The Financial Economy

The Financial Economy

The financial economy is that part of the economy that is based not on the creation of goods or services but on the movement and creation of money. Minting or printing money is part of the real economy not of the financial economy because it is the creation of a good that is used in the real economy. Finance is the stock market, banking, the housing market the areas of the economy were by investment and speculation live side by side. Investment is a means of providing future wealth through the prudent use of money to help a business grow or at least have the potential to grow. 

But speculation is something different, it is anything but prudent, it is taking a guess on what will make money. Worst of all it hates doing wrong by itself and those who speculate encourage others to join in. One example is to encourage people to invest all of their investment in one stock, a particular favourite is to invest in housing or apartments. There is no prudence shown here, by either party it must be said, although the investor may be forgiven if they are ignorant of the true cost of such an “investment”. They are rarely shown the true nature of such speculation.  

Why am I making such a fuss about speculation? Because it seems that ethics in finance can be quite fluent, more than once have I heard the battlecry “but everyone's doing it!”, in other words how can it be wrong as it is now the industry standard. No matter how low that standard has become. 

The real problem with the financial economy is that it has no other standard of success than making more money. It is not concerned with social or political stability, unless those things harm the financial economy. It is also true that many people, institutions, charities, businesses and Governments rely on the financial economies success. Government should not be reliant upon the financial economy as it should have it’s own reserves to call upon. 

Every great economic crisis of the past two centuries has been caused not by the real economy but by the financial economy, normally by it giving out more credit (loans) than could ever be paid back. A self- created pyramid scheme. There is no need for this to be true, if the financial economy took as it’s motto the word “prudence” it would be very hard for these excesses to happen, let alone keep happening. Only when Governments, financial professionals and investors take their responsibilities seriously can we be protected from the excesses of the financial economy.




Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

The Real Economy

The Real Economy

The real economy is the economy that you and I live in, the offices, factories, farms, shops and the other physical elements that make up the economy. It includes our own financial transactions, getting paid a wage, buying groceries or other goods and services, giving to charity or saving money. 

The real economy is the economy of real life, our actual life not our potential life. Money invested is part of our potential life, money we have today is part of our real life. 

In a subsistence economy the important question is, have we produced enough food to survive or can we get access to enough food to survive. But in an advanced economy the question is, have we produced enough wealth, normally money, to provide for ourselves and our families. To produce enough wealth there needs to be access to both excess money to allow investment and jobs that pay a living wage. 

An economy without either of these things is inefficient because it causes friction between groups and friction can start sparks, sparks can create fires and fires can get out of control. It is best if the cause of the friction is not present in the first place.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

The Stock Market

The Stock Market

The Stock Market in short is a place, were by companies that need extra money are matched up with investors, people who have excess money, excess money in this case meaning excess to everyday needs. Once these two are married up it enables them to share both the rewards and the dangers of the Market. 

Today the Stock Market in it’s various guise’s is a major part of the economy. It has also become a major part of the economics of Liberalism and the Stock Market is used as a way to gauge the health of the economy, at both a National and International level. 

But how wise is it to do so? 

The Stock Market preforms a valuable service to the economy, it allows excess money to be active instead of lying dormant under someone’s mattress. It also allows the investor to support ideas or companies that matter to the investor. But of course once money is invested in the Stock Market it is not available for other uses. For example it cannot be loaned to a local shopkeeper nor can it be used to set up a local business. My point here is to point out that one choice can cut off other equal choices. 

There is risk in investing, nothing is guaranteed, no matter how often you are told it is. This is why it is important that only excess money be used, money that in a worse case scenario can be lost in it’s totality and it will not destroy the investor financially. 

But it is a mistake to think that the economy and the Stock Market are the same thing. The Stock Market is part of the Financial or Money economy, something that is quite different and can be quite distinct from the real economy.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

The United Nations and it's Rightful Place

The United Nations and it's Rightful Place

The United Nations has a rightful place, it exists for very good and specific reasons. But if it has a rightful place that means it has a wrongful place, a place it should never interfere in, a place it should not be involved in. 

The United Nations exists as a security organisation, to provide a place so that two or more nations who have an issue can discuss it, without any nation feeling that they have made a concession by simply talking. After all their Ambassadors are there already. The United Nations is not a world Government, nor is it a world Parliament, but it has since it’s creation had many believe that that is exactly what it is or should be. Is the United Nations responsible for that? 

