Tutto nello Stato

Fred Z says:
December 30 2016 at 2:02 pm
“restriction on the free movement of capital that will be needed”

Are you wanting to keep capital from moving into the UK or from moving out of it?

Richard Murphy says:
December 30 2016 at 2:27 pm
Potentially both – depending on the situation

Financial capital cannot be assumed to be benign

Ed Seedhouse says:
December 30 2016 at 7:30 pm
Surely a monetarily sovereign government like the U.K can create all the capital it needs to fund anything. This being so, how is the flight of foreign capital a risk in any sense?

Richard Murphy says:
December 30 2016 at 7:58 pm



Those damn foreigners can’t just come in here with their money. They must be CONTROLLED!

9 thoughts on “Tutto nello Stato”

  1. So he’s against Brexit, he’s made that quite clear. Which means free movement of people and capital. But he’s creaming himself at the idea of being able to put up the fences to keep foreign ‘capital’ out? Am I the only one that sees a pretty thin division between foreign people and foreign capital? If you’re against the latter (nasty foreign capital, corrupting the pure socialism in one country) then its no great jump to be against the foreign people too.

    And once fences go up to keep capital both in and out, its no great jump to fences to keep people both in and out either.

    He really is a nasty little shit.

  2. Surely keeping foreign capital out will by necessity keep a certain number of foreign people out? Since who would move to a country if they can’t take their savings with them? Or take their investment money with them?

    The only people who would have free movement would be those who either had no or trivial savings, or those prepared to leave it in another country and have difficult access.

  3. If foreign capital moving is bad, how about internal capital?

    A French company funding a power plant in Brighton is bad. But is a London company funding a power plant in Aberdeen bad? It’s just as far and the owners are just as remote.

    I note that Murphy gives the game away in this regard by saying all financial capital is potentially malign. Yeah, so is some labour (house breaking, drug selling, writing Marxist bullshit in blogs) but we have laws to exclude the worst situations in both cases.

  4. @Chester – The LTHD’s definition of “benign” here is one of his usual curious deformations of the Queen’s English. He uses is to mean “being spent on things I approve of – and how very DARE you question my morals for I am a QUAKER and a moral guardian, dontcherknow”

  5. When I read his reply to my question I laughed and laughed. I knew before I asked it that he didn’t have a clue whether he wanted foreign money to stay out, local money to stay in, both at the same time, neither or a bit of each.

    Naturally it would all depend on how much of a contribution the mover of the money was willing to make to the Tax Justice Network, or whatever he calls himself.

    I still admire him greatly for his ability to make a good living sucking, blowing and making shit up, because it is immoral to let a sucker keep his money. And for his ability to drive Tim bonkers.

  6. If you look at the Curajus state in the real world people (by and large) have no capital and that which exists is controlled entirely by the state. The key corollary of such a state is control of people as well. Though he has not explicitly endorsed this and is too stupid to see second order consequences to any of his policies that is the logical consequence.

Leave a Reply

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