Last week the Church of England rolled out its big guns, in the form of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and trained both barrels on the perceived culprits behind the current world financial crisis in a ‘good cop-bad cop’ duo where the ‘bad’ cop (Canterbury) is so good that the ‘good’ cop (York) is forced to be positively obsequious. Eloquent testimony to the mollifying powers of the English shires when even the plain speaking man from Uganda chose to address the gathered fraternity of international bankers in terms more suited to a Harrogate tea parlour than the fire and brimstone which their unbridled consumption of usury truly deserves. As he approaches the end of his speech one soon realises that the whole thing has been a genteel preamble to a request for a share in the proceeds of what his colleague (Canterbury) rightly describes in the Spectator as, “…that almost unimaginable wealth [which] has been generated by equally unimaginable levels of fiction, paper transactions with no concrete outcome beyond profit for traders.” Our bad cop should perhaps take note that these transactions rarely involve anything quite so tangible as paper!
Read the full article here
Assalamu Alaykum!
The ‘law’ of Supply and Demand is supposed to act as a discriminatory tool in shortage situations; initial excess profits to be used to expand production/attract more producers to the sector to increase supply, so that ultimately an equilibrium situation is attained (price lowered, most demand satisfied). That being said, perhaps this should only apply to manufactured (non-essential) items? Shortages of necessities (food etc.)are artificial and sinister.
Thank you for a thought-provoking site!
WS
IB
wa alaikum as-salam,
It is rather like the fundamental assumption of these people that we are ‘consumers’ and that that is an acceptable definition of a human being. My main argument is that these ‘axioms’ or assumptions are largely unquestioned with any kind of rigour. It is hard enough in mathematics, whose elements such as number or point, line, area and volume are relatively simple, to state an axiom that holds under scrutiny, but suddenly it becomes much easier in very complex situations, involving human beings, with hearts, appetites, loves and hates, joined together in societies with arts, sciences, complex histories and interconnections!? Most of these so-called ‘sciences’ are nonsense, but they live off the back of the rather successful Newtonian paradigm unaware that that citadel has also fallen.
Abdassamad