Randomly Selected Article or Link

So, last night saw the first meeting of the "editorial board" of a new project initially being sponsored by Lib Dems ALTER , the party's only affiliated group focussing solely on radical economic issues, to publish a book of essays, in a similar vein to "The Orange Book" or "Re-inventing the State". We will set out the case that the "Liberal Economic Tradition " holds the key to the permanent eradication of poverty and the freedom to chose one's own path through life.

We hope to publish in time for the end of August this year, which will be the 100th anniversary of the passage through parliament of the Liberal Government's Old Age Pensions Act in 1908, a key landmark in the development of the modern welfare state, and a few weeks after the 60th birthday of the NHS, conceived by Liberal economist, William Beveridge.

It will truly take Liberal Democrats "out of their comfort zone", for many at least, by arguing that much of what we now have, a "state of welfare", started as a set essentially temporary fix-its intended to alleviate the worst poverty while the entrenched privilege caused by state protected monopolies was dismantled through such radical change as land reform and tariff reduction leading to truly free trade. It will promote the idea that this "unfinished business" is just as relevant and important for today's world, paving the way for what banker and author Bernard Lietaer has called "sustainable abundance".

Over the next few weeks we will firm up the range of topics and start looking for people who may wish to contribute an article in each area, hopefully mostly, and perhaps exclusively, from within the Liberal Democrats themselves. We would like it to be a truly collaborative effort with contributions not just from the "great and the good" within the party, but from the many grass-roots members who we believe share some of these ideas .

So, if any of you are interested in contributing something, do please get in touch with your ideas, or a subject area you would be interested in writing about. From time to time I'll keep people up to date on here, but we're also likely to create a "Liberal Alternative" website where we can co-ordinate the effort.

...but the Tories are possibly in the best position to do it, if they dare.

Much has been made of David Cameron's attempts to persuade us that a vote for the Tories is the real environmental vote for Britain. And whilst I will suspend judgement personally until I see policies defined, because I do fancy that old fashioned small "c" conservatism can be very environmentally sustainable, I have yet to hear him propose any of the sort of change that I believe can only truly create a sustainable world.

And nor am I saying that any of the mainstream political parties, including my own Liberal Democrats and including the Green Party, are actually any better, yet.

For it's no good just going on about whether or not your have a better recycling rate in your councils, or whether to charge more for Chelsea tractors and air travel, or to plant more trees, or whether you cycle to the Commons or not. These are merely addressing the symptoms of an economic system that forces us into a never ending search for economic growth in order primarily to pay off the debt on which our economies rely for financial liquidity - money.

And it is this debt based growth imperative that creates most of the traffic on our roads, the need to get goods around the world in double quick time, goods that are of lower quality and shorter shelf-life time in order that we have to go out and buy another one (and dispose of a previous one).

It goes further, into deeper seated problems that we are also struggling with that are not traditionally seen as "environmental" issues: - it is the reason why we will have to work longer and harder, in an era when more and more work could be done mechanically, just to be able to enjoy a few years of retirement. It creates the need for economic 'warfare' between countries. It gives far too much power to governments, because they can deliberately maintain a shortage of resources and therefore the power to allocate to one group or another depending on political expediency. It keeps poor countries dependent on the largesse of richer ones. And it gives the opportunity for Bono and Bob to make waves with "Drop the Debt" campaigns that will never quite hit the root of the problem!

It is, in short, why despite good economic growth, certainly in the northern, "wealthy" world, we can be financially richer generation on generation and yet not significantly happier.

And to resolve it would be to enable a culture of "sustainable abundance", in which truly "free" trade is better able to disperse a more even distribution of the world's wealth and the benefits that go with participating in that would bring.

We already know some of the factors that we need to manage - we give the Bank of England strict inflation targets, we know we must keep a close eye on the money supply, yet the very way we do the latter leads to the former. We keep "real" money, money created for nothing, pledged only on the credit of the people, at a minimum - there are only £40 billion or so pounds in existence in an economy that uses over thirty times that amount to account for its national product. All the rest is created, entirely privately, with only base rates to moderate how much and how fast, by the commercial banks. And instead of it being created for a single one off cost of producing it as is the case with cash, we pay for it every day it exists, in interest payments.

Look at it this way: if you borrow a million pounds at five percent for a couple of years in order to get a new product off the ground, you'll maybe use that to buy raw materials, to pay wages and so on. But in order just to break even you have to sell your product for at least £1.1 million. In this very simple economy, you can't pay your workforce and those of the raw material suppliers even enough to buy your production. So more money is needed in the system. And guess where that comes from - yes, more debt.

