Economics

Trump, Brexit and gradualism

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/07/2018 - 6:58pm in

Tags 

Economics

Might I equate Trump and Brexit? Some will, I am sure, be deeply offended if I do. But I am going to, anyway.

I am not going to point out that almost everyone genuinely pleased to see Trump in the UK this week campaigned for Leave.

Nor will I mention the Russian connection.

Or, even, the mistrust of trade deals, which simply makes May’s hopes for the visit look like pure folly.

Instead I want to talk about things that are much more serious, like trust, communication, relationships, and the process of change. Those, and the importance of knowing where you are going, of course.

I claim no special expertise in the issues of which I write. My only qualification in them is sixty years of experience negotiating what life has had to throw at me, not all of which has been what I might have desired. Well, it's that coupled with a desire that I can only guess was born in me to not leave the world the way I found it because I sensed when quite young that for some, at least, this world was deeply unfair. For the last fifteen years or so I have pretty much dedicated my career to effecting a process of change.

It can, of course, also be said that Brexit and Trump are dedicated to change. I admit they wish for change that I am not motivated by. Whereas I believe in change likely to be of benefit to anyone, regardless of their situation, it is very clear that in their own ways Trump and Brexit promise change in the interests of certain, and I think, rather narrow interest groups. Our philosophies are clearly not matched. But it is process that I am most interested in this morning.

It is a gross summary, but one that works well enough to make it useful, to say that there are two processes for effecting change. There is radical, revolutionary, change. And there is the alternative of taking things gradually. Political causes of all persuasions have tried both. There is no political reason, per se, to say one is to be preferred to the other based on precedent alone. But they have very different consequences. And, rare moments apart, there is a choice between them at some stage in a planned political process.

I am, of course, assuming there is a planned political process. It is a big assumption because it presupposes thought. And thinking is rare. As a public figure  I greatly respect said to me in an email yesterday ‘We need more thinkers doing more thinking…’. I could not agree more. But let’s assume there has been thinking even if the evidence for that is increasingly hard to find in the case of either Brexit or Trump. What characterises both would seem to be the absence of a well worked out plan prior to gaining power. I will then substitute the goal of favouring a few within a nation as ‘the plan’. If that is done we can assume that this condition is met.

So what then? To achieve change how is it best effected? Is gradual reform better than revolution, or vice versa?

It fair to say that I am a gradualist. I think it equally fair to say Trump and the Hard Brexiteers are not. But let’s not assume the difference is politics. Many Lexiteers are happy with Hard Brexit for reasons entirely different from those of Jacob Rees-Mogg. I make the point deliberately: process and politics are not the same. The differences in approach are instead threefold, I suggest.

First, there is the issue of consent. There will never be universal consent to change. It is absurd to think that possible. Some are simply pathologically opposed to all change, almost as a matter of principle in itself. Others, cannot handle the stress its unfamiliarity creates. Others will withhold consent because they do not like what is happening and do not approve of its motivation. These are realities. But that does not mean change cannot happen. Nor does it even mean that change in the interest of all is not possible. It simply means that a process of winning consent has to be engaged in. Sudden, and imposed, change does not meet that criteria. Nor do radical changes of direction that alienate substantial numbers assist that process. In fact, it endangers it. That is why the referendum was so dangerous; its threshold was too low, and the process of both claiming it was absolute and irreversible was so alienating. Consent is won and not imposed. Gradualism works.

Second, there is the fact that even if change within some sphere of influence is possible the chance to change the whole world at once rarely, if ever exists. Trotsky might have wanted world revolution and I hate to disappoint those who remain true believers, but the chances of any such thing happening remain remote. Post any revolution there will be large parts of the world, including most of it beyond the immediate epicentre of radical reform, that will be remarkably unchanged by what has happened. And revolutionaries might find that if they attempt to impose change on them the kickback might be more than enough to undermine the advantages they think they have won.

And third, there is the desire for success to be sustained. Because nothing in life ever works out quite as planned, revolutions included, mechanisms without adequate feedback loops that allow for adaptation in the light of experience have low chances of success. By definition such feedback loops and the process of change that they require are gradual. That means revolutions have inbuilt features that make them less likely to work.

Put this together and Brexit is not working, as is obvious.

And nor is Trump'ss aggression working.

That is because both are built on aggression, separation, and a sense of entitlement that alienate at almost every imaginable level.

