Hayek and Ostrom are both obviously from their era. Hayek born in the reign of Victoria who taught in WW1 and Ostrom born during the Great Depression so both have been influenced by poverty and war. Baby boomers of the 60s have different views and drive Capitalism without the social side thought by both scholars. So we have all now further and added experiences. An analysis that reaches no clear and obvious result that turns into facts is just an analysis. So we must take older views with the knowledge of now and the use of hindsight. As for Growth and the understanding of growth is in my view still unclear. What is growth? Growth of GDP? growth of wealth? Growth of capital? Growth of population? Growth of borrowing, (bearing in mind GDP figures go up with borrowing) Growth of the stock market? Growth of wages? Growth of prices? Growth of profits? Or what I think it should and really mean in political economic terms is growth if tax revenue or tax take? There is nothing liberal in the capitalist views of the baby boomers who now see that disability benefits which were acceptable just a few months ago are now deemed as too much because they are looking at the bottom line and class non workers as a cost too far to that need to balance the books and borrow less to keep their capital stake. I am neither a capitalist nor a liberal nor a communist nor a socialist. Pigeon holes are like having analysis without answers, useless. Facts are the basis for reason. Democracy which is not always democratic, is the best we have and laws are the best we have to organise the framework. If you accept that then you have to accept fairness and equality of all. And politicians should snd must think of all whilst in charge. To that end we need an economy fit for purpose and fit for all. Just because you have a job and work doesn’t automatically mean you are a good person within that framework. Do you point the finger of blame in benefit recipients is wrong, unfair, unequal and deluded. All benefits recipients pay their way. They pay taxes, vat, duty, council tax etc. and their spending contributes to profits and GDP. Indeed the public sector pay for the profits of the private sector! Without both nothing gets done! It’s not one or the other it’s all people within a democracy spending their income however it comes. Pension companies wouldn’t work without the money from the public and private sector for example. It’s not about pigeon holes! It’s about money! And we have seen and learned it works well for a few and not well for the majority. And badly for the poor, old, infirm, disabled, unemployed and the unemployable! A minority but a contributor more than the mega rich who pay no tax on money unspent and unused! None!! You get taxed when money is spent but nothing when nothing is held on to! There is the problem for our democratic fair lawful and equal society. It’s not fair or democratic that the few rich can hold on to most of our money for too long sometimes centuries, without paying any tax! Those on benefits pay all taxes because they spend all their money. And let’s face it income tax and NI isn’t paid by the worker employee. They are paid by the employer! Spending on the wages of the worker. Do we the taxpayer are not just the workers. It’s all those who work or not. They pay the same pro rata of income, and those spending all their income each month pay all their taxes! But the few rich are allowed to keep their indecent unused money without paying any taxes for years. Making the majority devoid of it. Wealth should be based on the product if spending not the money itself and there is the reform needed. We gave computer digital electronic systems now. So use them! Re introduce exchange control. Let hoods glow accrues borders but not the money! We need it! Do analysis us ok but answers that work based on our basic rights are the utopia. You won’t find that in the book!
I too have read this book. Socialists used to talk about the overthrow, or at least the dismantling of the capitalist system. These days, the left no longer speaks of capitalism, preferring to use the term neoliberalism instead. Yes, I agree Anthony Evans – it’s basically the same thing. Monbiot and Hutchinson seem to label all and sundry as proponents of neoliberalism. So they also include a number of politicians on the left such as Bill Clinton, Barak Obama and Tony Blair as neoliberals. Basically, anyone who doesn’t accept their idiosyncratic definition and discourse of the ills of capitalism is a neoliberal. Having given themselves such a huge target to shoot at: they cannot possibly miss. It’s a kind of self-fulling circular argument.
Hayek and Ostrom are both obviously from their era. Hayek born in the reign of Victoria who taught in WW1 and Ostrom born during the Great Depression so both have been influenced by poverty and war. Baby boomers of the 60s have different views and drive Capitalism without the social side thought by both scholars. So we have all now further and added experiences. An analysis that reaches no clear and obvious result that turns into facts is just an analysis. So we must take older views with the knowledge of now and the use of hindsight. As for Growth and the understanding of growth is in my view still unclear. What is growth? Growth of GDP? growth of wealth? Growth of capital? Growth of population? Growth of borrowing, (bearing in mind GDP figures go up with borrowing) Growth of the stock market? Growth of wages? Growth of prices? Growth of profits? Or what I think it should and really mean in political economic terms is growth if tax revenue or tax take? There is nothing liberal in the capitalist views of the baby boomers who now see that disability benefits which were acceptable just a few months ago are now deemed as too much because they are looking at the bottom line and class non workers as a cost too far to that need to balance the books and borrow less to keep their capital stake. I am neither a capitalist nor a liberal nor a communist nor a socialist. Pigeon holes are like having analysis without answers, useless. Facts are the basis for reason. Democracy which is not always democratic, is the best we have and laws are the best we have to organise the framework. If you accept that then you have to accept fairness and equality of all. And politicians should snd must think of all whilst in charge. To that end we need an economy fit for purpose and fit for all. Just because you have a job and work doesn’t automatically mean you are a good person within that framework. Do you point the finger of blame in benefit recipients is wrong, unfair, unequal and deluded. All benefits recipients pay their way. They pay taxes, vat, duty, council tax etc. and their spending contributes to profits and GDP. Indeed the public sector pay for the profits of the private sector! Without both nothing gets done! It’s not one or the other it’s all people within a democracy spending their income however it comes. Pension companies wouldn’t work without the money from the public and private sector for example. It’s not about pigeon holes! It’s about money! And we have seen and learned it works well for a few and not well for the majority. And badly for the poor, old, infirm, disabled, unemployed and the unemployable! A minority but a contributor more than the mega rich who pay no tax on money unspent and unused! None!! You get taxed when money is spent but nothing when nothing is held on to! There is the problem for our democratic fair lawful and equal society. It’s not fair or democratic that the few rich can hold on to most of our money for too long sometimes centuries, without paying any tax! Those on benefits pay all taxes because they spend all their money. And let’s face it income tax and NI isn’t paid by the worker employee. They are paid by the employer! Spending on the wages of the worker. Do we the taxpayer are not just the workers. It’s all those who work or not. They pay the same pro rata of income, and those spending all their income each month pay all their taxes! But the few rich are allowed to keep their indecent unused money without paying any taxes for years. Making the majority devoid of it. Wealth should be based on the product if spending not the money itself and there is the reform needed. We gave computer digital electronic systems now. So use them! Re introduce exchange control. Let hoods glow accrues borders but not the money! We need it! Do analysis us ok but answers that work based on our basic rights are the utopia. You won’t find that in the book!
I too have read this book. Socialists used to talk about the overthrow, or at least the dismantling of the capitalist system. These days, the left no longer speaks of capitalism, preferring to use the term neoliberalism instead. Yes, I agree Anthony Evans – it’s basically the same thing. Monbiot and Hutchinson seem to label all and sundry as proponents of neoliberalism. So they also include a number of politicians on the left such as Bill Clinton, Barak Obama and Tony Blair as neoliberals. Basically, anyone who doesn’t accept their idiosyncratic definition and discourse of the ills of capitalism is a neoliberal. Having given themselves such a huge target to shoot at: they cannot possibly miss. It’s a kind of self-fulling circular argument.