Idiot twat

The question arose as to what the Left’s narrative on growth might be. It’s clear what the Right’s is: their model of growth is an increase in profits and asset values, which can by definition be seen as policies biased towards a few by fuelling inequality.

Growth is an increase in the consumption possibilities of the population.

Cretin.

In that case we do need growth, but not in the form that thinks we must extract the world’s scarce resources whilst minimising the return to labour whilst maximising the return on capital for the benefit of a few but instead that thinks we want a growth in income, opportunity, security and well-being for all.

If that is not what economics is really about what is it for?

The standard description of economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. The usual unspoken corollary being the efficient allocation, so as to maximise consumption opportunities from those scarce resources.

And seriously, even a 0.2 of the professor should know those basics.

27 thoughts on “Idiot twat”

  1. So again, what he’s saying is that we need to reduce production in order to increase consumption, right? Whereas increasing production reduces consumption, yes?

    I’m beginning to wonder if he dropped his copy of Keynes in a puddle and all the pages fell out and only a few fragments survived in a random order and he’s working from them.

  2. Ritchie just don’t get consumption. He can’t see why some people want an Audi when he’s perfectly happy with his Citroen Berlingo.

    He doesn’t do anything with all the cash he earns mortgage free, he’s just stockpiling it for retirement. Life must be really boring in that household.

    I guess he’s just a miserable old git.

  3. Apparently growth would include the right to own your own he, with equity behind you no less!
    Strange them that he opposes private building of homes and has called instead for.a national programme of social housing; all.part of the Green New Deal.

  4. Growth would it seems involve increased wages for low AND MIDDLE INCOME workers

    Seems strange then that he strongly opposes any rise in Income Tax personal allowances and NIC thresholds. Seems to think it would disenfranchise the poor(?)

  5. I think that what he doesn’t grasp, like many, is that the lower economic classes outnumber the very wealthy by an enormous amount, and already do most of the consumption. So there’s hardly any slack to redistribute. Ordinary people effectively represent the productive capacity per capita of our society, and the odd nob with a Lear Jet is irrelevant.

    To use a historic example, for most of history 99% of the population lived as peasants and there were a few wealthy lords with castles and gold stuff and nice clothes. But per capita, the lords were a triviality; if you redistributed all their stuff, the peasants’ economic conditions would not noticably change. Because there are so many of them, and so few lords and ladies.

    It’s no use taking the money of the rich. There isn’t any more stuff for us to buy with it.

  6. I cannot think of anything, anywhere within mainstream economics that looks anything like “minimising the return to labour whilst maximising the return on capital”

  7. In his latest epistle he is repeating his strawman about what makes a “free market economy”.

    Richie’s believes that the list of requirements includes that “all firms produce an identical or homogeneous product” and that “there is perfect information and knowledge”. The addition of “knowledge” is a new one for him.

    Knowledge is something he never seems to develop.

  8. Wasn’t the demand that all firms should produce an identical product originally part of the insanity of the infamous Dr of Irish twatbaggery (currently posting from Sat 9 Jan 2016, which at least shows a consistent grasp on reality) extending from his personal inability to order a coffee?

  9. LE

    “I cannot think of anything, anywhere within mainstream economics that looks anything like “minimising the return to labour whilst maximising the return on capital””

    Doesn’t it happen in reality, though?

  10. I’m sure Tim will get round to his latest piece on tax competition, but Ritchie’s “logic” on government is interesting:

    “1. There can only be one government in any one place: we cannot afford two as the evidence is that this results in failed states;
    2. Duplicate governments do not exist: in a place there is no choice of government available to a person as their can only be one competent authority and therefore market entry is discouraged (it’s called war);
    3. By their nature governments are neither identical or homogenous: they are adapted to the circumstances of the place that they govern no one would wish it any other way”

    It would appear that his demands to impose his desired version of UK tax law around the globe would mean (by his own point (2) above) that he is advocating war on Jersey, Guernsey, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands,…..

  11. Richie’s believes that the list of requirements includes that “all firms produce an identical or homogeneous product”

    So if you’ve got Gold Blend, Tesco Value and Carte Noire instant coffee, it’s not a free market? Where did he get this one from?

  12. He wants growth but he despises consumption, or at least other people’s consumption.

    What does he want growth for?

  13. I think so far as I can tell because he defines growth, or at least “good growth” is an increase in the stock of money available for government spending. Everything else is bad growth.

  14. ‘In that case we do need growth, but not in the form that thinks we must extract the world’s scarce resources whilst minimising the return to labour whilst maximising the return on capital for the benefit of a few but instead that thinks we want a growth in income, opportunity, security and well-being for all.’

    Labour can stand around waiting for it. It will never come.

  15. ‘It’s no use taking the money of the rich. There isn’t any more stuff for us to buy with it.’ – Ian B

    ‘Tax the rich
    Feed the poor
    Till there are rich no more?’
    – Ten Years After 1971

    The objective isn’t to help the poor; the objective is to get rid of the rich.

  16. Where did he get this one from?

    perhaps he read something about what a perfectly competitive market looks like – and Ian, remember what economists mean by those words does not correspond to what you think they mean – where you do need things like homogeneous goods (otherwise producers would have some pricing power) – so a typical example would be lots of small farmers all selling the same variety and quality of grain into a large market, where they can all individually sell as much or as little as they could ever choose to produce without affecting the price – that’s a perfectly competitive market in economics and it only refers to one market, is clearly a limiting case used for purposes of exposition, and is nowhere near to what we might think of as a “competitive economy”

  17. You mean he’s confusing toy examples with the world they’re meant to help one understand? Yes, that seems likely.

  18. Glendorran

    Fascinating – actually we can have two governments in a single place – much of the economics of organised crime look at the role played by mafias in places where the state is weak and there is market entry.

  19. Doesn’t it happen in reality, though?

    So? I think you fail to distinguish between minimising the return to labour and decreasing the return to labour.

    Communism, as tried, did not sought to maximise the return to labour. The result was an inefficient system where growth stalled and people’s real earnings rose very slowly.

    Markets seek to pay their workers as little as possible. But that doesn’t mean the workers aren’t valued. The effect is that wages rise faster in a market economy than a non-market. That “minimising” turns out to be a good thing.

  20. There’s bound to be a drift from rewarding labour to rewarding capital, because machines are classed as the latter.

    However, there is still the same reward (increasing actually).

    Looked at another way, as production becomes more efficient, less money goes on labour (because less is required), and more goes to the owners, who may just be sitting around doing nothing.

    So production and profits require less and less actual banging things and/or stubbing your toe. Which is good surely?

    Encouraging share ownership seems the way forward. The first step on the path to Labour regeneration is for the party to work out why the Evil Fatch Yeh kept pinching their key voters.

  21. Oh, and “sitting around doing nothing” might also apply to a great many in the public sector and large corporations.

    Average working hours are not as high as they appear. Again, a good thing.

  22. I see Lawrence from Guernsey has returned – Thank the Lord for that – was worried he had suffered an unfortunate mishap!

  23. GlenDorran

    The post is the usual tedious drivel with far too many lists and enough strawmen to go into production with – he wilfully misrepresents Free Market economics and then proclaims its incompatibility with his vision of society – inadvertently proving its merits as the closest thing to his vision currently in existence is a prison state almost hermetically sealed off from the real world – fortunately his influence seems to be on the wane as even the Corbynites have realised he is a lunatic. Bad news for him – great news for humanity in general.

Leave a Reply

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