The sense of progress that they might initially create is then, illusory.

And that is why I have little time for the revolutionary approach.

I also happen to think that the lack of consent within the process (and a gerrymandered referendum is not an indication of consent) undermines the very process of fairness in which I believe. Don't get me wrong: I want change, including in the EU. But quite specifically seeking to impose this in one country that will have to co-exist,  with its immediate neighbours who are its former partners after a period of aggressive relations was never going to deliver the best proispect of sustainmable change.

There is a process for change.

It is thinking.

Followed by persuasion.

Followed by consensus building.

Followed by change.

Followed by feedback management.

Followed by review.

And new thought.

And throughout it all there has to be respect for difference, dialogue and accommodation of difference.

Politics has moved a very long way from this process, as Trump and Brexit prove.

We need to re-embrace it.

But first, as my correspondent said yesterday, we need more thinkers doing more thinking. That is where everything starts. And we have far too few people engaging in that process. We know where to start. But please, take your time.

Trade war is rattling the FT

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/07/2018 - 5:05pm in

Tags 

Economics

These are the headlines from an FT email this morning:

I'm not saying that the FT is necessarily rattled by Trump's trade war, but if they aren't, they're hiding it well.

And they should be. The track record of unreasoned Trump-style protectionism is desperately poor.

There are reasons why unfettered trade is not necessarily a good thing. There are also reasons why we might wish to slow trade. We may even be better off if we do. But trade war in mistaken national interests is just economic warfare without ulterior, let alone superior, motive. And we all have a right to be concerned about that.

Democratic socialism: We already know it works

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/07/2018 - 9:48pm in

This piece was originally published on Patreon

For the first time since its inception, socialism is not a dirty word.

And try as they might to compromise its integrity, critics know they are unable to address the concept on its merits, because democratic socialism offers policies most people would actually vote for, epitomised by the success of Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and the election of Lopez Obrador in Mexico.

So they are forced to resort to the same old play book of character assassination and class warfare and spurious allegations.

body[data-twttr-rendered="true"] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

function notifyResize(height) {height = height ? height : document.documentElement.offsetHeight; var resized = false; if (window.donkey && donkey.resize) {donkey.resize(height); resized = true;}if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var obj = {iframe: window.frameElement, height: height}; parent._resizeIframe(obj); resized = true;}if (window.location && window.location.hash === "#amp=1" && window.parent && window.parent.postMessage) {window.parent.postMessage({sentinel: "amp", type: "embed-size", height: height}, "*");}if (window.webkit && window.webkit.messageHandlers && window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize) {window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize.postMessage(height); resized = true;}return resized;}twttr.events.bind('rendered', function (event) {notifyResize();}); twttr.events.bind('resize', function (event) {notifyResize();});if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var maxWidth = parseInt(window.frameElement.getAttribute("width")); if ( 500 < maxWidth) {window.frameElement.setAttribute("width", "500");}}

But too few of us really understand what democratic socialism is, though at least three generations have lived through one form of it or another. Yet we have come to lazily accept those ‘better days’ as the best capitalism had to offer.

The great irony is that the prosperity that transformed America and its allies into robust first-world nations is owed not to capitalism, but to democratic socialism whose policies, (though not without their flaws), helped shape the better part of the 19th and 20th centuries. But we’ll get to that shortly.

What is socialism?

Socialism is not what occurs when all industry is owned by the state, that’s communism.

True socialism is when workers own the means of production. It is the co-op model for the global economy. It opposes private profits and believes that private ownership constrains economic planning and leads to irrational decision making that concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a small minority.

Put simply, if the work you do results in profits for the company that employs you, you should be entitled to a share of those profits. When all workers hold some kind of equity in their own employment, companies and businesses are structured democratically where all staff are involved in operational decision making and there is greater incentive for productivity and efficiency. Socialism gives workers proverbial skin in the game. Work is no longer just a job that people can punch in and out of, but an investment in their own financial futures.

But democratic socialism doesn’t even go that far, embracing a public / private ownership model to guarantee full employment.

And, as I have written before, it rightly acknowledges the role of government as the private sector’s bank and offers corporate incentives like tax cuts and subsidies if it supports business and employment. (The private sector has been enjoying the benefits of corporate socialism for years. Yet somehow it objects when they are directed towards workers and households).

What is democratic socialism?

