Green Party Manifesto

The very
way we measure economic ‘success’ today
shows the bankruptcy of business as usual.
‘Gross Domestic Product’ measures all the
economic activity in Britain – even the money
spent on picking up the pieces of our unfair
and unsustainable society.

Well, yes.

GDP measures value added. We think that picking up the pieces adds value. Thus we include the vale we\’ve added by picking up the pieces in our measurement of the value we\’ve added.

It\’s not really all that controversial or difficult an idea, is it?

Our energy policy is not just the best for climate change –
it also produces the most jobs:
energy source jobs per year per terawatt hour
Wind 918–2400
Coal 370
Gas and oil 250–265
Nuclear 75

Rampant stupidity. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit, of a plan.

Promote gender equality. The pay gap
per hour between men and women remains
as high as 38% for part-time workers

Complete bollocks. The gender pay gap for part time workers is actually a pay gap in favour of women. That is, average wages for women working part time are higher than average wages for men working part time (so say the statisticians).

To get this 38% pay gap you have to compare women working part time with men working full time. Which the statitistical authorioties have several times said is not the correct way to measure it: indeed, it\’s entirely misleading.

Support a National Minimum Wage that
is a living wage, at 60% of net national
average earnings (currently this would mean
a minimum wage of £8.10 per hour).

Helllooooooo mass unemployment! Minimum wages over the 45%-50% or so level of average wages do indeed have horrible effects on unemployment.

We favour a Robin Hood Tax – a tax on
financial transactions (see page 47) – but
because that would work best with wide
international agreement we do not rely
on it to fill the gap in the Government’s
finances, though we believe there is also
scope to act unilaterally by introducing a
tax on sterling foreign exchange transactions,
and that the UK should demonstrate global

Nope, it\’s illegal under EU Single Market rules. It\’s a tax on the free movement of capital and you\’re not allowed to have those.

Crack down on tax havens and other
methods of tax evasion and avoidance, raising
£10bn in 2010 rising to £13bn by 2013.
In particular press for a transparent international
accounting standard that requires
companies to report on a country-by-country
basis so that their profits can be located
and taxed.

Are you getting the same idea that I am about who has been writing this stuff for them?

I especially like the tax and economics bit of the Green’s manifesto

Can’t think who advised them on that!

Yes, it\’s Ritchie.

11 thoughts on “Green Party Manifesto”

  1. “GDP measures value added. We think that picking up the pieces adds value. Thus we include the vale we’ve added by picking up the pieces in our measurement of the value we’ve added.”

    I’m going out right now to break my neighbours’ windows, safe in the knowledge that by having to fix them, my neighbour will be ‘adding value’ to the economy.

    You are an economic illiterate. Returning something to a prior state does not _add_ value.

    Tim adds: Sorry, but the economic illiteracy is yours. Yes, I’m well aware of Bastiat and the broken window fallacy.

    Your neighbour will indeed be adding value by replacing broken windows. Because whole windows are more valuable than broken ones. What is not measured in GDP is the value that you’ve subtracted by breaking the windows. This is indeed a problem with GDP itself.

    Which is where the Green Party makes it’s mistake. Cleaning up pollution (for example) does indeed add value. Which is why we include it in our measure of the value we add. What we want to do is not stop counting that value, we want to add in a negative sum for the value which is destroyed by the pollution in the first place.

  2. The only thing I can agree with in that lot, is that GDP is poor measure of the economy. If everyone smashed their telly today, and went out and bought a new one, that would equate to a rise in GDP, even though we’d be no better off as a result, poorer in fact.

    GDP should include an element of measuring wealth destruction as well, so we get an idea of net wealth created, not just the gross figure.

  3. “To get this 38% pay gap you have to compare women working part time with men working full time.”

    There’s an even higher gender pay gap if you compare low-paid women with highly-paid men.

  4. Since the only work available will be taking in each others washing, we’ll all be equal won’t we?

  5. If it’s green jobs that are required, I calculate that 3.4 million jobs would be created it we generated 1TWh per year by having people pedal on bicycle powered generators, as was demonstrated by a recent BBC program.

    Each worker would generate 800Wh in an eight hour shift, working 365 days a year.

    Since the greens have bicycle generators at their various climate camps, they obviously think it is viable.

  6. Yes but the Green Party favours shifting to LVT “in the long run”which is more than Murphy does.
    You seem in permanent attack mode even with supporters on the highest priority issue.A bit like the scorpion that kills the frog that’s carrying him because its in its nature.

  7. The Great Simpleton

    Including value destruction in GDP figures will mean that they more accurately reflect the car scrapage scheme.

  8. I heard a brief overview of the Green manifesto on the telly when it was launched and it was frightening. These paranoid delusionals are extreme left wing socialists.

  9. The Green Party minimum wage pledge may not be so ridiculous. Yes, there is the substitution effect stuff in theory, but raising minimum wages within certain bounds does not seem to have an effect on unemployment, but it does lead to higher pay.

    Tim adds: Yes, but it’s the certain bounds which are important. Below about 45%, as I indicate, higher wages but not much (although some) other effects. Above 50% lots of other effects.

  10. Thinking about somehow including a value destruction element in the GDP calculation I realised that for businesses this already occurs – in my business the accounts include a depreciation charge for my capital assets. This reduces my nominal profits, and thus GDP.

    So the logical thing to do is apply a depreciation charge (of what magnitude I would have no idea) to all personal capital as well, to allow for the consumption of capital, which must be replaced by spending some of your income.

    For example – assume that you purchased no new items in your house for a year. You only bought consumables (food, fuel, services). You get a 3% pay rise, which presumably would show up in the GDP figures. But as you have gone a whole year using your capital items (car, house, electronic goods etc) you have consumed (say) 5% of their value. So actually you are worse off, and the GDP figures should indicate this. (Perhaps they do – could someone enlighten me if this is so?)

    Tim adds: Already done. We’ve Gross Domestic Product, Gross National Product (adjusting for foreign ownership etc), Net Domestic Product (allowing for depreciation) and Net National Income (depreciation and Johnny Foreigner) and GNI, NDI and so on as well. NDP is probably the best measure for the UK, NNI for Ireland say (because of the much larger foreign ownership).

    Unfortunately the N part is a bugger to calculate and usually comes in a year or so later than the other bits which is why we don’t use it in anything like real time. Much too much driving through the rear view mirror.

Leave a Reply

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