Why are we obsessed with the economy

Tweet

I am really tired of this so-called political debate about the economy and growth. Their seems to be a peculiar English obsession with talking about the economy - like weather. Politicians are almost the worst culprits. I have been employed, self employed and a director of a company that has, in its time, lost money. We launched the company because we loved the product we invented and wanted to bring it to people. We would ikto have become rich through it, but it has not happened (yet). But becoming rich was not the reason we launched it, it was passion and a desire to control our own destiny and not be under someone else's thumb.
Most of the politicians who bang on about entrepreneurialism have never launched a company or risked their own money on something. But they are the first to hand billions over to banks - rather than, as a brave man would have done, deny them funds while guaranteeing the deposits of the savers, which would have been much cheaper (even if the shareholders would have to take the hit for investing in a pyramid scheme - stupid!). In fact they could have waited until the bank shares hit rock bottom, then nationalised them for a fraction of the bailout cost.
The Tories, and to some extent Labour, use this argument that public services are paid for through taxes on workers and businesses and are, therefore, some sort of burden on society. In reality most public services are essential - health, education, sanitation, police, defence (arguable), roads etc. If the state by taxation did not provide them, they would be provided by the private sector but only to those who could afford it. The price mechanism has its place, but it is also highly inefficient in the provision of public goods (like roads, education and arguably housing). Ever had to queue up at a toll gate? It causes endless traffic jams - and would be better paid by taxation like most roads have been for more than a century. It is often the case that the private sector needs the state to take a lead and invest in a sector for the private sector to have confidence to follow. Art schools create a hub of artistic industries. Big railway stations attract tourists and businesses. Planning is required to prevent the massive imbalances caused by market herd mentality and profit seeking. This should be commonplace knowledge but the controllers of the media and the politicians who work for them (or will do when they leave office) keep peddling the nonsense of the profligate state destroying private enterprise through 'crowding out' or excessive taxation. Does the BBC destroy private media? Of course it doesn't. It sets a high standard that no private sector media organisations can match. As it becomes harder to make people pay for media in the internet age, alternatives including public subsidy may be necessary to keep the media diverse and alive.
The state can be a force for innovation (universities, major transport projects, green industry feed in tarrifs, etc) the way the private sector alone would often fail to be. The US railroad boom was enabled by the transfer of Native American land free to the railroad companies. The internet was developed by US universities and the US military. The examples of new industries emerging with the backing of state initiatives are legion.
Neoliberalism has spent 35 years trying to turn the clock back on this mixed economy success story. Now the asset bubbles - first stocks, then housing - have burst, the mess that this doctrine has created is clear. But the ideology is still well entrenced in the corporations, banks and political parties in charge of the western nations.
Growth is not the only way to make a happier, fairer society. Innovation does not require massive inequality. During the second world war huge innovations in aerospace and computing took place to support the war effort. It was also a time of real austerity (not this austerity light we have now) and high taxation. Go figure! These free market fairytales are myths that still prevent new thinking.
Most of the institutions of the market have been put in place by legislation. The corporation itself is a political creation, as is limited liability and bankruptcy. They all enable corporates to expand and increase the wealth of their owners. Restrictions on labour rights are part of the equation.
Listening to Ed Miliband, one senses the extremely narrow parameters of what is possible in pursuit of the goals of social justice. This banging on about welfare changes as if it was the poor and disabled who created this crisis. In Latin America, starting at a much lower base, they have been much bolder. They have created zones of non-capitalism, partly through nationalisation of banks and industry (Venezuela) but also through enormous expansion of free education and the small co-operative sector. We should be looking far afield, and nearer, to Germany and the success of its federal state industrial policy including strategic stakes in key industries, and also its land value tax which means that a Berliner can afford a nice flat in the middle of town for the rent that someone in London would only be able to afford a cupboard.
For true entrepreneurialism, the tax system should be used to suppress asset bubbles in housing and financial markets. These moneys could be put into social housing and other essential public services. The English love their houses, but a dysfunctional housing market favours landlordism. Tax the landlords, put the proceeds into affordable housing. Buy to let is not a good way to provide housing for all, but is a license to print money. Control rents (cap them at 30% of the median salary of a region or municipality) - so that people don't have to buy. These are the kinds of basic, fundamental changes that would bring about what Miliband claims he wants.
Money, after all, is a public good. Why should the control and issuance of money be in private hands? The bank bailout proved that the financial sector is effectively guaranteed by the state. But we still leave it in private hands. This does not favour the majority. State banks could be used to create the kind of economy we want, if they had the statutes that included public well-being, social cohesion and economic development, rather than just profit. We own RBS and Lloyds but our government does nothing with its controlling shares.
Responsible capitalism can only mean tamed capitalism which is hemmed in by tough regulation and regulators who favour the little guy, not the corporations. That means ending the class war on the poor, and bringing the financial markets to heal. It will take courage and conviction to do it.