Democratic socialism believes that employment, education and health care are a universal human right, along with the right to organise into unions. It recognises there are significant conflicts of interest in the way the global economy is currently structured.

It advocates for full employment and the right to meaningful work that covers the basic costs of living.

It opposes the use of gender and racial discrimination, coercion, brutality and violence to defend the status quo.

It believes in the responsibility of government to plan economies to ensure sustainable employment, and an equitable distribution of resources in a way that ensures a basic quality of life for the greatest number of people. (Besides which, real democratic socialism recognises that the wealthy needn’t pay a cent more in tax to ensure that, to quote Ocasio-Cortez, “nobody should be too poor to live”).

It recognises the existence of an ever fragmenting class system and advocates for policy that address the gross inequality that pervades the current economic order of, to paraphrase journalist Elliot Gabriel, “monopoly-finance and surveillance capitalism, commodifying and intruding into every aspect of existence.”

This is not a new or radical concept. In fact, much of the developed world has benefited greatly from democratic socialism since at least the end of WWII.

Democratic socialism: We already know it works

The thing is, we already know democratic socialism works. Our parents, grand-parents and great-grandparents were all beneficiaries of its policies, before they pulled the proverbial drawbridge up behind them. Social Security. Medicare. The minimum wage. All the result of democratic socialism. The New Deal was a form of democratic socialism, (but in order for it to pass Congress, it was legally structured to exclude African Americans and other minorities, Roosevelt’s unforgivable concession to the South).

Post-War public spending & job guarantees across the US, UK and Australia. Women’s suffrage. The Voting Rights Act. The right to form unions and job programs for the unemployed:

Democratic. Socialism.

These things all helped to create and enrich the middle class, without which we would still be mired in Great Depression style living standards.

Whether they know it or not, white America has long been the beneficiary of democratic socialism, while the rest of the country, and the world, has been forced to live off its table scraps. Perhaps the wave of white supremacist sentiment sweeping the globe can be interpreted as the white middle class being forced to confront for the first time, a significant decline in living standards that most of us have long been accustomed to.

Yet, instead of recognising they have been lumped in with the rest of us, too many conservatives, Trump supporters and out-and-out racists have the audacity to blame immigrants, black people, women, the LGBTIQA and ‘political correctness’ for their economic dispossession instead of recognising that the system was always designed to put workers at a disadvantage, and the remnants of the white middle class are simply its latest victims. Welcome to the real world.

One would hope that, despite our political differences, instead of turning on each other, we should all be aiming our vitriol and discontent at the system itself, and those whose deliberate acts of legislation has led to what anthropologist, professor David Graeber describes as “managerial feudalism”: a system so precarious and with so few rights for workers that it has forced upon us a great compliance.

Graeber argues that the very structure of the job market is a long-standing political project and form of social control that systematically extracts wealth and resources, channeling it to the barons of industry, creating a permanent pool of unemployed that it makes alternative employment so difficult to come by that it keeps workers just insecure enough that they cannot rebel either against government or the conditions of their employment. (And thus, we turn on each other, instead).

The greatest trick late stage capitalism has ever played, is convincing the public it has always been this way. But in reality, over the last 30–40 years we have witnessed the great dismantling of the democratic socialist state, and watched as it was slowly replaced by financialisation and corporatocracy.

We are only just beginning to see the true nature of capitalism as more than half of America’s population now lives below the poverty line, while the underclass in the UK and Australia continue to grow.

Millennials may not remember — or even have been alive for — the last drops of prosperity that trickled through the 80s and 90s. Regardless, it is young people that are now driving the engine of democratic socialism and are responsible for its growing popularity.

Many may not have been alive for the New Deal or post-war job guarantees, but millennials are the first generation to experience less prosperity than their parents, grand-parents, or great-grandparents.

We have lived through the privatisation of schools and publicly owned assets. Older millennials have lived through two major financial crises, and two Gulf Wars. We’ve seen the cost of basic health care become prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of our communities. We know it’s harder now than almost during any other time in history to find a full time job, and even if we’re lucky enough to hold one down, it’s unlikely to cover the cost of living and thus requires us to plunge ourselves into ever more debt just to keep the lights and heat on.

As I mentioned before, democratic socialism is not a new concept. Government once existed to serve the needs of the great majority. Finally, it seems more of us are coming to the conclusion that if it was good enough for our grandparents, and it’s good enough for the private sector, then it’s good enough for the rest of us.

