Bored by Political thought

I'm revising my Notes on Philosophy chapter by chapter and am now wrestling with Politics, and am finding it very boring.

To a considerable extent political thought involves creating elaborate systems of fallacious argument to provide a smokescreen for bossy people to tell other people what to do, and to give themselves an excuse doing so with self righteous pomposity.

Worst of all, many of them seem to be so stupid that they believe it.

Dull minds in high places

Opening the latest edition of 'The Philosophers' magazine' I noticed there was an article based on an interview with a member of Parliament.

Tony Wright MP, chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, used to teach Politics in the University of Birmingham. My enthusiasm waned a little on reading that.

'Only Politics' I thought, 'still, better than nothing'.

It turned out he read Politics, Philosophy, and Economics at the LSE. That sounded a little more encouraging.

Then I read 'I have trouble with concepts and logic. I remember doing logic at university and finding it impenetrable'

Advanced logic can indeed be tricky when it develops into the foundations of Mathematics, or formalises modal logic, but the sort of elementary logic (see chapter 2 of my notes) that would be taught to the general run of Philosophy students is extremely easy.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone baffled by logic has no intelligence at all, but what intelligence they have would amount to little more than the ability to recognise superficial similarities. Careful critical analysis would be beyond them.

Apparently that is all it takes to pass as brainy in the Palace of Westminster.

Will Inflation be the Governments' way out?

Interest rates have been cut to below the inflation rate, which at first sight seems odd at a time when banks and building societies are anxious to attract more deposits.

As the move closely follows measures by various governments greatly to inflate the money supply, I wonder if high inflation will prove to be their chosen way out.

Inflation could defang the 'toxic debts' by increasing property values until they suffice to cover the mortgages on the property. It would also reduce the value, in real terms, of debts governments have taken on.

It would be particularly dangerous if governments try to use inflation as a way of increasing employment. Experience in the 1960's and 1970's suggests that employment is not increased just by inflation, but only by accelerating inflation, so that relying on it, as Keynes recommended, would soon face us with a choice between accelerating inflation into hyperinflation, or stabilising inflation at the cost of a recession - the so called 'stag-flation'

An afterthought: I recently read a comment that Keynes had very little training in Economics, having attended only one course of instruction in the subject before becoming a lecturer - in Cambridge where his father was already a lecturer in Logic in the same department. As Keynes read Mathematics for his first degree, his formal education in Economics is likely to have been skimpy.

Govrnment Guarantess for Bank Deposits.

I should prefer the guarantee to cover slightly less than the full sum deposited. I suggest deducting one year's interest from payments made under the guarantee scheme.

That would ensure that the guarantee would be less on accounts paying higher interest, which tend to be the less secure institutions. I think Northern Rock paid higher rates on deposits than did most of its rivals.

The question is becoming academic, at least for the time being, as European Governments follow each other in offering 100% guarantees for all deposits, but that raises a new problem.

Governments that guarantee all bank deposits will be tempted to regulate the banks to restrict them to making only the safest loans, which would be loans secured by assets unlikely to depreciate below the value of the loan. That would not just rule out 100% mortgages, but also a great many overdrafts, both for private individuals and for companies, and probably all credit cards. The demise of the latter would at least speed up queues in supermarkets!

Would the restriction of bank credit encourage the creation of new institutions, with no government guarantee, to specialise in risky loans ? If so their services could be very expensive.