American Sniper Or ‘Don’t Shoot!’ Or ‘Cultural Constituencies’ Or Money Where Mouth Is

banner

 

Fresh on the news that American Sniper has made a record $92 million on its debut:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/01/19/why-the-american-sniper-box-office-blowout-is-even-bigger-than-you-think/

 

Its time to have a closer look at Cultural Constituencies and how they relate to economic rationale

 

In France,  on the back of ‘Je suis..’, ‘Charlie Hebdo is reported to have printed and disposed of 5 – 7 million copies of its commemorative edition. (I million of which were paid for by the French government.) While in the USA, supporters have raised $ ½-1 million or more for Darren Wilson; the now infamous Ferguson shooting cop.

 

Is a pattern emerging?

 

I think so.

 

I have referred to Cultural Constituencies as the new driving force in politics. I describe them here:

 

https://unitedstatesofeverywhere.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/1415-whiteism-years-of-culture/

 

Having defined cultural constituencies in specific terms, the next question to answer is : What differentiates cultural constituencies from political constituencies?

 

Simply put, political constituencies vote with ballots to control money and cultural constituencies vote with money to control politics.

 

Understanding this relationship between cultural and political constituencies requires a deeper understanding of ‘economic rationale’.

 

Economic rationale is the idea that specific groups of people have defined and identifiable economic interests that they can and should recognize and seek to advance, hence the ‘rationale’. It follows that these groups are defined as economic ‘classes’ and interact with each other on this basis. In ‘democracies’ economic classes are supposed to interact through the democratic process and the outcome of this process is an economic compromise, The nature of this compromise is the content of politics.

 

But in order for this to work satisfactorily democratic power is supposed to be divorced from economic power. However, we all know that this is not so. The Credit Crunch and international governmental response it provoked illustrates direct political control of economics and direct interference in politics by economic actors.

 

This has given rise to a crisis of democracy that is directly attributable to financialisation, the democratisation of money and the Credit Crunch. This crisis of democracy has led to the appearance of cultural constituencies and its latest and so far most potent expression in the Syriza movement.

Syriza as a prime example of a cultural constituency for which:

 

‘Economic demands (are) secondary or irrelevant’.

 

‘Profound realignment of politics within constituencies; Less and less will traditional areas of contention and politics operate within cultural constituencies. The members will tend to see what they have in common over what they have in difference.’

In other words cultural constituencies produce political alignments which are unexpected and difficult to explain in terms of left and right. Which brings us to the following in ‘The Telegraph’:

‘ ..Syriza and their new allies, Independent Greeks, are strange bed fellows. Their differences could herald a highly unstable new phase in Greek politics as Mr Tsipras embarks on bruising negotiations with the EU and IMF over the country’s massive debt and deeply unpopular austerity regime, writes Nick Squires.

Like Syriza, the Independent Greeks are stridently opposed to the “troika” of international creditors who have leant the country 240 billion euros (£180 billion), saying that Greece simply cannot pay the money back.

But beyond that, they have little in common with Syriza, raising fears of even more uncertainty in a country battered by five years of recession and political conflict.

While Syriza is a coalition of socialists, Marxists, Maoists and Communists, the Independent Greeks are a conservative, nationalist party.

They were formed in 2012 by a breakaway group of rebels from New Democracy, the conservative party of Antonis Samaras, the outgoing prime minister.

They also have close links to the Greek Orthodox Church, further putting them at odds with Mr Tsipras, who is an atheist.’ ‘

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11368361/Greek-election-Syriza-expected-to-seize-victory-live.html

 

Some of the key points to draw out from this brief description are:

 

This new political alignment is to be regarded as ‘strange’ and ‘unstable’; which means unpredictable within the standard left/right context.

 

This new alignment will be hard fight and control using traditional political and economic methods because it contains elements of both left and right.

 

This new alignment will be hard to negotiate with because it has no economic rationale (see above). Simple economic interest is no longer the end point of its activity, now it is only the means to an end. The cultural constituency that Syriza represents will be willing to pay in hardship to make this point.

