Torsten Bell

At least it keeps the imbeciles in one place!

I'm not sure why you brought 'communism' into this discussion at all, Allira.

If you read social history it's clear that the, for want of a better description, 'working classes' were moving to try to improve their conditions and to ask for a more equable distribution of the wealth created by their work long before 'communism' came into being.

The Enclosure movement, which deprived the agrarian poor of some of their means of subsistence by depriving them of the commoners' rights which had enabled them to keep a few animals for food and to gather essential fuel threw them into worse poverty than they had previously experienced. And the Industrial revolution, which deprived many independent artisans of their work because mechanisation and factory working made it cheaper to produce their goods, so forcing them into dependence on low paid, precarious employment and appalling living conditions in the expanding industrial towns and cities both led to demands for better pay and conditions throughout the 19th C. Communism, as such, only emerged in the early 20th C.

If you read Engels account of the conditions of the 19th C working poor in Manchester, or Mayhew's accounts of the condition of the poor in London, or Dickens, whose work is a fictionalised account of the conditions that he saw (and experienced as a youngster) can you fail to be horrified at what most of the working class was expected to endure in the process of enriching some of their fellow men?

I know that 'communism' as seen and experienced by the countries which implemented it had many bad, and even evil, aspects but I think it is dangerous to attach the label to people who have a genuine and justifiable desire to share in the wealth that they help to create. People were justifiably appalled at some of its consequences, but their use of the term to demonise any movement towards better social equality is, IMO, unfair and almost like an excuse to disregard the movement.

But I don't know whether you used the term pejoratively or not as you didn't respond to my query.

Are you content with the way that the current orthodox economic practice advantages the wealthy and disadvantages a significant (and growing) section of our society (as outlined in my long post) or do you think that we could do a lot better with a different approach to the way that our national economy is run?

Sorry - thst was to Allira and I should have attributed the first four lines to her.

It's not how I see things.
No need to be shocked or worry about me at all PoliticsNerd. I'm not wealthy either.
It was a quote.

From who? It said "Redistribution of wealth is a communist concept yet I thought this Government was supposed to be just left of centre." I'm afraid I missed the recognition of a quote by quotation marks and any attribution to who actually said it.

Financial advisers along with accountants and tax advisers are rushed off of their feet at the moment,

Literally working seven days a week and very long days at that.

There are some very worried people, not the ultra rich, but the middle income earners, SME owners etc., who assume they will be paying for RR’s ever increasing non existent black hole

Those who have done as encouraged by previous governments and saved for their retirement and tried to future proof their lives.

The attached photo speaks volumes

PoliticsNerd

Yet another shock from how some of our generation see things. This is in reply to "Allira's" comment Redistribution of wealth is a communist concept yet I thought this Government was supposed to be just left of centre.

I ready do worry about this sort of comment.

Many countries around the world implement some form of wealth redistribution through policies such as taxation, social welfare programs, public services, and transfer payments. These efforts aim to reduce income inequality and promote social equity. Some notable examples include:

Nordic Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland): Known for their comprehensive social welfare systems, progressive taxation, and policies aimed at reducing inequality.

Germany: Implements a range of social programs, progressive taxes, and social insurance schemes to redistribute wealth.

services.

Australia: Implements progressive taxes and social welfare programs to address income disparities.

United Kingdom: Features a progressive tax system and welfare programs aimed at reducing inequality.

Japan: Uses taxation and social policies to promote economic equality.

South Korea: Has implemented redistribution policies, especially in healthcare and social welfare.

Many developing countries also pursue redistribution efforts, often with varying degrees of success, depending on their economic capacity and political will.

Although methods of redistribution vary widely, to suggest that all countries taxing and redistributing are using a communist tool sounds as if the writer is very far from the Overton Window. Let's face it, even King's used wealth redistribution to pay for their wars. Does Allira, and anyone else who seems prepared to say anything to make alt-right policies look normal, think they were Communists?

It's not how I see things.
No need to be shocked or worry about me at all PoliticsNerd. I'm not wealthy either.
It was a quote.

Neither am I alt-right.

An awful lot of "economics" is to do with perception. "Splashing more money into the economy" is a Keynesian strategy aimed at jumpstarting growth when private demand is weak.

It seems to me that how much markets believe this to be a) likely to work and b) affordable, makes a huge difference. Of course, those influencing market do depend on some concrete science, but they also depend on their own views. This is where Liz Truss seems to have gone wrong and Rachel Reeves seems to be trying not too.

Maizie can probably give you more detail than I can FGT and their are several economists on line, prepared to teach their view. However, my guess would be that it's differences in economic theory and political ideology.

Thank you MaizieD and PoliticsNerd for taking the time to give full explanations of how economies work.

My questions are:

Why do so many economists not agree with the Keynesian way?

