There seems to be a more subtle and less publicised effect of the “credit crunch”/talk of recession. If you listen and look very closely you begin to notice many companies and governments going back on their promises on the environment, workers rights and aid pledges. Many of the leaders meeting at last weeks G8 meeting in Japan have not met and probably will not meet the pledges they made on doubling African aid and the reasons were mumbled under their breath, holes in government finances from lower spending by the public, despite massive increases in VAT returns and other taxes due to the high oil prices. It is a mumbled excuse because it doesn’t add up and is just that, an excuse. Today I have listened too/read 2 other stories that are using the same reasoning. On the Today program this morning there was a discussion about maternity leave and whether or not it should be made more flexible some that fathers can take some of the leave instead of the mothers, a very good idea by the way, but the representative of small businesses countered with the usual argument about the cost of maternity leave for the small business, which is a reasonable argument is suppose and which I do understand but if all companies did the same the costs would be equal so it wouldn’t matter in terms of competition, but he then raised the spectra of the credit crunch and recession. The politics of fear has a new weapon to scare people into allowing government spending cuts and cuts in working conditions. The second story was on the MSN website about George Bush wanting to encourage off shore drilling, by American companies I would assume, which was banned by his father. Now the excuse he is using is of course the high oil price, the credit crunch and the possibility of a recession. The reasoning of bringing down oil prices is just silly because it will take many, many years to bring this oil to the market so there has to be another reason. What do you think may be behind the former oil man’s decision? Just out of idle curiosity did you know that there is an oil-tanker called Condoleezza Rice? I don’t wish to try and for an opinion for you, just pointing out the facts. Oh and Dick Cheney sort of still works for energy giant Halliburton. Luckily he cannot enact this policy on his own and he needs a vote from Congress as well. This sort of decision making is a well documented way of making massively unpopular decisions and forcing them through. This is a low level example but I recommend that you read “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein which explains it far better than I can.
Oh and this is the man who bought down the IndyMac. He is Sen. Charles Schumer and is the man who leads the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve and economic policy. He was the one who questioned whether the bank was in financial trouble despite the bank denying this. Follow this one mans questions $1billion dollars was taken from the bank causing its then collapse. One man caused this. The massive bill to American tax payers was caused by this man. Capitalism is great, isn’t it?