So is Hunt the Prime minister in all but name?

Kuenssberg

Hunt doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the crises, All he is promising is austerity, and we know that doesn’t work.

What an outlook

?

Chris Daw KC
@crimlawuk
·
40m
There is an argument that withholding the fact that the OBR had forecast a £72 billion black hole in the nation's finances from the public, but pushing on with the "mini-budget" regardless, should lead to a criminal investigation for Misconduct in Public Office.

Whitewavemark2

It seems he has already announced cuts and higher taxes. Well that will definitely do zero to promote growth.

He appears to have reversed all of Truss’s economic plans. We are heading back to austerity. That did so much to prevent growth. In fact it made the working class so unhappy that they turned to Brexit in desperation, and the chaos that started with Brexit has ended with where we are now.

So, I ask

Who is in charge?

Which is the reverse of what Truss said last week. This is nonsense, a GE is the only way forward. This cannot be allowed to continue

Whitewavemark2

Kuenssberg

Hunt doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the crises, All he is promising is austerity, and we know that doesn’t work.

What an outlook

There's a series of very interesting videos from the Institute of New Economic Thinking (nothing to do with MMT)

This first one seems very appropriate, but for economics nerds the ones that follow are fascinating too.

How Economists Invented Austerity & Paved the Way to Fascism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFR1mD2UOM

Daisymae

Which is the reverse of what Truss said last week. This is nonsense, a GE is the only way forward. This cannot be allowed to continue

The Tories will avoid a GE by all and any means because it could well spell the end for them.

Massive spending cuts will be (are being?) announced in order to calm the markets.

As is usual with the Tory hard-line right - those with the least will shoulder the burden. It's immoral and they know it - so watch out for the right-wing press' future headlines where those on benefits will be demonised in order to convince the public that penalising the sick, disabled, carers, etc, and cutting the services that they - and many of us - rely on is "the right thing to do". Oh! those "difficult decisions" that these poor politicians have to make!

However, the country doesn't appear to be in the mood for more austerity, it seems quite 'rebellious' at the moment. Whether it will ultimately just knuckle down, as usual, and have a moan on social media, remains to be seen. But for those who've been tightening their belts since 2008 and are now being told they'll have to tighten it another notch for the foreseeable future whilst the wealth gap widens continuously, it might just tip the balance.

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

Kuenssberg

Hunt doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the crises, All he is promising is austerity, and we know that doesn’t work.

What an outlook

There's a series of very interesting videos from the Institute of New Economic Thinking (nothing to do with MMT)

This first one seems very appropriate, but for economics nerds the ones that follow are fascinating too.

How Economists Invented Austerity & Paved the Way to Fascism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFR1mD2UOM

Very interesting MaizieD.

Clara Mattei is an eloquent orator - I'd like to read her book.

Thanks for the link.

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

Kuenssberg

Hunt doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the crises, All he is promising is austerity, and we know that doesn’t work.

What an outlook

There's a series of very interesting videos from the Institute of New Economic Thinking (nothing to do with MMT)

This first one seems very appropriate, but for economics nerds the ones that follow are fascinating too.

How Economists Invented Austerity & Paved the Way to Fascism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFR1mD2UOM

That was good, but it has left me with more questions than answers. I need now to go on to see how the economic models were developed to counter the threat to classic capitalist theory.
This is what I understood her arguments to be.

Post WW1, people began to understand that the accepted order of things - the private means of production was not necessary to achieve economic security, but that greater democracy in the means of production was desirable. The accepted means and theory of production was under threat from economic theories such as Marx and others, who place Labour at the centre if production. So to secure the foundation of and prevent the collapse of capitalism. I.e. the relationship between labour and capital, which had been so shaken by the First World War, experts and Economists like Keynes took part in a series of conferences in order to deal with the rise of labour and the threat to the capitalist order.

So to do this they have implicitly accepted Marx’s theory of struggle I think.

maizie be good to hear your thoughts and to see if you agree with what I understand so far?

Jeremy Hunt always reminds me of Anthony Perkins in Psycho.

