Monday, 25 May 2015

And STILL they don't get it...

From here.
"The favourite for the leadership even defined the word, saying that it was about “giving every single person the dream of a better life, about helping all of our businesses, small and large, to get on and grow”.

Everyone already has a 'dream for a better' life.  But what you do, you utter bunch of twerps, is take away that dream.  They cannot get away from the mindset that everyone 'needs help'. They don't.

Then 'helping business'. I can tell you absolutely they only businesses that 'need help' are those that are either
(a) not viable,
(b) seeking crony advantage or
(c) just looking to consolidate their rent seeking.
What proper businesses want is for you go right away and leave us well alone.

Just what part of 'fuck off' don't you understand?

36 comments:

Random said...

It’s time to stop being ‘pro-business’ and start being ‘pro-market’.

– If you’re pro-market then you remove power and size differentials wherever they may be to ensure competition is allowed to work.

– If you’re pro-market then you ensure that everybody has an alternative job offer open to them via a Job Guarantee, ensuring there is always competition for labour resources.

– If you’re pro-market you address monopolies and rentier issues to ensure that resources are always fully utilised and available at the best prices.

‘pro-business’ people take the opposite view on these points.

Business needs to be treated as cattle not pets. They are looked after and farmed for what the output they provide, but if they stop doing that then they are culled to avoid wasting resources better used by others.

Lola said...

R. It's called 'free enterprise' and it does all you say, automatically.

Except the 'job guarantee bit. Which is bollocks.

Random said...

L, it is better to have an alternative job than labour market regulations. We can either use unemployed or employed buffer stocks, I prefer employed.

Lola said...

R If they are 'employed' they can not 'buffer stocks' now can they?

To repeat, all that is sorted out by free markets, including employment.

Random said...

L, I don't think you have seen the Job Guarantee basics:
"The Government operates a buffer stock of jobs to absorb workers who are unable to find employment in the private sector. The pool expands (declines) when private sector activity declines (expands). The JG fulfills this absorption function to minimise the costs associated with the flux of the economy. So the government continuously absorbs into employment, workers displaced from the private sector.
The “buffer stock” employees would be paid the minimum wage, which defines a wage floor for the economy. Government employment and spending automatically increases (decreases) as jobs are lost (gained) in the private sector.
The JG works on the “buffer stock” principle. Recall the Wool Floor Price Scheme introduced by the Commonwealth Government of Australia in November 1970. The scheme was relatively simple and worked by the Government establishing a floor price for wool after hearing submissions from the Wool Council of Australia and the Australian Wool Corporation (AWC).
The Government then guaranteed that the price would not fall below that level by using the AWC to purchase stocks of wool in the auction markets if demand was low and selling it if demand was high. So by being prepared to hold “buffer wool stocks” in low demand and release it again in times of high demand the government was able to guarantee incomes for the farmers.
However, with some lateral thinking you can easily see that what the Wool Floor Price Scheme generated was “full employment” for wool! If the Government fixed the price that it was prepared to pay and then was willing to buy all the wool up to that price then you have an equivalent scheme.
This works just the same for labour resources – just unconditionally offer to buy all labour at a stated fixed wage and you create full employment. What should that wage be?"

Random said...

"To repeat, all that is sorted out by free markets, including employment."
This seems like wishful thinking. Do you believe, lots of workers decided to simultaneously quit their jobs in 2008?
Firms have to be able to hire and fire workers at will and this will lead to "frictional" unemployment as people move between jobs. In addition, there if there a lack of demand
The free market literature says there is a "natural rate" of unemployment and has an approach called NAIRU. In fact, right-libertarian governments in the 1970s and 1980s deliberately created unemployment "to control inflation."

Random said...

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30947
Here is some evidence questioning the mainstream view.

Lola said...

R. "Do you believe, lots of workers decided to simultaneously quit their jobs in 2008? Nope. But then those jobs went because they were the product of unfree markets. They were never 'real' jobs.

Lola said...

R @ 15.40. What a load of interventionist old bollocks that is.

Random said...

L, there was a lot of 'collateral damage.' Plus we can argue over what constitutes 'real jobs' but there are these swings in demand (not always caused by land bubbles.)

Random said...

"What a load of interventionist old bollocks that is."
The wool scheme probably - but it is just an analogy.
I don't see how. The unemployed are ALREADY in the public sector. There is already "intervention" - I don't see why giving them jobs will be a bad idea - the government is buying off the bottom. And yes it may lead to some crappy jobs being competed away in the private sector - but that is kind of the point.

Random said...

"They were never 'real' jobs."
Ah, but who are you L to say what are 'real jobs.'
The Groupthink is Marginal Utilitarianism. That is why they only ever talk in monetary terms. Because of course price is value in their minds, so you never need to talk about real things.

