Dialect podcast - Martin Summers, if I were Chancellor

[TonyGosling]

Martin Summers on economic crisis (one of the four UK 9/11 Truth committee) listen 47m:19s in

Dialect - 16th Dec 2008 - subscribe here www.dialectradio.co.uk

download/listen
http://www.radio4all.net:8080/files/tony@tlio.org.uk/2149-1-dialect200 81216.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30733

Listen on air: 93.2 FM (BCFM), Tuesdays 9:00 PM

Features this week [Time in brackets index to the featured item in the mp3 file]:

(03:51) Tom Griffin from 'Spinwatch', a Glasgow based organisation
that looks at spin and propaganda from various organisations,
government or otherwise. http://www.spinwatch.org/
(13:17) If I were the Prime Minister
(19:44) Bristol Radical History Group. http://www.brh.org.uk/
(33:12) What's On Guide
(38:52) Cider with Rosie
(47:19) Martin Summers, economic analyst and author tells us more
about the current state of the economy.


Producer : Kayley Porter

Presenter: John Peters-Coleman

Reporters: Tony Gosling, Anthea Page, Matt Lewis


http://www.radio4all.net:8080/files/tony@tlio.org.uk/2149-1-dialect200 81216.mp3

[Newspeak International]

It looks like this Martin Summer chap actually contributes to the "Economic Analysis and Research Section" of the Oesterreichische
NationalBank (OeNB).

Bank Capital,Liquidity and Systemic Risk:

by Jürgen Eichberger und Martin Summer (OeNB). OeNB Working Paper 87 (May 3, 2004).
We analyze the impact of capital adequacy regulation on bank insolvency and aggregate
investment. We develop a model of the banking system that is characterized by the interaction of
many heterogeneous banks with the real sector, interbank credit relations as a consequence of
bank liquidity management and an insolvency mechanism. This allows us to study the impact of
capital adequacy regulations on systemic risk. In particular we can analyze the impact of
regulation on contagious defaults arising from mutual credit relations. We show that the impact of
capital adequacy on systemic stability is ambiguous and that systemic risk might actually increase
as a consequence of capital constraints on banks. Furthermore we analyze the indirect
consequences of capital adequacy regulations that are transmitted to the real economy by their
impact on equilibrium interbank rates and thus the opportunity costs of liquidity within the banking system.

http://www.oenb.at/de/img/022004fulltext_tcm14-12490.pdf
-------------------------------------------------

Well that was pretty clear then

What none of these "experts" will tell you (IMO), is this economic system
has been designed to fail at the apropriate time.There are no "accidents" allied to the incompetance of Bankers, and the "consumerism overload
spectacle" which has been made for us by the "creation culture industry".
Now when things are looking bad it seems a "collective guilt mode" is being used on the public both in this regard, and in the Green issues.

They have allowed us a decent standard of living, supplied us with all the toys,amusments and other stuff to buy,then blame us for the society they have made possible

[TonyGosling]

It's a different surname spelling Newspeak.
Don't waste your research skills on phantoms.

[Newspeak International]

A typo then,my bad! they are both supposed to be economic analysts so it wasn't that bad a jump.Do you know what NGO or Think-Tank he's associated with Tony?

Never mind I found a mention on here>

Martin Summers of the "New Economics Foundation":
http://revver.com/video/402031/martin-summers-speaks-about-the-future- financial-situation/

(47:19) Martin Summers, economic analyst and author tells us more
about the current state of the economy.

My observation still stands on the planned crises before us,anyone who expounds a different version of events is either misinformed,or something else :

[TonyGosling]

What is the point you're trying laboriously to make?

[Newspeak International]

...also it would have been of interest for MS to mention his activities as
the "Former East European projects officer for the New Economics Foundation",and if he is still related to that Foundation.

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/

[TonyGosling]

Also to what?
It's not as if he's hiding his past work for NEF.

Can't you just explain the substance of the points you're making?

[Newspeak International]

[TonyGosling]

Have you listened to the piece?
I hear lots more in his analysis. One example is what he would do if he were Chancellor.

[Newspeak International]

[Newspeak International]

(03:51) Tom Griffin from 'Spinwatch', a Glasgow based organisation
that looks at spin and propaganda from various organisations,
government or otherwise. http://www.spinwatch.org/

From their site we can see where they are coming from on the "Climate Change" angle.While this would appear to be perfectly reasonable,and correct it's intent is to drive the reader toward the Green Agenda:

The BBC on climate change
Paul de Rooij, 22 August 2007

On 20 August 2007, BBC Newsnight reported on the reactions to climate change protests at Heathrow, and it is a good example of this program's unwillingness to address issues in a serious manner or to provide a wider range of opinion. Instead of addressing the issues raised by the protesters themselves, Newsnight transformed it into one about current attitudes and concerns of individuals about the environment. Once this "script" was determined, Kirsty Wark, the program presenter, proceeded to shoehorn the discussion into this circumscribed debate. There are a number of questions and objections about this program in particular, and the BBC Newsnight format in general.

