GOING DOWN TO DETAILS - CONT"D
Risk and Crisis Management
Regarding the responsibilities of governments the OECD says they must:
- ensure the security and safety of its citizens
- protect institutions that sustain confidence, good governance and prosperity
- make pro-active efforts to mitigate known risks
Let's see if we can translate this into normal, human language. What the OECD is saying is that governments have the responsibility to:
- ensure people are safe and secure
- ensure government is protected
- ensure governments can forecast future risks and act now to minimize them
Interesting. Sounds impressive and it is an almost complete and total bullshit. If you believe in Social Contracts, then yes, your security is a valid government concern, but not your safety. Why should governments be concerned with the safety to humans of paints and door locks, seat-belts and chairs, houses and pets and everything in between? Where did this came in? What is the reason for this? There isn't one. It is just Socialism at work by controlling everything.
And then, of course, since the government is the source of all safety and security it must protect itself. The only problem is this: who is going to protect us against the government? Well, it would seem that according to the OECD this is a non-event because they don't mention this eventuality. Because, you know, government do not oppress people. Ever (see for example Your Country Is Your Prison Cell).
Lastly, it would seem that governments must make accurate forecasts of impending calamities and act pre-emptively. Only one tiny problem with this scenario. Governments cannot forecast anything with any level or accuracy sufficient to make any pre-emptive decision. All economic forecasting is a joke (on you). Any other type of forecasting falls within two categories:
- Irrelevant (not my problem, pass it to the next politician after me)
- Relevant (politicize it to either exploit it or change its perception to irrelevant)
In either case, even if originally there was an accurate forecast (let's take a gigantic leap of faith here), by the time politicians are done with it, it will be inaccurate to the point that no meaningful proactive action could be taken. Case in point: global warming.
Of course this would not stop the OECD which devotes an entire section of its website (Risk Management) to deal with these "global shocks". The part that we find most interesting is what does the OECD describe as possible items to be globally shocked. They include health, climate, social systems, financial systems and interconnections among them.
OK. Health issues exist simply because since the 60's most countries have socialized medicine hence preventing it from becoming more effective, efficient and cheap. Thus, denying people affordability. So, this problem is entirely government-generated. Next.
Climate. In a sense governments are also responsible for this one. Governments are supposed to protect the environment (at least this is what they say) yet, they have failed miserably. As they are the only authority in the matter, there is no real deterrent to environmental damage. Should governments would not have gone into the environmental business, the business of the environment would have provided much more effective deterrence. So, again, this is all government's fault.
Social systems had to do with safety nets such as employment insurance, government programs, welfare, workfare and so on. But these programs are self-inflicted. Should governments would not manipulated the economy for the last 200+ years, we would all be far wealthier by now not necessitating these social programs. So yes, the government is to blame for this one too.
Financial systems. Seriously? Yes, the OECD is serious. Well, considering that pretty much every single economic catastrophe for the last 100+ (including wars) can be traced back to Central Bank actions, we would say that yes, this is squarely a government-produced calamity.
And what about interconnectivity? This is again plain government stupidity. The world is interconnected whether there are governments or not. We are all dependent from each other. The only question is what happens when there is a cascading effect? In the current world each government acts independently, typically by trying to offload its problems to somebody else (other countries or people by printing). In a government-less system, the entire economic system responds positively seeking the best possible scenario that will benefit all through selfish and independent actions. Sounds strange but this is indeed the case. And again, interconnectivity risks do exist but governments make them so much worse.
In ultimate analysis Risk and Crisis management by governments is best left in the hands of people. As usual we end up with the same conclusion. If the only game in town is rigged, the only solution is not to play and move on.
CONCLUSION
This is the first article in a series of six detailing why you should not trust governments. Most of the information was kindly (and ridiculously expensively) collated by the OECD for our perusal… although we are pretty sure that this was not what they had in mind when they did so. The bottom line is simple; you should not trust governments because they are not reliable at any level, they waste our money for their purposes and they are the source of most risks and crisis that affect us. More to come in the next 5 articles.
Meanwhile, if you feel that you have been wronged by this article, it is your right to feel so. Next time you have your scheduled consultancy meeting with your "representative" where you will disclose your orders to this person, please feel free to mention this article.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
