Lies Are Now Told Without Moving Lips

It can seem we have no intelligent commentary on the UK economy. The story we are plied with seems to be:
the British economy makes an extraordinarily complicated picture. We have an economy which is either flatlining or going into an unprecedented triple dip, but is rapidly growing jobs (despite 30,000 government jobs going a month); we have brutal cuts in government spending, while government spending continues to rise; we have a country where things feel as if they’ve been bad for a long while, and yet on the figures, most of the hard times are still ahead. You’d think the banks had been thrown a few peanuts rather than £120K per household. Productivity, despite all the ‘thrusting’ private-sector created jobs, is down 15% on where it would have been on pre-2008 trend. We will soon have less crime because we got rid of 28,000 police staff and now have rank amateurs setting police budgets.

I salute the squadrons of flying British pork off to maintain Empire as they soar over the Pennines, counting them all out and counting them all back!

For similar on the US propaganda front see:


Transparency (2) – We Need Policing

Max Keiser on France24

Max Keiser on France24 (Photo credit: Stacy Herbert)

Bill Black who wrote ‘The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One’ and actually put some banksters in jail is a voice of sanity.  You can track him  down by googling ‘Naked Capitalism’.  I’ve been convinced for a long time, that if we want real social and political change, we have to accept that we’ll need to police the change.  This won’t be easy as we all rightly fear the notion of a police state and our legal systems are way short of being fair and just a lot of the time.  Ignoring the worst possibilities of our behaviour in Utopian notions of our condition with blandishments such as ‘the State will wither away’ is frankly stupid.  What we do under total solutions is clearly horrible.  We surely have some clues when we properly evaluate the Nazi, Soviet and Maoist lunacies and many others like Jihad and Crusade – right down to such matters as the Spanish fascists stealing babies or Pinochet’s cretins killing mothers after the birth of their children.  This is always closer to home than we care to think, with the likes of the vile Thatcher condoning Pinochet or Bliar taking us into war to present himself with a world stage and a job as JP Morgan’s bag man (he may possibly have followed Churchill into this career).

In the UK, the Metropolitan Police has now lifted the lid off revolting practices by some of our media – simply by doing an investigation instead of covering up.  We have seen the absurdly pathetic expenses scandal in our Parliament and are now seeing that all promises of change were paper tigers.  Our Prime Minister, Bliar Mark Two, is involved with people seeking influence through cash donations.  Some clown is now saying, in Parliament, that we need to look into donations – when we should have stopped the farce long ago.  Millibore demands a proper independent enquiry – but the problem is we don’t know how – the Iraq enquiries and many others (Bloody Sunday) do not produce transparency and prove to be little other than reinforcement of secrecy.  Secret cameras and reporter stings do a better job.  Politicians and big business get away with the equivalent of the bookmaker inspired Pakistani no ball on a daily basis.  Government in Britain has taken the same course year in year out,  Under Nulabour the 18 previous years of Tory rule was to blame and now the 13 years of Nulabour is to blame.  This is true, of course, and is true because we can only elect useless shits,

The following is part of Bill Blacks tirade on the JOBS Act in the USA.

“The sixth form of insanity is a counterfactual.  The unique aspect about this crisis is that it is the first one in modern U.S. history in which the CEOs directing the control frauds that caused the crisis have done so with complete impunity from the criminal laws and near impunity from civil suits and enforcement actions.  The worst, most destructive fraudulent CEOs have been allowed to become and remain wealthy through their frauds even though several of them caused greater losses than the entire S&L debacle.  The worst fraudulent CEOs who led the prior epidemics of accounting control fraud that drove the S&L debacle and the Enron-era crisis were prosecuted.  Not a single elite CEO from Wall Street or the largest fraudulent lenders has even been charged with fraud arising from such loans even though they, collectively, made over two million fraudulent loans in 2006.  Had the Bush and Obama administrations prosecuted and denounced these elite frauds it would have been politically impossible for an act as criminogenic and cynical as the JOBS Act to be promoted by the Obama administration and adopted by large Congressional minorities.  We are seeing with the JOBS Act the sick face of crony capitalism.