Once you start talking about real things, the illusion falls apart. Which is more valuable? A nurse in the NHS or a derivative trader.
I have a small wager on what most people will say is more valuable and more important to keep in a job.
Just because someone is paid more does not mean they are worth more.

Random said...

"because they were the product of unfree markets."
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/the-legend-of-the-free-labour-market/
There is never going to be "free markets" in labour - if you ban "voluntary slavery" (see nutjob Epstein), that is an intervention.
We can try to create perfect "free markets" or we can take people as they are. An alternative job offer at the living wage will eliminate unemployment and compete away crappy buisnesses. Then if the jobs have social value they will be added to JG. We have to purge obsolete skills somehow.

The Stigler said...

Government has as far as I can see, always utterly failed industry. We have raised the number of graduates, but we have no more comp sci graduates than we did in the 80s. The Dti are just about running crappy schemes. Adult education (like evening classes) is an absolute joke. Government has piled regulation on regulation on business.

At least Thatcher and Major understood it couldn't pick winners, so tried to get out of the way.

Random said...

"We have raised the number of graduates, but we have no more comp sci graduates than we did in the 80s. The Dti are just about running crappy schemes. Adult education (like evening classes) is an absolute joke. Government has piled regulation on regulation on business."
Totally agreed.

Lola said...

R Old son. You've got this massively confused.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Agreed.

I agree with "giving a few people who would otherwise be completely on their arse a better life" but "everybody"?

paulc156 said...

R, I re read that post you referred to on 'the-legend-of-the-free-labour-market' and it makes the point quite convincingly that the idea about there ever being a 'free market' in something as fundamental and basic as labour is laughably fanciful. Not once in the history from feudalism to the present day have we had such a market. that's not to say it could not possibly work better than what we have now but then Marxists can justifiably claim that we have never had anything remotely Marxist [yawn, yeh especially not the Soviet Union] so perhaps that idea could be worth revisiting.
In both cases, Marxism and unadulterated free market fundamentalism, they are utopian and as such more akin to religion than anything, so best avoided.

Lola said...

P156 No such thing as 'free market fundamentalism'. Or perhaps there is if you string those words together. But it only describes what is now which is crony corporatism. What there is is 'Liberty'. Liberty is the value that underpins all other values. Now clearly once you go for a job you sacrifice some of your 'liberties', in the sense that you are doing someone else's bidding - for wages. So you have made a deal to give up some liberty for some wages. In fact all of us if we seek an income are someone else's servant - even landlords.

The trick is to ensure that you have the opportunity to leave that employer and go and work for someone else. And that opportunity, as has been demonstrated time and time again is best delivered by 'free markets'.

I do also hold that we are now living in a 'new feudalism' which depends on the horrible nexus of the land monopoly/rent seeking/bank mortgages/income tax/big government/cronyism all working together to enslave us a drones to the State and rent seekers. But that is by its very definition not 'free market'. And as the land/mortgage monopoly is the root of all this (along with the state monopoly of - bad - money) is why I am for LVT as the primary source of state revenue.

Bayard said...

"They cannot get away from the mindset that everyone 'needs help'. "

At least right wing paternalists admit they are paternalist.

Random said...

"The trick is to ensure that you have the opportunity to leave that employer and go and work for someone else. And that opportunity, as has been demonstrated time and time again is best delivered by 'free markets'."
L, I have no problem with free labour markets at all. It is just that not everyone has that opportunity - there are not enough jobs, leading to some unemployed. Having the government provide jobs at the living wage does not harm anyone's freedom - in fact, it increases it.

Random said...

L, there is no doubt competitive valuation (that is, 'free markets') is the best way of doing things in most circumstances. If you look at the link I posted above it shows the extent of government meddling in free markets in labour. I think the better way of doing things to ensure reasonable standards of living is via competition not policing. So I would repeal labour market regulations and implement an alternative job offer. This gives you the ability to say *no deal* INCREASING your freedom. I don't see how this concept is hard to grasp.
The other good thing about serious competition in the labour market is firms invest in training and automate away jobs. Also, with more job openings than workers, firms reduce discrimination as they can't choose to be picky and only hire people of a certain race for instance - significantly reducing discrimination.
'What there is is 'Liberty'. Liberty is the value that underpins all other values. Now clearly once you go for a job you sacrifice some of your 'liberties', in the sense that you are doing someone else's bidding - for wages. So you have made a deal to give up some liberty for some wages.'
Agreed - and the same thing happens with the JG. The point is the poor are in risk of becoming unemployed and have weak bargaining power - reducing their freedom, and firms have cheap labour so don't bother to invest in machinery and automate.
"root of all this (along with the state monopoly of - bad - money)"
Which is fine - but what do you propose as an alternative? The MMT proposals are 'good enough' for most people given the current nature of the currency monopoly.

