and even if there is none in their area, in London, they have easy access to more knowledge than people of any other city in the world, for our museums are free, and they provide more learned information than most schools in the world, for those who are interested to use them. And the under 16's even have free bus travel passes with which to get there, for peeps sake.
So, to say or imply that this is the fault of society totally ignores the fact that, at the end of the day, it is about choice and willpower. Some people do get it easier, but then that's just life. Deal with it. Also, what people tend to forget is that those kids who are privileged today most often come from families who have worked hard in the past. The family that owned the House of Reeve's in Croydon, for example. They probably lived quite nicely, their kids may or may not have even gone to private school, but that's only because the family had put thousands if not millions of hours into making it a success, ever since 1867. And now, as a result of these idiots, it's a smouldering wreck, all that work gone up in smoke, and some 15 staff facing an uncertain, quite possibly, unemployed future.
But the above incredibly thick girls in Croydon say that they're "showing the rich we can do what we want" and that it's their fault for having businesses in the first place - they demonstrate perfectly what happens when life is too easy and people begin to expect things in return for nothing. The girls obviously had no idea about where money comes from, namely sweat, toil and tears. The idea of a "work ethic" must be as familiar to them as that of the Mandelbrot Set. These "ladies" believe, instead, that they deserve that mansion from Cribs just for gracing the planet with their perfect existence, so they went out to take what they want because they, like, so deserve it, innit.
Well, that's just not how life works, or should work. Deserving comes from doing something, making an effort, from working hard, trying to turn bad luck into a blessing in disguise; becoming the best you can be. There's a saying that excellence isn't a skill, it's an attitude. Sadly, the people who terrorized our wonderful city seem to think that they deserve what they want by virtue of being born. But, to paraphrase the excellent Nic Dawson Kelly, parents should teach their kids that potential is good but it must be backed up by drive. The reason the Reeves' probably do have bigger houses than these two idiots is that they thought big, and over several generations worked their assess off to make it happen.
In another example, a local man who filmed some of the looting in Clapham Junction asked two people why they were doing it. Their answer, without showing their face, unsurprisingly, was "we're getting our taxes back". Without getting into whether or not they've paid any taxes, what incredible idiocy backed by delusion and wrapped up in selfishness of the highest degree.
At the end of the day, life is not fair, it's difficult and more than often incredibly tough going. That's the unpalatable truth. We are all responsible for each decision we take, for every action we make and for the life that we lead. These riots had nothing to do with politics, they were about people wanting everything for nothing, wanting it now and breaking the law toward this end. But the people striving to make it political are only pouring fuel on the fire and asking for a repeat because many of these kids, who may have had difficult childhoods and probably parents who keep telling them "you deserve the best and don't let anyone tell you different", these kids will only feel more victimized as a result and, by extension, more justified in their unjustifiable actions.
There is no such thing as Equality of Outcome, nor should there be, because human beings are, in my view, inherently lazy, and therefore we need some incentive to work harder. We must strive for Equality of Opportunity in our society, of course, by educating people and providing them with the tools needed to succeed, even if to become great they'll need to sacrifice other aspects of their lives, like free time and party. What these kids need, therefore, is good schooling, and most importantly, good parents who instill in them the values of honesty, responsibility and work.
Moreover, to imply that people living in deprived areas are somehow condemned to poverty and ignorance totally brushes aside the great accomplishments of those amazing people who manage to turn things around and be successful in life. They do this by sheer determination and hard work, and bucketfuls of both, much more than most us have to, and certainly more than those sent to Eton, for example. These heroes should be applauded - while the law breakers should be punished.
As a start, those who were caught taking part in this madness should have all their toys taken away from them so that they could begin to understand how lucky they are in the grand scheme of this planet (temporally and culturally). If they receive any state benefits, they should lose them until they have shown that they have made up for the damage - why should others pay for people who turn around and punch them in the face? They need to be taught that nothing comes for free, that there is no free lunch, and you have to work hard if you want a bigger sandwich. Likewise, even if you do, you might not make it to where you wanted to, because there might be someone who's better at it then you are. But that doesn't make you any less, as long as you are a good person and make the most of yourself. That's the rules, and if you don't like it, then you have to live with what you are given.
