Frances Ryan and numbers

As food and rent prices rise,

Hmm.

Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.8% in the 12 months to May 2017; this is unchanged from April 2017.

Inflation’s higher than that. Rent is falling in real terms.

This isn’t simply an issue of years of “benefit scrounger” narrative. It’s a symptom of the capitalist belief that a person’s contribution to society can be judged by their use in the labour market. This shuts out entire sections of society: the people who, owing to caring responsibilities, lack of opportunities or health problems, can’t earn a wage.

It’s not the capitalists who espouse the labour theory of value love, really, it’s not.

19 comments on “Frances Ryan and numbers

  1. Although to be fair, Lefties also champion the “I’m valuable because I’m me” theory.

  2. TBF if wages and benefits aren’t rising as inflation and rents rents wil increase as a proportion of wages and benefits.

    That doesn’t invalidate your point about journalists and numbers, in fact emphasises it because nowhere does she try to address that point.

  3. “…the capitalist belief that a person’s contribution to society can be judged by their use in the labour market.”

    Where do capitalists articulate this belief? I think we should be told.

  4. “Inflation’s higher than that. Rent is falling in real terms.”

    This set off a bell in my head that warns me everytime I hear a commonly held but problematic statement on economics.

    What is real terms? Is rent excluded from reaching it for having the temerity to not be at that average number? What if you have ten things and eight increased in price just below the average of all ten Have they gone down in real terms?

    Surely real terms is my purchasing power? Or perhaps when measured in something more fixed such as gold? In which case rents are probably going up in real terms for some people. But what if the area I rent in went up more in utility in that period because they built a trendy bakery nearby?

  5. And what possible use is knowing rents increased on average by 1.8% to anyone

    Surely, the only use is to feed the central planning fallacy? That this outcome is down to the government, and they can and should pull some levers to control it

  6. It’s a bit weird to respond to someone who complains about rising prices, that inflation is rising faster. Inflation *is* rising prices! (Yeah yeah, it’s caused by new money, but you can’t have inflation without rising prices.)

    If someone’s rent has been put up but they haven’t received a payrise yet, it’s not going to comfort them to tell them that a benchmark index has gone up faster.

  7. Here’s how inflation is worked out.

    We work out a basket of goods. What is it that the average person buys in what quantities? Note that we can have different baskets. The Americans do one for urban, one for rural, peeps for example. Also, I think, one for retired.

    So, we’ve now got “weightings.”

    Then we look at the change in price of these different goods. Then we adjust by the weightings. If potatoes are 1% of spending, potatoes have gone up by 10%, then that’s a 0.1% rise in our general inflation rate.

    The problem of more things going up than falling or staying static is solved by those weightings.

  8. It’s a symptom of the capitalist belief that a person’s contribution to society can be judged by their use in the labour market. This shuts out entire sections of society

    And Guardian commentators, of course.

  9. “Where do capitalists articulate this belief? I think we should be told.”

    In her head, Theo, which is after all where most of the rest of the guff she whinges about constantly happens…

  10. For the casual reader, the phrase “as food and rent prices rise” implies that they’re rising faster than incomes. Which does indeed prove to be the case. Real or nominal is irrelevant when you’re comparing against same-year incomes.

  11. “It’s a symptom of the capitalist belief that a person’s contribution to society can be judged by their use in the labour market”

    For this capitalist, for a first approximation, yes.
    For here we need to go to the Blessed St Margaret. There is no such thing as society. Just the individuals that comprise it. And as an individual, it’s not a bad calibration of the value of what an individual does, the price other individuals are willing to pay for them to do it. Certainly applies to most of the individuals ones obliged to be in contact with.
    Of course, then the State messes things up by undervaluing some contributions & vastly overvaluing others. But that’s nothing to do with capitalism.

  12. The daft bint goes on “We need to challenge the punitive capitalist narrative that only certain categories of people deserve to be able to afford to eat and pay the rent.”

    During Mao’s socialist famine the designated food ration for the sick and elderly, because they couldn’t do a proper day’s work, was insufficient to live on. They starved them to death as a matter of policy.

    And the Ukrainian famine was an act of deliberate socialist genocide of course.

    Yet the stupid bitch fills her column with fabrications about capitalists being selfish.

  13. “It’s a symptom of the capitalist belief that a person’s contribution to society can be judged by their use in the labour market. This shuts out entire sections of society”

    Eh? Is that really a capitalist’s belief? Or is this another example of ‘Things people think economists/Capitalists/etc think, that really they don’t’?

    See CJ Snowdon’s book for at least one more example- specifically the chapter examining the misappropriation of self-interest, and how the left thinks it synonymous with greed.

  14. ““We need to challenge the punitive capitalist narrative that only certain categories of people deserve to be able to afford to eat and pay the rent.””

    “The socialist principle, “He who does not work shall not eat”, is already realized…” Not Margaret Thatcher…

  15. “The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” Not Teresa May…

  16. You have to hand it to socialists; despite their intellectual weakness, they have invented two malicious and stupid ideologies: the socialism to which they all subscribe and the ‘capitalism’ which they imagine their freedom and prosperity-loving enemies adhere to.

  17. “We need to challenge the punitive capitalist narrative that only certain categories of people deserve to be able to afford to eat and pay the rent.”

    Nonsensical straw man, or “a lie” as it is known, even projection, who knows? Why would “greedy capitalists” deliberately exclude business from entire sectors of society?

  18. “We need to challenge the punitive capitalist narrative that only certain categories of people deserve to be able to afford to eat and pay the rent.”
    WTF’s wrong with that? Think we’d all agree. There’s 3 sorts of people in the world. Those who can pay their way. Those who can’t pay their way, due to circumstance beyond their control, we’re prepared to give a free ride. C*nts. The only people who would disagree with this are c*nts.

  19. One of the big problems with lefties is they think the economy is a zero sum game. For capitalists to win someone, workers, must lose.

    I had all sorts of arguments with my son as he was growing up and going through his lefty phase, and he was a serious thinker about issues. He even became de facto leader of Occupy Bath.

    I dedectec a change in his arguments and he became more classic liberal and asked him about it. He said the turning point was when he realised the economy wasn’t a fixed pie but could grow. Living in shared accommodation with a member of the Trotsky Workers Party pushed him in the right direction.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.