I have spent two days walking and talking. My head is buzzing. But now is not the time to share much of that.
It is the time to draw attention to what is happening on Progressive Pulse.
Peter May has written about the leaked Labour Manifesto
Sean Danaher addresses the issue of home ownership.
And Charles Adams asks, as I have done, how are we going to pay for it?
I hate to be choosey, but the last particularly appeals to me. I would recommend them all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Prompted by an earlier post, I have read them already.
How to pay for it? is the main counter argument of the Tories.
The best attack , IMHO, is to show the Conservatives now take their lead (proud and patriotic ? ) from the American Republican Party: privatisation of the public sector, the financialisation of the economy and the corporate domination .
I’m sorry. Regarding “How are we going to pay for it”: I still don’t get it. “The geometrical progression tells us that after 40 such exchanges 99.99% of the money is returned to the government.”: I get the maths, as far as that goes, but if it had worked that way, no government would ever need to raise taxes in order to spend on increased services, and that governments of whatever stripe have clearly not found this to be a no-brainer so far.
I guess much of what government spends doesn’t end up as government worker salary, so it doesn’t get taxed that way. But as well, I just don’t understand money. I know it’s fake, it’s a promise, it’s not real. But I still don’t get it, and would really, really appreciate a way to understand this. I’m a mathematically-minded person, I have a D.Phil. Help me out.
I got a fair way through Marx’s Kapital, and the labour-value idea makes a lot of sense. I’ve still to figure out whether labour done by machine is to be considered equal to human labour or whether machine-labour is to be valued according to the human labour in making it happen. I’d really love to be pointed in the direction of an explanation, for the numerically literate, that covers that, and also makes sense of why, when socialist parties have taken power, they haven’t been able to just get things done. Why did Harold Wilson fail? Why did Callahan?
Sorry if this is the wrong forum. And thank you, for the glimpses of enlightenment.
I will try – bit time is pressing today
Anyone else what a go first?
I’ll suggest this series, which includes among other things a mathematical treatment you’ll be comfortable with.
Good luck!
http://misunderheard.org/monetary_economics/2016/11/20/government-money-and-saving/
Thanks
Much appreciated, thank you.
It’s not mathematical but Stephen Keen’s ‘Debunking Economics’ has an explanation of Marx and the theories of value.
It is a book which needs one’s sustained attention. Keen was one of those who saw the Global Financial Crisis coming.
I agree
Thanks! I look forward to getting stuck into it.
“How do we pay for it”? I hope we don’t repeat the mistake of the past when we abolished slavery, by compensating them slave owners not the slaves. Investors have to realise that the value of their stock holdings can go down as well as up. They should have done their ” due diligence”. They should have read “Das Capital”
Indeed Charles’s article also particularly appeals to me. I have a long term plan to set up an “Economics 101” on progressive pulse. Somehow we need to challenge the naive and pernicious “corner shop” narrative which has become almost all pervasive.
Peter’s article is also worth reading. In general I’m pleasantly surprised by the Labour Manifesto.
The only thing new in mine is a linear fit to the number of owner occupied homes from 2000-2016.
I have a few prices for that EWconiomics 101, or which could at least be adapted for it
Let’s discuss by email
The last link should be compulsory reading for everyone.
The number of conversations I’ve had in the last few days, and the looks and cries of disbelief and scepticism are depressing.
People, even those with the best of intentions, have been very successfully brainwashed by the all-pervading Government-as-Household narrative.
Any contribution that clarifies and gives reasoned insight into economic activity is to be welcomed. However, as a total layman, from a consumer marketing background, I can only surmise that it will be at least a generation (30 years) before one can expect ‘popular’ understanding of ‘how will we pay for it?”.
The main reason is that’s it’s counter-intuitive, therefore genuinely difficult for non-experts to reprogramme their embedded mind-set, prejudices and belief systems.
Secondly, it suits the neo-liberal political programme to reinforce continually these intuitive yet dishonest assumptions.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to explain without success just the basic ‘mechanics’ to otherwise sensible and intelligent people, aged 50+, who say “I hear what you say but it doesn’t make sense. The government can only spend what it gets in” or words to that effect. And I’m supposed to have some communication skills (which are noticeably absent in most of my posts – lol!).
So, I empathise with you Roderick Kennedy above; however you’re already ahead of the game by admitting you still don’t get it and want to find out. Tnat places you in an exclusive 1% or 2% (not official stats).
If I had any influence anywhere, I’d forget trying to convince the over 50s; life’s too short to wear tight shoes! All energy should be directed towards educating the upcoming generations, starting at primary school.
In the meantime, all attempts to educate in whatever way, in whatever medium, should of course be encouraged. The seeds will eventually bear fruit.
John I don’t know if this helps. Ask your friends to imagine they were placed in a desert 200miles in any direction from food or water, with only the clothes they have on. Temperatures of +50c during the day and freezing at night. They are offered £200m in money assets of their choice e.g. euros, dollars, diamonds, gold etc. or a 4 wheel drive vehicle with enough food, fuel and water to reach a place of safety. Anything they can bring out is theirs to keep. What would they chose? If they chose the money assets they would be dead within 48hrs. In this context the vehicle and its contents are wealth, money is only a proxy for wealth. Money only has value in a functioning society. Austerity destroys wealth. The lie that austerity is necessary is merely a cover story for the 1% to wage a vicious class war on the rest of society.
Very good