Boxing an issue
The Newsnight standard presentation of an issue is to provide an introduction that frames the issue in a restricted way, and the remainder of the program is forced to remain within those parameters; editors produce an introduction and a series of "talking points" that direct such programs. The discussions are conducted live, but they are scripted requiring the issues to be simplified and not to deviate into criticism or hostility. Kirsty Wark is notorious for putting words in the interviewees' mouths, to ask questions that are not entirely relevant or about which the respondent is not best suited to provide an answer, and to interrupt interviewees who are not giving an answer according to the script. There are opposing views, but there is scant opportunity for a direct challenge -- the interaction is heavily moderated and the editorial control remains with the presenter. In most instances, after the introduction there is very little an interviewee can do to rectify or redirect the discussion of an issue. The interview deals with questions posed by the introduction, and a critical respondent is not allowed to object to the introduction or the questions posed. On occasion individuals have been invited to appear on the program to discuss a certain topic, but to the discussant's dismay the introduction set the stage to discuss an entirely different issue. The introduction is sometimes used to ambush someone appearing on the program [1].


The introduction by Stephanie Flanders, a BBC reporter, simply ignored the key issues raised by the protesters by falsely suggesting that people are already aware of the issues. And, hey, environmentalism was a fashion thing: "green was the new black" -- a cynical note, indicating that the program was not going to deal with the issue in a serious manner. The introduction rightly points out the government's contradictory stance of saying one thing about the environment, but then stating that it is "impractical to ask people to take fewer flights. Not to mention the expansion of airports…" Although the introduction added a relevant quote by Matthew Price (Friends of the Earth) about the government hypocrisy and unwillingness to intervene to actually do something concrete, Flanders concluded the introduction with another dash of cynicism suggesting that there is no point for "us" to do something if China "continues to build two power plants per week" -- a refrain (a talking point) that was repeated several times during the program. The introduction is already problematic because:


1. It assumes that the public is properly informed on the topic of climate change, the impact our actions have, and what one can do about it. If the program sought to add some relevant context it should have shown the extent of the environmental cost of flying, both in terms of carbon emissions, and other environmental effects like global dimming. The presentation of the survey findings indicate that the public is not well informed and one would hope that the state would address that via informational campaigns. For some reason, such campaigns are treated with derision in this program, they are referred to as "lecturing us" or "moralizing" etc., that is something the "nanny state" would engage in.
2. If the program had sought to have an emotional impact, it would have shown penguins dying in the melting snow, but instead, it showed unruly protestors corralled by the police. It certainly wasn’t an attempt to show the protestors in a favourable light, or even an attempt to hear, let alone understand, their message.
3. It doesn’t highlight the fact that the protestors actually were challenging the government to do something more than just talk. At present, the government is actually operating in a business-as-usual regime; government policy and inaction is actually part of the problem.
4. Flanders states: "Tony Blair came back from the G8 summit jubilant from getting forward movement on climate change from president George Bush. The Heathrow radicals don’t think that goes nearly far enough." Well, did the G8 do anything to address climate change; are they going to ratify the Kyoto treaty (or even a watered-down version)? The answer is no, and therefore the "radicals" are correct in criticising Tony Blair and Co. Again, this presentation of the issue was not meant to address the protestors' objections and concerns.
5. The introduction dwelled on what individuals could do and what their attitudes were. This is not what the Heathrow protest was about. The protest sought action to enforce measures that would bite and have a tangible effect in reducing activities that harm the planet. What is needed is to tax air travel, stop the exemption of tax on airline fuel, and certainly stop the unbridled airport expansion. Concrete measures that need to be taken were not part of the discussion in this program or the introduction. Appeals for people to take their carbon footprint into account without offering alternatives are not very useful. The state should inform the public why it will internalize the environmental costs by, for example, adding taxes to fuel and airports -- and for that informational campaigns are needed. The sections of the government ad shown in Newsnight program introduction are actually of very limited use; yes, we know we have a footprint, but then what? This ad also has a curious subtext: the environmental impact is a matter of individual choice, and not one about government action.


