A most interesting claim

Not only has this epidemic shone a bright light on existing inequalities, it threatens to make them more stark. The International Monetary Fund, not renowned as a nest of Marxists, argues for “absolutely crucial” social spending, expanded public work projects and more progressive tax policies to “mobilise revenues in an equitable way”.

If they’re not Marxists – or at least, not infested with the mode of thinking derived from that source – then why are they promoting the wet dream policies of those infested with that mode of thinking?

That long march through the institutions means that there are near no international institutions that still contain any free market capitalists.

11 thoughts on “A most interesting claim”

  1. People who want infrastructure spending, rather than naming specific infrastructure spending, are wrong ‘uns.

    I can’t think of a whole lot of extra national infrastructure we need. A few roads across some rural places, nuclear power stations. We probably don’t need more choo-choos after Covid.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    The reason they’re calling for infrastructure projects isn’t because they employ lots of working class people, they don’t, its because they employ lots of middle class people: Architects, planners, designers, professional protestors, professional bidders, programme and project managers etc, etc, usw.

    At the end of that chain are a few people driving big diggers and then a few more building whatever it is being built.

    And then it falls down because nobody allowed for a maintenance budget.

  3. ‘not renowned as a nest of Marxists’

    But the word is getting out.

    As we saw under Obama, ‘infrastructure spending’ was propping up unions.

    The Left wails about ‘destroying our democracy,’ when it is self evident they couldn’t care less about democracy. ‘Infrastructure spending’ is another tag line to get people to accept government spending. It works because, A. government is SUPPOSED to provide infrastructure, and B. they see a pothole in their neighborhood (AHA! We do need to work on infrastructure).

    It could work, if you believe in Keynesian economics (I don’t), as government spending. But general infrastructure improvement isn’t going to help the economy at all. Businesses already have roads to use. Newer, “better” roads won’t change anything.

  4. . . . its because they employ lots of middle class people . . .

    One of those so employed told me that HS2 is jobs for Tory voters. He wasn’t such a voter but this notion may well explain why a Tory government is so keen to blow untold billions on an unneeded 1:1 scale train set (“stay off the trains at Christmas!”).

  5. No, it’s not jobs. It’s sticky fingers. When there’s a pile of money, there are those who can find ways of getting a share. When there’s no pile of money, one must be created, and who can argue against wonderful infrastructure, a word that means whatever you want it to mean. It doesn’t matter if HS2 works, if it gets built on time or anything else, as long as there is funding to dip your beak into.

    I call this Rhoda’s pile o’ money theory, but I suspect the original thought occurred to someone else decades ago.

  6. The IMF get to advise on major infrastructure projects, to design tax policies and social spending plans. Jobs for the boys!

  7. In many areas of Europe, infrastructure spend is a way of funding organised crime. Who supplies the concrete for Italian bridges? Who builds wind turbines? Mafia, Camorra…. M

  8. Diogenes,

    To be fair, the Mafia’s tenders are probably lower given that a significant proportion of the aggregate is comprised of lead infused rivals.

  9. Addendum: Government is responsible for infrastructure. We give them trillions. How could infrastructure not be fabulous? They fail, and use that as reason for spending even more of our money.

Leave a Reply

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