The FT published this letter from Colin Hines of the Green New Deal group (of which I am a member) today:
Sir, Your editorial “Central bankers ponder moving the goalposts” (August 26) is correct in that it is time for central bankers to rethink their failed attempts to help stimulate adequate and sustainable levels of economic activity. To achieve this, their focus should be on funding infrastructural renewal to provide adequate levels of housing, hospitals, schools, local transport projects and new energy systems emphasising energy efficiency. This would generate jobs and business opportunities in every city, town, village and hamlet.
Such a focus is far preferable to the red herring of “helicopter money”, a wasteful, scattergun approach likely to stimulate consumer imports. Targeted infrastructure quantitative easing, plus government borrowing at a time of historically low interest rates, could result in the financing of economic opportunities in every part of the country, requiring a wide range of skilled workers involved in projects that will last decades.
Colin Hines
East Twickenham, Middx, UK
Convener, Green New Deal Group
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Sorry OT but Comments on previous post closed.
Richard Murphy says:
August 30 2016 at 7:04 pm
You think most wealth is earned?
Why not think a little more about that? Very little is.
Agreed inherited wealth is not earned.
But otherwise define ” earned” ?
What is the difference between you earning ( accumulating) a vast sum over
forty years by working six days a week down a mine and my earning the sane amount over a much
shorter time period by canny use of spread betting / derivative plays?
Both are ” earned” , one by blood and sweat with the risk of death illness or injury , the other
by mental agility risking bankruptcy if decisions go wrong .
But because the latter is earned in a compressed time period that ” earner” pays a
higher rate of income/ cap gains ( if applicable ) than the former who earns consistently but over a longer
time period with both accumulating a similar amount .
Not contending the ” faster earner” should not be taxed marginally on his higher compressed time period
income but…..
Both are incomes are ” earned” . N’est pas?
You really don’t get it, do you?
Please don;t waste my time
Mr Franklin
Obviously you do not realise do you that the bloke with the ‘mental agility’ is the one who works in the financial sector and whose ‘agility’ is likely to have meant that he or she cheated to get their ‘faster earned income’ or maybe is someone one who works in business using immigration to reduce the wages and pensions of his or her workers?
The other thing you do not realise is that the people with the so-called ‘mental agility’ are actually getting the hands on the money that is more slowly earned to the point where when you get to the end of each examples’ working lives, the money that should have gone to the person with the more slowly earned income isn’t there – the pension has gone, the accumulation of wages has gone. So the faster earned income you talk of is those with the ‘agility’ to take other people’s wages for themselves right now. In other words robbing your people with the more slowly earned income of their future income.
This is what happening right now in American style capitalism Franklin in the West. And if you do not realise that now then you have no right to be here.
Please go back to looking at your stocks and share or whatever it is you do with your time.
I’d never heard of gambling as being a means of “earning” money equivalent to those who labour. An interesting redefinition of earned.
Isn’t that what the operators in the Stock Market do?
Good article. Economists are still pedalling their twin mantras that public spending is always inflationary, and that new taxes always reduce growth. Both lessons may have been relevant in the 1970’s, but both are dangerous misconceptions in times of growing economic stagnation.
As Mr Hine’s letter points out, investment in sustainable infrastructure would actually have multiple economic benefits – including reductions in future costs through improved energy efficiency and switching to sustainable power generation. As an added benefit, if we could eventually eliminate all imports of carbon fuels (oil/petroleum, gas and coal) the UK would actually halve it’s current account deficit (currently running at 7%)- check the numbers and see if you agree!
And even new taxes, if properly targeted, can actually promote growth. Private investment has stalled because business leaders do not see opportunities for growth in a flat economy. But if we were to introduce a carbon tax, with future increases announced several years in advance, it would create a huge incentive for new private investment. Innovative companies could secure big competitive advantages by adopting sustainable technology, and deliver cost savings for consumers and businesses alike. To stop climate change the World needs a lot more innovators like Elon Musk, but investment will only accelerate once we use taxation to create greater incentives for rapid change.
Robert P Bruce – http://www.TheGlobalRace.net
From the USA- Iowa (stick with me this is relevant) MidAmerican Energy (a regulated utility) is about to build out 2GW of on-shore wind and have been allowed an 11% return.
These are the sort of returns you will also see for renewable projects in Europe (& the Uk). UK gov’ could finance a big build out of both renewables and energy efficiency projects – which would have positive returns – in the same ball park as the 11% being enjoyed by MidAm. The problem (in the UK) is that such gov’ investment could elbow out the usual-financial-suspects, who up to now have enjoyed a “nice little earner” with respect to, for example, off-shore wind (“oooh its high risk you know” – as justification for over the top financing costs).
Of course another route to financing would be UK pension funds – fat, happy, lazy but with problems looming. All is possible, but very unlikely in a world where the Tories are financied (in part) by the City of London.
Agreed