Now for the good part. My friend Matti put it well, when he was interviewed about this for our local paper back in Finland. He said that "everyone condemns these riots except those who took part in them". And those people, however loud, brash or violent, they are still, thankfully, the overwhelming minority amongst us Londonders. After things quitened down, the locals came out to clean up the almighty mess left by the eejits. Did they ask or complain about why they should pick up the pieces after someone else had acted the maggot? No, they just sucked it up and did what was best for us all. Likewise, the mother who turned her daughter in to the police for having taken part in the looting. Fair dues - I hope all other parents are as principled. To the people who were brave enough to confront these hoards in order to keep their communities safe, respect. And the grieving father who's son was murdered by these savages, but who still calls for calm instead of recriminations. Inspirational.
That's what most of us are like: civilized, helpful and thoughtful. We should thank our parents for bringing us up so well, and our grandparents, and backwards. In a city the size of London, it's always heartening to see how well people behave toward each other, strangers and friends alike. That's how civilization works - the other option, of which we got a bitter taster this last week, is always waiting outside the doors of an orderly society, and we mustn't let it in anymore than we already have. So, get your broom out everybody and let's get to work.
While Britain's media and politicians were busy naval gazing and lynching the Murdoch media empire, more important news lay elsewhere. To begin with, America was busy grappling with a 14 trillion dollar question of what to do about its national debt: increase the overdraft limit and borrow more, or fail to keep up with payments, default and thereby crash the economy? In other words, "hair of the dog or cold turkey?" - that was the question.
After a lot of grandstanding and partisan wrangling, Capitol Hill answered at the eleventh hour on August 2nd. The federal debt cap was to be raised by some 2.4 trillion greenbacks. This would, they promised, be paid back over the next 10 years, by cutting public spending to the tune of $2.4 trillion. Harmonious numbers, yes. But did it do anything to address the real problem? No - because the underlying debt remains untouched. The whole hullabaloo was, therefore, nothing more than a protracted exercise in posturing, followed by kicking the debt can far down the road and, most importantly, well beyond the next election. The Land of the Indebted
It's no great surprise, then, that the ratings agency Standard & Poor's downgraded US debt by one (profound) notch, from the coveted top rating AAA to AA+ for the first time in the country's history. It could be argued, however, that even this lower rating is generous because, if the federal government were subject to the same standards as, say, Joe the Plumber, then it's safe to say that its credits would have run out a long time ago - so obvious is the fact that Uncle Sam has already teetered dangerously close to the point of no return, of never being able to pay back its debts in full. Now, I'm no economist (and please correct me here if I'm wrong), but it would seem to me somewhat optimistic to say that a country in debt to the tune of $14.5 trillion (and counting) that has a current labour force of about 181 million people (current census figures multiplied by the current employment population ratio of 58.1%), whose average earnings are some $49,800 per annum, then by my calculations it would take just over a year and a half for America to pay off their debt mountain. That is, assuming that every single penny of income is used for this purpose alone, as opposed to buying food, gasoline, electricity, Predator drones and such - the usual stuff America spends its moolah on. Or, another way of looking at it is that every tax payer is $110,000 in the red - an amount most certainly not to be sneezed at. As Christopher Cadwell sums up neatly in this week's Spectator, Republicans and Democrats alike are still convinced of their "God given right to receive $5 in government services for every $3 they pay in taxes." So, today's version of the American Dream is clearly a way of life based on a fiscal fantasy, in a galaxy far, far away from reality.
1 billion in $100 notes
And just to put the types of numbers we're dealing with here into perspective, say Joe Plumber earns the average annual wage of $49k. Well, it would take him some 21,000 years to earn $1 billion, and America owes well over 14 thousand of these smackaroos. Now that's a lot of work - and, to my mind at least, this also highlights how there's something seriously askew with the modern world when the number of people earning billions is going up, while the vast majority can't find jobs or are getting poorer by the day as a result of frozen wages and inflation.
Europe's fiscal tale of two regions But I digress. Let's turn to the Old World, then. Well, we ain't doing much better. The Eurozone countries are in deep, deep trouble, mainly due to disparities between the currency union's northern and southern members. The north (read Germany) have been bankrolling southern debt, while the Med countries and Ireland have kept themselves busy buying up BMW's and other sweet gizmos made in Germany. So, while the so called PIIGS are more than often portrayed as lazy leeches, bringing the Euro down by their insatiable profligacy, the other side of this coin should also be taken into consideration, namely that Germany has done exceedingly well as a result of the artificially low exchange rate it gets from the Euro, making its exports more affordable, which in turn fuels its economy nicely.