Thank you for reading. I couldn’t afford to continue my research, or write this book, were it not for the support of my generous sponsors. Support independent journalism, sponsor me on Patreon, starting at $3 a month, or throw some money at my PayPal.

Democratic socialism: We already know it works was originally published in Hello Humans on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Renewables statistics realities

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/07/2018 - 8:16am in

Tags 

Economics

These average capacity multipliers will also multiply total costs of ensuring reliable power even as $/MWh renewables generation costs fall.

What are axiomatizations good for?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/07/2018 - 3:55am in

Tags 

Economics

Axiomatic decision theory was pioneered in the early 20th century by Ramsey (1926) and de Finetti (1931,1937), and achieved remarkable success in shaping economic theory … A remarkable amount of economic research is now centered around axiomatic models of decision … What have these axiomatizations done for us lately? What have we gained from them? […]

The core problem with ‘New Keynesian’ macroeconomics

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2018 - 7:51pm in

Tags 

Economics

Whereas the Great Depression of the 1930s produced Keynesian economics, and the stagflation of the 1970s produced Milton Friedman’s monetarism, the Great Recession has produced no similar intellectual shift. This is deeply depressing to young students of economics, who hoped for a suitably challenging response from the profession. Why has there been none? Krugman’s answer […]

Book Review: Economics for the Common Good by Jean Tirole

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/07/2018 - 8:43pm in

In Economics for the Common Good, Jean Tirole – a winner of the Nobel Prize in  Economics – engages with some of the most pressing economic issues, ranging from regulation to digital economies to finance. The intellectual breadth of the book is impressive, write Joel Krupa and Peter Urmetzer, and its accessible approach will likely spark sound and thoughtful debate on economic questions for specialists and general readers alike. 

Economics for the Common Good. Jean Tirole (trans. by Stephen Randall). Princeton University Press. 2017.

Find this book: amazon-logo

Economics – that seemingly impenetrable mix of mathematical wizardry and eye-glazing theorising – has long appeared wholly inaccessible to the majority of the public (and even, it might be added, many members of the intelligentsia). Its roots were remarkably readable – for example, founding father Adam Smith was more moral philosopher than quantitative analyst – but the modern generalist reader is unlikely to tread far into the numerical top journals. And yet, this is not how it has to be. Economics is vital – it teaches us about how people act, how systems of collaboration can function better and how to maximise production of the goods that can contribute to human (and, hopefully, non-human animal) welfare. It should be widely read and understood by the citizenry, as economic choices made by leaders affect everyone on a daily basis.

Alas, the nature of academic inquiry is such that deep technical expertise in a narrow area is more likely to be rewarded than broad interdisciplinary knowledge creation that benefits the public. In such a situation, it is worth asking if a useful, topical and engaging starter text exists that could spark sound and thoughtful debate on economic questions among interested generalists. Readers of an often-engrossing recent book entitled Economics for the Common Good will likely answer this question in the affirmative. Author Jean Tirole, a Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences, has published a text that deals with some of the most pressing issues with which non-specialists can familiarise themselves. The book is a joy to read, for even with his illustrious credentials, Tirole is candid and self-deprecating, avoiding the (understandable) temptation to hold himself in annoyingly high esteem.

Divided neatly into a series of chapters, each of which is self-contained – indeed, Tirole explicitly states that each can be read in isolation – there is something here for everyone. From regulation (the conceptual matter underpinning Tirole’s Nobel for analysis of market power and regulation) to the nature of digital economies to the role of finance, Tirole’s intellectual breadth and ability to synthesise are impressive. He shows how incentives drive so many actions – and how we can harness them for the good.

Image Credit: (ijclark CC BY 2.0)

It is this theme of incentives that drives many of the book’s points. Tirole puts forward that:

economic agents react to incentives, some of which derive from the social groups to which they belong: they are influenced by social norms; they yield to conformism and fashions, construct multiple identities, behave gregariously, are influenced by the individuals with whom they are directly or indirectly connected in social networks, and tend to think like just [sic] other members of their communities.

Given that anchor, he is wonderfully clear-eyed on how best to address climate change: namely, a uniform carbon price that does not allow for free riders. He is thoughtful on the role of much-vilified politicians, noting that they are rarely malicious fools, but rather agents reacting to the incentives with which they have been provided. And he is frank about the prospects of issues associated with labour laws (especially in his home country of France) that are poorly adapted to the twenty-first-century economy – again, incentives.