The seventh form of insanity is that there is no greater killer of jobs than elite financial fraud.  Such fraud epidemics can hyper-inflate bubbles (as they did in the U.S. and several European nations) and cause severe financial crises and recessions.  The resulting Great Recession has cost over 10 million Americans their existing or future jobs in this crisis.  It has cost over another 15 million people their existing or future jobs in Europe.  The JOBS Act is so fraud friendly that it will harm capital formation and produce additional job losses.  It may appear to be an oxymoron designed by regular morons, but that underestimates the abilities of the lobbyists that drafted this bill.  They are not morons.  They are doing faithful, clever service to their fraudulent clients.  That makes them more dangerous.”

Black makes the point that most of the right applaud the notion of broken windows policing – and yet at the same time cannot bear the idea in financial services or white collar crime generally.  The City of London is basically the centre of a criminal network of financial exploitation.    This should shock no serious student of history or even watcher of the ludic Keiser report (see a few random episodes –  Things are so bad that a development of Radio Moscow is closer to the truth than our Bimbo Broadcasting Corporation and its embedded incompetents.

We broadly allow the criminal City because of the kind of complex morality that allows us to imagine it is necessary in a dirty world.  Police officers are no more honest than the rest of us, but it’s difficult to imagine how any CJS could work if we do not assume their honesty in giving evidence.  Many trials are decided on our ability to choose between competing accounts – though science tells us we are pretty hapless in doing this.  Once one believes it’s a dirty old  world and corners need to be cut (they often do) because we can’t establish perfection (we can’t), there is a slippery moral slope.  One cannot abandon all of a legal system because of a few flaws.  We cannot abandon or over-regulate our criminal City because this would just let monsters beyond the gate to take over.

Even if we could turn all our weapons to plough shares, this would be no use if Al Queda could step in with a few guns, put our women in black bags and so on.  If we give up on economic dominance, we give up the advantage to others who will arm and take us over,  This isn’t  all rot – and is a bigger part of our chronic ideology than most admit.  The old story in this is that when our dominance is perfect enough, we’ll spread the benefits and get everyone playing along with us.  My guess though  is that the world is as crap now as it was 60 years ago when I was born, if we strip away technological advances (and many of these have just ‘improved’ our killing and planet burning potentials).

My belief is we need a mid-range policing solution not economics to change society for the better.  This is difficult to explain, as i believe the purpose of policing is to keep criminality out of our lives and this involves severe policing of police.  My dog needs a walk.

What might a positive economics be?

I’m always struck that “economics” is so generally the reason we can’t do what’s needed. Those of us who teach it often refer to it as ‘war by other means’ (said of diplomacy too). We have our own jargon -macro-micro monetary-fiscal abrabloodycadabra.  These days we tend to go straight for models and arithmetic and cut out thinking altogether.

This means if it seems sensible to have more and better equipped cops (and let’s face it, there’s no shortage of labour) to improve our quality of life through more freedom from crime, we can’t have them because they will be a cost – we even end up cutting jobs and equipment budgets.  Sensible ideas like renovating and greening our housing stock can’t be done for the same reason.  It’s better to “employ” people to do nothing on the dole!  I make no apologies for saying this isn’t clever, it’s fucking stupid.  The ultimate “success” of current economics is about consuming stuff that makes us fat, unhealthy and childlike as we breed ourselves into poverty and war and resource annihilation.

A positive economics needs to start with a list of what we want to achieve and the barriers to this.  I’d say the first issue is one of world population control.  This has more or less tripled in my lifetime, just as the more advanced countries have curbed that of their indigenous peoples.  A very thorny issue, yet we’re reaching the point of competition for air and land exhaustion.  Our main means of population control has been the education of women and making kids too expensive.

