There is an assumption in economics that all growth is good. As a matter of fact, that’s not true. There is growth that is of benefit that is indisputable, but just as likely is growth that causes harm. And unless economics works out how to differentiate these two, and actually deliver growth that is beneficial to humankind, whilst eliminating that which is harmful, then we are at real risk.
Well I never, eh?
Now, among people who don’t actually read any economics there is an assumption that economics claims all growth is good. But that’s more a signifier of people who don’t read any economics than it is of economics.
Ah, yes, well, Spud, that explains that then…..
Growth in the incompetent state provision of services is good though presumably?
Well, of course he’s right. The vast growth in our immigrant population has ostensibly been for economic reasons, and that has definitely been harmful.
What a lovely progressive word that is, “harm”. It can mean anything.
It looks like the left are starting to get their desired degrowth, although Rachel from accounts says we shouldn’t read too much in to one month’s figures (unless they go up, which should be read as the start of a boom and justifies their policies).
It’s becoming more and more obvious. He’s finally flipped. True insanity has arrived, just like his beloved nationalised choo-choos, later than expected and slightly off the rails but it is here…
He wants there to be a field of study that decides what is and what is not beneficial to mankind.
That field exists. It is called ‘dictatorship’. Richie’s assumption is that he gets to be the dictator.
This is arguably one of the most hilarious things I have ever read. Regulation is good unless it relates to copyright, patent or trademarking – all of which are ways ‘the wealthy get rich’,
Almost all the benefits of growth have gone to those who are wealthy. They’ve claimed it by way of increased profits and by way of claiming increased interest payments, and they’ve also created artificial assets on which they demand a return, like copyrights and patents and trademarks, all of which result in increased rewards being paid to the wealthy, but wages being stagnant. In other words, all this growth has not increased the well-being of most people in the world.
He is basically the anti- Bauer.
Also a diamond in the rough- growth is bad because it undermines belief in the competence of the state:
But growth also undermines our belief in democracy, because if we believe that government can’t meet our needs, but only growth can, then we look away from government, which is where most of the needs that we now have will be met, towards the market, where we know that needs can’t be met for those things that are essential to our well-being, like managing climate change, like having better healthcare, like having better education systems, like having more access to social housing and all those other things which are not being made available at present, and which people can’t afford by themselves, but which the state could provide if it so wished.
I’ll refrain from posting anything else on this – the stupidity speak for itself,
I lied
You’ll be pleased to know if you are wealthy (and he defined anyone owning a government bond as wealthy apparently in a post on Tuesday) you don’t need your wealth.
What we are actually seeing is that ideology is what is dictating this mantra that we should have growth at all costs. It’s become a secular religion. Our economists, our politicians, our commentators will say that without growth, we cannot have what we want with regard to public services. But that’s not true. We could simply cut our consumption of unnecessary items, and we could do that by cutting the consumption of the very wealthy.
They don’t need to fly as much as they do.
They don’t need as many yachts as they consume.
They don’t need a great deal of the things that they have, which actually don’t really make them any happier than most other people, because there is a limit to the amount of happiness you can enjoy, and there’s no evidence that wealth provides it.
There you have it – from the proverbial horse’s mouth.
I’d happily smash into small pieces the repellent cvnt’s top of the line Sony cameras and Apple phones, PCs and tablets and give the cvnt a box brownie, a small blackboard and an abacus and see how happy the cvnt is then.
He really does believe in magic, doesn’t he? That the government magically knows exactly what everyone needs and can simply magic all this stuff up. He’s a cargo cultist.
Here’s a question for the number-crunchers. For the average billionaire, how much of the wealth is tied up in Instagram-friendly bling, and how much is this up in ownership of actual businesses that pay tax, that employ people who pay tax, make stuff and buy stuff, that buy inputs from other businesses that pay tax, employ people who pay tax, make stuff and buy stuff, and in total generate a vast surplus of consumer welfare?
How much does it cost to run Bezos lifestyle? $20 million a year? $200 million? If it’s the second then 99% of his money is in productive enterprises, 1% a year on him.
Since Amazon/Bezos seem to be forefront in people’s minds as to where all the money to save the UK will come from, here’s how it breaks down:
Amazon UK annual revenue – £30 billion
UK Government largesse – £1,200 billion
Number of days that largesse could be funded if all of Amazon’s revenue (not profit) was appropriated? A little over 9!
As for the rich, if we stole the entire wealth of the Times “Rich List” (£773 billion) we could run the government for about 235 days after which there would be no more rich people’s money to spunk.
Thought so, Tim, but the question was largely rhetorical. People seem to think that a billionaire sits on his yacht all day with his trophy wife, wearing luxury brands, consuming top nosh, knocking out Instagram selfies, counting his piles of Krugerrands, and that’s all there is.
Following the defeat of the England football team to Senegal, it has become transparently clear that a team selected by a private individual appointed by a private association and drawing its players from privately owned football clubs has utterly failed.
The only alternative is full nationalisation. This will ensure a more representative side, drawn from all walks of life, including the elderly, the differently abled and the occasional zoroastrian.
Tactically the far-right wing will be a distraction and will never get the ball. The game will be played on the common centre ground and success will be assured.
All games will be equal. Diversity is our strength. All of society will participate.
copyright Richard Murphy, 2025.
Brilliant philip.
Coming later this week from the Emeritus Professor
– Air India crash is awful but surely we must look again at whether we can afford to travel this way. It could have been sabotage, pilot error, design fault, temperature, wrong fluids, electronics, but let’s face it commercial long haul aircraft are too complex
Came already this week from the EP
-government can identify the needs of the many, tax has to be complicated to take account of everyone’s situation, and the State can handle complexity
Has his little train set come off its rails? Oh dear, how sad, never mind
With him in charge, at least we know that sufficient strawmen will be produced.