I think not, it seems that many have placed their hopes for a better world upon the United Nations. It is a role that has been forced on it. It is also clear to me that the United Nations has gone through phase’s were it believed it really could be a world Government and other phase’s were it behaved strictly as a client of it’s member states. In effect the United Nations is a club that only recognises other member states, Taiwan but not China, then China but not Taiwan. It does not have it’s own military force, nor can it wage war or peace in it’s own name. It is owned by the member states and they make the decisions. But the member states are not the people of those states, no it is the Government of those states that are represented. 

The United Nations is not an elected body, it is one member state one vote. Do Jewish settlements in the West Bank affect your nation? Yes, then you get to vote on the issue. No, then you still get to vote on the issue. It is a system that sometimes makes an issue clearer and other times makes the issue murkier. 

The real problem with the United Nations is that the Diplomatic Corp and the politicians of many nations believe that the United Nations is more than just a security organisation. To be fair their confusion is understandable, many issues of world importance but with no real security concern have been placed in the hands of the United Nations, such as UNICEF for example.  

The United Nations became a place where International treaties were negotiated, it was convenient for all concerned. Unfortunately for the rest of us it became too convenient. When a treaty involving a number of Nation States was being negotiated, the United Nations became the de-facto setting for such negotiations. The effect was to compel States to join the new club, the treaty club. It meant that we had States that tortured that had input into how treaties on human rights ended up. But United Nations membership means one state, one vote so everyone must be included. 

The result is a two level system, were by large number of countries who have input will either never implement or can never implement the treaty. The other level will enforce the new treaty, the new “universal” standard that is in no way really universal. Here we have one person forced to obey a law decided by a United Nations treaty and another totally immune. Furthermore it undermines National sovereignty as it takes the ability to negotiate the new law out of the hands of the people’s representatives and places it into the hands of Diplomats. While Diplomats may be fine people with the best intentions, in the end they are responsible to the Government and not to the people. Only the elected representatives are responsible to the people and it should be their job entirely to formulate law, not Diplomats and not the unelected United Nations.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Meeting Other Conservatives

Meeting Other Conservatives

Being a Conservative can be a lonely experience as we know that surrounding us is Liberalism. It is in our newspapers, on the radio and on Television as well as in far too many movies. Our Governments are Liberal, they support Liberalism in so many ways free trade, social policy, Feminist policies, job hiring, we are surrounded by Liberal laws. The education system is Liberal at each stage from Kindergartens to University. We meet people, some of whom are very nasty in their support of Liberalism and we met others who support Liberalism because they believe it's the right thing to do, often without even thinking about it, they just accept it.

Being a Conservative can often feel like being the only sane man in the Asylum. When Liberals see this they think that being sane is deviant.

But one way to help ourselves combat this is to not be alone in our thoughts. It's not always possible to fight or argue with those who we disagree with as sometimes the risk is too great. That is because too many of us are alone in this fight, we need Allies and Friends to help us see that it is the Asylum that is insane. Conservatives need to meet up and join together, even if just to socialize, we need to form our own society, one that competes on the battlefield of ideas with Liberalism. Alone we are simply alone,but together we can give mutual support in our common cause.

On the 1st of May I shall be meeting up with a number of fellow Conservatives, including Mark Richardson of OzConservative fame. Some I have already meet and some I will met for the first time, we will eat and drink, talk about Conservatism and about the mad world that Liberalism has created and that we are forced to live in.

We started with just two of us and no idea if anyone else would join us, but in time they did and it grew but if we had not made that first step we would still be alone in our thoughts. If you are in Melbourne, Australia and would like to attend send me an email. If you live somewhere else, think about who you know who sees the world as you do and start meeting up, start with a drink and a meal, even if it's just two of you, we all need for us to not just be alone with our thoughts and instead to be meeting up with our fellow Conservatives.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future
 

ANZAC Day

ANZAC Day

The 25^th of April is ANZAC day in Australia and New Zealand, it is the day we commemorate those of our countrymen and women who have died in war. The day is important as it is the date of the first large scale military operation conducted by Australia in the First World War, the landings at Gallipoli in Turkey in 1915. 

Of course we were not alone, British and French troops also landed, to be followed up by New Zealanders and Indian troops as well as others. While the Campaign failed in it’s objective of forcing the Ottoman Empire from the war, it is remembered because of the courage, fortitude, mateship and endurance of the soldiers committed to the fight. While these traits may not be unique to Australia and New Zealand they are an important part of both countries national heritage. 

8,800 Australians died in the 9 month Campaign out of an army of less than 50,000. This was a huge shock to Australia as our biggest loses before that had been in the Boer War in South Africa were 600 Australians had been killed over the course of 3 years. A total of 60,000 Australians were killed in the First World War, from German New Guinea to Mesoptamia (Iraq), Palestine and in Northern Russia. The majority of course were killed fighting on the Western Front, including a relative of mine who was killed in August 1918 near Amiens in France.