The next is some form of reasonable equality combined with innovative conservation of capital and the work that produces it.  This means full employment and probably radical changes in employment relationships.focused on dignity.  I guess we could more than get by on a 30hour, three-day week and a 40 week year and raise living standards and quality of life.  This is a radical change and we need to understand our current practices are feudal, medieval and broadly neurotic.  We are now massively productive.  Half of all French workers in 1958 worked on the land and all our economies were once agrarian. We need to harness modern productivity to quality of life, not work as serfs to profit as in the Domesday Book.  Our work ethic is out of date.

The point of economics would be to ensure funding for work that needs doing.  We have ceded this role to banks – nearly all money is now created by them and allocated as credit.  Current disasters have all been to do with their failure to put the money into the right investments and we should return to primitive banking with bankers on wages.  I wouldn’t ring fence the rest, but arrest in large numbers and bury the speculative dross and its restrictive practices as surely as the ‘Amalgamated Union of Holeborers’.

I see plenty of room for markets (even Lenin did) but these need to be free of insider trading, algorithms, derivatives and accounting practices that hide failure to the very point of draining the swamp after we’re up to our arses in alligators.  We need to wrench capitalism back from favoured oligarchs and parasitic ‘speed’.

Deep questions remain in any of this (and much more) -not least what must replace greed and massive accumulation – or for that matter the fear of poverty as a work motivator and how we could still ‘discipline’ work.and provide some form of productive leisure for the social animals we are.

Perennial problems of world peace, despotic creeps, chronic religionists and bandits still prevail and we need ideas on this beyond vapid assertions on the wonder of human nature.  We’ve been living under an American umbrella that has been a holocaust of ‘killing hope’ for others.  The maintenance of this has required the beggar thy neighbour economics to keep military superiority and I for one don’t want to give this up to a bunch of the ‘wrong Mullahs’.

That economics isn’t democratic is obvious in history and our democracies have wilted in corruption.  We clearly don’t want to create a situation in which getting work done is like herding cats.

Yet what is work now?  We know that if you haven’t got any you’re likely to be poor or very rich.  What does work make?  We would rather give it to North Koreans in Mongolia (paying the clown dictator) than our own.  We can’t afford cops, yet we can afford Rooney and the half-assed media circuit of celebrities and news poodles.  We aren’t housing our people and creating a green economy, but can have Xmas cheer in the form of plastic crap from China.

The positive questions really concern whether we can trust ourselves with a more rational system and prevent any ‘darkness at noon’ and iron cage of bureaucracy.  In the meantime we have nurses chatting whilst old patients starve – and a probable 15% unemployment while all sorts of things can’t be done.  We need a leveling and this will come through war unless we can establish a more rational way.

The ideas are around and the analysis could be done.  We are apathetic.  Another key issue to addfress,


How Long Before We Have Real Street Protests?

Interesting in a democracy that we aren’t seeing much reporting of a mass movement of protest that’s starting in the USA.  There are a few ‘campsites’ forming in the UK, but our social security safety net cushions people from the kind of homelessness and hunger that brings anything to attention and action in politics.  We just don’t care or want to care, do we?

Around the world, research shows that government cuts of 3% or more lead to substantial increases in the amount of protests – ours (UK) are just about to start hurting and exceed this figure (see Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth – ‘Austerity and Anarchy: Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe 1919-2009″ – Centre for Economic Policy Research).

Philosophically we might start asking, instead of ‘when is a terrorist a freedom fighter’ the question ‘when is a police officer an agent of repression’?  I like the latter question as it assumes policing has a lot to do with democracy and freedom, which it does.  Instead, those of a more practical bent might start wondering where to spend the over-time.  The link to the paper is – – students and those interested will find a wealth of material at this site.

