Turn the Rage against Labour

We’re still playing the blame game about the credit crunch in this country, with bankers still being placed in the public stocks for merciless criticism and indignant rage. Today’s victim is Fred Goodwin, who is being castigated for having (and admittedly fucking huge) pension. The rights and wrongs of this individual case are quite frankly irrelevant as the amount Fred the Shred will be paid is a minute drop in a mighty ocean when you compare it to the amounts of money that the government is throwing at the financial services sector.

Besides, this controversial pension plan is defensible on at least one level – until very recently, it was government sanctioned. That’s right – in order to get Goodwin out of his bank, the Treasury signed off on this massive pension plan.

There is a lot of anger in this country at the moment – anger bordering on rage. Which I can understand. But I really do think we are directing it at the wrong people. Yes, a lot of bankers were crap. But business people are shit all the time. That’s why businesses fail. And ultimately there is very little we can do to those crap bankers. However, there is another target that is just as responsible for this recession, and a target that we can do something about. And it is the target that frantically tries to distract us with hate figures such as Fred Goodwin. Yep, I’m talking about our government.

Labour was first elected over a decade ago under the leadership of a photogenic, harmless looking chipmunk called Tony Blair. We are now being governed by an unelected egregious grey ghoul of a man whose pronouncements on the economy increasingly resemble the demented mumblings of Jim Jones before the Kool-Aid was passed around. Whatever we signed up for in ’97 – and indeed in ’05 – is not what we’ve got now. In fact, this whole government has been exposed as a massive confidence trick – a fraud designed to con us into spending money that we don’t have.

And, indeed, the government still doesn’t have the first fucking clue about what is going on, but that doesn’t stop the Prime Minister shovelling great big piles of our cash into a cellar in Downing Street and setting fire to it. It doesn’t stop him blaming everyone else for the calamity that he himself helped to create. Gordon Brown is determined to channel the righteous rage felt by so many in this country in any other direction that towards him. But that will only work for so long. Because at some point, Gordon will have to call a General Election.

And then we will see the anger, the rage, and the hatred. Turned against a truly deserving target – the British government. Barring Gordon Brown pulling off something absolutely spectacular, Labour is facing decimation at best at the next election. And you know what? I’m going to relish that bastard and his shitty minions facing obliteration at the next election. For all the lies, the evasions, the corruption, the thieving of the past decade. I predict the petulant rage felt by many British people towards bankers at the moment will be nothing compared to baying of the mob when we next get to vote.

I think Brown et al will learn that Goodwin and his ilk are small fry, once the British electorate gets the much larger and more deserving target of the dog-tired, waste-of-space and utterly incompetent Nu Labour government in their sights.

The Royal Bank of Scotland, The Government and The Blame

Well, this is good news:

Royal Bank of Scotland came a step closer to full-scale nationalisation today as the bank unveiled a record £24.1 billion loss and plans to raise up to £25.5 billion from the taxpayer.

I’m sure I speak for everyone in saying I for one have no problem with paying more tax to fund Gordon Brown’s lust for nationalisation. In fact, fuck it. I’ll just pay my half my salary straight to the state. Bingo. And they can fritter it away on worthless shares for shitty businesses. This all sounds, well, peachy.

While the Government's shareholding in terms of votes will be capped at 75 per cent, its economic interest in RBS - its claim on RBS's assets - could rise to 95 per cent depending on its future performance.

Right, well, that’s a fucking useful cap then, isn’t it? That makes perfect fucking sense. And what great business sense as well. The government – and for government, read your wallet and my wallet – will own 95% of a business but only have 75% of influence over it. Whoever came up with that plan what’s a good, hearty kick in the balls (or fanny flaps, let’s not be sexist here).

Mr Hester also gave a strong signal that tens of thousands of job losses are on the way at the beleaguered bank. He said he "wouldn't dissent" from reports that as many as 20,000 jobs could be lost.

Awesome. Well, I suppose we’ll have 20,000 less people on the state payroll (yep, that’s your payroll and my payroll again, ladies and gents) but it does make me question precisely why the state is effectively nationalising this bank. Surely one of the points of the government taking over this bank would be to save fucking jobs, but no.

Derek Simpson, joint leader of Unite, said: "These historic and humiliating losses ring into sharp focus just how reckless RBS's former management team have behaved. The whole country is paying the price through job cuts and repossessions on a massive scale. It is time to take control and fully nationalise this bank."

