QED

[ahinton]

I'm more than a little worried that our resident "academic" seems to be spending his spare time defending benefit claimants !!!
I sense a swing to the left (whatever that means ?)

could this be the start of a transformation of Wittgensteinian proportion ?

That might depend upon which particular Wittgenstein you had in mind(!)...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well from this patrician commentator this piece is astonishing and on a par with the abandonment of positivism

[aeolium]

Not particularly astonishing, Calum. SJ has long been in favour of localism rather than central grand projects, and has consistently been against QE which he sees as just allowing the banks to build up their balance sheets; he argued quite a long time back that it would be better to give money directly to people than put money into the banks.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i must have missed that aeolium in between all the mocking of progressive politics in the last fifty years or so ... [including his bobsworth for M]

[teamsaint]

Not particularly astonishing, Calum. SJ has long been in favour of localism rather than central grand projects, and has consistently been against QE which he sees as just allowing the banks to build up their balance sheets; he argued quite a long time back that it would be better to give money directly to people than put money into the banks.

and he is right.
QE is one of the great cons of all time.

It tells us pretty much all we need to know about how, and in whose interests modern economies are run.

The ECB is an even worse offender, if anything.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

amazinh how the headlines are all about the markets being scared because the voters put people before bankers loot .... rather than what it is ... finance lashes out at people for arguing against divine right of finance to bankrupt the universe so that rich people can stuff the suitcases they carry up the stairway to heaven with specie ... only to find a stuck camel's rump looking them in the eye ...


there is a solution to the plutocracy's existential angst about death .... facing the reality of it can prompt a sense of the absurdity of possessions and wealth

so the revolution is existential therapy for the rich to stop their denial of death ... and acceptance of life ....especially including other peoples' lives

either that or insert their heads in the poor camel ....

[Simon]

i must have missed that aeolium in between all the mocking of progressive politics in the last fifty years or so ... [including his bobsworth for M]

No Calum - you didn't miss it. You just seem to see things as black and white. Mocking the more insane of so-called "progressive" politics (which for you mean those that advocate the things that you happen to agree with) does not automatically mean that there is no understanding of the need for some truly socialist ideals to permeate a just society.

I don't agree with all the Jenkins writes, but he's no fool and he's certainly not extreme.

Of the article quoted, this is perhaps the most telling sentence:

"The portfolio of ideas flowing through Whitehall reflects the interests of those whom Whitehall meets – government contractors, land-owners, estate developers and the bankers who finance them. It comes from government departments lobbying for airports, colleges, roads and hospitals."

But I would say that, of course, because it's so similar what I wrote a little while ago on here...

[amateur51]

But I would say that, of course, because it's so similar what I wrote a little while ago on here...

Ah the return of the Derbyshire Solipsist

[Simon]

"Ah the return of the Derbyshire Solipsist"

I don't know whether to be more surprised that you can spell it or that it is a more or less intelligible comment.

[amateur51]

"Ah the return of the Derbyshire Solipsist"

I don't know whether to be more surprised that you can spell it or that it is a more or less intelligible comment.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yes Simon i do take your point about Jenkins to a degree but he is rather quaint don't you think ... his localism is certainly insipid and rather on the the Phoenix Sheriff model eh? as if he sees the country house manor and estate as the height of our civilisation he is essentially landed gentry and that does not entail that he is an unattractive human being ...... but quaint definitely

[Simon]

Yes, CdJ, I think that "quaint" might indeed be one of a number of apt adjectives to describe him.

I wonder if he'd agree?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well perhaps he might agree with the tenor of this editorial in the Graun last April that slipped by me but seems far too good to remain obscure

why were the Greeks buying arms with borrowed money from the French & German arms industries?

see also if you are feeling brave

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

plug

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

a cogent explanation by a rich chap of how he or his ilk do not create wealth ..... his money comes from customers and if they have none he does not make any .... customers [ordinary people] create wealth QED
[but not TED apparently] ....

here it is in full

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.