 

Just as a cultural constituency in USA was willing to pay into the Darren Wilson retirement fund effectively bypassing the political governmental control of the police force. Just as a cultural constituency in France was willing to effectively invest in Charlie Hebdo as a promotion of their collective identity, so the cultural constituency of Syriza is willing to face economic consequences of defying the German leadership of the EU.

The point of all this is that SYRIZA is not ‘left wing’ any more than the people who donated to Darren Wilson are ‘right wing’. Any more than the people who bought Charlie Hebdo are left wing. They are cultural constituencies. Next I will deal with what this means in terms of Whiteism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plugholenomics or There’s No BISness Like ShowBISness or This Boot Was Made For War Kings or Crack(ernomics) In The World or Thank God It’s Only A Motion Picture!

 

 

BIS

 

crackinworld

 

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” – Warren Buffett

Here is a paradox.

The area round the plughole remains the last place to dry out when you are emptying the bath. The place where the actual hole is, is the last place to feel the effects of the hole. All the rest of the bath dries out first. You would think that the place where the hole first appeared would be the first to become dry, wouldn’t you?

 

Same with money.

 

In previous pieces I have described the international war on state issued currency led by America. Interest rate reduction (Zero Interest Rate Policy), and quantitive easing have been used to lower the value of all state issued currency in comparison to stateless Democratised Money or derivatives.

 

When the Derivatives boat started sinking in 2008, International Monetarists used ZIRP and QE to blast a massive sinkhole in the financial earths crust draining out state money liquidity. The theory was that if the sea level could be made to drop faster than the derivatives boat dropped, the boat could not sink!

 

State money liquidity flowed into the massive financial chasm caused by Monetarists. But it flowed from the periphery first. It is the developing world that became dried out as the sea emptied. The plughole still has liquidity at this time. Ironically, Despite the fact that USA is leading the war on state money, it is their national currency that remains one of the strongest.

Here is another metaphor:

 

When an atomic bomb detonates you can see the shockwave blast pushing outwards, but this is rapidly followed by a vacuum that develops at ground zero, which then sucks IN all the stuff that was initially blasted outwards. QE and ZIRP blasted ‘free’ money out from America into the developing economies- the initial shockwave. Now that money is being sucked back into the vacuum at ground zero. First the periphery was blasted one way now it is being blasted the opposite way.

It is this flow, first outwards and then inwards that is causing all the devastation. It is this flow that is the real cause behind the oil price shocks that are causing financial carnage among oil producers. But it is not just the developing nations that are feeling the effects of this flow.

 

Basel, Switzerland is the home of the Bank of International Settlements and the Financial Stability Board. In fact they share the same building, which is incongruously shaped like a massive Roman boot. It is ironic that the Swiss franc has been caught up in the blast, exploding in comparative value compared to the Euro and destroying Swiss export viability.

 

It is the Bank of International Settlements and the Financial Stability Board that are creating the legislation for the new Democratised Money World Order. Yet in doing this it seems they are laying waste the very territory they are situated on and protected by. Do you think the time might come when even the Swiss population have had enough of them and break out the pitchforks?

 

Perhaps the most appropriate metaphor would be that of a magma chamber that forms the reservoir for a volcano. First the magma chamber expands upwards then it contracts, then it blows.

 

The first hole in the financial earths crust was planned by the Monetarists. Now It appears that another fissure has opened up . This one was unplanned and unforeseen. I wonder what is going to happen next…..

‘Painting’ by George W Bush..

bush_bathtub

 

 

 

Charlie Hebdo: Death of a Moral Entrepreneur

 http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wGbhKS3BvqMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&dq=moral+entrepreneurs+becker&ots=Z9f7IePWog&sig=yg-SFnOSqk8aO6EW5snJE8f6p84#v=onepage&q=moral%20entrepreneurs%20becker&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_S._Becker

charlie

 

Willy was a salesman. And for a salesman, there’s no rock bottom to the life. He don’t put a bolt to a nut, he don’t tell you the law or give you medicine. He’s a man way out there in the blue riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. And then you get yourself a couple spots on your hat and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream boy, it comes with the territory.”

― Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman

 

There are few ideas from Gallic culture and politics that the Anglo Saxon world will enthusiastically embrace en masse. The Mortgage, (death-grip), the en-suite toilet, and entrepreneurship are some of the few notable examples.

