Who took your money

Lenny looks at the Merrill Lynch Cap Gemini World Wealth Report and sees how the richest people in the world took more of our money thanks to the economic crisis:

The total liquid wealth of the rich in 2009, at $39 trillion, was actually more than two-thirds of world GDP in the same year, almost triple the GDP of the US, and nearly ten times that of China. Another way of looking at it is that the increase in liquid assets from 2008 to 2009 held by the rich was about $6.5 trillion, more than 10% of total GDP in 2009. This was in a year in which world GDP actually shrank by 0.8%.

The distinction between “economic and market drivers of wealth” is very important, and very telling. Most of the new wealth held by the rich was, as you can see, not produced by economic growth, but by stock market capitalisation. In other words, market relations, sustained by state intervention, facilitated the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich at a time when most of the world’s economy was such that the direct exploitation of labour could not sustain high profit rates. That’s what the bail-outs did; it’s what they were intended to do. Another intended consequence is that there were not only more high net worth individuals, 10 million of them globally (0.014% of the world’s population), but the ‘ultras’ did far better at increasing their share of liquid assets than mere millionaires – thus wealth became even more concentrated than it had been, among a mere 36,300 people, or 0.0005% of the population. The corollary of this has been, and will continue to be, a general decline in the living standards of the working class in most of the advanced capitalist economies: at the same time as the wealth of the richest grew, global unemployment rose by 14.4%.

Nobody lost the argument – there was no argument

Brad DeLong wonders how it’s possible that the universal response to the economic crisis has devolved into cut government spending and bring down the deficit, when it’s so clear that this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Since the private sector isn’t investing or creating jobs, government should step in, but most governments seem to think that after having bailed out the banks in 2008-2009 and having provided a bit of a cushion for the side effects of the collapse of the financial markets they’ve done enough and now that it seems these markets are getting back on track it’s time to let the voters pay for this rescue. Now that the open anger at the banks has dimmed a bit, it seems safe to do so, yet it’s still clear to economics like DeLong (or just anybody with open eyes) that doing so will only worsen the crisis; so why didn’t they win the argument:

Somehow we seem to have lost the argument–within the ECB, within the French and the European governments, within the British Liberal Party, within the Bank of England, within the Federal Reserve, with U.S. Senator number 60, and even within the White House.

And I do not understand how, or why we have lost the argument.

DeLong is either genuinely clueless or willfully ignorant, because any fool could see that this was going to be the only likely outcome. We’ve had thirty years of an ideologically driven consensus on how the economy should be run, why would he think that just because the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression happened the people who actively promoting and supporting this consensus would suddenly see the light? For those who grew up with this consensus, is it even possible to imagine any governmental response that doesn’t involve subsidies for the rich and cuts for the poor and middleclass? DeLong may now be somewhat of a rebel, but he himself has been an supporter of this orthodoxy for years if not decades.

Even if you don’t want to ascribe evil motivations to people like George Osborne helping out their bank chums by making sure school children can’t get free meals anymore, they’re caught up in an ideological framework that’s been proven wrong and which they cannot break out of. Meanwhile any opposition to this consensus has long been broken, with all major parties agreeing on this point. Therefore, when governments say that there is no alternative to these cuts, they’re right, but only because they cannot imagine any alternative and there’s nobody left now who can force them to consider the alternatives.

Your Happening World (17)

What’s going on today.

A progressive narrative on immigration is not needed

In the wake of the Labour leadership struggle, with various candidates grasping for immigration as the explenation for Labour’s defeat, Sunny aks for a progressive narrative on immigration:

here is the dilemma for the left. The public are not easily persuaded by facts. There’s no way of ‘educating them’. The right-wing media exists and it won’t stop printing false stories. And there are lots of traditional Labour supporters who have concerns about immigration (Labour was about 30 points behind in the polls on the issue).

And there is little evidence that those concerns translated into lost votes. Labour had lost millions of voters even before this election, mainly because of Iraq. Nevertheless, Labour was about 30 points behind. So what would a progressive narrative on immigration look like? How do you deal with people’s concerns without sounding like the English Defence League, the BNP or Andy Burnham? How does that narrative offer solutions and hope without encouraging people to be bigots or making them fearful of immigrants?

What’s the narrative? What do you say on the door-step? Thoughts?

Immigration is a red herring. Labour didn’t lose because of immigration, or of not being tough enough on immigration, or because of anything other than a) the shit economy and b) the general public’s slow realisation that New Labour is such a shower of shits even the possibility of a Tory government is no longer quite horrifying enough to keep on voting Labour, as the latter would just do most of the evil the Tories are suspected of wanting to do anyway. That’s it. Now for Burnham, Balls and the Millibands this reality is one that can’t be acknowledged, as they are all part responsible for this. Hence this ridiculous insistence that it was fear of foreigners that led to Labour’s defeat, when the sole good news of the election was the complete and utter defeat of the BNP and its message.

But we on the left do not need to share this illusion. Burnham et all are trapped by their New Labour assumptions, that mixture of private enterprise fetishism and social authoritarianism — we aren’t. We know that if there’s a conflict between “natives” and “immigrants” about council housing the problem isn’t too many immigrants, it’s too few council houses and the solution isn’t to deport more people, but to build more houses! Labour has had thirteen years to address the housing shortage, but chose to bung money at private developers in nebulous schemes rather than allow councils to build new flats, then blames things on those least able to defend themselves, fanning the flames for the BNP.

So what do we need to do? Sunny is wrong to say you can’t educate people — as the anti-BNP campaigns showed in this election, yes you can. This then is the first thing the left in and outside Labour needs to do, to learn from those campaigns and adapt them for use against Labourite bigots and racialist opportunists. We now have the proof that you can racists without pandering, so let’s us that.

The second thing is to hammer the economics. The crisis was not caused by immigrants, nor by the working classes, but one created by the very people New Labour has been courting in the past thirteen years. The core problem is not the migration of labour, but of capital, that people can live In England, work in England and make tmillions in England but do not have to pay taxes in England. That should be hammered into people again and again, together with the radical new idea that gosh, the state needs not be helpless when people need houses, or jobs, or schools or healthcare, but can actually make sure there is enough for everybody, as long as it is willing to actually do so and use its powers for good rather than for illegal wars and petty bullying.

Twee Bweak

Enough with the ConDems already, dammit. Feh to the fate of the nation.

What the nation really, really needs now is stories about ikkle fwuffy kittens, awww. And by happy chance (and a bit of googling) one turned up just in time:

highwaypurrtrol

A Sydney police officer’s turbo-charged patrol car was literally purring like a kitten after a tiny black cat became trapped underneath.

Now police are anxious to find the lucky kitten’s owner after its dramatic use of one of its nine lives.

The frightened moggy was found in the engine bay of the Ford XR6 Turbo, which had been used in an RBT patrol at Cartwright, in Sydney’s south-west on Friday morning.

Constable Tex Tannous said he almost hit the kitten when it ran in front of his highway patrol car on Cartwright Avenue about 11.30am (NZT).

The officer managed to brake in time and assumed the cat had run away after he couldn’t see it near the car.

He pulled over and found the kitten had scampered up into the undercarriage.

[…]

The car – cat still on board – was taken to a nearby mechanic, who removed the front bumper and extracted the cat, who was unharmed except for a small scratch on her nose.

She is now being cared for by the Guildford Veterinary Hospital and is up for adoption.

More….