The chapter on the European Union (EU) is one of the most enlightening, particularly when taking into consideration Tirole’s call for a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach to solving problems. Economic decisions that involve groups are qualitatively different from those that comprise individual market transactions, and country-wide economic decisions cannot be understood without the context of fields such as politics. Sound policymaking is often crowded out by vested interests, powerful lobbies and the inertia of established institutions loathe to share or relinquish power, and the EU appears to be unmanageable because of its vast size and complexity. Uniform economic practices across disparate countries, such as the sharing of a common monetary policy coupled with national fiscal policy, may work to the advantage of some countries while damaging others. This is apparent with a prosperous Northern Europe and a struggling South (Greece and Portugal in particular), as given the unavailability of essential domestic policy tools (such as currency devaluation), the EU puts economically strapped countries into a bind that at times appears beyond repair. Nevertheless, Tirole is somewhat sanguine about the eventual outcome of the EU political union – even as he sees notable challenges ahead.

Careful readers may find bits and pieces to quibble over. For example, Tirole’s assertion that ‘more than any other social science, economics claims to be normative; it aspires to change the world’ will sure raise the ire of anthropologists, sociologists and others with a critical or social justice bent. (To be fair, Tirole is no economics exceptionalist: he also contends that ‘anthropology, law, economics, history, philosophy, psychology, political science, and sociology are really one discipline, because their subjects of study are the same: the same people, groups, and organizations.’)

Elsewhere, one of your reviewers (an energy scholar) was a bit perplexed by some looseness in the analysis of the macroeconomic challenge of climate change. For example, Tirole mistakenly refers to Alberta’s oil sands as oil shale (a seemingly inconsequential error that actually refers to profoundly geologically different energy sources), and he blasts support for Germany’s subsidisation of solar photovoltaics (a confusing contention when cross-compared with his later support for price digressions, which were hugely helped by the generous German willingness to help foot the initial bill). Finally, time-constrained readers may frown on the extensive use of a notes section at the end of the book. These provide helpful further information, but are frustrating to access.

Tirole’s solutions are all perfectly sensible, at least on paper – with the primary shortcoming being that they require the cooperation of politicians, industry and the public. The problem, then, is not so much with the solutions, but how to persuade various actors to act accordingly. This merely highlights Tirole’s earlier observations that a) all people react to incentives; and b) academic disciplines, including economics, must ultimately be more interdisciplinary in their approach, for no single discipline can lay claim to all the answers.

Joel Krupa is a member of the University of Toronto’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, and holds degrees from the University of Oxford, the London School of Economics and the University of British Columbia. He has held visiting research fellowships from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and Imperial College Business School. He has several years of strategic advisory experience in the private sector (real asset development, consulting and technology), and spent a year crafting policy in a government role. He has presented on various energy issues at many conferences and events across North America, and has conducted analyses on energy issues from four different continents. Read more by Joel Krupa.

Peter Urmetzer is an associate professor of Sociology in the Department of History and Sociology at UBC’s Okanagan campus in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.

Note: This review gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 


Is it time for a coalition to save the UK?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/07/2018 - 4:26pm in

Tags 

Economics

I suggested lasr Thursday that there would be resignations and was quite surprised to find that by Saturday morning there were none. But I just had to wait. Now David Davis and his team have flounced out. It is hard to see how Johnson and Gove stay in that case; I have a suspicion this is not the end of May’s crisis.

And crisis it is. At least twenty per cent of her MPs will now actively want her gone. The rest will offer support only because, quite extraordinarily, she  is the best option they have.

May’s government has finished can kicking. Whatever happens Davis proves that the option of compromise with Brexiteers has come to the end of its useful life. Now she has to say what she wants or other options have to be looked at.

And this has to be done with a 29 March deadline in mind. Which means waiting for a September general election looks like a decidedly time consuming choice. But does she have an alternative? And would any new leader have any other choice?

On the greatest issue of the day the largest party in Parliament is hopelessly divided and effectively unable to govern.

And the opposition is not in possession of a plan that comes remotely near solving the problem, which only ‘Norway plus’ does.

A general election appears essential and yet also hopelessly inadequate as a solution when neither main party appears remotely capable of facing the current political reality.

