Spud strives mightily to bring forth

That said in some areas the state is much more likely to be managing activity than now, and will do so without any pretence that it is mimicking the market. The confidence of the public sector in its own ability to manage in the public interest which cannot be determined by the power of consumer spending alone will be greatly enhanced. The key performance indicators may recognise financial constraints but it will be service priorities that will predominate.

Taxes may, or may not rise. It is highly likely that those on financial wealth will. Their power to avoid obligations will be broken by international cooperation, enhanced accountability and the sensible use of bank and other financial data to identify those who really owe taxes on the reward they make from the societies that provide them with benefits. Some of the resulting taxes will be new, but taxes on income and consumption, the use of land and trade will all still be found. Accounting though may look very different: a system of reporting that is at least as much concerned with returns to employment as it is with capital will look very different to one that seeks to hide financial power from view.

What will be certain is that the social safety net will become more central to the relationship between the state and those who live in its jurisdiction and it will be the state who will be supplying most of the associated services.

To put it another way, such a system will redraw the boundaries of power, management and control and redefine the reason why they exist. Capitalism – in the form of the power of the market – will be embraced and encouraged to allocate resources to maximise the return to people across a range of interests, from being consumers, investors, employees and fellow citizens (each of which it will be realised can exist simultaneously and not discretely) – but the limits to that power will also be recognised. When there is a natural monopoly there is no effective market. When there is no choice the consumer is disenfranchised. When the market cannot price returns there is no point pretending that it can. Then the state has to act and use its discretion, and there is also no point in pretending that when doing so it is not rational: truly accountable democracy provides that rationality.

And gives birth to fascism.

He really does have to go and look up the economics of fascism, doesn’t he? Even if only to make sure he’s getting it right.

17 comments on “Spud strives mightily to bring forth

  1. “Tax on financial wealth”.

    I’m sure he could have one in principle. If it were less than half a percent and you could deduct debt against it. We have one like this in Switzerland, and it’s just a bureaucratic PITA for very little tax raised.

    But I suspect that what he wants is percent and no deductions against it. Thereby utterly screwing the asset-rich-cash-poor, and then crashing the market when people have to liquidate assets to pay it.

  2. There are more diamonds here than in the entirety of Sub Sharan Africa – kudos to him. To show openly your ignorance at length is really quite something:

    Here’s a taste for those of a sensitive disposition who cannot be arsed to trawl through an eight page post:

    ‘the greatest fear of those who have wealth and the status that goes with it is that they might lose those two things. Nothing else matters as much to them as much as this. And since entrepreneurial activity is risky they really are not interested in that.’

    Evidently the wealthy on the Forbes Rich list are all merely aristocrats – none of theme invests in start up companies or small businesses in any way…

    ‘Those managing these companies realised that their shareholder owners wanted the share price of the companies they invested in to rise steadily, expected that they make steady income payments, and retain a cash buffer to ensure that if anything goes wrong the company can survive the storm. And this is what management have sought to supply’

    As opposed to wanting the share prices to fall and dividends to be abolished/ stopped?

    ‘They realise that a tax system where those on higher incomes are most likely to pay less overall than those in the middle is one that is fair (sic). And they have protested as a result.’

    UKIP voters are backing lower taxation for those on high incomes and the Spud’s checking of his missive is so inept that he is defining such a system as fair…

    ‘Nor can I foresee a desire to reduce the role of the private ownership of smaller business, although an increased role for cooperatives may well be very popular. As a result I cannot see this option happening’

    Whereas his vision is that even small businesses should be subject to the dictates/ direct control of the state. It’s at least consistent. There are not many private businesses in The Curajus State in its real world incarnation

    ‘A new capitalism has to break this pattern for a very obvious reason: many of those to whom rewards must now be paid do not have ownership of wealth now and so cannot leverage it to secure the communication of power. This means that a new power proxy has to be found in its place. This is where the state has to now play a role. In particular, financial power was created behind a veil of opacity. It is a requirement for transparent accountability that will shift that power to a mass of people and the state is the enabler of that process.’

    This is almost indistinguishable from something in ‘Mein Kampf’ or ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ – It effectively sees people as pawns of the state.

    ‘Employment will also still exist, and most people will still earn wages. Their relationships with their employers will though be differently negotiated. Their influence over the workplace will definitely increase. Security of employment will be more important. The influence of the state, or its agents, working as often as possible through power structures devolved to employees themselves, will be more apparent in many workplaces.’

