The active investment portfolio will feature a diversity of investments. The diversity will be across a number of dimensions – enterprise size, type (joint stock companies, partnerships, co-operatives, social enterprises etc),
A co-operative that takes outside equity investment – as with a partnership – is no longer a cooperative, is it? It’s now a capitalist enterprise, for it has taken outside capital.
Every single action this government takes is for one reason only, and that is to reduce the rate of money creation that it has to undertake within the UK economy. Note I do not say borrowing, because there has been almost none of that in the least year. The precise figures can be argued over and largely depends on timing, but it is likely that more than 90% of all Covid costs and the resulting deficits have been paid for by money creation. And such is the irrational fear of this process, which those in the Treasury claim not to understand, that the government is willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives rather than use the capacity that the state has to get things right using he power it has to create money, when getting things right would be putting in place the measures needed to tackle this virus on a timely basis.
It could sometimes be argued that debate on economics is without consequence, because a great deal of it speculates on what might be with little chance of influencing the outcome. But in this case economics does have a consequence. Government debt paranoia is leading to the early deaths of tens of thousands of people in a way that is wholly unnecessary if only we realised that the option to act appropriately exists, and that the measures to make our society a lot more safe could be taken.
All the money that is needed to beat coronavirus is available.
What is lacking is the will to use it. Setting acceptable death tolls is easier.
The result will, however, be a third wave and even more government support for the economy being required very soon because the right steps to ensure public health were not taken soon enough.
And that’s what’s really annoying about this. All of this could have been avoided by a government really willing to tackle the issues and not just its symptoms, but they weren’t. One day, maybe this time, I hope we hold them to account for that.
That really is what is being said. The entire government policy is to try and prove that Richard Murphy is wrong.
Turkey’s economy has been thrown into renewed turmoil after the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, sacked the head of the country’s central bank days after raising interest rates to tackle soaring inflation.
The Turkish lira plunged by almost 15% on Monday, while the Istanbul stock exchange shed a 10th of its value after the president shocked global investors by replacing Naci Ağbal with a party loyalist.
Outsiders believe in that independence of the central bank. Perhaps they shouldn’t. Even, perhaps it should be – as the P³ says – righteous that the central bank not be independent so that government can do whatever the hell it wants. That is, after all, democracy.
It’s just the folks do get to make up their own minds over what happens when politicians get to spend all the money they want.
You can control the money supply, sure you can. You can also at least try to control inflation, target the exchange rate even. But you can’t control all three at the same time because at least one of the three is an output from the other two. You don’t, in fact, have freedom of action of all three at the same time that is – you cannot spend all you want through money printing and also control inflation and the FX rate.
Let me list the problems. First, wealth grows exponentially. Income from work does not. We have a society now designed to become more unequal.
This is problematic. By definition the wealthy do not so end all their income. As they capture a growing part of national income this means the return to those who really work will decline due to the negative multiplier effects of saving.
And the wealthy save, but do not invest. Savings guarantee that they do not lose their wealth status. Risky investments might. And since status is what really matters to the wealthy a supposedly wealthy economy is bad for innovation.
Which does rather miss the point being made by Piketty. Which is that r is greater – greater greater that is – for richer people because they can afford to take more risk. Which is the only reason it is great. But then that conflicts with the second point, that they don’t take risk, doesn’t it?
The poor might save in cash, or savings accounts, or even NS&I. The rich are in property, equities and…..higher risk, d’ye see?
Interesting:
The proposal is to create a form of sovereign wealth fund by the amalgamation of funded occupational pension funds (“Pillar 2” pensions) in order to collectivise investment risk and provide a fund from which to pay an earnings-related pension (DB pensions are earnings-related by one variety of formula or another) to ALL citizens.
How cool. We’ve also already got one of those, called the state pension.
How well does that work?
Communism and Fascism are basically the same.
They both negate the personal in favour of the masses, and bend the personal to the will of the state. They both use propaganda.
They both use populist ’emotion politics’ and seek out and identify enemies within and without They both nurture greed for power at the top – a tendency to over centralise. Power – control – is what they were about.
One happens to emerge from the Left – the other from the Right. But they are both as odious as each other.
As for that other failed model – so-called ‘western liberalist capitalism’ – that goes too far in asserting individualism and self-realisation despite the cost to others and the planet and defers to and worships money. In fact its only value is money and the power that grants them. So western liberalist capitalism is also motivated/governed by greed. So much for western values!
Those Russian communists soon saw though all of this when The Wall came down. That’s why we’ve ended up with one Vladimir Putin. Having failed to live up to its supposed values and not setting an example, I can’t say I blame Mr Putin for the way he is.
And Western liberal capitalism it is not beyond using communist and fascist techniques to keep things that way. Propaganda is propaganda after all David!
All three – communism, fascism and ‘western liberal capitalism’ are all undemocratic forces.
A commentator at the P³.
I have to say though that China is a hard one to call. It has many faces at the moment. And this is why I can understand why the Chinese Government reacts against those who naively insist on Western style democracy.
Naive, eh?
The P³’s definition of fascism:
I used the version used by the Holocaust Museum.
Ah, yes, that one:
The claim in the Instagram post about the poster’s ties to the Holocaust Memorial Museum is MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research. While a poster with the “Early Warning Signs Of Fascism” was indeed previously sold in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Shop, it did not originate from the museum and was not part of any exhibition or display. Britt wrote the words in a 2003 article in Free Inquiry, which Syracuse Cultural Workers reprinted and sold with his permission.
As in, “Keep Calm and Carry On” is authenticated by WH Smith’s selling a postcard of it.