 

Of these, the runaway favourite has to be the entrepreneur ; the self styled swashbuckling risk taker that brings innovation, flair and brio to the world of toilet paper, butter and vacuum cleaners.

 

In the Anglo Saxon world entrepreneurship has made the leap from a principle of commerce to the principle of morality itself: We now live in a moral meritocracy, with a moral marketplace to efficiently distribute our moral resources. And at the centre of this ethical order is the moral entrepreneur.

 

Traditionally Judeo-Christian morality has been a matter of compliance to The Will Of God and religion a matter of finding out how best to do it. The fundamental innovation of Protestantism was   self interpretation of what God wanted; in the words of the ‘Subway’ advertising slogan, to: ‘Have It Your Way’.

 

In time, even the freedom to specify olives or mayonnaise on a universal sandwich of existence has paled. Now the moral consumer demands a farmers market experience of hand crafted artisan beliefs. This is amply provided for by a multitude of small scale moral entrepreneurs hawking their versions of the good life from a million social media stalls. Just like Willy Loman in ‘Death Of a Salesman’ there are a million purveyors of moral gizmos to make your life better including:

Women Bishops

Gay marriage

Kony 2012

The campaign against female genital mutilation

Environmentalism

Bring back our Nigerian Girls taken by Boko Haram

 

And on and on

 

And you, the moral consumer is ‘empowered’, free to fill your spiritual wire basket with as much or as little as you want. But these moral campaigns seem only to offer a high impact/high sugar rush that only lasts a short while. How many of them have already fallen into obscurity after a couple of months of headline grabbing prominence?

 

This moral meritocracy is the milieu that satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and its contemporaries operate in. Charlie Hebdo’s stand out moral product has been the ‘Image of Mohammed’ controversy. From now on Charlie Hebdo will inevitably be known for printing disparaging and derogatory images strictly forbidden in Islamic practice.

 

Some might question whether this kind of deliberate provocation is necessary. But these images have to be provocative and offensive to make the point that freedom of speech is a moral good that trumps any moral considerations that Muslims can have. They have to offend or they are pointless. Charlie Hebdo took it upon itself to bring to the Muslims and wider society a lesson; free speech is a morally superior consideration to respect for belief.

 

Unfortunately for ‘Charlie Hebdo’ this was essentially a bluff. They even went so far as to publish a cover with the tag line ‘still no attacks’. But of course they spoke too soon and their bluff was called.

 

Which brings us to where we are now.

 

Everybody recognises there will be consequences from the Charlie Hebdo killings. Politicians have wasted no time promenading at the head of mass demonstrations and putting into place dangerous new ‘security’ protocols. The relationship between Muslims and wider European society has changed. The depiction of Mohammed has become a new red line. The BBC is revising its guidelines on showing images of Mohammed; it is likely that they will now be allowed. This is a sea change from the standard multicultural conventions that have shaped British media policy for three decades.

 

This is inevitably destabilising to the broad multicultural structures that are a feature of western society. But there is something more profound underpinning this.

 

The stock that rises and falls on the moral NASDAQ 500 changes from week to week. The more frenzied the trading, the harder to bridge the gap between a western fluid, superficial, understanding of the universe and a Muslim or Christian or Judaic fundamental and eternal one. As the conflict of understanding accelerates each side is driven to express its own understanding in more forceful and explicit terms.

 

Then there is the Kony 2012 postal problem. Jason Russell, once ‘moral entrepreneur of the month’ discredited the entire Kony campaign after he was caught on video en dishabille. The question inevitably arose: Was he mad when he started the Kony campaign or did he go mad after? And what does this say about people who bought into the campaign?

 

Collapses such as these are inevitable since so many of these campaigns rely on small groups or individuals. When these individuals fail the entire campaign is discredited. And this again is profoundly disorienting for the consumers of morality: Where can I find a moral supplier I can trust?

 

And this conflict and disorientation is further exacerbated when moral entrepreneurs start campaigning against each other. The anti Semitism debate is a good example of this with some groups campaigning against the evil of anti- Semitism and others campaigning against the evil of Israeli occupation of Palestine. Pick a side?

