Money doesn’t smell of anything except money and wherever it comes from it gives off the same whiff of intoxicating magnetic attraction. Money, where some are concerned, is good wherever you get it from, but the only problem with that is there are times when the policies of some are in complete contradiction with that, but they soon give off some spin to show just how they are doing it the way they should be. Right now, one of those spin artists is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK George Osborne and the British government along with it. Money has no smell for the Brits
David Cameron and the British government were one of the first in the EU to speak out about immigration and the dangers of allowing hundreds of thousands of people enter the country in the age-old discussion of the migrant mythological creature that stole our jobs and probably our women and was only here for one thing: money. He also stated that the migrants came for the British Welfare State, which in itself is nothing more than a patriotic belief.
- The British might believe that they invented the concept of the Welfare State and the Social Security in 1910 with health freely available to all.
- However, that is in itself not true since it was Chancellor Bismarck of Germany that did so in the 1880s; although the British were perhaps the first to destroy it.
- Who would actually go to the UK to get treated on the British National Health System?
- If you go to hospital in the UK, you have 50% more chance of dying because you are going to be badly treated than in any other country in the Western world.
- You would have to go to emerging countries to find figures like that.
- The British have 5 times more chance of dying from pneumonia in hospital than in the US and they will have twice the chance of been diagnosed with blood-poisoning.
- Naturally, the immigrants are flocking to the white cliffs of Dover just to get into a British hospital.
- There’s one thing being patriotic and then there’s downright proof of pulling the wool over your eyes.
- The immigrants would go elsewhere if they had the chance of getting better treatment from a welfare state.
- There are 70, 000 Brits that actually decide to go abroad every year to get treatment in other countries.
- Immigrants would hardly go to the UK either to claim £55 per week on unemployment benefits when they could get it much better elsewhere (if that were the real reason they were going to a country).
On September 29th 2013 David Cameron gave an interview in the UK where he said that Muslim veils should be banned in schools and in courts and that he would back anyone up that wished to do it.
This is the man that stated that young migrants were not integrating into British culture and that the British had been too soft on agreeing to forego their cherished national identity (as many other nations also did after the financial crisis struck).
Scapegoating is always good for the polls. It takes the blame off the real people who are responsible, doesn’t it and diverts the attention of the public? Spin!
That is despite the fact that ‘national identity’ is a complete myth as no two British people will have the same notion of what identity is and anyway the majority of national identities were entirely constructed after the founding of the nation. They are based on invented stories or people that never existed and that have entered heroic status of the country such as King Arthur or Robin Hood for the UK; simply invented in order to provide origins that are so far off in the past that the British might believe that they were ‘the first’, that they have earned their right to be ‘here’ and that the traits that those people or places might embody (sharing, justice, valor, courage, etc.) should be espoused by the nation. Naturally, all British people are sharing and caring and they all respect justice and are brave souls.
George Osborne and David Cameron now wish to establish the UK as the biggest Islamic financial center outside of the Islamic world: “the first sovereign to issue an Islamic bond outside the Islamic world” as stated by George Osborne in an interview with the Financial Times. He wishes to issue a $323 million sukuk (a bond that complies with Islamic Sharia law).
George Osborne is under the impression that the UK will be the first to do so outside of the Islamic world, whereas the German federal state of Saxony-Anhalt did so in 2004 (issuing a bond worth $123 million).
Beyond the contradiction of condemning and perhaps even stigmatizing certain parts of the population in the UK and around the world, the British government has no qualms about becoming a financial hub for Islamic finance and banking.
Clearly, money has no smell.
But, it is true that Islamic finance and banking may have something that is very good in today’s bankster world: it is not linked to a tradable commodity and it has no value that is linked to time. Speculation is therefore discouraged, money is always linked to the economy (the real economy and not the virtual one). Prices would be less volatile if we used that sort of finance. Both profits and losses have to be shared by everyone, not just by one party.
- The British have certainly cottoned on to the fact that Islamic finance is increasing 50% faster than traditional types of banking in the world.
- Today Islamic banking only represents 1% of transactions that are taking place. But, that looks as if it is set to change.
- Sharia-compliant assets around the world amount to $1.8 trillion today.
- That is an increase from $1.3 trillion in 2011.
In other words, the subprime crisis would never have been possible. Sharia-compliant mortgages lend money to people, but the house remains the property of the lender. The buyer pays a rent until the property has been fully bought. There is no interest rate that can go up or down.
It is doubtful whether or not George Osborne is doing it for the good of the British economy or to get around the problems of speculation on the financial markets, or whether he is indeed under the impression that Sharia-compliant finance is better and the way forward. Whatever happens, it seems somewhat of a contradiction to pick n’ mix economic and national policies at will.
Money Has No Smell
It was the Roman Emperor Vespasian that first said that ‘money has no smell’ (pecunia non olet). He had passed a tax on tanners that used urine to cure their hides. He held a coin to his son’s nose asking him if it was offensive. His son replied ‘no’, to which Vespasian replied ‘money has no smell,
and yet it comes from urine’. The British believe that money has no smell and you can just imagine George Osborne holding that British penny up to Cameron’shooter down at number 10. They are in contradiction of their policies believing immigrants to be (at least publically-speaking) the cause of all ills in the UK, rather than actually dealing with the problem itself of the economy.
They know full-well that it is easier to blame the migrants, since they will never be able to deport them all from the country. They will, therefore, never be able to solve the problem of their economic dilemma. Their predicament will last and their scapegoat will be present to constantly blame. End of story.
The migrants are the problem for the British government apparently, but their money doesn’t smell, does it?
Originally posted: Money Has No Smell for Brits
Indian Inflation: Out of Control? | Greenspan Maps a Territory | Gold Rush or Just a Streak? | Obama’s Obamacare: Double Jinx | Financial Markets: Negating the Laws of Gravity |Blatant Housing-Bubble: Stating the Obvious | Let’s Downgrade S&P, Moody’s and Fitch For Once | US Still Living on Borrowed Time | (In)Direct Slavery: We’re All Guilty | The Nobel Prize: Do We Have to Agree? | Revolution Costs | Petrol Increase because Traders Can’t Read | Darfur: The Land of Gold(s) | Obamacare: I’ve Started So I’ll Finish | USA: Uncle Sam is Dead | Where Washington Should Go for Money: Havens | Sugar Rush is on | Human Capital: Switzerland or Yemen? |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/FRJLvl9tW-I/story01.htm Pivotfarm