"Things, can only get shitter!"
Posted 5th August 2011 at 10:07 by Feodor Augustus
Updated 6th August 2011 at 01:24 by Feodor Augustus
Updated 6th August 2011 at 01:24 by Feodor Augustus
Tags austerity, city of london, economics, luke bozier, tea party
As if Baron Glasman's 'Blue Labour' was not enough to stomach, Luke Bozier has offered up something even more noxious. In an article written for Labour List, Bozier has suggested that the British Labour Party should consider, of all things, adopting the platform of the American 'tea party movement'!?
Bozier concedes that 'the tactics the group and many of its representatives use to achieve their political goals are nothing short of political thuggery', but he nevertheless argues that the Labour Party can learn two significant lessons from the Tea Party zealots: the first is 'fiscal responsibility'; the second, the importance of 'basic values'.
After reading such trite, one is left feeling that Mr. Bozier is either a completely shameless opportunist, or a rather adroit contrarian. Still, even if we were to accept his verdict on the Tea Party crusaders as accurate - which is quite a stretch that requires the suspension of all critical faculties: after all, how is the bitter refusal to raise (the ridiculously low) tax rates on top earners, alongside the wholesale destruction of economically essential public services, 'fiscal responsibility'? And moreover, how is their mantra of 'no taxation' full stop 'a return to the basic values upon which the United States was founded; i.e. 'no taxation without representation'? - Bozier still commits the telltale errors of vulgar economic thinkers the world over.
For the vulgar economists amongst us, there are only ever two perspectives on economic matters: 'boom and bust' and 'slash and burn'. (The idea of 'save and spend' rarely enters their economic lexicon.) The former is attached to times of expansion, the latter to times of contraction. Furthermore, this simplistic understanding of economic development is assumed to be a one-size-fits-all model that can be applied to vastly different national economies - and for that matter, as in fact does Bozier through his use of this rather clichéd, bastardised and callow analogy, the household budget - irrespective of their (very significant) structural differences.
What Bozier therefore overlooks, is that the major structural weakness of the British economy is not its fiscal irresponsibility, but rather the parasitic role played by the finance sector. We can accept that the previous Labour administration mismanaged the public purse, however the past governments errors in this regard are symptoms of the disease, and not its cause.
This disease is, of course, the completely warped approach to economic policy that has been driven forward by neo-liberal free-trade dogma. (Dogma propagated by the rich at the expense of the poor.) In particular, it is the result of the 'comparative costs' argument taken to its logical extreme, that has in the British case seen the City of London transformed into what is effectively, as another well worn cliché would put it, 'a state within a state'.
This structural rebalancing of the British economy that has taken place since the 1980s, by shackling industry in favour of finance, has robbed it of most of its growth producing capacities. Which is the reason why the Cameron government, despite having already instituted punitive austerity measures and cautious-minded fiscal restraint, is unable to wake the economy from its slumber. Thus far 'fiscal responsibility' has not borne fruit. Or if you like, (metaphorically speaking) paid dividends.
The truth of the matter is therefore that no amount of balanced bookkeeping can remedy the problems of economic sluggishness. For instead, a massive structural adjustment is needed, one that would require the promotion of industry over finance, and one that is some distance away from the kind of 'slash and burn' approach of the Tea Party quacks and their new-found British admirers. For such a task we do not need a Tea Party, we need a Labour Party. A Labour Party that is firmly committed towards programmes of industrial expansion and full employment.
Moreover, in light of all this, the final verdict must be that Mr. Bozier is neither a shameless opportunist nor an adroit contrarian, but rather a fine articulator of spurious nonsense. It is vulgar economics masquerading as political opportunism. Ed Balls will be most proud!
Update: today's events on the stock market are an indicative manifestation of the structural weaknesses of the world economy, the crass economic thought that lays behind them, and the great dangers that arise from them.
Bozier concedes that 'the tactics the group and many of its representatives use to achieve their political goals are nothing short of political thuggery', but he nevertheless argues that the Labour Party can learn two significant lessons from the Tea Party zealots: the first is 'fiscal responsibility'; the second, the importance of 'basic values'.
After reading such trite, one is left feeling that Mr. Bozier is either a completely shameless opportunist, or a rather adroit contrarian. Still, even if we were to accept his verdict on the Tea Party crusaders as accurate - which is quite a stretch that requires the suspension of all critical faculties: after all, how is the bitter refusal to raise (the ridiculously low) tax rates on top earners, alongside the wholesale destruction of economically essential public services, 'fiscal responsibility'? And moreover, how is their mantra of 'no taxation' full stop 'a return to the basic values upon which the United States was founded; i.e. 'no taxation without representation'? - Bozier still commits the telltale errors of vulgar economic thinkers the world over.
For the vulgar economists amongst us, there are only ever two perspectives on economic matters: 'boom and bust' and 'slash and burn'. (The idea of 'save and spend' rarely enters their economic lexicon.) The former is attached to times of expansion, the latter to times of contraction. Furthermore, this simplistic understanding of economic development is assumed to be a one-size-fits-all model that can be applied to vastly different national economies - and for that matter, as in fact does Bozier through his use of this rather clichéd, bastardised and callow analogy, the household budget - irrespective of their (very significant) structural differences.
What Bozier therefore overlooks, is that the major structural weakness of the British economy is not its fiscal irresponsibility, but rather the parasitic role played by the finance sector. We can accept that the previous Labour administration mismanaged the public purse, however the past governments errors in this regard are symptoms of the disease, and not its cause.
This disease is, of course, the completely warped approach to economic policy that has been driven forward by neo-liberal free-trade dogma. (Dogma propagated by the rich at the expense of the poor.) In particular, it is the result of the 'comparative costs' argument taken to its logical extreme, that has in the British case seen the City of London transformed into what is effectively, as another well worn cliché would put it, 'a state within a state'.
This structural rebalancing of the British economy that has taken place since the 1980s, by shackling industry in favour of finance, has robbed it of most of its growth producing capacities. Which is the reason why the Cameron government, despite having already instituted punitive austerity measures and cautious-minded fiscal restraint, is unable to wake the economy from its slumber. Thus far 'fiscal responsibility' has not borne fruit. Or if you like, (metaphorically speaking) paid dividends.
The truth of the matter is therefore that no amount of balanced bookkeeping can remedy the problems of economic sluggishness. For instead, a massive structural adjustment is needed, one that would require the promotion of industry over finance, and one that is some distance away from the kind of 'slash and burn' approach of the Tea Party quacks and their new-found British admirers. For such a task we do not need a Tea Party, we need a Labour Party. A Labour Party that is firmly committed towards programmes of industrial expansion and full employment.
Moreover, in light of all this, the final verdict must be that Mr. Bozier is neither a shameless opportunist nor an adroit contrarian, but rather a fine articulator of spurious nonsense. It is vulgar economics masquerading as political opportunism. Ed Balls will be most proud!
Update: today's events on the stock market are an indicative manifestation of the structural weaknesses of the world economy, the crass economic thought that lays behind them, and the great dangers that arise from them.
Total Comments 0
Comments
Total Trackbacks 0
