Agreed, this was a truly refreshing article. Not least due to the 'conservative' perspective and the view of the finance sector. The finance sector is the enemy!
Globalisation has been a big thing in the arms trade for the last twenty years. Obviously sales have always gone on but what happens if you end up with one monopoly defence contractor that sells to both sides in every conflict in every corner of the globe?
In the UK the government used to make its own stuff. The shipyards were state owned and the Royal Navy really did rule the waves. The bullets and shells were made in state owned factories. This provided an anchor to the rest of the industry that needed and went through a lot of consolidation in the post war years. Projects and costs did over-run but a project could be put out to tender with 3-4 competing concerns submitting proposals. If the proposals were no good the government could do it in house.
But then when everything gets sold off to private finance and then resold to giant trans-national mega corporations, the giant mega corporations get to be bigger and more powerful than the governments. They then become in charge so democracy isn't for the people and by the people.
A similar thing has happened with property in the UK. The government and local councils used to own a large part of the housing estate. This provided an anchor in the marketplace so people could afford to rent affordable housing. When this was sold off it meant that prices skyrocketed and nowadays the government has to give a lot of tax revenue to private property owners to put up benefit claimants. Again the speculators and the interests of finance capital get to be in charge.
I will take up your John Kay recommendation. Anyway, the article was most interesting as normally it is a left-wing anti-militarist, anti-capitalist viewpoint that sees finance capital as the enemy, not any view with 'conservative' in the name.
Globalisation has been a big thing in the arms trade for the last twenty years. Obviously sales have always gone on but what happens if you end up with one monopoly defence contractor that sells to both sides in every conflict in every corner of the globe?
In the UK the government used to make its own stuff. The shipyards were state owned and the Royal Navy really did rule the waves. The bullets and shells were made in state owned factories. This provided an anchor to the rest of the industry that needed and went through a lot of consolidation in the post war years. Projects and costs did over-run but a project could be put out to tender with 3-4 competing concerns submitting proposals. If the proposals were no good the government could do it in house.
But then when everything gets sold off to private finance and then resold to giant trans-national mega corporations, the giant mega corporations get to be bigger and more powerful than the governments. They then become in charge so democracy isn't for the people and by the people.
A similar thing has happened with property in the UK. The government and local councils used to own a large part of the housing estate. This provided an anchor in the marketplace so people could afford to rent affordable housing. When this was sold off it meant that prices skyrocketed and nowadays the government has to give a lot of tax revenue to private property owners to put up benefit claimants. Again the speculators and the interests of finance capital get to be in charge.
I will take up your John Kay recommendation. Anyway, the article was most interesting as normally it is a left-wing anti-militarist, anti-capitalist viewpoint that sees finance capital as the enemy, not any view with 'conservative' in the name.