I have as little to do with the system as I can manage.  If you earn more than £50K it’s barkingly obvious you don’t deserve it, though we might want to preserve wages (not earnings) up to £100K for motivational purposes.  No one should be able not to contribute work to the system and we have a lot of idle rich and putative ones.  The are as scum as any evil poor,perhaps more so as they must know they are looting.  It’s now taking £4 to £8 of debt to produce a quid in increased GDP – this is because the rich maintain a system that plunders and enslaves.  If my next book sells well and the rest it could make me more money than I have otherwise made in my lifetime – farcical – and then some poor slobs end up having to work to pay the interest when I lend it to them (indirectly).  I don’t wish to be a slave owner, however indirectly.  I might be more effective than the whole of ACPO if given the chance, but I’m not worth one of their salaries.  No one is and we’ve been conned over the years into beliefs in all kinds of unproven crud on expertise and the need to pay for it.  I know universities don’t teach much expertise outside of science and medicine, and just how poor most business graduates and MBAs really are.  Don’t confuse me with a leftie -I’ll be well to the right of anything you think up.

We’re about to see a lot of household incomes drop,including so-called middle income groups.  Those with kids and big mortgages are already struggling – inflation is at 15% onimportant stuff like food and general living expenses.  Jobs are nowhere to be found in our bleak areas, immigrants are everywhere we could once drop down to and the economy has changed structurally so as to prevent growth in jobs.  We still have mad notions that GDP increases mean an economy is growing rather than burning the planet, and don’t understand we could now largely emancipate ourselves from work.

I’ve just read a short book by a police officer concerned the job is so stressful it drives most people away within ten years or so – it does.  Women lasted an average of five years last time I looked.  The answers are couched in terms of much I’d agree with as a start – but I think we need to go more radical.  I suspect work is generally bad for us and we wouldn’t do most of it if we didn’t think we needed the money.  And I think we could get by much better than we do now on a 30 hour 3-day week.  Work is fundamentally non-democratic and the means through which the ancien regime continues as an Undead.

Street protest will not be about considered change to our society.  If a three-day week seems fantastic to you, remember the last real one when Heath was PM lost only 4% of national production.  I can find you Wall Street and City Men who will tell you unemployment is now really at 15% – but my company doctor analysis is that it runs closer to 70% if we add in useless work.  You can approximate to the figure by imagining, say, that all ACPOs were killed this morning and when we’d notice.  I can show you detailed analysis of work that shows most of it conforms to the Pareto principle.

What we need is a sensible change towards better quality of life (not that piss to mention at promotion boards) and reasonable equality.  They still have us thinking quite chronic inequality is necessary and that powers in work hierarchies that amount to droight de sneignor are needed.  We need to get rid of these hideous medieval practices.  One used to be able to moderate this stuff by earning your way out of it – but debt has kiboshed that opportunity for most.

The Arab Spring looks like a failure already.  Our own streets will fill as things bite in around 12 months time, but there is no plan to bring real change.  I saw some odious BBC woman asking what more kids in relative poverty would mean.  FFS!  This is how dumb we have become.  We are now massively productive to what end?  Poverty?  Cops paid by banks, earning property through over-time suppressing the people?  Where have we seen that before?

Are we on the brink of a genuine revolution?

There’s a big set of photos like these posted by my friend Chris Jenkins at –

The venue is Occupy Tampa, part of protest across the USA – we have the beginnings of our own versions.  Chris’ theme is now ordinary the protesters are.  Most street protest has only made me yawn or reach in despair for my cricket box – we has-beens had no protective equipment.  I hope we are going to see big protests this time.  I’m so fed up with politics as we have it that I could barely be bothered to register to vote – like many more gauging from the Council guy who has just been round with the registration forms.  I want a government of ‘white suits’ across the US and Europe and a structured debt jubilee and international service.  I’m not actually a democrat, but want to see a system in which votes matter to the people, not the loons making up political speeches and the same old promises to garner them.  There are clearly some things that most of us can’t vote on using considered argument – but these can still be open to public scrutiny are generally are not.