And if the government splashed more money into the economy to kickstart growth what happens to inflation?

Yet another shock from how some of our generation see things. This is in reply to "Allira's" comment Redistribution of wealth is a communist concept yet I thought this Government was supposed to be just left of centre.

I ready do worry about this sort of comment.

Many countries around the world implement some form of wealth redistribution through policies such as taxation, social welfare programs, public services, and transfer payments. These efforts aim to reduce income inequality and promote social equity. Some notable examples include:

Nordic Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland): Known for their comprehensive social welfare systems, progressive taxation, and policies aimed at reducing inequality.

Germany: Implements a range of social programs, progressive taxes, and social insurance schemes to redistribute wealth.

services.

Australia: Implements progressive taxes and social welfare programs to address income disparities.

United Kingdom: Features a progressive tax system and welfare programs aimed at reducing inequality.

Japan: Uses taxation and social policies to promote economic equality.

South Korea: Has implemented redistribution policies, especially in healthcare and social welfare.

Many developing countries also pursue redistribution efforts, often with varying degrees of success, depending on their economic capacity and political will.

Although methods of redistribution vary widely, to suggest that all countries taxing and redistributing are using a communist tool sounds as if the writer is very far from the Overton Window. Let's face it, even King's used wealth redistribution to pay for their wars. Does Allira, and anyone else who seems prepared to say anything to make alt-right policies look normal, think they were Communists?

The issue those in this camp the problem isn't simply wealth but the level of wealth inequality GrannyGravy13.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv2hx7wjdiA it's titled:
Unfortunately, the written "lesson" isn't up yet but he is in the process of setting a site up. Let's hope more people do this for those who prefer to read. It's titled: "How Wealth Inequality Affects The Economy"

It's worth remembering that economics is not a science. So, while economics uses scientific methods to analyse patterns and make predictions, it doesn't have the same level of certainty or universal laws that you find in traditional sciences.

It's better described as a social science because it studies human societies and their economic activities, which are complex and often less predictable. In essence, economics is a social science that tries to understand human decision-making around resources, not a hard science with fixed laws.

^ Redistribution of wealth is a communist concept^

Do you disapprove of that concept, then, Allira?

None of what I say, which is informed by the work of economists who don't subscribe to the current 'orthodoxy, including most notably one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century, J.M. Keynes, is going to solve our problems because ever since Thatcher came to power the Keynesian influenced post WW2 economy, which was experiencing growth, full employment and moving to a more equable distribution of wealth, was abandoned in favour of of a market based economy with privatisation of state enterprises, curbing the unions and the deliberate destruction of industry in favour of a 'service' economy. Her economic outlook was driven by economists of a completely different 'school' than Keynesianism and has become the dominant 'orthodoxy' ever since. It is commonly referred to as 'neoliberal' economics.

While Keynesianism supported a more equable distribution of wealth and full employment, neoliberal economics supports the upward accumulation of wealth and uses unemployment as a means of keeping wages low so as to keep profits high.

AI shows how it works:

Start
Top Level: Wealthy Capital Owners / Shareholders

Own capital: stocks, real estate, businesses

Earn passive income:

📈 Dividends

🏠 Rent

💵 Interest

Reinvest profits → compound wealth

Influence policy → preserve their advantage

⬇️ Capital Flows Upward

🏢 Middle Level: Corporations / Employers

Aim: maximize profits

Reduce costs:

⬇️ Cut wages

✂️ Reduce jobs

🔁 Automate/Outsource

Send profits to shareholders

⬇️ Costs Passed to Workers

🧑‍🔧 Bottom Level: Workers / Laborers

Earn wages → spend on:

🏠 Rent (to landlords)

💳 Debt/loans (to banks)

🛒 Goods/services (from corporations)

Little/no savings → can’t build wealth

Struggle to keep up with rising living costs

End

There are more complexities but that's basically how it works.

Within this context, the important thing to understand is that, apart from foreign earnings and investment, all the money which circulates in our country is created by the state, or by banks under licence from the state. This is an absolute and irrefutable fact.

The state creates money by spending it into the economy. If it didn't do this there wouldn't be any money around for it to take back in taxation. Despite what 99% of people believe, taxation doesn't fund spending, it is only possible for people to have money to pay their taxes because the state issued it in the first place.

If the state relied only on taxation to pay for its spending this would be the result, according to AI (which can do a faster and better summary than I can Though elementary logic would reach the same conclusion )

Start

If all money originates from the state, then new state spending is essential to sustain economic growth and liquidity. Relying only on taxation (which removes money from the economy) without new issuance would:

Reduce money supply over time

Cause deflation and recession

Shrink public services

Increase private debt

Destabilize the economy

End

The next important point is that our capitalist economy depends on people buying things. The GDP figure for a country , by which growth can be measured, is based on all the economic trading transactions that take place in the country. This figure has nothing to do with the amount of money in the country, it is based on the number of transactions made with the money as it circulates through the economy.