And now for a bit of balance…
The remainder of the program, the discussion with an environmentalist and a "flying is liberating" advocate, was also problematic. Sure, BBC aims to obtain "balance", but the choice of an environmental cynic to debate an environmental ethicist was rather dubious.
The issue at hand is not one of environmentalists vs. the enviro-cynics, but it should have been a discussion between environmentalists vs. state policy or industry. Alas, it was not the latter that was taken to task, but instead Newsnight conjured an enviro-cynic in the form of James Panton, someone who set up the Celebrate the Freedom of Flight webpage. Panton is a member of The Manifesto Club, which has overlapping membership with Spiked-online, which is in turn, is a reincarnation of Living Marxism (LM), a dubious groupuscle which engaged in controversy for controversy's sake. Beginning in 2001, Spiked-online collaborated with Hill & Knowlton, a major PR company with a sorry record, in undermining criticism of genetically modified (GM) crops; it even organized seminars at the Hill & Knowlton's head office in London. Spiked, LM, and the Manifesto Club are simply manifestations of the same cynical group of people who may actually be used (paid?) by PR companies to undermine demands for environmental action. Maybe the BBC can address how Panton was selected as a discussant, but one thing is certain, his contribution certainly didn’t advance a discussion about what to do. If anything, his contribution had to do with chastising environmentalists protests as "miserablist [sic] moralizing".


The UK government has hired PR companies in the past to counteract environmental demands, and at one point the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), an environmental public funding body, hired Spiked to conduct "debates" about GM food. Now, was Panton part of a similar operation to undermine the environmental concerns? Alas, the BBC's reportage is much about protecting and projecting the official line, and it is not about providing space to dissenters or protesters. The selection of Panton has much to do with the former.


Kirsty Wark's first question to Panton set the stage: "… do you detect a creeping scepticism about what individuals can do in the face of the bigger challenge of China and India". Presto, that was the third time this issue was rubbed in. Panton's reply was similar to the PR about smoking in the past, that is, "don’t wag your finger at the smoker, his smoking adds pleasure and fulfilment to his life…" In the current context the message is, "don't wag a finger at the flyers, they after all are enjoying a flying experience". After Panton's silly ruminations, Wark turned to Leo Hickman: "… do you agree with James Panton's assessment?" Again, instead of discussing why there were protestors at Heathrow, the issue is one whether Panton's enjoyment factor is the issue. Hickman provided a standard answer, but one dealing with the implications of air travel, and not one about what government policy should be. Wark transferred the question back to Panton who put the discussion back on the "moralizing" track -- about environmentalists' demands seen as moralizing, nag, nag, nag… The interview ends with Wark throwing back the question to Hickman: "They accused you of miserablist [sic] moralizing… Leo Hickman". So, the entire debate didn’t touch upon what the government should be doing, and measures taken to arrest climate change.


Hallmarks of Propaganda
The point that it was difficult to expect British public action in the face of much larger problems in China "building two coal fired power stations a week" has all the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign. First, it deflects attention away from the United States, the world's number one pollution offender which also sabotaged the Kyoto Treaty. It then deflects attention away from aircraft carbon emissions, and suitably suggests that nothing can be done, or it is someone else's problem. Does China really build two coal-fired power stations a week? Fat chance! NB: In trying to find the origin of this statistic one finds that it was a UK government spokesman.

http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/53-climate-c hange/4304-the-bbc-on-climate-change

-------------------------------------------------

IMO this is the correct diagnosis of how Newsnight, and the many other news outlets operate.
This does not mean however, the climate change debate is over and the Kyoto Treaty,along with what is called "Climate Science" is actually based on reality,far from it.

Spinwatch:spinning for "carbon emissions",and presumably one's "carbon footprint" taxes!

If Spinwatch want to taken seriously, they really should address the many inconsistancies,and downright lies in the Global Warming Scam.

[Newspeak International]

denial of climate change, role of fossil fuel industry, emmision trade, manipualation of (paid) science, role of think tanks.
Filter Display # 5101520253050100All

# Article Title Hits
1 The BBC on climate change 1249
2 BBC Newsnight 20 August 2007 transcript 900
3 ExxonMobil funds climate sceptics – will Brussels clear the air? 1925
4 Bjørn Lomborg and the neoliberal echo chamber 1475
5 Big business and greenhouse: a declaration of surrender 1341
6 Happy Birthday Kyoto 814
7 How the Middle East Could Save the Climate 1260
8 Katrina: A Lethal Legacy from Alaska to Africa 1395
9 Faced with this Crisis 1198
10 Ban President Bush From the G8 1225


http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/53-climate-c hange

[TonyGosling]

[Newspeak International]

[TonyGosling]

Still waiting for you to make a point about Summers or Spinwatch worthy of a considered reply Newspeak.

Am I waiting in vain?

[Newspeak International]

Can't you just answer simple questions,instead of continually deflecting them and changing the topic

[TonyGosling]

As I said in the previous post I don't see any question which merits an answer.
Can you cut to the chase and pitch me your best?

PS - I don't mind about Spinwatch's article on global warming since the other one was unique and brilliant. You must understand that like most of us Spinwatch don't get it all right.