What I’d like to see is such a weight of public protest that politicians, banksters and our poodle media could not ignore.  I suspect something much worse is coming because our apathy is unbounded.  I see no left and right in any of this – the call is freedom and substantial put us nearer 1970 than 1900 (which is where wealth distribution is).

The private sector as it has been for the last 40 years can’t help us get what we want, which is mostly simple enough – reasonable security and reward through work.  We just won’t be honest about this and research shows most of us don’t know the real state of play, do want more equality and imagine there is much more than there is.

Not exactly a bunch of ‘caped anarchists’ this lot, are they?  Chris has posted hundreds and I’m sure we have to do something.  Most people hope they can ignore what’s going on and that somehow decent jobs will return.  Some are so barking they still hope for a crisis in capitalism – not realising capitalism has almost disappeared and is something we need back.

Corruption Models

It should have dawned on most of us that greed has finally screwed our productive economies.  It’s the triumph of Wall Street and the decline of America writ worldwide.  Yves Smith’s Naked Capitalism reposts this:

‘Whatever the deeper story, however, Madrick’s subtitle gets it right: what we have experienced is, in a very real sense, the triumph of Wall Street and the decline of America. Despite what some academics (primarily in business schools) claimed, the vast sums of money channelled through Wall Street did not improve America’s productive capacity by “efficiently allocating capital to its best use”. Instead, it diminished the country’s productivity by directing capital on the basis of financial chicanery, outrageous compensation packages and bubble-infected stock price valuations.

My suspicion is that it has mainly been intellectual fashion, fanned with the backing of any number of corporate backed think tanks spewing out “research” that was anything but real research; rather pro-business propaganda. A sort of flat earthism, helped by some unsavoury support from those who benefit the most. But in the end its supreme illogic is catching up with it. When the contradictions of greedism only affected peripheral economies, such as Latin America and Asia, then those “other countries” could safely be blamed. But now it is affecting the major developed economies of Europe and the US, and it is becoming harder to avoid the obvious conclusion. It is not a choice between no government or bad government. It is a choice between bad government or good government.’

My own view is that organised crime is a better metaphor (and possibly real model) for what’s going on.  What we need are other models of enquiry to understand what organisation does.  Police corruption looks small enough to make a start on (though I believe this is a pin-prick in wider CJS corruption).  My starting point is people like Shijuro, Gadget and others who more or less deny police corruption.  I take them as straight people.  I saw little police corruption when I was a cop and heard a lot of complaint from obviously bent bastards that it was rife – they sometimes claimed the same of me and I know I was ‘hopelessly straight’ (tea and bacon butties aside).  This might seem to lead me to agree with the ‘deniers’.  Indeed, I do believe in the heavy presence of bent and idiot complaining.

My interest is in a wider and practically applicable theory (nothing is more practical than good theory) to organisation in general -my subject specialism is organisation theory.  The police case will hopefully lead to this wider understanding.  One might think here that a finding of no police corruption  would rank against this wider interest, but in fact a ‘clean case’ would help a lot in establishing it.  If we knew how to build such a clean system we could build clean financial services (at least in principle).

We regularly see corruption emerge, reluctantly, to daylight – Parliamentary expenses, the hacking scandal and so on.  Those around it claim they weren’t aware of it.  And as said, like Shijuro and others working more recently, I saw little and was offered little.  At least, this was true when I was plodding.  There was a bit, but it was pathetic  Undertakers turning up single-manned offering a fiver to carry out a body sort of stuff.  I saw more later, but the question as to whether blokes like me and Shijuro would ‘see’ corruption going on remains.  Not wanting any part of it, being subject of false complaints and other factors probably work against your average Joe being part of corruption or ‘seeing’ what might be there.  The most obvious way to find corruption is probably to be invited into it.  If one accepts, then silence or denial follows – and we all know the dangers of trying to blow the stuff out of the water.  The evidence we can give at this level needs explanation, but is not decisive.

