Making sense of the crash
I enjoyed reading Larry Elliott’s piece on the financial crash of 2008 (7 September). It made me reflect on the reasons why progressives failed to make a difference. I came up with two: religion and power.
Economics is to capitalism what churches are to religion, and the high priests of neoclassical economics are not going to upset their own power base. Anyone seeking economic advice is going to get the capitalist party line. The fact that the banking crisis happened and 10 years later the poor and middle classes are still paying for it is no reason to depart from orthodoxy. The net result is that progressives are always up against the massive power of a religion that has no interest in change.
At the same time we continually underestimate the power of the really rich institutions. Western nations smugly criticise bribery in emerging nations and completely overlook the reality of election contributions and lobbying. This is where the real power lies and is the reason why nothing has really changed in the capitalist world. Homeless persons can’t afford lobbyists. And anyone who thinks the Russians were the only ones meddling in the last US election lives in La La Land.
Keith Edwards
Omokoroa, New Zealand
• Larry Elliott is surely right that the climax of the crash of 2008 was a missed opportunity, but then he falls into the trap of defining the alternative in terms of the capitalist system itself. There is undoubtedly an impending crisis: one of resource depletion and climate change. That is what will destroy capitalism and the lives of billions with it.
Faced with this real and present danger, there is a mind-boggling myopia and suicidal insouciance across the political spectrum. It can be argued that the true failure of the left is its inability to embrace sustainable development and to transcend Elliott’s narrative. Its a very tired cliche but we are all involved, right and left, in rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Tinkering with the financial regulations and fetishising mobile phones will not do.
Neil Blackshaw
Barbizon, France
Where is Australia heading?
The plea from captive Manus Island refugee journalist Behrouz Boochani for Australia to honour its claims to be a liberal democracy is inaudible to its present government (Australia needs a moral revolution, 7 September). Australia has no constitutional bill of rights and continues to flout its inconvenient international obligations, such as the Paris climate and refugee conventions, with casual contempt, leaving the present conservative government with the sovereign powers it inherited from the British king.
Like many other parties presently on the starboard wing of politics, it has little patience with democratic niceties and prefers appealing to less abstract principles in its followers, such as fear, resentment and avarice. It’s aided in this by an opposition that seems to share its view that winning is what politics is all about.
John Hayward
Weegena, Tasmania, Australia
• In response to Behrouz Boochani’s question “Where is Australia heading?”, I can only reply that under the current government, nowhere that many of us would choose, and certainly not in the same direction that our federal government would seek to send us.
There are many organisations and many individuals who strive daily to bring evidence to our government of the devastating consequences of the cruelty perpetrated under the current policies of offshore detention. There are those who strive for justice for those incarcerated and who advocate at every level for their release to our shores: these activists and advocates are our local heroes.
Many of us are lending our voices to the swelling chorus of calls for freedom and justice for all those who remain detained offshore.
So where are we heading? Towards a nation that we can proudly call home, where all those who seek refuge may find peace and solace.
Christine Kerr
Marrickville, NSW, Australia
Leave some stones unturned
In his 24 August In brief piece, Patrick Barkham laments the practice of stone-stacking on the basis of some ascetic environmentalism. In Canada, this problem is compounded with the misuse of the omnipresent Inukshuk. As a symbol of the Inuit people of Canada’s north, it has now been appropriated for the 2014 Olympic flag, the Canadian memorial at Juno Beach, as well as countless other diplomatic offerings. However, you also find structures adorning Canadian highways: a form of ritualistic “I was here” marker by drunk frat boys hunting game. It has been decried by park rangers, indigenous leaders and cultural commentators. It is high time to chip away at this unfounded practice. It is fine to leave some stones unturned.
Jesse Gutman
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Briefly
• Your feature on how some men fret over potential baldness (7 September) quotes Donald Trump’s warning that “The worst thing a man can do is go bald”, thereby explaining his follicular arrangements, but not, oddly enough, his fondness for Vladimir Putin.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
Send letters to weekly.letters@theguardian.com. Please include a full postal address and a reference to the article. We may edit letters. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
