Snigger

This was actually one of his more disturbing posts:

First, he remains obsessed with growth. He has not yet noticed that w live on a finite planet. For an intelligent man who writes about climate change that is very odd.

So his goal is to limit consumption of resources. It would appear his vision of the future is total state control of a private individual’s ‘level of resources’. I think even North Korea would balk at that level of control but for this individual Climate change requires the complete suppression of resource consumption.

Second, he has not noticed that the quantum of investment is not what matters: it is what it is used for that matters. When the need is for social and sustainable infrastructure rather than more productive capacity to make products that can only bring the impact of climate change ever closer that is, again, very strange.

This is beyond his customary demand for rationing and limiting consumption. On the production side the state will control everything made. If it’s ‘environmentally’ damaging or contributes to climate change then it’s manufacture will be banned. Only things ‘social’ and ‘sustainable’ will be permitted.

Third, Wolf does not ask the very obvious question, which is why do we save so little? The answer is, of course, that people in the UK are so poorly paid on average that they do not have the capacity to do so whilst businesses are so obsessed with shareholder returns that they will not do so.

Weirdly he makes an accurate observation here although he misdiagnoses the cause. Rephrased as such he actually hits the mark in part:

Third, Wolf does not ask the very obvious question, which is why do we save so little? The answer is, of course, that people in the UK are so heavily taxed to pay for non productive people, like certain academics that they do not have the capacity to do so

All in all – a deeply deranged post from someone who despite his protestations to the contrary is obsessed with power and control, and is, as I was barred from his Twitter feed back in 2013 for suggesting, probably the most dangerous man currently extant in Britain.

I’ll also rephrase his final paragraph which reads thus:

But what I also know is that this is damning evidence that the City of London not only does nothing for this country but actively fails it. For all the billions poured into it every day, with over £60 billion of tax relief attached a year, we got a truly appalling return.

To this

But what I also know is that this is damning evidence that the Public Sector not only does nothing for this country but actively fails it. For all the billions poured into it every day, with over £700 billion of taxpayer largesse a year , we got a truly appalling return.

A far more accurate statement

When the markets need rescuing, where’s the limits on allocation and the talk of efficiency? Why shouldn’t we bail out poors like me with a strong basic income, and call it just as efficient as Quantitative Easing?

@VP

“Markets” (no, banks) were given piles of taxpayer dosh because regulators had been more concerned about the number of skirts in the boardroom than whether retail customers (current account and short-term depositors) would be able to get their money out in the event of a bank run. Which was the point of the regulators in the first place.

If the banks had been allowed to go to the wall, retail operations would have gone under because they were not kept separate from investment operations. This would have meant that individuals and companies would have which would have led to Awkward Questions for the Brown administration who presided over the massive expansion of the regulators both in terms of personnel and remit.

RSM

I did quite enjoy ‘Van Pittance’ as it goes – Murphy would be proud of ya!

Not quite sure what you’re saying. There’s oversupply of what, money? So your solution appears to be to increase supply even more – thus locking in inflation for the long term?

I’ve not introduced examples of ‘scarcity’ as far as I’m aware. Do you dispute my observations about the bottom 10% likely to need permanent subsidy to preserve differentials? Sadly ‘hard-hearted’ is one thing the state in the UK hasn’t been, arguably since the 1940s – and the hard working continue to pay ever increasing premiums to subsidize everyone else..