More than 100,000 Australians have died in war since our first foreign war in the Sudan in 1885. Compared to other countries some may say that’s not many, but they are our people and it is our duty to remember their sacrifice just as it was their duty to serve. From air operations over Norway to naval actions off the Soloman Islands, from POW camps in Japan to the South African veldt, from those who have died in Afghanistan all the way back to those who died on their way home from the Sudan, we remember them.

Lest We Forget

Liberalism versus Religion

Liberalism versus Religion

For many people religion gives their life meaning, but in a truly Liberal society religion doesn’t really have a place or even a right to exist. In fact it has a habit, a longstanding and nasty habit of telling people that some things are good and others bad. It has no right to do that, I think that should be clear, remember in a Liberal world only you, the individual has rights. 

I think Church’s and the like would most likely still exist, they may even be open to the public but religion would need to be highly individualistic. With individuals deciding how to pray or perform rituals and so forth, I also think it would be advisable to change these every few months, a year at the most otherwise it would start to look like an actual religion. Remember, something that doesn’t have the right to exist. 

You may say but I want to be a Catholic or an Anabaptist or worship Odin, of course you can, you have that right, your individual right, no one has the right to take away your right…unless. 

Unless you try to convince or insult other individuals with your beliefs, by doing something public like telling others of your belief or wearing or showing a symbol of your faith. They are an Island, totally free and autonomist, how can they continue to be when you invade their Island with your “Faith crime”. 

In a truly Liberal world you are alone, to be an autonomist is to be alone.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Liberalism versus God

Liberalism versus God

Liberalism believes the individual is supreme, which means that the individual is divine in a way God cannot be. God is external to the individual and he must be shared with others and he must be interpreted and understood by others, many others. While the individual needs no one else to interpret them. Self expression and self believe can guide the individual. 

When you ask yourself why Liberalism is so hostile to religion you must understand that God and Liberalism are in competition. How can one worship God and himself? In the end it must be one or the other. 

Liberalism understands this, the more conservative religious groups understand this. The truly amazing thing is that so many religious groups think the two are complimentary. How can rejecting the core beliefs of a religion and replacing it with the worship of the individual by the individual be complimentary?

Self love with no room for the love of God or of others. Worshiping yourself isn't enlightenment, it's narcissism.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Childrens Rights, do Children have rights?

Childrens Rights, do Children have rights? 

Current law says they do, International treaties say they do. But like so much that is put forward nowadays I believe it has it backwards. I believe that Parents, Guardians and Adults in general have responsibilities to children, not that children have rights. Rights carry obligations but no child should have any obligation beyond their family. If an area has compulsory schooling the child doesn’t get in trouble for not being sent the parent does, if a child is neglected he isn’t punished his parents are. 

Why? Because parents have responsibilities. 

Let me give you an extreme example, let us say that society has collapsed, there is no Government, no Police, no Law. There is nothing to stop a parent sending their children out into a very cruel world, no punishment, no disapproval, so what would stop them from doing so? Because nearly every parent understands without needing to be told that they are responsible. Not the next door neighbours, not the Government, no one but them. 

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like help from time to time but that doesn’t mean they are giving up their responsibilities. Children don’t have rights, parents have responsibilities.




Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Beyond Homosexual Marriage

Beyond Homosexual Marriage

Homosexual marriage is only a short rest stop on the march of progress. Once Liberalism has achieved it’s aims here it will march on, leaving those who cannot or will not fight in the next struggle behind. For marriage equality there are still many who are discriminated against, to be honest most are happy to have them discriminated against. But Liberalism will fight these battles regardless. It will believe that it fights yet another good fight to achieve equality. 

If love is the guide to who should marry, how can anyone deny Polygamist or Group marriage, if two or more people love each other how can we deny their love? 

If a Son wishes to marry his Mother who would deny their love for one another? 

If a women loves a bridge or a park bench, or a man states his love for his Japanese love pillow how do you prove their love isn’t real? 

If a man loves his dog or his goldfish why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? 

Only a bigot could deny them the right that everyone else possesses. Are you a bigot?

Liberals say all they want to do is give people choices, but not all choices are equal. In fact a choice often cuts off the option of other choices. A Polygamist marriage for example has 1 husband and a number of wives, those wives share 1 husband. What happens to those men who physically cannot marry because there is no women to marry? 

How far would Liberalism go in it's quest to make the individual supreme? 

