The reader mailbag is bulging after a few weeks of hitting controversial and dividing topics. Discussing immigration, vaccines and the inherent flaws of government policies hit a nerve. Thanks for all the feedback – all of it.
Today, we’ll republish some of the comments and I’ll try to respond a little too…
Thank for your article today which covers an important subject and I’d be most interested in your view of some facts that puzzle me.
The points you make about the huge advantage in immigration leading to increased GDP are all valid because I see them as true. However, it is because of that required situation that I see increasing problems. You did touch upon that, briefly, in your article.
This concerns the pressures being put upon our land where space is required to provide those factors so necessary for a balanced and happy life for us all, principally being food production, housing, recreation, and ‘nature’s refreshment’ – or open spaces – for ourselves as well as all other species.
When a senior politician said, years ago, that he’d be “quite relaxed to see a UK population reaching 70 million” a lot of people were aghast. Yet that figure appears to be a level almost welcomed by some in government planning circles and, from your article, even more so.
In the realisation that any politician knows they won’t be around to answer the question when the problem finally confronts us, how should we find the balance between coping with debt by increasing GDP by merely enlarging our society to provide that solution, but which will inevitably bring a very much greater problem with lack of space to provide those four main factors mentioned?
In short, why can we – or should we – not actually deal with the matters now without leaving it to our successive generations down the line? We know it has to be faced one day so are we not all being dishonest with all our children?
It has been said “we don’t have a housing problem – we have a population problem”. It certainly appears to be the case, but China is now actually encouraging families of three children in future so what hope does mankind have with billions more to feed and house?
To run along with my points here, you have discussed money before and its creation by differing means, like QE. I now wonder how much “money” is actually merely created by today’s governments for short term convenience but which is not actually owed until provided – i.e. sold – by central banks to enable employment and thereby profit creation leading to that GDP. If every debt by everyone was paid to all those owed how would the real position look then? Does anyone know?
I don’t have your talents to be lucid as you are in these matters, but I hope I make a reasonable case that has earned your response. My thanks to you for listening.
I think such fears over space and resources have so often been disproven in the past that, however credible they sound intuitively speaking, I don’t worry about them.
In other words, it seems to me that humans have always worried about this problem and always solved it comfortably.
Our ability to grow enough food and provide for enough space are beyond question. I’ve heard far more about such worries in Australia, which has so much space that the fears are completely laughable. And yet, they get plenty of airtime.
The misguided fears become more obvious if you have travelled and experienced places like Hong Kong and Japan. Once you see how they deal with these issues, it becomes clear that the solutions not only exist, but are improving rapidly, even if there is a problem, which I don’t believe in the first place.
If the global population were still going to increase indefinitely, I might agree there will be a problem at some distant point in the future. But, for now, I think the risks (and opportunities) of depopulation are more worth thinking about.
Also, regarding your question of the debts, don’t forget that one man’s debt is another man’s asset. Extinguish the debt and you extinguish the investable asset.
Alternatively, repay all debts and you turn investment assets into cash. That implies a huge flood of cash hitting the economy. What do you think would happen if all pension funds suddenly paid out all future claims in cash? Or how would they reinvest that money having had their assets bought up by governments or central banks?
It’s worth noting that central banks have been pursuing the policy T.S. mentions. They’ve bought up ever increasing amounts of assets with newly created money. What’s the endpoint?
I’m planning to release a video about that soon. But my endless atopic cough has prevented me so far…
M.A. sent in an email echoed by many:
Interesting reading again, thank you.
Don’t you think that by now governments need to look at how they can make a population take better care of their immune systems rather than pushing a jab on to all of us without knowing what the long term effects are?
Better lifestyle, better diet, daily exercise etc. supports a buoyant immune response.
This would support their resistance to any virus, (not just Covid!) and bacterial infections too.
Populations have become lazy, overweight and unhealthy. No wonder a virus can cause havoc.
One wonders whether governments have an ulterior motive to keep a population sick and dependant on chemicals.
Getting the healthy living message through to politicians however is just impossible. And I have tried, via our MP, who is so narrow minded, you wouldn’t believe it. A classical Sage Group follower.