Random said...

Mark Wadsworth
Have you seen Bill Mitchell's writings on the topic:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30759
How a JG would enhance the private sector.
Neil Wilson comment explaining job guarantee and free markets:
"That is fixed output thinking and is incorrect.
Consider this. If a hairdresser gets a queue, do they
a) work harder and longer to get the queue through the door and bank the extra profit.
b) close the shop and put up their prices until the queue goes down.
What happens of course is a). And if anybody tries to do b) then they get outcompeted by those doing a).
So if you have a market that makes b) stick then you should bring in the competition authorities to investigate the inevitable oligopoly and start breaking it up to increase competition.
So not only does the Job Guarantee increase demand and increase output, it also relieves the state of any consideration of whether a particular business should exist. And that means the state can return to its proper role – ensuring that markets deliver maximum output at best cost for consumers by holding the feet of business to the fire of competition."
JG increases competition and leads to better outcomes - so that is why it should be open to everybody. Plus it is kind of hard to restrict the JG.

Lola said...

R. Nope. You have this arse about face. There are 'always' jobs in the free market. Capitalism hates a vacuum.

Random said...

"Capitalism hates a vacuum."
L - you agree with Say's law/supply creates its own demand.
"There are 'always' jobs in the free market."
Which you assert as true and it could well be, but you have not provided evidence of this. Not very often is there full employment in capitalism. When govts attempted to create full employment in World War II to about the mid-1970s they did.
Most stuff is done by machine now - so we have the paradox of productivity - not all workers needed to produce output.
If I have this arse about face it is your job to remove the arse and let me see clearly!

Random said...

L, are you using classical economics? You should read Bill Mitchell's debunking -
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30947
This article (above) shows evidence that the theory is wrong. Bill Mitchell has written a PhD on this subject.
"Keynes and the classics": (long read)
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22354
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22454
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22492
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22505
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22583

Lola said...

R Oh dear. Who said I was saying that there would always be full employment? And what is actually meant by 'full employment'. Son, you really have got this all arse about face.

Random said...

"To repeat, all that is sorted out by free markets, including employment."
So I assumed that is what we are talking about.
Full employment = when everyone has a job (who wants one!)

Random said...

"The trick is to ensure that you have the opportunity to leave that employer and go and work for someone else. And that opportunity, as has been demonstrated time and time again is best delivered by 'free markets'."
But its not - there are unemployed!

Lola said...

R @ 15:51. Precisely. Because we do not have free markets.

Lola said...

R @ 15:48 Nope. Plenty of people will always at some time not have a job even though they want one. But are they 'unemployed', or are they seeking work? I ask again, define, precisely, 'unemployed'. Because if you can't you can't make the assumptions about there being 'unemployed'.

Random said...

L, there is frictional unemployment (moving between jobs) and long-term unemployment and many types.
The JG would practically eliminate unemployment (and underemployment, 'discouraged workers', etc.)
"Precisely. Because we do not have free markets."
OK I am skeptical of this, with perfect free markets. The Bill Mitchell links I have posted show that we are unlikely to have full employment and criticise the classical view.
Cuts in nominal wage will not necessarily reduce real wages, for one example. Or a serious demand shock outside the currency area will increase unemployment.
I am also skeptical of how you could create perfect free markets.

Lola said...

R. You don't create free markets. Markets are free, unless you intervene.so it's stopping intervening that returns freedom to markets. The more free we are - within the rule of law and with sound property rights - the better things get. Including employment.

Lola said...

R You are getting far too 'technical'. 'Friction', 'real wages', 'demand shock' ; these are just jargon. Stuff always happens. And the most successful way of dealing with stuff is 'laissez-faire' (let them do). Interventions by always ignorant central authorities trying to correct for this stuff happening always ends up in what I call a tank slapper. Oo er twice and you are in the barriers.

Random said...

Lola, I agree that generally the govt should leave us alone. The JG is funded by govt but ran by private sector:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/social-enterprise-sector-model-job-guarantee-u-s.html
The govt create unemployment, they should solve the problem they create! To not do so would be being complete bastards! If the govt taxes everyone 100 Lola's and has not issued any Lola's, then everyone is "unemployed."
"You are getting far too 'technical'. 'Friction', 'real wages', 'demand shock' "
OK sorry. 'Friction' is skills mismatch and the like, real wages is wages in comparison with inflation. For example, if the inflation rate is 5% and wage rise is 4%, 1% cut in real wages (about.) In the 1930s, wages were cut thinking labour was a commodity like any other. This resulted in deflation due to decline in spending by workers, so real wages stayed the same.

Random said...

http://heteconomist.com/an-end-to-boondoggling/
JG humour ;)