 

Christopher Hitchens’ famous attack on Mother Theresa caused considerable outrage at the time but now is more or less accepted by a certain section of the metropolitan moral market. In some ways Christopher Hitchens was the first moral entrepreneur.

 

The Bigger Picture

 

So what does it all mean? Can we draw out any significant lessons from the shooting at Charlie Hebdo?

 

The first point to make is that the moral entrepreneur aspect is not the whole Charlie Hebdo story. This affair obviously benefits those domestic and international political forces who would like to see France ever more closely enmeshed in the NATO western war on terror.

 

And there are the disturbing facts that identity cards were reported to be found in the getaway car and that both assailants were killed by the French security forces. Even for those of us who try to avoid overt conspiracy theories there are clearly reasons to be suspicious.

 

But the focus on Charlie Hebdo as moral entrepreneur offers a long term perspective.

 

Despite the superficial impression of freedom and variation, the Moral Meritocracy produces similar variations on a theme. Rather like the rows and rows of mass produced mechanically produced raw material packaged and labelled as ‘farm fresh’ and ‘organic’ you can find on a supermarket shelf.

 

On the list of main ingredients is sexual/identity ‘freedom’, actually meaning state endorsed sexual freedom. Because if sexual freedom is sex without consequences, there is no ‘sexual freedom’ that the state can give you, because this freedom is not in the gift of the state to give. But the state are not going to tell you that are they?

 

So we can begin to discern among the various campaigns a semi-comprehensive central vision. What is a constantly changing panoply of morality within a central vision? It is the essence of pagan belief.

That the particular morals and deities you subscribe to at any time are the product of circumstances and not principle.

 

With that in mind, consider this possibility:

 

The truth is that we are involved as one side of an asymmetrical form of spiritual warfare. But the power relationships are exactly reversed from those of conventional warfare. The spiritual world has collapsed in the west.

 

Without a central command and a spiritual standing army, the west has been reduced to sporadic and uncoordinated individual guerrilla actions against Islam. They are a spiritual superpower compared to the post Protestant west.

 

We are taught to celebrate the inauguration of a moral marketplace and moral entrepreneurship, but is it possible this is nothing more than empty war propaganda?

 

That the west can no longer support ethically or intellectually a unified and comprehensive belief system that makes sense of the world for the people within it?

 

That in some sense it is Charlie Hebdo who are the intellectual and moral suicide bombers out to bluff the Muslim and indeed the entire monotheistic world?

 

After Willy Lomans death, his son despite his better judgement, decides to step up and carry on as his father had. To validate his fathers death, so that Willy Loman did not die in vain. In other words:’Je suis Willy Loman’

 

“HAPPY: All right, boy. I’m gonna show you and everybody else that Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s the only dream you can have– to come out number-one man.”
Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman

 

Sound familiar?

 

 

 

 

Crackernomics 14/15 The Devil And The Law Or Articles Of Faith

 

The news that the Bank of England is preparing to release the minutes of their emergency Credit Crunch deliberations, (suitably censored of course), is a confirmation that 2014 was a time of consolidation and the consequences of five years of Credit Crunch shenanigans coming to the fore. It was a time of tying up loose ends and setting the stage for the next round of change.

 

With this in mind I would like to briefly review two of the most important events of 2014: The tapering of the Federal Reserve bond buying programme and the Brisbane G20 meeting in which the rules for the ongoing management of ‘systemically important’ banks were broadly finalised.

 

The Tale Of The Tapering

 

It has been an article of faith on the radical side of economics that there would be no substantial winding down of the Federal Reserves QE programme, yet the Tapering duly appeared in the latter half of the year when the Fed stopped its ongoing purchases of privately issued money in the form of ‘bonds’.

 

In response to this development insurgent pundits chose to focus on the fact that QE as a global phenomenon was still ongoing. They observed that Japan was engaged on a new round of QE; the infamous ‘Abenomics’, and Europe is supposed to get in on the act later in the year with a big fat euro-helping of bond purchases (at least according to Mario Draghi and the ECB..)

 

So is tapering on or not?

Is QE still on or not?

 

Tapering for the USA is on, for Japan it is not and for Europe it will probably never begin. This is because unsurprisingly, conditions are different in America, Japan and Europe.

