So we actually have a shrinking economy?

The reality is we have enough stuff of the sort the private sector is so good at making. What we need are customers for its also undoubted ability to help meet real fundamental needs, and the current government is refusing to play that role at cost to those with disability, to business that is losing business asa a result, to those who cannot work as a result and whose productivity is lost as a consequence, and to the government itself as the sum total of economic activity continues to collapse.

And do we have enough of whatever it is that the private sector is so good at making?

17 thoughts on “So we actually have a shrinking economy?”

  1. “the sum total of economic activity continues to collapse”

    I think some evidence to back that statement up is needed. Who is this delusional loony?

  2. “The reality is we have enough stuff of the sort the private sector is so good at making.”

    He really is a miserable cunt. He doesn’t understand why people like nice things (he’s said before he can’t understand why some wants an Audi when he has a Citroen Berlingo).

    He flies to Orlando to peddle his crap at a conference, but takes his kids to watch steam trains in Wales in the rain for a holiday. Wrong way round you twat.

  3. Keynes was saying the same thing back in the 1930s, believe it or not. Everyone had enough stuff now (tin bath and outside loo times, remember) hence the government would have to “stimulate” the economy to stop factories closing down because nobody needed more stuff.

    It’s a classic example of the human tendency to presume that one’s own experience is representative of everyone’s.

  4. Wants are socially unjust. Please report for re-education. Your Block Co-ordinator Theophrastus will explain to you why this is not a diminution of your liberty.

  5. Wants are neither just or unjust. And taxing the externalities of their satisfaction is prudent. Like our host’s suggested carbon tax.

  6. Ah, externalities. I was talking recently to a colleague at the Bar, who still does a lot of criminal work. It seems the Crown Court is rolling out a system of digital working in court. “Not past time”, I hear you say, and you would almost certainly be right. However, to participate in these cases in court, advocates are required to possess a tablet or a laptop with wifi access. Or they quite literally cannot work, cannot see any of the newly-digitised paperwork.

    And a couple of thoughts occurred to me. First, there are plenty of old-timers who’ve always used paper, many not well-paid, and whose pay* is set by the government so they cannot build into their invoices the cost of buying tablets or what-have-you. Second thought, arising out of the first, reelly: irrespective of how superannuated these geezers is, given that none of these people can, for most practical purposes, set their own rates of remuneration by, for instance building into their cost base the price of a new tablet, is this not an example of the government externalising the cost of its cost-saving measures?

    I think I understand the notion of externalities. Is the foregoing not an inversion of the principle? Is this already a ‘thing’, recognised by economists?

  7. “Externality” is a euphemism for “I don’t like this thing you do so I’m going to make your life miserable”, in the modern parlance.

  8. And taxing the externalities of their satisfaction is prudent. Like our host’s suggested carbon tax.

    Only if there is a net negative externality. hen am I going to be compensated for my contribution to improved agricultural production stemming from increased levels of plant food in the atmosphere?

  9. Externality is a euphemism … Etc.

    Interesting how it works both ways, private mores imposed on a wider public, public sanctimony imposed on private groups.

    I think that euphemism stands up.

  10. “Wants are socially unjust.”

    I remember reading on the internet a long while ago a sentence by someone which sums it up:

    “The only skill worth anything in a socialist economy is the ability to present wants as needs”.

  11. “we have enough stuff of the sort the private sector is so good at making”

    Or, in short, “I’m alright Jack”.

  12. What????????

    Time to add some punctuation so I can try to understand this.

    What we need are customers. -Not enough demand. So far I am following the logic.

    For its also undoubted ability to help meet real fundamental needs. – I am going to guess this is an admission private industry does something.

    The current government is refusing to play that role. – Does he mean the government should be buying more tat to support business? My head hurts from trying to decipher this.

    at cost to those with disability, to business that is losing business asa a result, to those who cannot work as a result and whose productivity is lost as a consequence. – So the government needs to buy tat for people that can’t work to create more demand…or something involving cheese.

    and to the government itself as the sum total of economic activity continues to collapse. – I missed the change to full blown communism.

    So to rewrite in a way that I understand I get:

    Our communist government isn’t buying enough tat for poor people. This is the reason that Chinese factories have an overproduction problem.

    What is Murphy smoking?

    More importantly do I have to smoke it to make a living from poor writing skills or is this really all him?

Leave a Reply

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