So, the argument is then what austerity achieves, and history bears this out is an impoverished labour class, and a continuous rise in profits.

IMO The most effective way to achieve growth is to lower the tax burden on the poor and middle income groups, whilst at the same time for the government to spend in order to stimulate the economy.

However, the real problem as far as the U.K. is concerned is the fact that we have hobbled ourselves by preventing business access to a huge free market, and the massive hit to the economic as a result.

However, I think that what would achieve growth at a stroke would be for the U.K. to join the SM and CU.

Calendargirl

Jeremy Hunt always reminds me of Anthony Perkins in Psycho.

That’s my image of him from now on in??

Oops...... just glanced at thread title and only words in caps jumped out. I thought for a split second that 'Hunt the Prime Minister' was perhaps a new board game for Christmas!

Whitewavemark2

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

Kuenssberg

Hunt doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the crises, All he is promising is austerity, and we know that doesn’t work.

What an outlook

There's a series of very interesting videos from the Institute of New Economic Thinking (nothing to do with MMT)

This first one seems very appropriate, but for economics nerds the ones that follow are fascinating too.

How Economists Invented Austerity & Paved the Way to Fascism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFR1mD2UOM

That was good, but it has left me with more questions than answers. I need now to go on to see how the economic models were developed to counter the threat to classic capitalist theory.
This is what I understood her arguments to be.

Post WW1, people began to understand that the accepted order of things - the private means of production was not necessary to achieve economic security, but that greater democracy in the means of production was desirable. The accepted means and theory of production was under threat from economic theories such as Marx and others, who place Labour at the centre if production. So to secure the foundation of and prevent the collapse of capitalism. I.e. the relationship between labour and capital, which had been so shaken by the First World War, experts and Economists like Keynes took part in a series of conferences in order to deal with the rise of labour and the threat to the capitalist order.

So to do this they have implicitly accepted Marx’s theory of struggle I think.

maizie be good to hear your thoughts and to see if you agree with what I understand so far?

I think I agree very much with your analysis, but I tend to shy away from instancing Marx because of the negative associations with his name. But he was a good sociologist and I think his observations were empirically based.

I like to go back to Adam Smith's observation; he was a great empiricist, too:

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

He also had this to say about 'those who lived by profit'

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the publick, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publick, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Taken from this interesting paper (though I have read a fair bit of The Wealth of Nations myself):

The Equalizing Hand: Why Adam Smith Expected the Market to Produce Wealth without Steep Inequality

dboucoyannis.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/3/13938365/smith_paper_oct_2013.pdf

No doubt there are critiques of it...

Right more to read.

MaizieD

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

Who, in their right mind, could argue against this?

But therein lies the problem. If you are a greedy, rapacious Capitalist* solely focused on the accumulation of personal wealth and the defence of the socio-economic system that allows / promotes it, you've got to argue against it - what do you do about the fact that those who labour outnumber you, putting you in a very precarious position? The only way to take the focus off you and your greed is to distract the proletariat and to convince them that Capitalism is the natural order of things and the only reason why the labourer is suffering is because others in his demographic are upsetting the apple cart by demanding more than their fair share or, worse, not contributing sufficient amounts of their labour.

'Divide et impera'. Isn't this where we're at now? Of course, if we had a well-rounded, educated electorate with critical-thinking skills, it would never work, but...

... you see my point in this simplistic little rant?

*
I'm not suggesting all wealthy capitalists etc are greedy and solely self-serving, I accept that some have a sense of obligation and duty

... you see my point in this simplistic little rant?

I certainly do, Dickens.

The sad, but interesting thing is that Adam Smith has been used to defend unbridled capitalism and the supremacy of the market, when in fact he was quite anti!

The Adam Smith Institute has misappropriated his name for decades..

I have to dig down into my past learning to try to remember whether I agree with you both.

I’m feeling lazy this afternoon, but will get back on that. I have a feeling that I disagree?, but can’t dredge it up at the moment. Books are in the loft as well!,

Right found some stuff. Bit grubby?