The people who are most likely to spend their money into the economy are those who are obliged to spend it for survival. Because of the nature of our consumer society they would spend on more than just survival if they had more money. Conversely, those who are able to spend on more than just basics will reduce their spending on the 'extras' if the costs of the basics increase.

But as we get higher up the wealth distribution scale there comes a point where people don't spend more into the economy, they just use their excess wealth to grow more wealth for themselves by speculating in stocks and shares, or by placing their money in investments which will give them a good return on their money and 'grow' it with no effort required on their part. This money is dead money as far as the country's economy is concerned because it isn't contributing to economic activity. not only that, but if it is used to purchase assets such as land or property it inflates the prices of these assets and puts them beyond the reach of the less wealthy people in society. And all the time neoliberal economic practices (as detailed earlier) are sending more and more wealth upward in their direction.

This is why our country is in a mess, as are many other countries which follow the same orthodoxy.

But the biggest villain of all is the belief that a country has only a finite amount of money which has to be managed in the same way as a household budget is managed. The way it is done is to cut government spending, which takes the vital money for growth out of the economy. And makes a lot of people poorer and very unhappy... Fewer people can afford to buy things, so businesses fold for lack of custom and it becomes a vicious circle.

Obvious ways to break the circle are to prevent the wealthy becoming even more wealthy through their ability to take money out of the economy and for the state to spend into the economy in such a way that would actually create more economic activity and growth.

There are plenty of public services which are crying out for more money to be spent on them, money that would pay better wages, employ more people, directly sustain private enterprises which supply all the goods and services the public sector uses and indirectly sustain private enterprises which the public sector wages are spent in.

Taxing the wealthy more progressively may be on the cards but I can't see much chance of state investment in the public sector.

But I can't see where else it would come from as there's little interest from private investors because they can;t see much money making opportunity in a country where 20% of the population are below the poverty line and it's likely that at least another 20% or more are only just above it. Private investors like rich pickings...

But Reeves seems completely unable to make the connection between state spending and increased economic activity. So we're stuck...

MaizieD

I'm watching the Roses.

I'll respond later on my pet subject which I've been studying for a few years now

We've been out. What a score - feel sorry for Samoa, though!

GrannyGravy13

Redistribution of wealth, not sure how that would be implemented.

There will always be people at the top, along with a graduating scale to the bottom.

Rather than taking from the top, how about giving incentives and opportunities to those at the so called bottom?

That's far too logical and probably more difficult to achieve, GrannyGravy.

Redistribution of wealth is a communist concept yet I thought this Government was supposed to be just left of centre.

The very wealthy will have ways and means to avoid tax or simply leave the country, the middle income property owners will get clobbered and the poor will remain poor because they will have no incentives.

We, as a caring society, should look after the elderly, the very young, the sick and disabled but those able to work should be encouraged to do so.

MaizieD I look forward to hearing from you. Seriously.
We seem in such a mess.

Smash the economy and grow the gangs …. ? I am sure they said that didn't they.

I'm watching the Roses.

I'll respond later on my pet subject which I've been studying for a few years now

FGT2 👏👏👏 we are taxed day in and day out.

Exactly! They are turning on each other now

Friendly reminder to @RachelReevesMP (and colleagues) that if income tax, national insurance, value added tax, fuel duties, alcohol duties, tobacco duties, vehicle excise duties, environmental levies, insurance premium tax, ETS auction receipts, customs duties, air passenger duty, betting and gaming duties, the climate change levy, landfill tax, the aggregates levy, soft drinks industry levy, capital taxes, capital gains tax, stamp duties, inheritance tax, company taxes, corporation tax, the energy profits levy, apprenticeship levy, electricity generator levy, bank levy, bank surcharge, digital services tax, diverted profits tax, petroleum revenue tax, council tax, business rates, dividend tax, student loans tax, sugar tax, & supermarket carrier bags tax isn't enough to balance the budget....

Then maybe the spending is the issue?

Whether we like it or not something nasty is heading towards those with wealth, guessing and arguing where the best seat on the Titanic is pointless.

My bet would be on property for what it's worth, but Reeves (or Bell) will get you one way or another.

Where do these people think wealth comes from? If any success is taxed away, no one's going to bother any more.

Redistribution of wealth, not sure how that would be implemented.

There will always be people at the top, along with a graduating scale to the bottom.

Rather than taking from the top, how about giving incentives and opportunities to those at the so called bottom?

But does wealth distribution actually work MaizieD? Has it in other countries? What would be the incentive to go to university get a good job etc if taxation ‘shares it all out’. I don’t really follow it.

I don’t have much btw but I have no envy of those who do.

Does giving to the poorer in society really make for an equitable society??