Good grief Mr. Blond

Economists at Société Générale recently calculated that in the United States, the income of the highest paid fifth rose by 60% after 1970, while for all others it has fallen by 10%.

You don\’t seriously believe that nonsense do you?

That the income of 90% of Americans has fallen in absolute terms over the past 39 years?

That would indeed be an indictment of any economics system if true, the thing is it\’s manifestly bollocks.

Falling incomes for the majority over more than a generation? No, manifestly crap.

Anyone actually seen that report? Care to unravel what it\’s actually saying?

Oh for fucks sake, this man is thought of as an economic thinker?

The argument on the progressive right is that since the poor suffer the greatest marginal rates of taxation (the bottom fifth of households also pay a greater share of their income in overall taxation than any other group),

Ye can\’t go around comparing average tax rates with marginal tax rates you silly little man!

It is true that some of the working poor face very high marginal tax rates. It\’s also true that the poor face high average tax rates as a result of the regressive nature of the indirect tax and excise system. But the latter does not prove the former nor do they in fact have very much to do with each other.

A far better idea would be to distribute a substantial proportion of the return to the poor via investment vouchers. These vouchers should only be activated in conjunction with others – creating an associative investment pool. With appropriate advice, a whole new class of asset investors can be created at the bottom of society.

Russia  tried this, didn\’t they…..worked out well then?

Further, if they invest in ordinary businesses they will only get a standard return. If, however, they choose to invest in social enterprises, their investment will generate both an economic and a social profit. Investment in local shops, for example, will give both a monetary and social stake and return.

Erm, that\’ll be tough, as local shops lose money, they being less efficient and thus attracting less trade than supermarkets.

Money that the poor deposit in their own communities is siphoned off to lend to more creditworthy customers elsewhere. We need to enforce a local monetarism that ensures a greater supply of money remains in our most deprived communities.

Ooooh, joy! Let\’s Balkanise the economy! Yes! reduce the geographic spread of the division of labour…..autarky! Tony Benn will be happy.

Are people within the Conservative Party seriously listening to this man?

9 thoughts on “Good grief Mr. Blond”

  1. What is a social enterprise? An enterprise that does something that Mr Blond likes?

    further, the opportunity to choose which companies to invest in based not only on potential returns but also on personal taste already exists.

  2. More socialism wrapped up as something else.

    Increase tax allowances, create choice in education, and the poor will get better off.

  3. This statement “the income of the highest paid fifth rose by 60% after 1970, while for all others it has fallen by 10%” is a misquote, possibly deliberate.

    I thought it was accepted the that top fifth’s share of GDP has gone up quite considerably. I’m also happy to believe that the net incomes after housing costs of the rest haven’t increased very much in real terms.

    But the maths still doesn’t stack up – we can safely assume that the richest fifth’s share was originally at least 20% (by definition), which would give them 32% now, so the other four-fifths’ share would have gone down from 80% to 68%, which is a lot more than a 10% fall.

  4. I don’t think he means shares, but actual income.

    If 20% have risen by 60%, and 80% have declined by 10%, that aggregates to 12% -8%, or 4% in total. Clearly US GDP per head has risen by more than 4% since 1970, explaining the difference, I imagine, is an expansion of the labour force. ie if 50% of people are working with a median income of 100, then 70% are working with a median income of 104%, that would mean total income has risen by about 50%.

  5. I caught the end of a Radio 4 programme about this man, and wondered, not having heard what went before the last few minutes, why the BBC was touting someone who was advising the Conservatives as being the dog’s bollocks. I now know why; he’s just plain bollocks, and therefore bound to be admired by the Beeb’s finest minds.

  6. There’s nothing conservative about the Conservative Party.

    NuLabour = BluLabour = NuLabour = BluLabour ….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *