Another letter from the \”economists\”

As economists and academics, we know the breakneck deficit-reduction plan, based largely on spending cuts, is self-defeating even on its own terms. It will probably not manage to close the deficit in the planned time frame and the government\’s strategy is likely to result in a lot more pain and a lot less gain.

We believe a more effective strategy for sustainable growth would be achieved:

• through a green new deal and a focus on targeted industrial policy.

• by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, as well as by raising taxes on those best able to pay

• through real financial reform, job creation, \”unsqueezing\” the incomes of the majority, the empowerment of workers and a better work-life balance.

Signed by, among others:

lan O\’Shea, emeritus prof of cultural studies, UEL;

Cultural studies, eh?

Andrew Watt, Senior Researcher, European Trade Union Institute

A trade unionist….

Professor Gregor Gall, University of Hertfordshire

An industrial relations professor

James Meadway, Senior economist, new economics foundation

nef said, eh?

Richard Murphy, Director, Tax Research LLP

A retired accountant from Wandsworth

Andrew Simms, nef fellow and Green New Deal Group Member

Creator of the 9 billion tonne hamster

Professor David Marquand, Oxford University

A professor of politics

They\’ve really pulled out all the stops to get the economists on board, haven\’t they?

Which could be why their policy is so hopelessly confused. Raising taxes by attacking avoidance and evasion (or by raising taxes on the rich) is a fiscal contraction just as much as cutting spending is. If they actually believed in this Keynesian stuff they wouldn\’t propose anything so counter-productive.

The rest of it is just \”and a pony\”.

3 thoughts on “Another letter from the \”economists\””

  1. He’s finally admitted in black and white that he just doesnt believe people know what’s best for them.

    See here:

    Comment #5.

    Implied in his comment:

    1) he isnt really limiting it to healthcare – he means everything! (his post wasnt even about healthcare, it was about adult services – does he know the difference).

    2) when saying that people don’t know what’s best for themselves, he is excluding himself from that. He won’t be told, but expects others to fall in line.

    3) he does include himself in deciding what’s ‘best’ for people. Ignoring that some people will have different preferences. Who cares what people want. Go where I tell you…

    Complete fascist. Dangerous guy.

  2. Complete fascist. Dangerous guy.

    The banality of evil.. Doesn’t take much imagination to see this ex-accountant going apeshit when someone’s brains get splattered on his uniform.

  3. I love the contrast between the claim to be “academics”, with its impication of scholarly ways, and the language of “the breakneck deficit-reduction plan”, with its implication of being a bunch of half-drunk journalists.

Leave a Reply

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