I think that Adams was correct but only up to a point. What his theory of the capitalist system describes is the creation of the middle class in his concept of “universal opulence” but doesn’t allow for those at the bottom of society and their exploitation by the property owning class. His suggestion to mitigate this exploitation was education, but in my view he failed to recognise the power relationship between the classes. This is where he who should not be named comes in??, who recognised that the exploitation of labour results in alienation of the workforce, who are divorced from the end result of their labours. You can see how people like William Morris and the various movement were influenced by this theory of alienation.
Adams did recognise the need for government intervention, (he was a great exponent of nationalised industries) and I think that this is where we can see the further development of both his and ? theory in the post WW1 economists, like Keynes.

Keynes recognises the benefits that the capitalist system brings, but at the same time also recognises it’s limitations, like periodic crashes and high unemployment. Keynes argues for such things as greater wealth distribution, by taxing the wealthy and employing this revenue for job creation. A demand led economy.

Bit simplistic but you get the drift?

PS I think that the post WW1 economists developed their theories in reply to the classical economists like Adam Smith and ?. It was the unnamed ones philosophy which encouraged the working classes to demand greater capitalist democracy, people like Keynes tried to resolve the issue.

Still unclear when austerity was first thought if though.

Saw a headline on Facebook that Murdoch ( the true ruler of the country) is saying there has to be an election. If so it’s a done deal. But I can’t find it in the paper…DH is just looking for it now.

MayBee70

Saw a headline on Facebook that Murdoch ( the true ruler of the country) is saying there has to be an election. If so it’s a done deal. But I can’t find it in the paper…DH is just looking for it now.

Excellent! I also read that the Tesco boss said that Labour was the only player in the field.

Mind you I feel very nervous for labour if they do get in, they have so much to contend with and such high expectations that they are almost bound to disappoint .?

Whitewavemark2

Right found some stuff. Bit grubby?

I think that Adams was correct but only up to a point. What his theory of the capitalist system describes is the creation of the middle class in his concept of “universal opulence” but doesn’t allow for those at the bottom of society and their exploitation by the property owning class. His suggestion to mitigate this exploitation was education, but in my view he failed to recognise the power relationship between the classes. This is where he who should not be named comes in??, who recognised that the exploitation of labour results in alienation of the workforce, who are divorced from the end result of their labours. You can see how people like William Morris and the various movement were influenced by this theory of alienation.
Adams did recognise the need for government intervention, (he was a great exponent of nationalised industries) and I think that this is where we can see the further development of both his and ? theory in the post WW1 economists, like Keynes.

Keynes recognises the benefits that the capitalist system brings, but at the same time also recognises it’s limitations, like periodic crashes and high unemployment. Keynes argues for such things as greater wealth distribution, by taxing the wealthy and employing this revenue for job creation. A demand led economy.

Bit simplistic but you get the drift?

PS I think that the post WW1 economists developed their theories in reply to the classical economists like Adam Smith and ?. It was the unnamed ones philosophy which encouraged the working classes to demand greater capitalist democracy, people like Keynes tried to resolve the issue.

Still unclear when austerity was first thought if though.

... interesting comments WWM2... thanks for grubbing about in the loft .

If you watch the video - link provided by MaizieD - the economist (can't remember her name) mentions that the beginning of Austerity started after the end of WW1. Or theorises that it did. It's well worth watching.

And now for something completely different.

An article from Open Democracy about our new chancellor's stint (the longest on record apparently) as Health Secretary.

I think it dates from 2 or 3 years ago. It is a long read...

www.opendemocracy.net/en/jeremy-hunt-tory-leadership-boris-johnson-nhs-junior-doctors/

Remember poor James Naughtie’s Spoonerism?

Double Down News

Peter Obourn

The Tories are finished.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqDp90f6-Y&feature=youtu.be

MaizieD

And now for something completely different.

An article from Open Democracy about our new chancellor's stint (the longest on record apparently) as Health Secretary.

I think it dates from 2 or 3 years ago. It is a long read...

www.opendemocracy.net/en/jeremy-hunt-tory-leadership-boris-johnson-nhs-junior-doctors/

... keeping us busy today Maizie with your links!

Will read this later - it looks interesting. Thanks!