The end of this will be reached when a man asks a women to marry him and she rejects the notion because she doesn't want to be associated with all that marriage weirdness. Marriage has no place in a truly Liberal society, the individual is supreme and the individual cannot be bonded to anyone or anything.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Homosexual Marriage

Homosexual Marriage

But of course the attack on marriage didn’t stop there, it took awhile for it to reach the mainstream but it did get there. The idea that if marriage is about love then anyone who is in love should be able to marry if they wish to. The idea seems logical to many people, in fact if you accept the Liberal premise that marriage is about love it is logical. 

But it still took a long while before the idea of homosexual marriage took hold. It went against tradition, both secular and religious, it went against the idea that a marriage is the formation of a family. Liberalism then had to make the argument that the family is changeable, it doesn’t consist of Husband/Father, Wife/Mother and children. It can consist of any combination of people, even if they are not married or even related. Most people treated this idea with derision. 

No-Fault divorce took care of the argument, single women with children, Fathers often without children forming new relationships with new women who might have children. The strict divide that had existed between married and unmarried was eroded and warped into new shapes. It made a mockery of traditional marriage, look how fragile marriage really is the critics said! If marriage is this broken what possible argument could be made that marriage shouldn’t be open to everybody. 

Here is a classic tactic of Liberalism, Liberal belief made marriage fragile then the Liberal argues that there will be no harm in changing marriage, after all maybe the new change might make marriage less fragile! 

There is no thought of the past and there is just as much thought for the future. It is not homosexuals who are responsible for this state of affairs it is Liberalism.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Marriage - Just a Piece of Paper

Marriage -  Just a Piece of Paper

The third great attack on marriage was no fault divorce. 

Once one becomes serious in thinking about how society has gone wrong, no fault divorce comes very clearly into focus. Even though nearly everyone knows or has met someone who has been divorced and has seen the devastation caused. No fault divorce is supported by most without much thought. Who wants two people who don’t want to be married to stay married by force they argue? 

But then I think of the long view of history, for nearly the whole of human history a divorce was hard to obtain and life went on. Why did it become necessary to create a regime whereby divorce is so easy to obtain? The answer is Bolsheviks and Lawyers. The first no fault divorce was instituted in 1918 by the Bolsheviks in what became the Soviet Union.  In the Western world, California under the so called Conservative, Governor Ronald Reagan was the first to institute no fault divorce in 1969.

Who campaigned for it? Lawyers did, as they believed that most people seeking divorce lied to obtain it. If the law was changed they wouldn’t have to lie. No fault divorce spread around the world and today is the default position of nearly every divorce law. It wasn’t ordinary people who marched in the streets for such a law, we didn’t write petitions or stage sit-ins or anything else, most people were happy as the law was, but when has that mattered to those who think they are our betters!

Of course no fault divorce had it’s problems, instead of couples going through a rough patch and trying to fix things up, many regarded it as a “get out of jail free” card. A way to end the “problem”, which then set in motion a whole set of new problems, money, property, child custody, child support. Then we have the human wreckage of divorce, trust issues, the belief that nothing is permanent (particularly relationships), anger, despair, frustration, assault, suicide, even murder. I’m not sure how that is better than a flawed marriage. 

They turned marriage from a sacrament into a commodity, from something sacred to something disposable. They created the belief that marriage is just a piece of paper.   

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Marriage - the Second Attack

Marriage - the Second Attack

Marriage is in trouble, it is under attack and it has been under attack for decades. Many believe that homosexual marriage is when the attack started. But as Conservatives we should look at the long view of history. In many places the first concrete attack on marriage was the decriminalization of adultery. While it wasn’t used much it did convey to all that society, both formally and informally disapproved of such behaviour. That the law, society and marriage were in allegiance with one another. It also gave moral support to marriage as an institution and it gave comfort to those who had been wronged. 

Now all of that is gone.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Marriage: Love or Stability

Marriage: Love or Stability

If the individual is the supreme being in a Liberal society, where does that leave marriage? 

A Marriage is a bonding of two people, one man and one woman for life, or at least that is what it was and it is still how most people think of marriage. Marriage exists to provide the stability that no other human institution can provide. A stability that is important to society and the individual. Of course we all want to be in a loving relationship but that isn’t why marriage exists. It’s quite possible to have a loving relationship outside of marriage. 

So why is marriage important? Because it announces the seriousness of the relationship to the entire world, it announces that they are exclusive to each other, the desire that it last forever as well as the desire to produce children in a stable family. Marriage is the anchor that secures families, making the family, the building block of society.

