Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://linkis.com/businessinsider.com/sbR0aVaroufakis doing a line-by-line critique of the Greek bailout deal
Paul Mason (him again) explains things nicely here:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/16/china-labour-debate-currency-economic-crisis
Quote:It was HSBC economist Stephen King who, in May, likened the world economy to a Titanic without lifeboats. Whatever the motivation of the Chinese devaluation, it was at the very least a clear signal: “We have a lifeboat.” And it prompts, for all wings of British politics, the legitimate question: “Where, should it be needed, is ours?”Put another way, the lesson of Bretton-Woods was that curencies need political solutions, and global co-operation, but that isn't possible while the world is dividied into competing groups opf property owners.This is particularly telling:
Quote:On top of that, once everybody is doing QE, the world’s ability to respond to crisis is reduced. What you ideally want, if another slowdown or bank crash or country bankruptcy happens, is for interest rates to be positive (so you can cut them again); and for government debts to be reduced – along with the debts of the private sector and households. But global debts now stand at $200tn – three times world GDP, interest rates are close to zero and, worryingly, inflation is closer to zero than 1% in most of Europe and the US, and at an eight-year low in China.One of the reasons 2008 was so bad was because the US & UK had dodged the Asian Tiger bullet in 2001/2 by essentially giving away money (they reducade interest rates below inflation), they didn't have that weapon a second time. Now interest rates are practically zero, the only way to go is actual printing money, or using tax to stoke negative interest rates (actually paying people to borrow off you).
http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/china-danger-open-currency-war/4217Paul Mason on China's devaluation and the ongoing (undeclared) currency war – take this as the context for Corbyn's People's QE, if all currencies are in freefall, then the risks are much less…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33884836Robert Peston has some vintage snarks:
Quote:There are plenty of political moderates who question why, at a time of scarce resources, it is a priority for messrs Cameron and Osborne to give tax breaks to better-off dead people.(someone clearly thinks he is fire proof, or doesn't care)Anyway, a pretty decent breakdown on the problems with Corbyns policy:
Quote:Central banks, like the Bank of England, have an extraordinary privilege and power to magic money out of nowhere. Which is another way of saying that money has no intrinsic value, and is only worth what we as a society determine it is worth. And, in the reality of global financial capitalism, it is currency traders who decide what sterling is worth, nano-second by nano-second.(Thanks Robert, someone talking sense about currency)
Quote:Now to be clear, none of this is to argue that Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to want more investment in energy, housing and other infrastructure. But it is to say that if the Bank of England were mandated to do that, most investors would conclude that the Bank of England's primary objective was no longer to preserve the value of the currency but to finance politically popular projects….In those circumstances, sterling would weaken, with inflationary consequences – and perhaps with devastatingly inflationary consequences.A clear and balanced analysis: the policy is a bit risky and may be counter productive (it all depends on the scale).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/jeremy-corbyn-close-deficit-poor-labour-economy?CMP=share_btn_twJohn McDonnel joins the fray, in quite a clever article.
Quote:So alongside deficit elimination, the Corbyn campaign is advocating a fundamental reform of our economic system. This will include the introduction of an effective regulatory regime for our banks and financial sector; a full-blown Glass-Steagall system to separate day-to-day and investment banking; legislation to replace short-term shareholder value with long-term sustainable economic and social responsibilities as the prime objective of companies; radical reform of the failed auditing regime; the extension of a wider range of forms of company and enterprise ownership and control including public, co-operative and stakeholder ownership; and the introduction of a financial transactions tax to fund the rebalancing of our economy towards production and manufacturing.I've bolded what I think is the most interesting, and most unrealistic bit: it's better than nationalisation, but impossible in a world of multinational companies and the drive to make profits, some firms will be more profitable than otehrs, that can't be stopped, and firms must compete for capital and labour.
Here are the current odds at the bookies:http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leaderAlthough William Hill on their live site are offfering 1/16 (it was 1/15 when I started writing this, that's how things are moving).
Ah, here we go, this is what I heard, he basically trolled the GOP debate: could you get more 21st century?http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1409563
Actually, Sander's twitter feeds make pretty good viewing:https://twitter.com/SenSandershttps://twitter.com/BernieSandersYes, not our politics, but, hell, from the US it's pretty out there (from their mainstream, never mind ours).OK, he talks about the "billionaire class" but, that's actually quite clever. Think I may steal that.
Ineresting, the IWC material appears to be available (badly scanned) here:http://www.socialistrenewal.net/node/121
Yes, it's economic bunkum : although increased population would suggest that it wuld decrease GDP pr capita,inward migration has a positive effect on GDP (more work gets done), and productivity growth should do the rest…
Although there was an element of squeze in th election campaign against Corbyn, at leat the discussion was broadly critical of capitalism, and what to do about it — naturally, it was difficult to find space on a crowded platform to put our differences across (though I think I managed it on most occaisions): admittedly, by proclaiming that we want to abolish the NHS(!). But it would be better to be attacking a Labour party for the poverty of it's ambition, rather than them making a proud point of the poverty of their ambitions.
http://www.islingtontribune.com/letters/2015/aug/letters-passage-marx-jeremy-missedWell, I suppose I had to do it…
Short of time, but Mason has published an interest supplementary essay:https://medium.com/@paulmasonnews/neoliberalism-system-first-ideology-changeable-2f0ade2aabcf
I'm not sure the party agrees with those goals, and they are tied intimately to his methods, to promote the trends within capitalism towards its own supercession. Our method is to elminate the character of value altogether, by elminating the wages system. his goals are to take he wages system to its own breaking point: in that light his policy suggestions are eminently sensible, from what I can see. Our objectins are strategic, in considering the conscious abolition of capitalism as the best route, rather than working with the flow of it. That doesn't invalidate his analysis, nor mean that somethign of what he proposes may come about as 'natural solutions to problems'.