 

O.K. then, this leads us to the question: What is different between America and Europe and Japan?

 

America and England- the main Saxon economies, have experienced some sort of economic ‘growth’ although this is hardly traditional (certainly not export and manufacturing led), and it is mainly credit based. They have managed to do this because they have partially at least, restructured both their societies and economies. Which leads to the question: What is the nature of this restructuring?

 

  1. Both America and Britain are some way along the road to establishing a Permanent Credit Economy. This means: Increased deregulation and a shrunken state.
  2. Discontinuation of the work and social rights and safeguards that have been a feature of developed economies since the end of WWII and most importantly of all:
  3. An end to the consumer society, by which I mean an end of freely disposable income.

 

Remember! Saving is free disposal of income the same as spending is; this freedom is the essence of the ‘consumer society’. Prohibiting saving is a deliberate infringement of this freedom.

 

In contrast to America and Britain, Japan and Europe have so far significantly failed to restructure both society and economy.

 

Despite two decades of a kamikaze war on saving, Japan is still a ‘bank it’ society. Why is this?

 

Japan never established a welfare state in the way that it would be understood in Europe or even America. Instead it created a full employment model, which in theory made welfarism mostly unnecessary. In essence, saving was a necessary part of preparing for retirement since the state was only going to offer minimal protection. This worked until the labour market was deregulated in the post 1980’s Big Bang. Once the Japanese ‘job for life’ went away , a culture of saving and insurance became even more important. This is why Abenomics is insane. In essence it is like trying to frighten people out of buying insurance!

 

Remember! Saving is free disposal of income the same as spending is; the essence of the ‘consumer society’. Prohibiting saving is a deliberate infringement of this freedom

 

(As I write I hear on ‘Max Keiser’ that the Japanese savings rate has gone negative for the first time since the 1950’s and wages are falling rapidly too..but the next big question will be where has this money gone?)

 

Europe, especially Southern Europe, is markedly different form the Anglo Saxon and Northern German economies. Here the problem is that the post WWII state never managed to establish the depth of control necessary to implement something like the QE economic restructuring programme. Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, (did I hear someone mention Eire?), are all characterised by the fact that they have found it impossible to create a stable geographical and political boundary, never mind such a thing as a stable North European civil society. Fundamental structural weaknesses are increasingly being brought to the surface by national elites trying to implement austerity on behalf of German led Europe. One effect of this is the appearance of Cultural Constituencies (see previous post).

 

So what is going to happen next?
America will raise interest rates towards 21/2 % (as per my earlier forecast) which will mean that fully half the worlds economy is serviced by privately issued democratised money.

‘Hang on a minute!’ , I hear you say,

 

‘That’s impossible! There is no way that the Anglo Saxon elite will rise interest rates with the economy in the fragile condition it is in.’

 

But your analysis assumes that this is an economic decision and it is not. It is a political decision. It is the next step in the normalisation of privately issued democratised money. It is exactly the same in this respect as the dynamics controlling what happens in Europe. And China. And Eurasia.

 

And what will happen when American interest rates rise?

Intellectually we will come face to face with the lurking horror, the heart of darkness that has threatened to emerge from its cave since this all began in the 1970’s.

 

The Devil and the Law: Bankrupt Bankruptcy

 

The year end season finale of the democratised money project was the announcement of new rules for the resolution of banks in trouble at the Brisbane round of the G20, usually known as the ‘Bail In’ rules.

 

Proposed by the Financial Stability Board and titled the ‘Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution” this G20 endorsed plan was created to establish a stable ongoing banking framework to support democratised money.

 

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this document, because it specifically lays out the boundaries governing the survival of individual banks and the growth of democratised money.

 

One of the fundamental mistakes made by the insurgent economic opposition is to argue that it is financial institutions that are being protected by the Monetarist state. This is wrong. It is not specific institutions, but democratised money that is being shielded and protected by the international legislative framework that is being put in place.

 

In fact, hard core Monetarists would be quite keen to see one or two small to mid sized banks go to ‘resolution’ to refute the charge of crony capitalism. When this happens the insurgents will be dumbfounded; they will not be able to understand that the failure of these one or two banks guarantees the survival of democratised money because it legitimises the system as being ‘fair’.