With you right up to the final sentence, Del Boy. But the last thing we should do is fully nationalise this bank. Sweet holy mother of Jesus, why would the taxpayer want this massive toxic asset on their hands? Why would they want full control of a failed business that – if it didn’t have enforced contributions from the poor fucking taxpayer – would go under?

There will be some who will hold this news up as further evidence of the failure of capitalism. Which is absolutely true. If you are a total fucking moron. What this represents is the failure of RBS. Capitalism is struggling because of the constant government interventions. The market cannot operate properly if the government steps in to prop up business that have failed.

The brutal truth is that given this loss, the market should be allowed to do what it naturally wants to do. And if that involves killing off RBS, then so be it. The government should offer to guarantee any savings in RBS, but not intervene aside from that.

There is so much fucking belly-aching about bankers – including those in RBS – getting bonuses at the moment. And yeah, it sticks in my throat somewhat as well – not least since I will be part funding the fucking bonuses the way things are going. But there are two points to make here – government owns RBS now, to all intents and purposes, so is in the position to stop those bonuses being paid. But far more importantly it is the state leading the likes of RBS in rewarding people for failure. RBS and other banks have failed, and the government has bailed them out. Is it any wonder that RBS et al think it is A-OK to pay their employees for failure when the government throws money at them because of their failure?

Blame the banks by all means, but don't forget to blame the government as well. Not least because, with all this nationalising going on, the two are rapidly becoming the same thing.

Blaming the Bankers

"Yesterday, whilst appearing in front of a House of Commons select committee, the former Managing Director of Woolworths apologised for the collapse of his company. He said "Yep, I can only but apologise to everyone who lost their jobs and for any damage done the wider economy and community as a whole. We really dropped the ball. We just didn't think that having the same busienss plan as the one we were using in the 1980's might create problems for us, but it turns out that people just don't want or need a store that sells a curious combination of pick 'n' mix, cheap plastic toys and radiator keys on their high street anymore."

Of course, this didn't happen - the only people apologising to Parliament (which itself is an organisation that has more that its fair share of apologising to do to the British people) were bankers. And yet there isn't a whole lotta difference between those bankers and those people running Woolies. They all had shit business plans, they all suffered because of that. And because of those flawed business decisions, people lost their jobs, other companies were damaged* and the economy as a whole arguably suffered. Why are one group of people called to Parliament, and the other group not?

The answer is down to how we perceive the banking industry in this country in this day and age. Put simply, your average banker today ranks somewhere between an escaped, drug addict convict and a paedophile in the eyes of many people. They are the nation's new dog to kick.

Don't get me wrong, I know a few bankers, and at least 50% of them are utter wankers. But then again, I know a lot of other professions where at least 50% of them are utter wankers. However, I don't think the real reason why bankers are so hated at the moment is down to the propensity of some bankers to behave like they are second only to God. No, the narrative of the hour is that the bankers caused the financial downturn that we are currently lumbering our way through.

Which is, in part, true. Bankers played a role in the financial downturn, and both national and international economies have suffered from banks collapsing and/or being taken into public ownership. But guess what - many bankers responsible for this will have already suffered for their mistakes. Some will have lost their jobs, others won't be getting their bonuses - which in the financial services sector often makes up a substantial part of their annual remuneration. God help any bankers who have been paid in part with shares in their organisations if those institutions have been part-bought by Gordon Brown et al.

However, others also played a part in crippling the economy. What about the private citizens who borrowed to the hilt, and saddled themselves with massive amounts of debt that they just could not afford? And what about those politicians who fuelled the rush of both banks and citizens to credit they could not afford with talk of the "end to boom and bust?" All those calling for more regulation of the banking sector should take note that this sector is already crippled with regulation, and that regulation - according to the narrative of the governments that created the regulation in the first place - did not work.

Maybe it is a natural part of humanity - that when things turn bad, you lash out and blame an unpopular group. But looking at the cold, hard facts shows that this scape-goating achieves nothing, and makes no real sense, other than fulfilling a base and craven desire to blame someone categorically for negative events.

*The collapse of Zavvi can be traced back to the failure of Woolies.

Print Away!

The government may be poised, as part of their brave battle against the economic downturn, to print more money.

Good on 'em, I say.

Seriously, ignore the naysayers and doom-mongerers. Ignore those who would call our great Chancellor and even greater Prime Minister economic fucktards of the highest order. Ignore those who would say that this sort of policy was discredited years ago, and is also the economic backbone of Mugabe's politics. And definitely ignore the "do nothing" brigade. They're the worst of the lost. They helped cause this crisis. What with their focus on saving money, and not borrowing to the hilt and way beyond their own means.