    So Murphy will employ state employees in private workplaces to do what? This sounds like something straight out of the Gestapo/NKVD playbook

    ‘That said in some areas the state is much more likely to be managing activity than now, and will do so without any pretence that it is mimicking the market. The confidence of the public sector in its own ability to manage in the public interest which cannot be determined by the power of consumer spending alone will be greatly enhanced. The key performance indicators may recognise financial constraints but it will be service priorities that will predominate.’

    The Public Sector provision in many areas has been uniformly catastrophic – the idea that people who have suffered at the hands of the NHS or dealt with a council bureacracy will willingly give power up to them is cloud cuckoo land.

    And quite terrifyingly:

    ‘I believe such a system is possible. All going well I hope to outline the ideas that flesh out this idea during 2017. The need to do so is obvious. With financial capitalism failing there is a void and that void needs to be filled…. But to make sure that happens radical reform will be required. Thinking about these reforms to build their foundation in reality is essential if 2017 is to begin to deliver the basis for a new optimism. That may be part of the role of this blog next year, in between the inevitable of the day-to-day that consumes so much of life.’

    Another book is on the way – and I’m still only midway through the second one!!

    The thing really needs to be read to be believed – just stupefying levels of ignorance. However, there is a consolation. I think Murphy is no longer the most ‘dangerous man in Britain’ but he is without question the most stupid – I don’t see anyone else within 10 miles of that podium….

  3. Dear me, VP, those are pearlers.

    And Timmy, you literally made me LOL with this: “He really does have to go and look up the economics of fascism, doesn’t he? Even if only to make sure he’s getting it right.

  4. “The confidence of the public sector in its own ability to manage in the public interest which cannot be determined by the power of consumer spending alone will be greatly enhanced.”
    It doesn’t need enhancing – it is already excessive. Hence we have local planning departments that over-rule the council’s planning committee decision and dictate what homeowners may do citing things that are blatantly nonsensical (e.g. “you can’t replace the roof with the same material because that is not consistent with what is in use in the Conservation Area: you may use glass or slate” – there are no glass or slate roofs in the Conservation Area)

  5. “Yes but what is “the public interest”?”

    Strangely enough it always seems to be the same as the public sectors interest. Must just be a coincidence.

    About a 1000 times in a row coincidence.

  6. Back in the day one of the charities I worked for had to bid for council contract to supply night shelter to homeless during freezing nights in the winter, defined as any night below 0 degrees centigrade.
    Usual tender fun, having to bid for services within a limited time frame.
    And because of the ad hoc nature of the work the funding was ad hoc too. Minimum staffing requirements and heating the building meant a price could not be set per person as the council wanted, just a price per night with a limit of xx people.

    The council were usually inept in deciding, dragged their feet on payment and halfway through one year decided to change the payment – so the charity decided not to operate that service again.
    As a service it probably cost more effort than it was worth, certainly created problems that didn’t exist without it and caused a lot of bad feeling between the charity and the council.
    On the council side it probably cost in excess of £50k to run the scheme in terms of staff time, processes and meetings. Which is more than they paid out most winters.
    They had to be seen to be doing something, if that worked it was a bonus but not necessary.
    I dread what would happen if the council tried to run such services themselves.

  7. VP

    I do hope Santa was kind enough to leave you Murphy’s latest meisterwork under the Christmas tree (and a signed version too) to add to your treasured collection of his seminal works

  8. While I agree that the man is a loon, my blood still boils when I read this type of crap. Loons sometimes find enough adherents or believers to actually enact the idiocies they come up with, and the result would not be something that we could just laugh away. The undercurrent of Ve know vat is goot for you, ve vill force you to do it, and you vill like it is too close to comfort, as far as I’m concerned.

  9. Bravefart

    Oddly no – Santa failed ergo I need to trawl Murphy’s hated Amazon for the thing secondhand – or will wait too my Birthday! Still have to read ‘The joy of tax’ in detail anyway so no rush but if he starts producing a book per year I am in the shit certainly….

  10. VP: does The Joy of Tax have pencil drawings of a sky-clad Murphy engaged in gymnastic contortions with an HMRC inspector? I hope not, else I truly fear you will soon be commenting here from the safety of a padded room, having seen that which cannot be unseen.

  11. VP,

    “Here’s a taste for those of a sensitive disposition who cannot be arsed to trawl through an eight page post:”

    You must have the strength and constitution of an ox and the patience of a saint to read him so thoroughly. Those of us lesser mortals who can’t get through on of his posts, let alone a book, are in your debt.

  12. Given that the panic – stricken remoaners are now claiming that the civil service needs to quadruple in size to handle Brexit, just what is his worry?

  13. I assumed what he meant in part was that he isn’t a very good accountant and the other cleverer ones keep making fun of him so he wants to invent a new system so he can be the ‘worlds leading expert’

Leave a Reply

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