The actual Holocaust Museum definition of fascism is:
Definition and Beliefs
Fascism is an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government.Fascism places the importance of the nation above all else. The unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. This leads to an intense interest in defining which groups belong or do not belong to the national body. Fascism is characterized by:
strident, often exclusionary nationalism
fixation with national decline (real or perceived) and threats to the existence of the national community
embrace of paramilitarism
In fascist states, violence is accepted—even celebrated—if it serves or advances the national community. For fascists, violence often has a redemptive or purifying quality.Fascism rejects the practices of representative or liberal democratic government. It holds that these practices interfere with the expression of the national will. Instead, fascist governments are one-party states led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. Fascists define the national will as advancing the interests of the national community. This usually means:
protecting or elevating the rights of the national community above the rights of those seen as alien
removing obstacles to national unity and suppressing those seen as challenging it
expanding the size and influence of the national state
often, also seeking to expand territory through armed conflict
A rather more worrying list both for the P³ and his mates in the SNP.
JohnM says:
March 19 2021 at 7:05 pm
Scotland has more people testing positive, per 100,000, than the rest of the UK, @73.4 per 100,000https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
Reply
Richard Murphy says:
March 19 2021 at 7:33 pm
But the elderly are getting double doses
Which would seem to indicate that first doses first has something to recommend it then….
In 2003 historian Laurence W. Britt suggested that there were 14 characteristics to fascist regimes. They were:
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labour power suppressed
Disdain for intellectuals & the arts
Obsession with crime & punishment
Rampant cronyism & corruption
Fraudulent elections
So he Soviet Union was fascist then. And we could shoehorn the SNP into most of those too…..
And in the face of that England (but not Wales and Scotland, where vaccination has been considerably better managed)
Richard Murphy says:
March 19 2021 at 10:54 am
‘Cultural Marxism’ is, of course, an anti-semitic tropeReply
It’s the Joos that want to eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class?
A company now has to be considered bankrupt if it cannot undertake its trade and be net carbon neutral when doing so.
So, let us consider the activities of an LLP. There is the heating of a house in Ely. The transport of the workforce to conferences and the like, using those jet planes. The internet is 2 or 4 or 8% or whatever number is claimed now of all electricity use – much of which has carbon emissions. Breathing out produces CO2.
So, an LLP doing nothing but campaign upon climate issues is carbon bankrupt. For we’ve already said that offsets are not to be allowed.
We’ve also already said that it must be each component of the economy that is net zero, not the economy as a whole. So, that forests absorb or whatever is not allowed.
So, the P ³ is carbon bankrupt then.
Here is the P³ struggling along on mere part time grant work and:
where Big 4 partners regularly earn well in excess of £500,000 a year.
Which is what all the complaints over audit are about. How dare they when I don’t? Am I not worthy?
There is much to criticise within it because almost none of the current issues in accounting and auditing that need to be addressed are tackled by the proposals made.
Tsk, shouldn’t the person ruminating make what the person who does does?
At the core of the failure by the government on this issue is their adherence to a mid-twentieth-century view of what the company is all about.
As opposed to my view which I made up myself, alone.
First, any accounting standard for greenhouse gas emissions that does not require Scope 3 disclosure is incomplete. In fact, it’s not a standard worth calling by that name because it ignores a crucial issue.
Alone I tell ‘ee! That everyone else giggles at me shows I am right!
Thankfully there is a better option. That is sustainable cost accounting. That will work. And that’s what financial support has to be linked to because it makes Scope 3 disclosure mandatory.
The government’s proposals do not do that. And for that reason they fail to address the issue of climate change and accounting, whatever other failings there might be in the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
Meeeeeee!
A particular name was used to comment elsewhere. Made it look like an extant academic was critiquing Spud. The academic themselves has indicated that they’re not happy with this. At least, so they’ve said to me.
Which seems fair enough. So, sport it is, of course it is. But not with the names of current real people perhaps?
And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem
I disagree
Well, closing down much of industry because it’s carbon bankrupt would also have the occasional effect upon end consumers…..
As was the assumption that externalities were of no consequence – and so therefore unpriced.
Well, yes, so if we price them with a carbon tax then we’re done, aren’t we?
And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem
I disagree
Well, closing down much of industry because it’s carbon bankrupt would also have the occasional effect upon end consumers…..
As was the assumption that externalities were of no consequence – and so therefore unpriced.
Well, yes, so if we price them with a carbon tax then we’re done, aren’t we?
And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem
I disagree
Well, closing down much of industry because it’s carbon bankrupt would also have the occasional effect upon end consumers…..
As was the assumption that externalities were of no consequence – and so therefore unpriced.
Well, yes, so if we price them with a carbon tax then we’re done, aren’t we?
And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem
I disagree
Well, closing down much of industry because it’s carbon bankrupt would also have the occasional effect upon end consumers…..
As was the assumption that externalities were of no consequence – and so therefore unpriced.
Well, yes, so if we price them with a carbon tax then we’re done, aren’t we?
Housing wealth is now between two and four times as large as GDP in many Western economies. This column reintroduces land and housing structures to the theory of optimal taxation, and finds that first-best taxation is achieved through a property tax on land and requires no tax on capital. Even absent land taxes, one can tax land indirectly and reach a Ramsey second best still with no tax on capital and positive housing rent taxes in the steady state.
If it’s land prices that are the problem then tax land prices, not capital or rich folks.
Richard Murphy says:
March 15 2021 at 10:14 am
The result is exactly the sameGovernment deficits = private gain in wealth
MMT says so. It has just not embraced the consequence as yet
Zimbabwean private wealth did soar, didn’t it?