Wealth-creator™.

[teamsaint]

tongue in cheek use of word Socialism, PT.

I don't really see why its a delusion. Socialist economies, in this country and elsewhere, have had huge areas of government control....not always very successful perhaps...but then again, not perhaps always as unsuccessful as the British media have portrayed them.
The B of E have the power to change interest rates, and to print money at will to hand out to the commercial banks, or Quantitative Easing as they prefer to call it. That is, by anybodys standards, a high level of control, especially as the treasury doesn't tend to act in other areas against the wishes of the B of E.

As a semantic point,rather than a serious economic point, if its not possible to control the economy, why have government economists ?

[heliocentric]

In the alternative universe where labour votes actually count in Salisbury, and you get one of them to" represent" you, they then do what their tory masters in the banks tell them, with socialist policies like handing control of the economy to the B of E, invading foreign sovereign states, and introducing university tuition fees, even though they didn't say they would.

Exactly. Although let's not in the first place confuse the Labour party with socialism. Also I think the idea that a planned economy is impossible is the delusion here, arising from the notion that capitalism is some kind of natural law rather than an economic system which had a beginning and which no doubt, somehow or other, will also have an end.

[Serial_Apologist]

Exactly. Although let's not in the first place confuse the Labour party with socialism. Also I think the idea that a planned economy is impossible is the delusion here, arising from the notion that capitalism is some kind of natural law rather than an economic system which had a beginning and which no doubt, somehow or other, will also have an end.

Agreed. The question is, who does the planning. And here we will of course be up against all the old arguments: inefficiency, bureaucratic blockages, imposed uniformity when it's been top-down; infighting, delays and indecision when bottom-up. Personally grass roots-based planning involving communities and workplaces is far preferable; for all the delays prioritisations involve producers and consumers in decision-making, (Learning Through Landscapes a good model for this), in sharp contradistinction with the present situation with boardrooms deciding product lines in commercial secrecy based on "market research", which is really a euphemism for taste regimentation and product obsolescence, and the rest are either passive consumers or left behind for being unable to afford.

[PhilipT]

Teamsaint (#106): Your examples are all examples of influence, not control. Control implies preventing other people from influencing the economy. This is what is impossible and where the delusion lies. As an example (from a book I have whose title escapes me at the moment), whatever the Soviet government, circa 1980, tried to impose, the price of a Christmas tree was one bottle of vodka.

Government needs economists to forecast so as to be able to plan (e.g. future expenditure), and to predict what influence proposed policies will have. The NHS has statisticians and computer models to predict future healthcare demand, and they influence policy, but they do not control future healthcare demand.

[heliocentric]

Control implies preventing other people from influencing the economy.

Not really. I like to think I'm in control of my car when I'm driving, but if I decided that no other driver's actions would influence mine I probably wouldn't last very long.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the argument for taxing the wealthy and understanding how jobs are really created is a capitalist argument ... and a socialist one too ...viz:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

you can not make this stuff up .....

[Frances_iom]

actually you missed the best one on front page of Times which indicated just how little tax the really wealthy pay via various 'legit' tax avoidance schemes (tho some are now closed down) - if you had more than about £1M paying tax was optional - a couple of other papers illustrate how BBC luvvies have their own tax + NI avoidance scheme facilititated by the BBC - I guess the 'we are all in it together' actualy only applies to the poor and workers in the less glamourous industries, those at the top merely laugh at the stupidity of the poor in paying for the infrastructure they use.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

don't read the Times do i ...Murdoch innit .... and paywall ....

[Frances_iom]

I read the frontpage whilst shopping this afternoon having noticed the headline - if I buy or have time to read more than the front page I tend to trust the FT and the Economist for generally balanced factual accounts

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

do not read print media any more only web now .... and yes i used to find the FT and the Economist acceptably interesting but balanced no; not a trace of any leftist understanding in either, factual yes but in their benign capitalist mindset ...

[teamsaint]

actually you missed the best one on front page of Times which indicated just how little tax the really wealthy pay via various 'legit' tax avoidance schemes (tho some are now closed down) - if you had more than about £1M paying tax was optional - a couple of other papers illustrate how BBC luvvies have their own tax + NI avoidance scheme facilititated by the BBC - I guess the 'we are all in it together' actualy only applies to the poor and workers in the less glamourous industries, those at the top merely laugh at the stupidity of the poor in paying for the infrastructure they use.

The BBC thing is interesting. Would need to see more before I comment...or then again I could make a sweeping generalisation...apparently my speciality.
However, and actually to the point, the fairly recent BBC programme about tax presented by Nick Robinson had some very dubious material.
One example was the column that they showed showing what percentage of tax is paid by the rich/well off. It gave the impression of being a huge amount. But even someone with as little economics as me knows that in order to even begin make this of any value, you need a similar chart showing proportion of income enjoyed by the same group, and it didn't. It was misleading at best, a lie at worst.

Oner thing I can't get my head round , is the fact that the rich claim that if tax rates go up, tax take goes down. In that case, if they are SO worried about their tax bills, why don't they push for higher rates !!
(I know, I know, but the point is that they always want lower rates for themselves).

[John Shelton]

One example was the column that they showed showing what percentage of tax is paid by the rich/well off. It gave the impression of being a huge amount. But even someone with as little economics as me knows that in order to even begin make this of any value, you need a similar chart showing proportion of income enjoyed by the same group, and it didn't. It was misleading at best, a lie at worst.

Exactly. If taxable income / wealth were redistributed the 1% would pay less tax (assuming they pay it in the first place) and have less income / wealth after taxation and many people would pay more tax and finish up with more income / wealth after taxation. In terms of tax paid, the 1% pay far less in proportion to their income / wealth than they did 30 / 40 years ago. They pay more of the total tax paid because their share of total wealth is so much greater than it was 30 /40 years ago.

[Serial_Apologist]

Exactly. If taxable income / wealth were redistributed the 1% would pay less tax (assuming they pay it in the first place) and have less income / wealth after taxation and many people would pay more tax and finish up with more income / wealth after taxation. In terms of tax paid, the 1% pay far less in proportion to their income / wealth than they did 30 / 40 years ago. They pay more of the total tax paid because their share of total wealth is so much greater than it was 30 /40 years ago.

Spot on!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]