The government is absolutely right to print more money. How else are they going to be able to part-nationalise the financial sector, and fund pointless tax cuts? These things don't come for free, y'know! And this crisis can be stopped, if we just shut up and let the government spend, spend, spend!

And to show my support for the government, I'm going to go stock up on tinned goods. And watch as Britain finally crumbles into the dust, and we're left with a broken economy, broken society, and broken country.

Death of a Giant

Woolworths, that old, intransigent retail behemoth, has gone to the high street in the sky. Obviously bad news for the employees – if no buyer for Woolies is found, then their plight has an almost Dickensian air to it: losing their jobs just before Christmas. But for everyone else, the demise of Woolworths probably won’t be noticed that much, at least not directly.

Because, if we are brutally honest, what purpose did Woolworths serve? If you were feeling charitable, you could describe their range of products as eclectic. A more realistic assessment would point out that they had an utterly random collection of limited ranges of products that could be found elsewhere, often at cheaper prices. Whatever purpose Woolworths once served disappeared years ago, around the time when it became cheaper and easier to shop online, and about the time that Tesco started offering just about everything other than actual house purchases under one roof in their hideous superstores. Woolworths were offering a service that just has no real relevance in the UK of today. Businesses should aspire to have a unique selling point; Woolies failed to have any selling points whatsoever, unique or otherwise.

Peston’s take on Woolies is quite illuminating for two reasons. Firstly, he points out that the demise of a (one-time) high street giant is going to have a wider impact than it first appears. But the crucial point is the second one – that Woolies was propped up by the credit boom. Woolworths would have gone under years ago if people did not have the credit and excess cash to fritter in their stores. As soon as the economy changes, dog companies like Woolworths were always going to suffer. As people tighten their belts, they will choose where they shop, and factors such as price become more important than ever. Given that, Woolies could never win.

In the final analysis, the collapse of Woolworths was not a surprise. The fact that it took so long to go under was.

The Unplanned Economy

Part of me wants to rant against the increasingly planned nature of the UK economy, what with the claims that unless the banks go back to offering the lending rates of previous years then they could, according to Mervyn King, end up being nationalised:

“…wholesale nationalisation” of the banks, he replied: “In time of financial crisis, it would be a very serious error to rule out measures which may ultimately prove necessary. It would be an extremely brave person who ruled anything out. It wouldn't be our first option, but remember: the Government now has a majority holding of shares in more than one bank. The United States has just acquired a very significant stake in Citibank, the biggest bank in the world.”

So many different comments to make based on that. The US does own a significant stake in Citibank – but just because they do doesn’t mean we have to do the same thing. And what impact do we think the government threatening bank nationalisation have on the share prices of the affected banks? Is the government purposely want to depress the share value of the nation’s banks? Actually, the answer to that might be yes – they seem hell bent on taking control of as much of the financial sector as is possible.

But this is the whole nonsense of the government position. Yes, they can take control of banks to force them to continue lending at the sort of rates that caused this economic downturn, and that the market is now naturally correcting. But that will not solve the problem. This is a natural economic downturn. Boom and bust is part of the way markets work – the government should look to lessen the worst impacts of this downturn, but it cannot prop up an unsustainable boom. This is moving towards the sort of planned economies that worked *so* well in the old Soviet Union.

Yet can we honestly say that our increasingly government controlled economy is really planned? The debacle over VAT shows that there is very little planning actually happening. The government economic strategy could best be described as scattergun. A coherent, focussed approach to help the economy just does not enter into their approach. The government is frantically throwing ideas against the wall, in the hope that some of them will stick. A charitable description might be to describe the government approach as improvisation; a harsher yet more realistic description would be destructively arbitrary.

The economic situation in this country at the moment is dire. We have a government taking control of private institutions at the same time as showing just how little economic capability or understanding they actually have. We have the unplanned economy – an economy increasingly controlled by a government that is utterly out of control.

Gordon Brown: Spend, spend, spend!

Gordon Brown:

"We will bring the same focus and determination to the task of safeguarding jobs and homes and small businesses, as we have done to avert the threatened meltdown of financial systems."

That's us fucked then.

Despite some of the spin that continues to float around like the odour of rancid feet, Gordon Brown is no economic genius. In fact, he would struggle to hit the level of economic lackwit. I reckon I know more about sensible economic policies that Gordo, and you could sum up what I know about those policies on the back on an envelope. You know, one of those really small envelopes that come with those tiny cheap Christmas cards that you send to those relatives you never really see and don't really like.