I’d want to establish the full picture of complaints, cases and convictions.  I don’t know of one and the absence of a freely available source is itself disturbing.  There is a website that has a ‘rough catalogue’ – – and reading through it I found quite a lot I’m aware of missing.  As it is, it’s big enough to be worrying.  We should have a reliable official source.  The IPCC is the obvious agency that should insist on and collate such.  Quite how they think they can submit a paper to the Home Secretary without this base information, or reference to its lack, I don’t know.  I believe they may be the paradigm case of how not to do independent evaluation.

I doubt we can legislate or preceduralise some of the worst behaviours out of our organisations, though a lot is not being done to make things better and outcomes straighter.  A key word in my subject discipline is ‘transparency’, making realistic teaching of accounting, finance and organisational design somewhat farcical if one takes this seriously.  Dark pool and shadow financing dwarf balance sheets about anything one could shine a light on.  If we are teaching practice, we should be teaching ‘how not to get caught holding the baby’.  How one stops the revolting cop who sexually exploits children and women of whom a colleague might say ‘not even with yours’ is always going to be difficult (yet it should be easier to prosecute on real matters than words exchanged in jest and isn’t).  The accountant who presents management finances showing great bonuses for the senior group through the creation of a toxic subsidiary should be sacked, yet its the honest Joe who will be.

What we could do, both in policing and banksterism, is demonstrate the model we believe should be in place.  Even this is more difficult than at any first glance in the honest assumptions most of us share.  Greed was supposed to be ‘good’ and provide a cake so big we’d all be well off with its crumbs than through honest business, properly regulated. The cop equivalent is to say the job can’t be done with all kinds of regulation of their back – yet the rich get the ‘judge on the shoulder’ of judicial review.

‘Transparency’ is, in fact, a weasel-word – like ‘learning lessons’ and other pap.  95% of its use is naive or cynical.  The input words will be that we must have a robust, transparent, full and rigorous investigation and the output (intended before the outset) will be that ‘Blair didn’t lie to us on Iraq’ (speaking of weasels – watch Dispatches on Monday).  We need to break this kind of hold and risk more direct democracy.  One way f doing this is to do the real casework on matters like police corruption to establish how it works.

I’m not really interested in exposing more bent cops than surface at the moment.  This would be a good side-effect if this is the case that pertains.  There is already substantial work on ‘how we corrupt the organisations we work in, are corrupted by them and conceal this from others and ourselves’.  It’s disparate.  I’d point to some really good field work on eye witness evidence and the general issue of ‘working blind’ – police and forensic work are considerably corrupted by ‘personal and group Idols’.  We should be very concerned that people with scientific training are often so bad in this respect.  Much of the work that needs doing is in producing organisation theory that isn’t the sort of poncy piffle found at academic conferences, and instead approaches the moral corruption of work, bullying bosses, the jobsworth and incompetence.  My own start in this is 400 years old and can be found in the otherwise unreadable, arse-licking of Francis Bacon.

I think the key is money and our lack of control over it.  I didn’t take the five quids (maybe £60 now) from Mr B the undertaker.  This level of corruption is profoundly uninteresting, if often hilarious (60 cops in a fishing contest, all without necessary licences).  Much worse has taken place in an entirely legal framework.  Much ‘evidence’ produced in our courts is as doctored as Enron accounts.  But the point is the discovery of how this comes about and is so easily legitimated until reality is breached to the point of miscarriage.  We need, in the first place to establish what the Idols that legitimate corruption are.  In this sense, I agree focus on our cops is unfair because other groups are much worse.  The rich are notably unprepared to be regulated and whilst it must now be obvious they have no case, there is a problem with regulation that becomes red tape.  This is actually classic in avoiding the intent of regulation, especially in writing unusable legislation.

