Lordy me, is this going to become the next mantra?

Neo-liberals need to understand that while, sure, economies need entrepreneurs and innovators, economies also need customers – lots of customers, with lots of disposable income. That\’s the real crisis in the neoliberal west: a crisis of consumption. Too many people are not rich enough for capitalism to function properly.


Lessee
. Capitalism functioned pretty well in the past when people were poorer with less disposable income.

So I really don\’t see this as being the problem.

The solution deteriorates from there.

9 comments on “Lordy me, is this going to become the next mantra?

  1. Surely it’s actually Guardian readers who need to understand that capitalism requires customers.

    The Guardian reader understanding of capitalism is of a super rich corporate fatcat 1% (with top hats, cigars & an Osbornian sneer) and 99% peasantry.

    The idea that this fat cat 1% need customers to buy the huge amount of goods & services they provide seems to pass them by.

  2. This was one of Marx’s things, wasn’t it? He said that eventually the workers wouldn’t be able to afford the stuff they were producing and the free market system would collapse. We don’t know if he was right or wrong because we don’t have a free market system.

  3. “He said that eventually the workers wouldn’t be able to afford the stuff they were producing and the free market system would collapse.”

    It doesn’t seem very likely though does it ?

    There’s a very good reason why car companies produce 3 million Kia’s a year and only 100 Bugatti Veyrons.

  4. “all this, they say, means that absolute poverty has been banished from the land, more’s the pity”

    Stupid bitch. She has displayed, in that single sentence, the ridiculous caricature of the Right which she shares with the rest of the morons: that they are all EVIL.

    They have to slander the Right in this way, because as far as living standards go Capitalism pissed all over their favoured system, and didn’t kill a hundred million people into the bargain. The evidence is so overwhelming that they cannot face it, so construct the ludicrous straw man of EVIL right-wingers.

  5. You wouldn’t get to keep the money that you earned to spend as you pleased – in the way that right-wing tax abolishers envisage things. But you’d get a different currency in return for it, which you could invest for the future in a specially designed investment fund.

    Honestly, I’d rather just see it burnt than invested in the sort of whizzo schemes that the government thinks are worth investing in. At least I wouldn’t have to listen to the grubby fuckers claiming that their current Olympics/Concorde/Ken Loach movie was a success.

  6. Can’t be bothered to read the article, but seems to be the standard Marxian fallacy of not understanding that the economy is cyclical (that’s the wrong word, can’t think of the right one). Every sale is a purchase, etc. You can’t have an imbalance of this kind. There is no “not enough” or “too many” consumers, or producers. Jean Baptiste Say, and all that.

    Not unique to the Marxoids of course. FDR’s brainless trust believed the same thing- that the Great Depression was an overproduction crisis. Hence, while people starved on the city streets the government ploughed crops under and burned grain in locomotives. Etc.

  7. Well, Ian, I have read it and you were sensible not wasting your time. It’s not even Marxist fallacy – it is simply incoherent.

    She simply does not realise that a large amount of government spending isn’t, even in the Ed, Ed & Yvette distorted view of reality, “investment”. Hence there is no way your tax can, as she puts it “withdrew at a later date.”

    The Stigler’s point is also valid – “success” in proggie terms (and far too many pols, even on the so-called ‘right’ are really slightly less deluded proggies) means meeting their emotional needs – they are partying high up the Maslow hierarchy, while all of their peons (that’s us, folks) are grubbing around wondering how they are going to pay the bills this month.

    At least she has one moment of near-sense:

    this mad-sounding notion of mine

    Not just ‘mad-sounding’, Debs, simply ‘mad’.

  8. She simply does not realise that a large amount of government spending isn’t, even in the Ed, Ed & Yvette distorted view of reality, “investment”.

    Ah, that’ll be the Keynesian lunacy then, where all government spending is investment, even if the government collects 100% tax and spends it all on walnut cake and throws that in the sea. In the Keynesian arithmetic, that’s investment. And, that will automatically generate wealth, just so long as no selfish bastard saves any of their money.

    No understanding of Say’s Law- indeed, Keynes abolished it. Thus, no grasp of the fact that if the plebs are forced to buy windmills, they can’t buy goods they actually want with the same money.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>