Of course, the big problem isn't that Gordon is an economic incompetent. In fact, he shares that dubious accolade with a whole host of other people in this country who failed to take into account the simple economic law that you can't spend more that you actually have in funds without something going wrong at some point. The big problem is, though, that Gordon is using the national purse to pursue his absurdly inane economic travesties. Yep, when he talks about spending his way out of this downturn, what he means is we'll be spending our way out of this economic downturn through our taxes. Whether we like it or not.

I'd have less of an issue with this if Gordon wasn't so shite. Unfortunately, I have as much confidence in Gordon to manage the economy as I do in that piss stained tramp I saw in St James' Park this morning managing to get through the day without buying some super strength lager. Seriously, as soon as Gordon tries to do anything it goes down the toilet. He has the touch of the reverse alchemist - give him a bar of gold, and he will turn it into water. Politicians make good calls and bad calls; Brown is unique in pretty much only being able to make the latter. We may as well have that piss-stained tramp in St James' Park this morning as our Prime Minister. The tramp is probably more socialble.

Look at what happened with the banks that Brown half-nationalised. Their share value has plummeted, and the position of those banks will get worse as the government uses its influence to try to manage those banks. Gordon took billions of pounds to buy substantial shares in those banks; the sagacity of his investment (of our money) can be seen in the share prices of those organisations. So what do we think will happen when Gordo spends even more of our hard earned cash trying to spend his way out of a recession? Fuck me, forget about recession; we'll probably be in in a depression by the end of the week.

But Gordon has to do something; his usual strategy of sitting still in an angry panic is no longer applicable in the current economic climate. People are screaming for action; even Gordon can't ignore that. The problem is that Gordon doesn't really understand how to alleviate the problems of the coming recession. Like the *good* socialist he is, he thinks the only way to save the country is by spending money like it is going out of fashion. However, the real solution that might help to kickstart the economy is a tax cut. A tax cut in an area that would allow consumers to regain some confidence and start spending again (even if that tax cut needs to be balanced with a tax increase in another area). The current economic slowdown is caused in part by a complete lack of confidence on the part of the people. A tax cut might help to persuade them that the government isn't going to use this crisis as an excuse to rob them of every single penny they earn, and might allow them to get enough confidence to start spending again.

However this idea will never, ever be taken up by the likes of Brown. The concept of tax cuts is alien and scary for Gordo, and the idea that the people might be able to spend the way out of this recession themselves is just insane in Gordonland*. Brown will never look at the facts, like the role the government played in creating the current economic situation or the inept way in which they have tried to handle it. Instead he will repeat the mantra "government knows best, government knows best, government knows best" as he heads to the bank with the taxpayer's credit card in his hands.

Forget the spin, forget the rhetoric - ignore anyone who states anything that contradicts the simple indisputable truth that Gordon Brown is an economic incompetent. And ignore anything that says that Nu Labour are solving the current economic crisis. The policies that Brown's government are pursuing are the equivalent of poking an angry bear with a stick: it is going to make things a whole lot worse before they get any better.

*A horrific place where nightmares come true...

*That* Rescue Plan

And, as banks throughout the world failed and floundered, the nation looked for a new sort of hero. The right type of man for the situation. Some sort of true hero for difficult, trying and testing times. And at the point, from a dark corner in Downing Street, the least likely hero stepped forward. A shrivelled, contorted angry shadow of a man came blinking into the media lights, his wallet bulging, and he gurned his face into something vaguely resembling an arrogant smile. And he started to spend the money in his wallet, believing this was the way to save the banks, and therefore the market, and therefore the nation, and therefore the world.

And so, Generous, Gallant Gordon was born.

You could be forgiven for reading some of the headlines over the weekend and coming away with the thought that Gordon Brown has pretty much – single handed – stopped the crisis currently gripping the financial sector. The truth is somewhat different. This plan is nowhere near as philanthropic as it first appears. Which is hardly surprising, given it comes from one of the most controlling British governments in recent history. It also might not end up being as good as it first appears for Gordon, although the vast majority of this country don’t care anymore if Gordo suffers a wee bit. And finally, it really isn’t the perfect reason for further state control, despite the ramblings of the likes of The Guardian and its *columnists*.

The Plan

Here’s how it works. The government offers a shed load of cash for struggling banks to prop up their balance sheets. Therefore the banks don’t go out of business. Magic. Crisis averted?