 

To this end the resolution document specifically states that the derivatives held by financial institutions will be given unchallenged precedence over all other creditors. In other words, they will not be paid a proportion of what they are owed on a pro rata basis like other creditors, they will be paid in full, off the top.

 

The international law says that derivatives cannot be written down like private debts. They are above private debts and sacrosanct. They are sacrosanct because they are money- democratised money with the full weight of national governments behind them. And this is now international law.

 

This is the significance of the bail in. Not that it will affect ordinary small scale bank customers, but that it places state money deposits at the mercy of democratised money. And ordinary people are not going to stand up for the rights of large scale investors, are they?

 

Again to reiterate:

 

It is not Banks being given precedence over individuals. It is Democratised Money in the form of derivatives being precedence over State Money in the form of deposits.

 

Even more shockingly, this document effectively proposes an end of bankruptcy for banks, to be replaced by the process of ‘resolution’ I referred to above.

 

As I observed in ‘Crackernomics’, bankruptcy is a Capitalist Sacrament; the equivalent of the Last Rites of the Catholic Liturgy. It is the means and justification by which a dying Corporation passes on to the afterlife. It is supposed to be the fair and equitable legal basis for the entire concept of limited liability. For it to be effectively abandoned is astounding.

 

In Crackernomics I examined the bankruptcy procedure and what it means, (used to mean). I also argued that the legal changes created by the democratisation of money would be as significant and far reaching as those of the end of Soviet Russia. This vindicates that view.

 

One of the fundamental principles of Capitalism itself has been quietly dispensed with.

 

As if these two developments were not astounding enough there is another philosophical change, more subtle and perhaps more pernicious for that.The difference between ‘failed’ and ‘failing’. Because banks aren’t going to fail anymore. Instead they are going to be ‘failing’ and they could be failing without actually having failed for a long time- maybe forever. Which means there might never be an ending that is understandable to the majority of their creditors and shareholders.

 

That is what ‘resolution’ really means.

 

‘Its Not Me, Its You’ , Or Irreconcilable Differences

 

In recent correspondence Dave Harrison from ‘Trade With Dave’ made the following very pertinent observations:

A). Zero interest rate policy means no more time value to money.  

B) Mervyn King’s “divorced currency” model could also mean politics divorced from economics.

 

What binds politics and economics together is the law. Law is the formal expression of will of the society that creates it. Law as applied to the material conditions of a society creates an economy.

 

When Dave Harrison points to Kings ‘divorced currency’ model as the future he is really pointing towards a system that has chosen to seek to circumvent its own foundational principles. And the means by which it is doing this can best be expressed as an end of accounting.

 

Just as elites abandoned ‘mark to market’, (which means saying what any given stock or bond is actually worth here and now) so zero or limited interest rates means abandoning any idea of what state money is worth here and now. And that is very important, because if people ever got a real idea of what State Money is worth here and now they might start asking some awkward questions.

 

In the same way the derivatives that infest the books of ever major financial institution can never actually be brought to the book and reconciled. Because if they were, then their value relationship to state money would have to be examined and that would lead to some awkward questions etc.

 

The Devil and The Law Or ‘If She Be a Witch’…

 

Henry the Eighth famously divorced himself from the Catholic Church in pursuit of a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. He then married Anne Boleyn. And when he did not want Anne Boleyn anymore he famously got Cromwell to argue that the marriage to Anne was just as invalid as his wedding to Catherine!

 

And who could argue the point? They had gone along with the first crime, how could they stand against the second?

They were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.

 

Once the state has interfered in the markets, rigged and controlled them, how can it ever claim that there are ‘free markets’ again? If you argue for the state to get out of the economy, then you negate everything that has happened since 2008. But this is madness, what is done is done, it cannot be undone. Free markets are over whether you like it or not.

 

You cannot become a virgin again, no matter how much you regret your first night! You can only live in a fantasy world of regret or face reality. No- one except a madman will ever dare argue in favour of ‘free markets’ again.

 

If you abandon your first principles you make yourself a liar from then on no matter what you do to try to fix it. This is what is meant by the devil turning on you.