My last two blog items (on MoneyWeek’s “End of Britain” video/letter, discussing a US debt default and consequences for socialist revolution in Britain and it never being necessary to reduce the level of the national debt covered some arguments I’ve been having with a blogger called Martin Odoni (hstorm), who agrees with the analysis of Warren Mosler in his book “The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy“. The following is a short review, drawing on some of my economic knowledge as an ex-Marxist, posing some important questions for British economic perspectives and consequences for socialist revolution.
The above graph shows the UK national debt is now much lower than it has been in the 1940s relative to GDP, but the analysis of an “unorthodox post-Keynesian” economist, Warren Mosler in his book “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”, who once stood to be US President shows that a central bank (such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve) doesn’t need to pay back the national debt to anybody who has lent money to it even when gilts/bonds mature, because the money remains at the bank in a different account!
I first publish an article by Martin Odoni (hstorm) that I largely agreed with, after having big disagreements in comments of my post on MoneyWeek’s “The End of Britain” video/letter, and then added my own analysis, correcting the odd mistake…
UPDATE (31/10/13): This article is misleading, mainly because Warren Mosler’s analysis does not take inflation seriously (see these 1-star reviews at Amazon). I have now written a review of that book and published it on this blog at https://thatcheroftheleft.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/review-of-warren-moslers-the-7-deadly-innocent-frauds-of-economic-policy-and-prospects-for-socialist-revolution/.
[EDIT 24/3/14: This blog entry’s comments now include a short debate with financial expert and ex-banker Frances Coppola and myself, and information about a new blog entry of mine containing my critique of a new, much more serious, argument by MoneyWeek entitled “What Osborne didn’t tell Parliament“, which was actually written by financial experts and aimed at serious investors. In contrast, “The End of Britain” was written by MoneyWeek’s advertising department, leading to it being widely criticised by economists and others who have not been fooled by biased graphs and a huge dose of propaganda. I strongly recommend reading #Budget2014 What Osborne didn’t tell Parliament: critique of new MoneyWeek End of Britain argument – need revolution! which is currently being censored by Google due to the importance of the arguments.]
The financial magazine MoneyWeek is continuing its slick advertising campaign, with its prediction of “The End Of Britain” (inevitable social and economic chaos in the UK), with a video (viewed preferably on YouTube since the video on their website doesn’t allow rewinding or fast-forwarding, a sign of untrustworthiness) or in text form (with graphs) as a “letter” at http://moneyweek.com/endofbritain/. I argue below that, while some of their arguments are false or biased, socialists should recognise the validity of some of their other arguments and be prepared for the opportunities that will open up.
Left Unity has a very important founding conference on 30 November in London. After a fairly long period of democratic debate (since the call for a new left-wing party was made by socialist film director Ken Loach in March), Left Unity (perhaps renamed) will finally have some sort of constitution, including aims and structures, campaigning priorities (including opposing racism and austerity) and policy on standing (or not standing) in elections. A further conference (which will probably be delegate-based rather than one-member-one-vote) will be held in the spring to come up with more policies.
During the last few days, I’ve submitted the following 4 posts onto the LU website (http://leftunity.org) to influence the direction it goes, before, during and after the November conference. The light-touch moderation on the website, with submissions for articles accepted from people with a very wide range of views, together with a forum on which messages appear immediately, is a very healthy sign, almost unheard of on the left! This must continue after the conference!
As the subject to this blog post indicates, I am trying to ensure that the fully launched party is broad enough to encompass reformists and revolutionaries, but that it does so without being based on lowest common denominator reformist politics, which has been a major reason for the failure of some other similar initiatives.
At this year’s Labour Party conference in Brighton, its leader Ed Miliband veered markedly to the left, ending the policy of “triangulation” which had led to the policies of Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats being almost identical.
For example, Labour-supporting Owen Jones’ instant reactions were:
If there’s one notion that is dead, deceased, defunct after this speech, it’s that “Labour has no policies”. A million green jobs; a freeze in energy prices; a house building programme and a “use it to lose it” policy for property developers; the end of the hated bedroom tax. Labour activists who have too often been lost for words on the bedroom tax now have something to say. Miliband took on the policies of divide and rule, the merciless redirecting of people’s anger at their falling living standards at the unemployed, private sector, immigrants – anyone but those at the top. But there is still so far to go. What does strengthening the minimum wage mean? Labour needs to commit to a living wage to stop the taxpayer subsidising of poverty pay. Where is the commitment to letting councils build housing? How is he going to create a million green jobs? A coherent alternative to austerity during the longest fall in living standards since the Victorian era is still to emerge. But this was a step in the right direction, will help win public support, and undoubtedly will boost the morale of an all too often deflated activist base.
[It has to be said that the way Miliband and the rest of Labour’s leaders come up with policies, which seem to be based partly on internal policy forums (such as the green jobs pledge, close but not identical to the demand for “1 million climate jobs” put forward by some campaigners and trade unionists) and also on focus groups (Labour’s new raft of policies are actually popular!)]
But what happened to the pledge of “1 million green jobs”? It was hardly reported in the news coverage of the speech (and completely omitted in the half-hour long BBC2 highlights programme “Today at Conference” in the evening).
I’ve contributed to the debate on the row between Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail, over the Mail’s vicious attacks on “Red Ed” and his late Marxist father Ralph Miliband, claiming Ralph hated this country although he fled to Britain to escape the Nazis – who, ironically, the Daily Mail supported!