Oh well done Carol

Carol Wilcox says:
April 14 2016 at 9:02 am
Personally, I believe that ‘a balanced investment portfolio’ requires appropriation of the surplus labour of other workers and that the only thing required of your savings is to maintain their purchasing power. I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn agrees with me.

So risk and the time value of money should not be compensated for then. Hmm.

What’s the betting her pension has included some equities?

21 thoughts on “Oh well done Carol”

  1. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/12/we-have-a-right-to-know-who-is-committed-to-the-politics-of-jealousy-and-who-to-accountability/comment-page-1/#comment-753389

    Once again, from the bottom of my heart, thankyou: the ‘you-know-whos’ (it rhymes…) had almost entirely taken discussion of their crimes off the table in this country until you came along and returned discussion of the YKW-problem to the mainstream. I would go as far as to say that without you, this cause would be entirely dead. Congratulations Richard, keep fighting the good fight and sooner or later we will thoroughly exterminate ‘the tribe’.

    Richard Murphy says:
    April 15 2016 at 9:58 am
    I assure you, there are plenty of others working on the issue too

    But thanks

  2. Has anyone yet found a way to maintain the purchasing power of their savings under a Labour government other than to speculate in property?
    But she is right on the first point – the balanced investment portfolio requires appropriation of the “surplus labour” of other workers because we, the capitalists, pay for their tools and desrve to share in the benefit provided by those tools. Ms Wicox is most welcome to go back to living in a cave wearing the skins that she strips off the animals that she hunts and eating berries if she wants to eschew capitalism (which starts with using seedcorn to plant to get a harvest).

  3. Yes indeed I bet her pension does Tim. Which would be almost as hypocritical as saying your money belongs to the state and so should be heavily taxed whilst privately I claim my income is all ‘grants’ and so I don’t pay tax. Not that I know anyone like that of course.

  4. @ John77

    I don’t think the money I paid for Facebook shares has paid for any computers for their code monkeys and ad salesmen… but, then again, I don’t think Carol would approve of said monkeys and ad men splitting the entire profit between themselves either.

  5. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Well personally I believe that a balanced investment portfolio involves bending Carol Wilcox over a sawhorse and dragging her intestines out with a winch but, hey, that’s just me.

  6. The more I read Carol Wilcox the more I am reminded of Deirdre Dutt- Pauker from the Peter Simple column. I wonder if she keeps her pens in a kulak’s skull as well? Just awful – no doubt DBC Reed will be along to defend her if perchance he is reading this, while proclaiming A Land Value Tax as curing cancer and solving life, the universe and everything….

  7. “anyone yet found a way to maintain the purchasing power of their savings”

    Yeah, let’s pay savers for doing absolutely nothing and creating a paradox of thrift. That’s definitely the way to increase production in the economy.

  8. @ Bob
    It is, in fact, desirable to pay savers a modest amount for doing nothing which you would have learnt if you had taken GCSE Economics. But you expose yourself as a troll by your wilful perversion of logic: maintaining the value of savings is not the same as being paid – that would involve *increasing* their value/purchasing power.

  9. Yes like Adam Smith and intelligent people (even Tim Worstall), Carol Wilcox believes that commercial Progress leads to Poverty if the money just puts up land prices.This is why she believes that a Land Value Tax should block the money heading in that inflationary direction and, to this end, has successfully kept the Labour Land Campaign going with her unfailing good humour and sense of proportion.

  10. “commercial Progress leads to Poverty”?!?
    An increase in goods and services leads away from poverty – except when “Poverty” with a capital P means something else.

  11. ‘I believe that ‘a balanced investment portfolio’ requires appropriation of the surplus labour of other workers and that the only thing required of your savings is to maintain their purchasing power.’

    I have read that 8 times, and it still makes no sense to me.

  12. @ J77 Showing yourself up again: Poverty and Progress (1879) is the title of Henry George’s gamechanging best seller in which he showed that American frontier towns generated a lot of wealth until money started being speculated on land values whereupon productivity slowed to a complete standstill and stagnation, then poverty set in. Much as is happening now in the UK with all the money being created by banks being sunk in the housing market.
    You know, there is a branch of Georgist economics opposed to the more socialist version adopted by Carol Wilcox, myself, John McDonell etc and that is Geolibertarianism which recognises the justice and necessity of Land Value Tax and puts it to bare minimum use preserving law and order while pursuing other right-wing objectives which lefty land taxers find hair raising.George himself was a terrible old Tory and not a little racist.
    @ G If you don’t understand Marx’s concept of surplus value , don’t venture onto blogs where economics are discussed.

  13. @ DBC Reed
    You insinuate that *I* am at fault because I do not recognise the title of a book – except that *you* mangled it (and have done so again in your latest post). Would you know what I meant if I referred to “The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews”?
    Your statement is still nonsense. Henry George claimed that poverty resulted when progress was reversed. You cannot even remember the arguments you are claiming to advocate.

  14. @ Noel Scoper

    Damn, I must have missed that. What a fool I am… if only I’d paid attention I could have avoided a nasty £2k profit.

  15. J77 Oh dear, you are all too obviously pontificating about a book you haven’t read .P&P (not Pride and Prejudice) describes how progess is reversed when land and property values build up and overwhelm the productive part of the economy. Its modern relevance is plainly obvious.

  16. DBC Reed
    April 16, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    @ G If you don’t understand Marx’s concept of surplus value , don’t venture onto blogs where economics are discussed.

    =============================

    So, I should accept the surreal because, “It’s a Marxist thang; you wouldn’t understand.”

    I understand that Marxism is flawed in its fundamental concept, the primacy of labour. No further study required.

    Many times I had union employees tell me, “You couldn’t make anything without labour!”
    You should have see their faces when I said, “We can’t make anything without electricity, either. So what?”

    The quoted passage remains gibberish.

  17. @ DBC Reed
    Now I’ve pointed out that you got it completely wrong you’ve gone back and read the summary.
    What you wrote was that “commercial Progress leads to Poverty”. After I pointed out that “Henry George claimed that poverty resulted when progress was reversed.” you then state “P&P (not Pride and Prejudice) describes how progess is reversed.”
    You got it wrong, misquoting your own pet theorist and insult me because I pointed out that you were wrong.
    I could point out flaws in Henry George’s argument (e.g. rents wouldn’t go anywhere if all landlords sat idle) but I don’t need to – you were misquoting him.

Leave a Reply

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