It almost sounds like a win-win situation, doesn't it? However, now that the tap of cheap credit has been turned off as a result of the financial crisis, the PIIGS governments are unable to sustain the levels of spending they've made their people accustomed to. So, layoffs, redundancies, 30% wage cuts in the public sector... and that's just the start of it.
The Irish government, for example, in an act of recklessness or desparation (or both) passed all the debts accrued by its banks onto the backs of its citizens, while foreign bond holders, the ones who had willingly made the bets that had now turned sour, were let off the hook unscathed.
The Irish government didn't even contemplate "doing an Iceland", basically telling foreign creditors to go stuff themselves - which actually doesn't look like too bad a deal considering that the economy of this tiny country has been growing in strides ever since. Ireland's leaders chose to instead throw their electorate to the wolves, effectively yoking their citizens into servitude to their new paymasters in Brussels and the IMF, so enthralled were they of their banking buddies abroad.
And what does Ireland have to show for this decade of overindulgence? An unemployment rate of 14.3%, wage reductions and mass emigration. Not to mention the grand but empty shopping malls in small villages and decaying ghost towns that litter the country, all built by developers who took advantage of the generous tax breaks offered by the government, using money borrowed from banks, and becoming very wealthy in the process. The politicians, in turn, were all too happy to spend and spend the tax money coming in from the financial and construction sectors, without leaving anything for a rainy day.
Meanwhile, in the Med, the Greek government and its citizens were a tad too enthusiastic in using up their newly acquired credit facilities and they splashed out on construction, swimming pools and champers galore. On becoming members of the Euroclub, Greece's politicians were indeed swift to take advantage of its perks - in particular, the low interest rates as a result of their country being linked to the economies of the stronger Eurozone members - and took out huge loans, swelled up the public sector, promised retirement at 56 and more than generous employee benefits, while their tax revenues never came close to matching these outgoings, and wouldn't have even if the majority of people - the well-off in particular - paid their taxes, which they didn't.
The result? Like Ireland, being bailed out by the EU and the IMF with loans worth hundreds of billions, spiced up with punitive interest rates. In return, Greece has had to slash public spending, and the cradle of European civilization is also being forced into selling off some €50 billion worth of infrastructure, services and land. This fire sale unlike any other, due to take place in September, will guarantee that those who can afford to bid - China and those nouveau billionaires - are guaranteed a pretty island or public road or useful port at a knock down price.
Closer to home, despite what MiliBalls and Labour proclaim, the UK's accounts haven't been in balance since 2002. Always quick to quote Keynes on the solution to today's recession - that to spend in a downturn is good, to cut is bad - Miliband, Balls and Brown consistently fail to acknowledge that, when in government, they completely ignored the first pillar of Keynesian economics: to save up a surplus when the going is good. Instead, they chose to do the opposite and rack up a deficit even before the going got tough.
Moreover, since the 80's the UK economy had been propped up by Northern Sea oil, which by now is pretty much gone, and by Gordon Brown's great idea to sell off 400 tons of the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the market in 1999 (telling everyone about it in advance certainly didn't help him get a better price either). And, like Ireland, the third major source of income was tax receipts from the banking, finance and the real estate sectors. So growth prior to the housing bubble of the naughties was a fiction, based on that oh so finite black gold and Brown flogging off the national heirlooms and the world of sub-prime loans.
It was thus unsustainable all along, and when the Coalition government took over from Labour in May 2010, the new Chief Secretary of the Treasury, David Laws, was greeted by a cheerful note from his predeccor, Liam Byrne, helpfully informing him that "there's no money left." At least he was honest, I suppose. Politicians thinking they're bankers
So, how did we in the West get here and how did we let this happen? People are usually quick to blame bankers when discussing the predicament we find ourselves in. In this popular narrative, it was theywho crashed the system in 2007/2008: they shouldn't have lent all that money to governments, nor should they have offered all those 110% mortgages, equity release deals, credit cards and 0% finance on purchases. They acted irresponsibly, made huge bonuses, and should've kept their houses in order so we wouldn't have had to bail them out.
Well, to an extent. The fact that banks were totally out of cash and it was their own fault but they were still not allowed to fail was a diabolical farse to say the least, albeit a somewhat necessary one to avoid an even worse situation. They bet, and they lost, but still managed to keep alive that Lombard Street saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". But the market in this case did work - it demolished their castle in the clouds - even if it would've been nice to have it done a bit sooner, and with a lot less collateral damage.