People like you however with a decent readership, you have the means perhaps to reach more influential people, who like you have an inquisitive, open minded way of thinking. That is what needs to be changed in government. Give us back Team Nigel anytime.
Wouldn’t this country be a better place indeed!
If the government ran our healthcare and advised us on things like exercise and diet, we’d have an obesity epidemic. Which is, of course, why we do have one.
If you want more government involvement to ensure lower levels of obesity, I believe that the problem would double. Which is, of course, why it has doubled over the last 20 years as government has focused on diets and preventing illness.
Again, the idea that governments can implement policies successfully is laughable. Of course exercise and responsible diets are crucial. But if government policies achieved either, we’d see the problem get smaller, not larger, as the number of government policies and initiatives increase.
The sordid history of school milk programmes should be a cautionary tale to us all. The government solution to the science is, of course, to mandate a different drink instead…
I don’t want any politician or government official mandating my health, exercise or diet. Even if it was Nigel.
Unfortunately, until the people start to rebel (not a lot, just some signs to scare them off, the politicians), nothing will happen.
I am pro-vaccination, and I got mine, and I do not care about it doesn’t protect completely, because that is true for anything, so I vaccinate to protect more my mom. I won’t give this one to my son though, since for him the risks are bigger than the benefits.
I am happy though that today the NO-VAX movement in Italy will block several train stations (from today you are required to have a green pass to travel by train). I am curious to see what happen[s].
On another note, I am fully vaccinated, one swab in the UK and one in Italy. I am supposed to come back to the UK next week, but after more than a month, my green pass is still to come. And I need it to travel…efficiency of the governments…
I hope this craziness will be done soon, but we are letting them go away with too much, and like a dog on a bone, they will not let it go if not forced.
Marc Faber, editor of the long running Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, recently argued that once the pandemic is over, the elites will go to war. They will need something to continue the justification of their extreme measures. Rolling them back is very hard to do because it exposes their futility and admits failure.
B.C. wrote in about something I’ve been seeing in the news a lot recently:
Heard this morning that UK epidemiologists now conclude that EVERYBODY will get infected either with the Delta variant or any succeeding, more dangerous, variant. As a result no need for lockdowns etc etc. Herd immunity is a concept in the dustbin of history. Vaccine passports useless since vaccinated people, like myself, still likely to become infected with symptoms.
This is misinformation and you should consider yourself censored by the Southbank Investment Ministry of Truth.
Thanks for the emails. I was chatting with my sister yesterday, who is a Practice Manager at a GP Practice in England. She said that there is a new surge of Covid in her town, and it’s being caused by all the kids socialising during the summer months. She also said that the new infections are the delta variant. However, what she also said was that this new variant was similar to a mild flu with a bit of a cold. So runny noses and a few aches. She said that the Doctors in the practice had said that if they weren’t testing for Covid or didn’t know about Covid then they would just assume it’s a run of a summer mild flu. She said the incubation period has reduced from 9-10 days down to 2 or 3.
What this means is that this new variant is evolving down to be more transmissible but less lethal. Which is what we want. We agreed that the correct course of action (which we both agreed on 18 months ago) would have been to lock down the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life, get the virus and let it evolve down, whilst at the same time developing therapeutics. Send all hospitalisations to Nightingales and let the NHS carry on (whilst keeping calm).Then offer vaccines and prophylactics to those that want them. Job done. But sadly I think we will have further lock downs and boosters as politicians love to double down on bad policy decisions. My own personal take is that this has always been seen as a medical problem, but it is actually primarily a risk management problem within the realm of medicine.
Anyway, thought you might like to know of an anecdote from the Shires.
Before you go, I have a question for you. Hopefully a Fortune & Freedom reader out there knows where to look for an answer… or just has the answer.
Why are the unvaccinated who are supposedly dying and being hospitalised in disproportionate numbers unvaccinated?
Is it because they are sceptics who believe Covid doesn’t exist?
Or is it because they have had bad reactions to vaccines in the past, have an existing medical condition, are under some form of medical treatment like chemo which makes vaccination a bad idea, or have some other “good” reason for not being vaccinated?
In other words, what proportion of the unvaccinated in hospitals could’ve and should’ve been vaccinated and what proportion shouldn’t?
Editor, Fortune & Freedom