Dear Lord, please, what have we done to deserve drivel like this in the national newspapers? Phillip Blond manages not only to make highly questionable statements, he can\’t even parse the logic of his own factoids.
Contrary to received opinion, free markets – unless subject to civil regulation, asset distribution and persistent intervention – always tend to monopoly.
I\’ll agree that some markets tend towards monopoly: where there are network effects being the most obvious (possibly even the only) example. But always, everywhere?
But this is the real beauty:
The New Economics Foundation has shown that global growth has not aided the poor. In the 1980s, for every $100 of world growth, the poorest 20 per cent received $2.20; by 2001, they received only 60 cents. Clearly neo-liberal growth disproportionately benefits the rich and further impoverishes the poor.
So that poorest 20% gets a 60 cent pay rise. This is not aiding the poor? This isdriving them further into impoverishment?
Leave aside whether we\’d like that distribution to that bottom 20% to be greater than it is (we would) and concentrateon precisely what he\’s saying.
A rise in incomes is further impoverishment.
What heinous sins have we committed to deserve this sort of nonsense?
BTW, you might not be all that surprised to find that Richard Murphy likes this piece. Sigh.