Well, maybe, but there are a couple of points I’d raise at this point. First of all, let’s be clear on this. This is taxpayer’s money being spent on the banks. This is your money. The government is essentially being superficially philanthropic with your cash. Some people will favour the government using billions of our money, others won’t. But let’s be very clear on this. It is your money being spent here.

And whilst the government is pretty dumb, it is not quite dumb enough to go into what is effectively a business deal without gaining some sort of concessions from the banks in question. So they will gain shares in those banks, and will also gain influence. Over what those banks do, over whom they employ, and over how much those employees get paid. The banking market is already highly regulated; this plan is allowing the government to buy an even larger stake in the financial sector.

You can argue that the government had to take some action to shore up British banks. However, don’t be naïve about what this plan means. Effectively the government has taken a substantial amount of your money and bought itself a large stake in the banking markets. For anyone who questions the efficacy of the government at the best of times, this will be a deeply concerning move.

The Impact on Gordon

With the likes of Polly Toynbee rushing to hug Brown again, you can probably forgive our Prime Minister (at least a little bit) for feeling quite smug this morning. He is playing up to the Labour loyalists with this plan, and is earning gushing praise from Old Labour. But after weeks of being about a popular as a leper at a child’s swimming pool with everyone in the country, Gordo is probably relieved to be getting praise from some sections of Britain. However, his attempts to buy a large stake in a number of banks with someone else’s money may yet come back to haunt him. Here are (come of the) reasons why:

1. Banking decisions: The government will win influence in the banks it helps to subsidise. Which means that, even if they don’t have an impact on the day to day lending decisions that the banks make, there will be a perception that those banks’ decisions are made in tandem with the government. So when the man on the Clapham omnibus doesn’t get his mortgage, or his loan, or to get to open a new bank account, he will not just be railing against the bank, but also the Brown.
2. The anti-bonus rhetoric: So, when the government buys a stake in a bank, there won’t be any bonuses paid. Some would argue that this is fair enough. But only some people within those banks will be responsible for the decisions that have put their institutions on the government breadline. Which means that those working for the banks part owned by the government will suddenly be being paid one hell of a lot less than those who aren’t partially in government employ (and therefore can still offer bonuses). The problem should be immediately obvious – talented people within the banking industry (who let’s face it don’t work for love of the job, but for the cold, hard cash) will go where it is most profitable. Which means that as government buy into banks in this country, they may well be forcing the best of people in their banks into the employ of the competition. And sending talent to the competition never makes business sense.

3. Taking the flak for the good times: Gordon has been very quick to criticise the banks now the shit has hit the fan. But for many years, the banks took risks and paid out big bonuses. Their lending decisions kept the property market afloat, and the economy booming. The bonuses paid out helped shore up the coffers of the Treasury. All of these elements, now being declaimed by the government as a “bad thing”, were either ignored or tacitly condoned by the government for over a decade. And who was the Chancellor in those years? Let me consult my Ladybird book of Chancellors… hang on… hang on… just skipping past the badger Chancellor… hang on…. oh, wait, it was Gordon Brown. Gordon maybe right to legislate and regulate now… but where was he when the seeds of this banking crisis were being sewn? Oh, he was loving the revenues and the economic boom, and wallowing in the fortunes heading in the direction of the Treasury like a pig wallowing in seven different shades of shit. Gordon had better be careful that none of his newfound cheerleaders scrutinises the causes of the crisis too much, lest they work out he is partially responsible as well.

Finally, I’d love to hear where the billions being spent to support the banks are actually coming from. As far as I was aware the government doesn’t have tens of billions of pounds hanging around in bank accounts, waiting to be spent. So, Gordo, where does the money come from? It will be less than popular if it becomes clear that the money is going to come from crucial government projects. It is going to be about as easy to swallow as cyanide if it becomes clear that taxes will have to go up to pay for this rescue plan.

Intervention isn’t the answer

There will be left-wingers crowing on for quite some time about how the government had to step in to rescue part of the private sector, and how such interventions could and should be the future. The reality is somewhat different.

The government has bought itself a massive stake in a number of previously much more autonomous organisations. The government has bought itself a massive stake in private organisations that were struggling. There is no evidence that this part-nationalisation will lead to an increase in profitability for the organisations in question, and no evidence that it will be that easy for the government to recover its money. In fact, government run organisations if anything tend to be less efficient (and therefore less profitable). Left wingers hoping that this government share grab is going to make the case for more government acquisitions in the private sector may end up being very disappointed. Historical precedent would suggest that this is not going to make the case for government intervention, but rather illustrate just how much money the government can waste when it sticks its oar into the private sector.

