Skip to content

Dear God the man’s a cretin

Sir Keir has also correctly identified Britain’s single biggest problem: its stagnant productivity.

So says the Economist. In response:

Then the UK’s biggest problem is not the NHS, social care, education, inequality, climate change or the myriad other things destroying the quality of life in the UK. No, the big problem is that the return to capital on labour employed is not big enough.

Productivity isn’t the return to capital. It’s not even the return to capital upon labour employed. It’s the output of labour.

It’s, very literally, value of output divided by number of hours worked.

Which is, as the clever will have noted, the return to capital per hour of labour worked plus the return to labour per hour worked.

As it happens the returns to capital have been falling this past couple of hundred years. The returns to labour rising strongly over the same period.

Now d’ye see why the man’s a cretin? He’s agin’ the very thing that raises wages.

Then the UK’s biggest problem is not the NHS, social care, education, inequality, climate change or the myriad other things destroying the quality of life in the UK. No, the big problem is that the return to capital on labour employed is not big enough.

Just a moron.

8 thoughts on “Dear God the man’s a cretin”

  1. Murphy, cretin = tautology. Nuff said

    O/T, petard, hoist by. Oh, there’ll be mucho allegations of neo-liberalism among the far-right human rights lawyers in Ely tonight:

    “Labour’s private school tax raid ‘likely illegal’
    Keir Starmer’s flagship policy could breach human rights law, top lawyers warn.
    Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.”

  2. Worth pointing out what on another thread the great BF pointed out – I’ll have a series of comments on Murphy’s output later but this is his comment

    In other words, it would seem that the world’s wealthy are rubbing their hands in delight at the prospect of the election of a convicted felon, a rapist, a fascist and an outright opponent of democracy who clearly wishes to dismantle the US Constitution.

    I am struggling to find another interpretation for these enthusiastic comments.

    The felony conviction is self – evident bullshit. One blogger compared it with the behaviour of the German ‘People’s Tribunal’ in the Nazi era and certainly the a judge was as deranged as chief overseer of that court Roland Freisler.

    The absurd E Jean Carroll again took advantage of absurdly biased Juries and judiciary in NYC to win a civil case so it’s probable these verdicts will be overturned in due course.

    My understanding of Trump’s attitude to Judaism is he’s very much in favour of them, unlike those like Murphy who support the genocide of October 7th.

    To describe Trump as an opponent of democracy against a party which stole an election and has proceeded to use legal chicanery to cripple their opponent is rather rich.

    I’ll certainly be notifying the man and hoping he decides to go after Murphy for big bucks. My guess is there are bigger fish to fry – however, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

  3. “Keir Starmer’s flagship policy could allow us to take a lot of money off wealthy people by convincing them to sue the government, top lawyers warn.”

    Fixed it for the Telegraph there.

  4. If you want more productivity, since slavery is illegal, you need to use something else to do the work. This means you need lots of cheap reliable energy.

    So shutting down the coal burners, making nukes far too difficult and expensive to build, making fracking and North Sea drilling illegal and instead building lots and lots of windmills is obviously not the way to go.

    The only way I can think of doing it is to round up all the Greens, and Murphy along with them, and hurl them kicking and screaming into the furnaces. This’d let you keep the coal and gas burners running.

    But if you were prepared to do that, you’d have no problem with rounding up all the illegals and selling them as slaves. And of course this’d solve your productivity problem.

  5. Boganboy,

    “If you want more productivity, since slavery is illegal, you need to use something else to do the work. This means you need lots of cheap reliable energy.”

    The problem with Keir, or the likes of the Economist talking about productivity is that most of the things I can think of that would work will be off their list for other reasons. As a society, we’ve done the useful stuff like building a pretty good road network, educating kids, sending the poor to yooni to study engineering.

    What won’t work (but they’ll do):-
    1. More eco bollocks
    2. High speed/rural choo-choos
    3. More Yooni
    4. Picking winners in business, or throwing money at training schemes for business.

    What would help
    1. Cheaper energy. Build nukes, cut energy costs down to just the Pigou cost.
    2. Cutting taxes on car ownership (like IPT), driving lessons, clearing the backlog of driving tests after Covid. Maybe we even subsidise driving lessons to a reasonable number per child. After maths and english GCSE, the single most common qualification in demand is a clean driving license. But won’t happen because Cars Are Bad.
    3. Getting kids out of school earlier and into jobs. Becoming more valuable people earlier. Again, obsession with schools and yooni will stop it.
    4. Building rail links from airports to cities. Or in one case, just letting a private company do it. Tiny cost, will pay for itself, improve efficiency of international travel. But won’t happen because Air Travel Bad.
    5. Prioritising the NHS fixing up people of working age over pensioners, so they can get back to work. Won’t happen, even though it should.
    6. Building fast roads in some rural areas (like across Wales, through Wiltshire). The combination of cars=bad and NIMBYism will stop that.

  6. Western Bloke:

    “Building rail links from airports to cities.” This might reduce some traffic out at the airport, but adds it back in at the central station where the rail deposits its passengers from the airport. Unless those passengers end up walking from the station to their destination. If you have a lot of tourists whose destination is a downtown hotel it might reduce traffic overall, but not otherwise.

    I’m not sure it helps in the end. Passenger rail is just expensive and not very useful.

    This argument is a lot like those “urban planners” whose “solution” for a highway choked with traffic is not to add lanes, but to take some out to build an LRT. Never mind that the cars using the highway aren’t usually ending their journey at some point on that highway.

  7. M,

    ““Building rail links from airports to cities.” This might reduce some traffic out at the airport, but adds it back in at the central station where the rail deposits its passengers from the airport. Unless those passengers end up walking from the station to their destination. If you have a lot of tourists whose destination is a downtown hotel it might reduce traffic overall, but not otherwise.”

    First, a lot of people are going to the city. They’re flying in and want to go to London, Bristol, Birmingham for meetings and out again. Secondly, outside of about 4 commuting hours, trains aren’t even half full.

    And most the projects don’t need public money. Because of the savings on things like parking, or time getting to cities, people pay big money for it. The link from Heathrow south would be a private company, like Heathrow Express is.

Leave a Reply

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