What marriage is not, is perfection, it is a human institution which means that it has the failings that humans have. But the first of many Liberal attacks against marriage was the idea that marriage is primarily about love and not about the stability of society. Once love is put forward as the primary reason for two people to get married it implies that happiness is the goal of marriage. We all want to be happy, but what happens when you find yourself married but unhappy? Logically you must unmarry. 

Of course people being people life is more complex than that. But life, people and a marriage change over time and the things that are important today may be less important tomorrow. Which means that what makes us happy today may not make us happy in a years time, but might again in the future. Happiness and unhappiness are rarely permanent, circumstances change and we must live through those changes. But if marriage is about happiness why would you stay if you are unhappy?

The benefits of marriage are discarded, benefits which can include companionship, monogamous sex, economy, friendship and mutual support amongst other things. Marriage is a picnic, you go on a journey with a friend and eat good food. Of course sometimes arguments break out, the food goes bad, ants get on the sweets, you sit on a prickle all of those things are a part of life. Life happens in marriage and outside of marriage, it is a mistake to think that the life that happens inside of a marriage can be fixed by ending a marriage. 

Liberalism and it's belief in the individual, planted the seed, that if marriage does not fulfill than it should be discarded. 

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

The First Month

The First Month

I had been thinking about starting a blog for months but a month ago I decided to stop thinking about it and just start it. My plan was to post every day, well that hasn't quite worked but this will be my 21st Post so I'm not going to be too hard on myself. What I have found encouraging is seeing that people are looking at the site and both seeing visitors from the same countries as well as seeing visitors from new countries.

I thought I would give you a view of this site, the view that I get from looking at the stats that Blogger provides me with. I basically get 4 indicators showing me who is looking at the site.

1. What time someone looks at the site
2. What country that person is in
3. What browser is being used &
4. What operating system is being used

But I get each piece of information separately so the only way I could know that was all about the same person was if only 1 person looked at the site within a 24 hour period, which has never happened.

I started the site on the 11th of March and got 6 views, my worst day was the 16th of March when I only got 4 visitors. The best was 19th of March, two days after Mr. Mark Richardson linked to me from his Ozconservative site, that day I received 109 visitors. The average now a month later is roughly 20 visitors a day.

Here is the visitors list for the top 10 countries this month

 

Entry	Pageviews
Australia	299
United States	264
Germany	75
Canada	37
Bulgaria	26
United Kingdom	23
New Zealand	16
South Korea	13
Russia	7
Indonesia	6

Australia and the United States have consistently been the biggest countries for visitors, Thanks!

Germany started small but has grown big as the month wore on, interestingly when I have received big numbers from Germany on a particular day, I noticed that there was also a big jump in people looking at the site at the same time. Which makes me wonder if it is a class or group looking at the site at the same time. Anyway glad to have you on board!

I must admit I never thought I would have a readership in Bulgaria nor in South Korea. South Korea has been consistent so I think it's return visitors. Bulgaria has doubled since the start of the month. To the visitors from both countries I say good to see you here!

Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have been a little disappointing to be honest. They jumped on early and jumped off again quite quickly. Slowly some visitors from my fellow Commonwealth realms have turned up, to which I say good stuff, keep it up!

Russia gave me 6 visitors in one day and another today, I hope it continues to grows!

Indonesia gave me some visitors this week and I've received some more visitors, not sure if it's the same people or new ones but the more the merrier.

I have also received some visitors from Ireland, Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, China, Malaysia and Singapore for a total of around 820 visitors (both one time and returnees) for the month.

I hope I have provided some food for thought with my posts. As well as the knowledge that there are Traditional Conservatives around and that we share a common cause regardless of where we live. Love your Nation but never forget that we are in an International fight and we need to build local, national and International networks that are mutually supporting to stand a chance in this very long war.

Back to normal posting in a day or so.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Moncrieff

Racist, Sexist, Homophobe

Racist, Sexist, Homophobe

When someone is called a racist, sexist, homophobe or similar, many think it is used as a description, to describe that person’s attitude or opinion. But the reality is a supporter of Liberalism has noticed that race, sex or sexual orientation has been noticed. You’re not supposed to notice those things, you are only supposed to notice the individual. 

The fact that every person is noticed by every other person by their sex and race is an inconvenience that must either be ignored or denied. The aim is to be able to ignore the opinion of the “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”. To shut them up and shame them, to put doubt in other people’s minds about the accuracy of what was said. 

If you can, challenge the supporter of Liberalism, ask them to physically describe you. Make sure they include your race and sex, if they don’t put the description in yourself. If they do ask them why it’s ok for them but not for you. 

You don’t even need an answer, in most cases you will have done to them what they tried to do to you.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future