Ultimately, we need to be very clear on what this rescue plan is and what it means. It is a power grab by the government into the financial services sector using taxpayer’s money. It is going to mean an increase of regulation and government intervention into a sector already struggling to stay afloat. There is no real evidence that this rescue plan will save those organisations who take advantage of it, or make those organisations more efficient and profitable. Rather, this feels like an oppressive and draconian move by an increasingly socialist government to buy influence in a sector it fundamentally dislikes. It is like a doctor trying to remove an ingrown toenail by lopping off the patient’s foot. I don’t know how this rescue plan will end up playing out; I do know there is a lot to be concerned about as billions of pounds worth of our money is being spent like it is going out of fashion.

Gordon isn’t a saviour – he wasn’t when he was Chancellor, he hasn’t been whilst he's been Prime Minister, and he certainly isn’t now. The fanfare around this rescue plan shouldn’t disguise the fact that there is no guarantee of qualitative success, or that this plan will make financial and political sense for those who have paid for it (yep, you and me) in the future.

Punish Them! More!

Gordon Brown on those who have helped to *create* the current banking crisis:

"Our economy is built around people who work hard, who show effort, who take responsible decisions, and whether there is excessive and irresponsible risk-taking, that has got to be punished."

Ignoring the fact that our economy is also built on those who do take some risks, and that risk taking can be a very profitable and useful part of capitalism, who exactly does Brown mean when he is talking about the irresponsible risk takers? Because, sure, some banks have been taking risks that are just plain stupid. But then again, so have members of the public. Taking on a mortgage that you can ill afford and that you end up defaulting on is a massive risk. Is Brown talking about punishing these people as well?

And aren't those who took irresponsible risks - be they banks, bankers, home owners, who-the-fuck-ever - already being punished? Banks are going out of business, bankers are losing their jobs. Surely to fuck that is enough? Or does Brown want to shit on them further? What the fuck is his problem? Can he only satisfy himself by piling on the crap for those already suffering? Is he looking at the City and not seeing enough bankers on the roof, before asking himself what he can do to make the situation fucking worse?

Make no mistake, Brown is loving the current financial crisis. It allows him to flex his socialist, anti-capitalist instincts at the same time as posing as a statesman dealing with a major crisis. But the above comment serves to remind everyone in this country about the one, great Gordon Brown thunder.

He is a complete cunt.

Media and the Credit Crunch

As the economy disappears down the shitter quicker than dinner in a dysentery ward, we can be sure that the world media are focusing on the right stories. This, for example, is essential stuff that everyone must know.

But it is not all hairy lipped hearthrobs. The Daily Mail, with customary disregard for reality, is offering some *meaningful* tips on how to deal with the Credit Crunch and after you have watched your savings disappear into the abyss. Tip 2 made me wide-eyed with incredulity:

On your walk in the park, why not watch children play their impromptu football games? It's often more entertaining than their professional counterparts. And you'll never see a bad or violent tackle.

So, that's The Daily Mail - one of the most hysterical papers in the country, saying you should stare at kids in the park. Normally such behaviour would have a tabloid journalist hunting you down like a dog and burning "PAEDO" into your head with a red hot branding iron. Because the banks are having a bit of a shitty time, suddenly staring at kids in the park has become, in the compellingly demented world of The Mail, "ok". Because, you know, it is free.

I always knew that The Daily Mail would have a complete breakdown and disappear into its own hate filled arsehole; I never thought it would be over tips to survive the Credit Crunch.

Calm Down, Everyone

Ok, the economy is struggling. Badly. Big businesses that this time last year were very much success stories and part of the establishment are going under or being bought. People are going to suffer, jobs are going to be lost, and the nice, pleasant economic decade we have just had is over.

But seriously, the way some people are talking about all this you would think that we are living through the end of days. We're not. And for every lefty pseudo-Marxist who is gleefully rubbing their hands and predicting the imminent demise of capitalism - please do shut up. You're not helping.

The economy is readjusting after a decade of excess. Some businesses went too far, and their business plans did not take into account what would happen if the economy faltered. It is a tragedy for everyone who has lost their business or their job, and whilst I think things are going to get worse before they get any better, I also hope that the econonmy picks up again soon. But downturns and recession are as much a part of the economic cycle as booms - whatever lies Gordon Brown might spout.

This is not the end of capitalism, it is not the end of everything. Calm down, everyone, and try hoping for the best. Rather than prophesising the worst.