A Lost Generation: The need for a new system
Our wonderful economic model, you know, the one with endemic unemployment, ever-rising prices, frozen salaries, homelessness, worsening public services and increasing taxation, has failed the next generation (or three) miserably. The ILO's latest report on employment reads like a social terrorist manual.
And these are the policies blindly followed by the drivers of the western economy, the FUKUS Axis (France, UK, US), the same Axis at the heart of the warmongers' lobby, NATO, the same organization which pushed this economic model through into implementation across the globe.
And what, pray, did this wonderful model substitute? Why, it claimed to be superior to alternative systems which considered raw materials and natural resources as the property of all and not just a few, systems which provided social mobility and meritocracy, not promotion through the old boy network, eh what; these were systems which provided excellent public services, references in healthcare, education, cultural activities, development through sports, public transportation - free or subsidized; public utilities - free or subsidized; guaranteed housing, free; a guaranteed job, equals zero unemployment, basic goods subsidized or free, an indexed pension, leisure time activities, security of the state and safety on the street.
While this system was striving to improve at home and develop itself abroad - the overseas development budget of the USSR was 250 billion USD back in 1987 and GDP was higher than it was after years of the wonderful economic model based on market vectors - the FUKUS Axis, in particular, and NATO in general, were spending billions trying to sabotage the successful alternative model, because an expansion of this worldwide would have deprived those who (continue to) control our planet's wealth of their fortunes.
Murder attempts were made against public figures (for example, Fidel Castro), economic interests were sabotaged (for example the Tupolev 144 at the Paris Air Show) and subversive elements were stirred up (the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which morphed into the Talebaan, the thank-you note being 9/11). Lies were sold, false promises were made and a handful of leaders in key positions were convinced by the siren's song that the capitalist market economy model was better.
Why, people would be free to set up their own business and contribute to the economy by employing others and funding public programmes through taxation, taking the strain away from the State and allowing the public treasury to act with a lesser burden. Well, twenty years on, what do we see?
The latest report from the International Labour Organization, "Global Employment Trends for Youth 2013" is a summary of the aftermath of social terrorist policies implemented on a world scale. So dire is the situation, that its subtitle is "A generation at risk". It claims that over 70 million young people will be unemployed in 2013, claims that temporary or precarious employment is rife among 90 per cent of the world's youth and that the prospects of getting a job in many cases are so low that a growing number of young men and women have given up searching.
This, of course, depends also upon how the unemployment statistics are calculated and how the books are cooked. The real figure could be far higher.
In short, what this wonderful economic model has produced is worsening educational standards, with growing numbers of youths coming out of secondary education unable to cite the arithmetical tables, count, read, write or even speak properly (so what have they been doing for 12 years?), a higher education system which is based upon the precept that "you pay, therefore you have" with degrees becoming meaningless, vomiting forth generations of under-prepared and unemployable fodder for an ever-demanding work market.
If those with degrees cannot find a job, what about those who cannot afford higher education? True, there will always be some supercilious brat paraded on television claiming how easy it is to become a millionaire (please don't inspect his father's accounts and find out where his first million came from) but the bottom line is what we see.
Endemic and growing unemployment, restricted credit, meaning it is practically impossible for young people to get a house and have a family, work insecurity, burgeoning costs for diminishing public services.
And then they have the audacity to say that the system which provided all this for free didn't work?