We can now at least ‘write’ organisational forms that limit corruption.  These challenge vested interest.  In wide academic reading one finds that all the general suggestions politicians come up with have been tried and failed.  Police in the UK have always managed to resist an independent body with its own investigators who can get in quick, prevent collusion on evidence and that would be responsible to the public directly, with its work subject to speedy public scrutiny.  The tiny IPCC is no such animal.  .

Organisation theory as taught fails to address our complexity as social animals.  It gives recipes for ‘herding cats’ as though cats do herd.  Not content with this incompetence it provides those bright enough to know this is crap with elaborate diversions into critiques of power also based on fantastic notions of human nature or hopeless hopes like the ‘State withering away’.  Some of this work, like Lyotard’s is really witty, much like that of Habermas is so boring (if sometimes accurate) you lose the will to live.  The standard fodder is in textbooks fit only for bit parts in Fahrenheit 457, taught by pedants who shrike over whether I got the temperature of ‘book burning’ right.  Left behind are barkingly obvious thingies like it being unfair for a few to get filthy rich (important because we end up in serfdom to their money), a work ethic fit for the 13th century and the fact most of us don’t want to suffer crap bosses and jobs so dull monkeys are smart enough not to do them.  To talk like this is against manners, and if you want a theory of that you can use Norbert Elias.  Most people can’t do much maths, so we base economics on it.  Humour is everywhere crushed and one suspects regarded as uncouth.  The dullest departments of all are the business schools, where empowerment, kwality, innovation and creativity drown under the weasel use of the terms.  Here, dworks teach excellence, not realising the concept blew up within 6 months of publication of the book they think businesses use and don’t.  None of us, under this barrage of drivel have a clue of how much work needs to be done in our society and how this might be fairly managed.

My model would start in tracking real work – this happens in manufacturing,  If we find  miserable crooked families making life hell for neighbours and living lives of welfare sponsored crime over and over again and using housing, police, social worker and legal aid money over and over how can we call this a ‘success’?  And I don’t say this lightly because the agencies concerned are claiming to be successful rather than bungling, serial incompetents.  I believe something like this is the case in many spheres of work activity.  We are stamping qualifications out all over – but where is the real educational success?  Bankers stamp out mega-bonuses whilst losing our shirts.  You get the drift – some corruption must be involved.  We’ve been pumping aid out – where is the real success?

I believe the corruption is such a ‘mechanism’ that it must be known and expected by some of the players – we may blame Mugabe because aid money turns up in his “Swiss” account – but maybe other players know this will be the case and turds like him are just a front like a bent jewelry store fronting money laundering and usury? The corruption ‘mechanisms’, whatever they are, make it impossible to sensibly invest either money or effort.

To get to a model we need something like police enquiry in terms of being able to demand evidence.  One reason there is so much ‘theorising’ is that there is no access to evidence to derive facts from.  Imagine being black in Rhodesia dreaming of freedom from white colonialism – then imagine what this spring moment would be like knowing you wouldn’t get freedom but Mugabe.  Lack of knowledge of ‘corruption mechanisms’ sticks us in something like this situation.  To think of curbing banksterism, obscene excess and settling for a peaceful world in which we shifted from planet burning to something more communal is impossible why?  In my view, at least one possibility is the lack of corruption control models of organisation that would facilitate new and fairer forms of work.  There are, incidentally, economic models that predict success from handing out money to the poor instead of the banking black hole of the rich Politburo.  There have also been anti-corruption organisational designs in policing (they were utter bureaucratic piss).

My suspicion is that the ability to hide transactions is a major part of any ‘corrupt mechanism’.  Some stuff is private and we don’t want members of any anti-vice and promotion of purity squad peering into our houses to check our partners are wearing burkhas.  A register of complaints and process against police officers isn’t that and is something we should be able to demand.  Banks should not be able to assure us the investment we put into a local factory is now safely hedged in Zimbabwe delta-bonds either.  Black pools, shadow banking and bureaucratic secrecy, along with control through hot money and capital flight threats ain’t democracy either.