A more fundamental cause to this catastrophe - also the reason why our politicians had to bail the banks out - can, however, be highlighted with the crash of the sub-prime mortgage market in the US, usually identified as the spark that set off the Credit Crunch. The crash of this market was foreseeable and a logical result of a US government policy, begun under Clinton and continued by the Bush administration, of trying to ensure that every US family can have a home of their own. Toward this end, Fannie May, Freddie Mac and the rest of the US mortgage providers were told by politicians in Washington D.C. to make sure that this would be made into a reality. An admirable thought, to be sure, but idealism tends to make bad policy.
And, lo, mortgages were awarded to families who had no chance of paying them back. This risk was then supposedly offset by splicing up all these bad loans and disguising them in bundles with AAA quality debt. But when these new home owners couldn't keep up with their payments, there began a tidal wave of defaults, and that initial good intention began to metastasize into toxic debt that would poison the whole financial system.
Likewise, it was also the light touch regulation, so much promoted by New Labour and the Bush administration in particular, which allowed the bankers free reign to attempt their unique brand of alchemy - making money from thin air - while these governments were all too happy to let them, the UK in particular, having become hypnotized by the incessant sound of the Treasury coffers going ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, as a result of all that tax income from all those bonuses.
And yet, no-one was forced to take on those mortgages - which is why bashing bankers is facile. It ignores the fact that everyone who overextended on a loan was all too willing to believe that they deserved something they couldn't afford. In the TV series Northern Exposure, the indefatigably stoic Holling Vincour has a dictum that "a man shouldn't own what he can't afford" - and this surely has some truth in it. So everyone who is still in the red (Yours Truly included), government and citizen alike, is at fault here - just as junkies are responsible for getting themselves hooked on the drugs they buy.
Après moi, le déluge A good friend observed the other week - and it makes a lot of sense, I think - that what's actually transpired is that our politicians have been selling us out to the bankers, in order to offer us higher living standards than we could otherwise afford and thus get re-elected by keeping us comfortable and satiated.
The last decades have indeed seen America, the UK, PIIGS - most Western countries in fact - binging on public debt like there was no tomorrow. The US has already raised its debt cap 79 times since 1960 - a good indication as any that America's problem of living beyond its means is no recent development, nor is their predicament the result of the Credit Crunch alone.
Likewise, Ireland's great economic boom from the 90's to 2007, the much admired "Celtic Tiger", turned out to be far from a powerful animal, and more like a giant St Patrick's Day parade balloon. It had been inflated by the construction sector, but once the loans from the financial sector dried up, so did the tax receipts the government depended on. The result of this was a punctured tiger and deflation in spectacular fashion, ultimately leaving the country mired in debt of tens of thousands of Euros per Irishman and -woman.
Greece, Portugal, Italy, the UK too; the common denominator in all these scenarios was a government spending not just the money they had - our taxes - but consistently splurging much, much more for our so called benefit. All those new roads, nice parks, improved public services; that fancy new town hall and generous public sector pensions, welfare benefits and the lot. They would all of course need to be paid for at some point, but that didn't bother the people making these commitments on our behalf because the "investment" sound bite proved more powerful an incentive than prudence. To be seen doing great things would be useful now and good for re-election, they rationalized, while paying for it would only follow after the next election, possibly not even being their party's problem anymore. (An admittedly extreme example of this mindset came when Alistair Darling signed the UK into the European Stability Fund a week after his government had been voted out of office, forcing upon the UK taxpayer yet another €15 billion liability.)
Growth or bust There was and still is, however, a basic error in their strategy. Our so called leaders assume that we can consistently borrow more today than is coming in because a growing economy will make up for it in the future. For a long time this had seemed to be the case, but, actually, most if not all of this wonderstuff called growth had been fuelled by fossils. For the last two hundred years our industry, economy, society - our civilization, basically - has become based on deriving more and more "wealth" from scarce and finite natural resources. Refining extraction methods, finding new deposits and using those more effectively in novel ways, this created the economic system that underpins the society we live in today.
But now that the fuel deposits have begun to dry up, while manufacturing and huge chunks of the truly useful parts of our Western economies have been outsourced to developing countries, who's citizens also happen to understand the meaning of living within one's means, and who are not subsidized by their governments should they prefer a life of idleness to working for their daily bread; well, now the metaphorical fat woman has indeed begun her song, and all this expected growth required to drive and sustain our system is disappearing faster than we can say yeah but, no but.