Yet the answer is, as J K Glabraith put it "so simple it repels the mind". Create the money not as debt, but free - even "production" costs of money are minimal when most of it only ever exists as electronic entries in different bank accounts - against the credit of the economy that's producing the goods it needs to buy and sell. You end up, over time, with a truly stable money supply. One in which people and business do not have to produce ever more every year just in order to finance the ability to purchase what is already created.

And for the party that grasps this comes the promise of a manifesto that reads like Monty Python's "Blue Peter" sketch - you know, the ability to cure all known diseases - in this case of the economy. We can lower your tax bill, give you more time to enjoy the benefits of the technological revolutions that have boosted growth over the past couple of centuries and never, it seems, faster than now. A fairer world. A freer world. Sustainable abundance.

Until then, all the "green" policies I've ever heard are merely tinkering around the edges of a problem that is purely of human, intellectual, creation - for that's what economic theories and systems are. They're not fixed, immutable laws as if of nature, but ways of trying to describe how human society works and distributes resources. If one isn't working, it can be tweaked or swapped for another.

The Tories have a history of taking the once crack pot ideas of at the time "dissident" economists like Friedman and Hayek and persuading people and business that they are the next big thing. If they can grasp the solution this time, they could make the running. And as the party traditionally of "big business" they could be in a position to persuade the right people to accept this one. I won't be holding my breath though, but if someone doesn't grasp it, and soon, I reckon we're in for a hard, destructive century that the planet will be hard pressed to survive.

They've been rumbled. The very shaky foundations of the entire house of cards have been exposed. The vast fraud against lower and middle income households that is the financial system, and, ultimately, government has been laid bare. Surely everyone can now see that? No? That doesn't surprise me. Just as there was very little outcry in this country when former Governor of the Bank of England Eddie George revealed that their commission on independence in 1997 was not just to maintain an inflation target but also to see to it that house prices continued to rise by keeping money as cheap as possible for as long as possible.

In my opinion, whatever the consequences in the short term, it would be better if Fannie and Freddie were allowed to die gracefully even as their lives have been a disgraceful deceit. What have they done that is so bad that a normally forgiving person like me would be calling for the corporate equivalent of the death penalty? The seemingly innocent practice of underwriting mortgages is in fact a key factor in the creation of the property price bubble and in the transfer of wealth from poorer to richer.  Yes that's right, redistribution the wrong way!  Without that underwriting the front line lenders would have been more cautious in their lending stabilising prices and not stretching households to the financial limits just to have a home over their heads.

Oh, what a clever idea, you still say perhaps - after all, it surely helps more people buy a home. And that's what Fannie and Freddie were supposed to do, by offering an implicit government guarantee people who would previously not have been considered for a mortgage got to join in the jamboree. And that's the problem - a government guarantee. They, the state, have pledged an eye-wateringly close to unlimited amount of money, that's *our* money of course, to make us have to pay more for our homes to the banks who effectively create the credit in the first place and line the pockets of landowners. And this in a nation that is still so relatively empty as to have marginal land in abundance so other land values should still be relatively stable other things being equal.

But those other things are not equal, the cycle of lending inflates the broad money supply so over time reducing the value of the asset that very system conspired to make you pay so much for in the first place. And all this is only possible because of the enclosure of land, the privatisation of the entitlement to and collection of the value that the whole of the community creates at any particular unique location.

At best, Fannie and Freddie are shining witnesses to the power of unintended consequences - I am sure the New Dealers whose brainchild they were earnestly believed they were helping: at worst, they can be seen as part of a conspiracy between government and those who own the financial system and its institutions to transfer vast amounts of wealth from Average Joe to the richest few. Add the evidence of Eddie George that in the UK the past ten years' property price boom was deliberate though unannounced political policy and it's harder to rule out conspiracy over cockup.

Either way, Fannie and Freddie should go, and go quickly, and, as they say, be buried in a closed casket to boot. It will unleash financial turmoil of unprecedented ferocity I am sure. But it will be the herald of death to a fundamentally flawed, corrupt and downright fraudulent system that continues to benefit a tiny few at the expense of the vast majority. I was introduced to a new, to me, term at the weekend, the Kondratiev wave. Looking at the vast amounts of money involved in the current potential crisis, the fact that the asset bubble is bursting as production is also slowing and there's ever decreasing amounts of money available to maintain existing economic activity, and I'm beginning to wonder if Kondratiev wasn't on to something.

This is a huge opportunity. An opportunity to reinvent a stable monetary system more suited to a globalised world of trade and increasing aspiration amongst a whole new world of consumers, a world in which, of necessity, economic activity is shifting relatively away from the west, from the existing reserve currency and its close followers and towards the east and the global mass of population.

And that, dear reader, is why I am likely to die waiting. An opportunity those who wield power would prefer us to miss.