I am not asking that we remain in the EU.

But I am asking for a little recognition from left and right that the U.K. is not, right now, in a place where most people want to compromise much of its well being for political experiments outside any recognisable international  framework for trade when, to put it bluntly, the reforms we need and require are possible within a Norway plus style agreement.

But who will say so, the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid apart?

Maybe they should be talking about an active alliance to preserve the U.K.,  which would be pretty paradoxical for nationalist parties. But right now the strange has to happen.

Paul Krugman: Nobel Prize or Academy Award?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/07/2018 - 10:46am in

Tags 

Economics

By Nicholas Gruen I recently criticised contemporary economics in a speech launching Max Corden’s memoirs. Economic theory threatens to become a Tower of Babel, preoccupied with the world within its models and irrelevant to policy. This has […]

The post Paul Krugman: Nobel Prize or Academy Award? appeared first on Evonomics.

Shameless Tory Press Continues to Promote the Policies That Are Killing the Health Service

This year is the 70th anniversary of the greatest achievement of Clement Atlee’s government: the creation of the NHS. This was to be a system of socialised medicine, which was to be universal and free at the point of delivery. And the Tory right has hated it ever since.

The BBC has been commemorating the NHS’s birth with a series of programmes, including A People’s History of the NHS. The series’ name recalls the book, A People’s History of the United States, which looked at the history of the US from the point of view of ordinary Americans, including women, Blacks and other minorities, who have had to struggle to gain their freedoms, rather than the elite White men who framed the Constitution. These last were rich patricians, who feared real American democracy because it would lead to attacks on their privileged social position. Needless to say, the book has not been popular with Republicans.

At the same time, the NHS is in acute crisis due to the massive funding cuts inflicted by Cameron’s and Tweezer’s Tory administrations. Tweezer has declared that she will put so many billions into the NHS by 2022, but her estimations still fall short of what is actually required. Besides, regarding the NHS, the Tories cannot be trusted on anything. Remember how David Cameron promised he was going to ringfence NHS spending so that it would not be affected by his austerity programme? The first thing he did when he got in No. 10 was wind up his campaign against Labour’s hospital closures, starting closing them himself, and cut funding to the NHS. And then resume the Thatcherite programme of dismantling it through piecemeal privatisation.

So what has been the attitude of the Tory press to the current NHS crisis? Well, the Spectator, Telegraph and various other right-wing rags have decided to go on as usual, promoting the same policies that are destroying this most precious of British institutions. They’ve declared that extra money isn’t needed, just more cuts to eliminate waste, and that rather than the Tories reforms destroying it, they’re needed more than ever.

Neither is remotely true. The cuts imposed by the Tories have manifestly not led to any improvements. The only thing they have done is lifted the tax burden for the extremely rich. At the same time, the privatisations the Tories and their predecessor, New Labour, have insisted upon have not increased efficiency either. They’ve actually led to closures of hospitals and GPs’ surgeries as the private companies running them have sought to increase their profits. Far from being more efficient, private healthcare is actually more expensive and wasteful than state healthcare, as private firms have advertising and legal departments and must show a profit for their shareholders. Private hospitals, whatever Jeremy Hunt may rave about them, are typically smaller than their NHS counterparts. About forty percent of the expenditure in private healthcare firms may be in administration, a much higher percentage than that of the nationalised NHS.

Private healthcare is wasteful and inefficient. Which is why the Tory and New Labour businessmen and politicos with links to it want to remove the NHS and give private medicine instead state support.

And those voices, demanding that the NHS be privatised through more free market reforms, are shouting in the Speccie and Torygraph. And I’ve noticed that these are the pieces that are being reprinted in the I’s opinion matrix column, which selects pieces from elsewhere in the press. To my knowledge, the column has not included any newspaper pieces demanding that the NHS be renationalised. Because that’s one of Corbyn’s dreadful Trotskyite policies, obviously.

This shows the real contempt the hacks and management at both the Spectator and the Torygraph, as well as the other Conservative rags that share their views on NHS reform, have for the people of this country. They want the NHS to be privatised, and so British people’s health to suffer catastrophically, just to create more profits for the private healthcare firms, on whose boards they serve, and give more tax cuts to the already obscenely rich, while the poor are forced further into poverty.

Get them out, and Corbyn in for a government that really cares about the NHS.

Pages