17th century big spender
Another historical development that allowed our politicians to go on these spending sprees was that pride and joy of our Western civilization, democracy. Since the birth of modern banking in 13th century Italy, states and kingdoms did of course run up deficits. (Indeed, a good example of bringing down an empire by wastefulness and overzealous optimisms would be that of Spain's Phillip IV [1605-1670], who was convinced that all the silver and gold from the Americas - the oil of his day - would pay for ever more expansion. Well, it didn't because it ran out - and so his vast empire began to crumble.) But up until around the First World War bankers were a lot more careful when lending to countries. They had to be, because should the government (i.e. the king or queen) die, then the debts they owed would disappear up into the heavens with them. The arrival of representative government changed all that. Ever since, the liability for a state's debt no longer rested with one person however powerful, but with a population, a nation - a thing that's usually not at sudden risk of being stabbed in the back or of expiring unexpectedly after falling off a horse that had been frightened by a mole. As a result, bankers became ever more liberal in how much credit they could give, knowing that if it's not this government that pays it back, it'll be the one after that, or the one after that...
21st century big spender
And so, our elected representatives began to max out our national credit cards, and those of our children, and even our children's children, while the bankers were all too happy to let them do so, safe in the knowledge that they'd get their cash back sooner or later. All along, we were too busy to notice as we lapped up those nice things our politicians promised us - and sometimes delivered, too - just like many were all too eager to furnish their homes with the help of that magic plastic, even if they weren't sure how they'd pay for it.
The mother of all hangovers Now that the music has stopped and the tab's run out, however, if we were able to look around us with a clear head, we would realise that our politicians got us rip-roaringly drunk on cheap credit to further their own careers, and they, along with the bankers who made huge personal fortunes from this ruse, have now left the building in the comfort of their limos and helicopters. Meanwhile, we, for our part, became so enamored by our by pensions, welfare benefits and luxury holidays, that we spurred them on, demanding more and more. But in the process we became addicts: our high being a standard of living far outstripping that which we contribute to society; our drug of choice being living on credit.
Indeed, when talking about this "recession", people tend to forget that they are comparing today's economy - "bad" - to the life that preceded, when we were in a bubble unlike any other - "which was good". Politicians and people alike seem to expect that we should somehow get back to where we were in 2007, before things went sour, but since when, though, has the top of a gigantic credit bubble been the marker for what an economy should be like, or for how much wealth there should be?
To hanker after life as we lived it prior to the financial meltdown is as crazy as if the Dutch had just substituted tulips for roses in the 17th century, in the hope that it would somehow bring back the good days. They didn't - they learnt from their great mistake even if it cost them dearly. Back to 2011, with interest rates at 0.5% - rewarding debtors at the expense of savers - and our politicians telling us to go out and spend, spend, spend - well, we, today, seem to bordering on the insane, wanting to do the same thing twice but expecting different results.
It's often said that civilization sprung from our capacity to plan forward, to act now so that we can reap the benefits later. It would seem, unfortunately, that our civilization has taken this sound advise a good bit too far. As a result, we've become as spoilt as Vicky Pollard, and the first thing we need to do now is to suffer our hangover. And, then, we should get real, and go on a much needed diet.
And so these thugs set off to work, demolishing Tottenham High Street. Shops were looted, buildings, cars and buses set on fire - in short, jungle rules for the demented. The police were caught off guard, and the situation escalated rapidly. The crowds swelled and the fever began to boil over as kids texted their mates to join in on the "fun". With such large crowds in the way, fire trucks were unable to access the area, as a result of which dozens of buildings were reduced to heaps of burnt wood and glowing metal. Businesses ruined, people made unemployed, homes burnt to a crisp... Tragedy heaped upon tragedy. The family Duggan were quick and right to condemn the rioting, so any pretext thereafter that this was about demonstration and solidarity with the dead man was rank, adding insult to such sad injury.
On Tuesday morning, after another night of mayhem and destruction, while buildings smouldered and innocent people were left wondering what had they done to deserve their livelyhoods or homes (perhaps both) being shattered or reduced to ash, an article in the Guardian purported to contextualize these riots but in so doing attempted to shift responsibility for these events on the Coalition government. I was gobsmacked. To absolve criminals of their responsibility due to some perceived greater injustice is exactly the kind of mindset that brought up kids like these in the first place.
